No absolutely not, again worship belongs to God alone, accepting the mark would mean certain damnation.

It should be mentioned that there is another option, we could flee the state or nation.  If what we're worried about is tyranny or persecution then simply leaving should be on the table.  If I was in North Korea I would leave or die trying.

History has shown us that governments are often run by the worst among us -- those driven by greed, lust, envy, arrogance, and the rest of the sins.  You cannot be a lover of justice and not be willing to keep these evil men in check.  All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.  

Yes, God allows the leaders we choose. But He can establish a leader, should He so desire.





I like your statement a lot!!!!!

If this thread makes it to, say, three pages or so, and we can get through every possible variation of bad theology one could drag into this, then the thread slows down, and the OP is still interested, I'll weigh in.

Until then, tagged for bad theology. Not disappointed at all thus far.

In the Bible, nations that turn from The Lord enter into bondage.  I dare say that we as a nation have made that turn. Our land is full of violence. Our children are offered up on the alter of convenience, the art of abortion was known as  witchcraft. The works of Sodom are in abundance. Our houses of Worship have become antique stores.  Our dependence on drugs is massive, In the bible this is called sorcery.

The Lord will not judge nations in eternity, he judges them in time. If the Troubles we face now are allowed, or are from the hand of God, we can vote, protest until the cows come home, it will not change a thing.

I pray our troubles are short, the Biblical example tends to be forty years.

14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

To answer the OP....my rights come from God...anyone who wants to deprive me of my rights   Is against God, the Bible, and the supreme law of the land.

The same persons who would deprive me of my rights, are the same ones that would call the evils listed above as good, and my dependence on God evil(foolish)

I questioned myself before I got involved but I did it fully expecting it to be a fun ride.



The post right above mine says it simply but truely. "God gave me these rights", so it would be wrong (sin) to not defend them!

Well stated.

    Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.  (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

Bingo.

Your Latin quote states that your god is satan...

you guys remember when in Matthew, when Jesus went into the temple and started tossing over tables of the money collectors, labeling the hall a "den of thieves."  Well, welcome to the den.  The tables need tossing...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Roger That, Semper Fi...

I don't think that would work for me as the enemy knows my address no matter where I go

And there are very few countries that are going to allow you anything like the 2nd amendment
especially when you are not a citizen there.
Other countries have real teeth in their immigration policy.

John 16:33 "I have told you these things, so that you may have peace. In this world you will have
trouble. But take heart I have overcome the world."

MTTOMB

Our government thinks it's ok to kill babies and call it choice. This government hasn't been in God's camp in decades, to hell with it.

Well put! It does not mean to be obedient to evil leaders and allow abuses to continue. If that were the case we would never achieve new government but still be stuck with pharaohs and Cesar's.

This, The Law of this Land is the Constitution, if it depleted I feel obligated to restore it.

I have no doubt that a lot of people here mean well, but the Bible is clear that 'not many of you should be teachers' and frankly that warning makes me leery to 'teach' here on such a subject. Not because it's unimportant - it's very important - but because ultimately every person has, whether they recognize it or not, some sort of systematic theology they operate within, and it never fails that, whether anyone recognizes it or not, their view on obeying a sinful civil government WILL BE heavily influenced by what they believe in other, more important areas.

A Calvinist and an Arminian will come at this question differently. A Covenental theologian will come at this differently than a dispensationalist. A theonomist will come at this differently than someone who holds to Luther's 'two kingdoms' model. And many will espouse those views under the impression that 'that's what the Bible teaches' with utter disregard for the depth to which their views here have been influenced by their views on other broader and deeper areas, and that is what makes me leery here....arguing this is like arguing on how BBQ should be served before we even define what we mean by 'BBQ'.

I have a lot of sympathy towards Luther's two kingdoms approach. More later if this thread lasts another day or so.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin736.htm

Question answered here too.  Plus two books on the topic of how the Amerikan socialist churches have butchered the clear meaning of Romans 13.

Rhetorical question:  Why is it every time the modern church mangles Bible verses they ALWAYS choose the most big government fascist way to do so?

So in the political context we have here in the United States the Constitution with its Amendments are "The Law of The Land". When Paul wrote there was only Caesar and his appointees, their word was the law of the land. For Paul, his only recourse when unjustly treated was an appeal to Caesar. Our country has "The Rule of Law" where we appeal to the courts. When the "Leaders" themselves break the "Law of The Land" they are criminals according to "The Rule of Law" and even though they may have the power to avoid prosecution they are no less criminals. We are not ordered to bow to the whims of Tyrants or criminals.

Hope this helps.  

It may also help to discover the root of the dilemma by asking this question: When does a person become a "murderer" in the absolute sense, when convicted, or upon the death of the victim?

Didn't Jefferson say something to the effect of, "Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God?" I know Ben Franklin suggested something similar for the seal, but I think his word choice was rebellion, not disobedience.

When I see a leader in Washington or Austin, I'll follow.
All I've seen are parasites.  
My father and grandfathers wouldn't respect such men, neither do I.

As to the bad theology, that is probably what you will read from me.  
 To be honest I have always believed it is my own responsibility to
read the Bible and do my best to understand it.  To be quite frank I
can't always buy what I hear in church or arfcom, but I tend to trust in
the walks in the woods and God and I have had together.  YMMV.





Ever notice the Bible spends a lot of words speaking about wisdom, how important it is to gain wisdom?





In the world we know it is made of opposites, you cannot have light
without the dark.  In the same tone evil is not "apathy" it a choice of
going against good.  If you have ever met a truly evil person you will
know what I mean.  They are not evil because they lack good, they are
evil because they truly hate what is good.





This is only relevant because this is where we are headed as a world.  
Some places are much farther along than others.  The US is not nearly as
far down this road as some, largely because we have enough openness to
be able to see things for what they are.  Take the comment about North
Korea, how would you know it sucked if you didn't know it could suck
less?  The US gives us the chance to know the right and wrong and
ability to choose what is right.  We can pursue the wisdom the Bible
speaks of.  Notice how much of that ability to gain wisdom is under
attack.  Questioning if something is wrong is now "hate speech".  





Now read the Constitution.  A government doesn't grant anyone rights.  
Is only exists to limits the rights that are God given.  Hence the Bill
of Rights.  They are not rights GRANTED to you by the government, they
are exclusively stated so the government wouldn't dare take them away.  
Your first right is the ability to speak your mind, speak with others
and learn what is good and what is evil.  The 1st Amendment is to ensure
we can gain wisdom.  The 2nd Amendment is to ensure the rest.  
Christians are murdered all over the world for their beliefs.  That
would be damn near impossible in the US because of the 2nd.  





Which brings us to Romans 13.  As someone else mentioned, I believe this
has to keeping yourself out of jail.  In so much as it does not
interfere with faith and family one should live in the law of the land.
For example looking for a Biblical reason to not pay your taxes is not
the correct thing to do, it just makes you an idiot as being in prison
will not make you very useful to your church or family.





As to what this means in today's world, I am not really sure.  I believe
the US was indeed established as part of God's plan to be a light on a
hill in world.  People within our country are doing their best to
extinguish that light.  I believe we are all called by God to ensure
that light shines and the founding fathers gave us the tools to ensure
we could.  I am just not sure it isn't too late and I am not sure that
even all of the gun owners revolting would be able to stop it.

What happened in this country during our revolution and the founding of this nation was an organized, deliberate process.  There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence and 40 or so of the Constitution.
These men not only had to work this out in their own hearts and minds, but they met and discussed, argued, wrote, developed and finally put into writing their reasoning and intentions.

They were educated, connected and organized.  Therefore I believe with their faith and their knowledge, the growing conviction that they were doing what was right in God's eyes gave them the boldness and the strength to see it thru til the end.
Was all of it conducted in a holy, righteous manner?  No.  There were those that acted outside the bounds of Christian morals as in any war.  Yet the main action was done to secure liberty and it was thru an elected government sanctioning it that the movement gained legitimacy.

All this talk about taking stands, loading mags, etc.  We are not yet at a point of violent resistance.  Resistance to who, when and where?  Yeah, there is the "them" that make up the liberal, fascist block in our government that are causing all the headaches.  At this time, we use our pens - or laptops - and stay in the fight thru our elected officials.  That is how a Republic works.  But if you try to organize, what gives you any legitimacy in light of the Scriptures?
The same thing that gives a church or ministry legitimacy.  Authority.  The Bible reinforces the need for authority in civil affairs, religious affairs and domestic affairs.  God is not a god of chaos but of order.  The patriots of the 1770's largely acted in legitimately raised and organized militia units under the authority of local commanders who were under the authority of others on up the chain of command.  There were those bushwhackers and scores to be settled to be sure, especially in the South where it was truly a civil war.  Those are the grey areas and a man must convince himself of his right standing before God in his individual actions at those times.
But as far as I can tell from studying it some, the proper response to government that is beginning to exercise tyranny over its people is to peacefully resist and engage in the argument to maintain liberty.  Peacefully resist as much as it is possible.  The believer can flee if needed and should not ratchet up the tension by spoiling for a fight.  But when left no option, the believer can fight to protect family and self, as well as the larger community.  It should never be done in hate or with particular visciousness towards anyone.  In that, it is a matter of your heart and motives before God.
There are specific laws in the scripture that deal with self defense and violence and even killing.  That being said, the ability to resist means you still have a means to resist.  That would be that you are still armed.  And THAT means you did not comply with an order to disarm by the government.

Our founders worried over this every bit as much as we are now.  Why do we think Paine wrote "These are the times that try men's souls"?

ETA:  To the OP, I am stilling mulling all this over in my head too.  So thanks for bringing this up .  i am enjoying the discussion.

Hey--three pages, five pages, whatever.  I'd say it's just mighty white of you to even post.  And I mean that.

Ever read the passage about selling your shirt and buying a sword?

Not sure what you mean by that - but I wish just once someone would post a response that actually addressed the first sentence of Romans 13 instead of describing (at length!) how the rest of the chapter (apparently ) negates it. And while I have an immense amount of respect for Chuck Baldwin and David Barton (and much moreso for Samuel Rutherford!) I daresay that those folks who are so quick to quote them here don't necessarily agree with those guys on much if any of the theology that undergirds the positions they espouse on Romans 13.



Paul wrote Romans 13 to believers who lived under a fairly oppresive government, and he did NOT tell them to resist or revolt.
Peter wrote to believers who were possibly under an even more oppressive system, and again, not only did he not thell them to revolt, but he encouraed them to persevere through persecution.

While my beliefs on this issue largely line up with the general theme most have pointed to in this thread (and everyone should read Lex, Rex), nobody can claim to have fully treated this subject unless they actually address the two sentences I wrote above about Peter and Paul. It simply can't be done. There *is* a place for suffering under oppression. I'd suggest, however, that it's important to make a distinction between suffering for your Christianity versus merely suffering because your government stinks. I'd also suggest that the command to 'be subject to the higher powers' does not necessarily refer to being subject to current figureheads or leaders or representatives, but, in our very unique case, as a nation defined not by a ruler but defined by a body of literature, the 'higher powers' we are to be in subject to is that very body of literature - in other words, it is rebellion for us to ignore the Constitution, etc - whether we ignore it as individuals or a state or federal law ignores it, and it is *not* rebellion to ignore those who subvert it.


I'd also suggest that people who live under a monarch do, in fact, have a duty to be subject to that monarch - and yes, one can argue, quite easily, that the founders were wrong to leave England.

(I have no desire to have that argument; I just do not believe it is intellectually honest to pretend it does not exist).

I got into this whole type of discussion with a friend of mine who is a very heavy Christian. He knows alot of things and is fairly educated on it.
I am more of a common sense Christian and I dont have tons of scripture passages to quote.
His point were:
guns are evil and if you kill someone in self defense it is murder.
the apostles didnt walk around with weapons, when persecuted they didnt fight back and Jesus did not send them into the world with weapons.
When they attacked and killed Jesus he did not fight back even though he could have called down angels in his defense.
Anyone who has things for someone to want to break into their house to get them deserves it. (more or less what he said)
Anyone who sits around worrying about possible defense scenarios in which you will need a gun is crazy.
My points were:
God does not want you to be a victim and using a gun to defend yourself from someone who is already breaking the law/sinning is not murder.
Jesus would not have sat idly by and watched a woman get raped or a child abused.
Jesus's death and persecution were all part of Gods plan and something Jesus knew was coming and He knew what had to be done.
People should be able to own what they want and be able to protect their belongings as well.
Anyone who doesnt look around at the world today and realize there are people willing to do terrible things for whatever reason is crazy.

My personal feelings as a Christian are that I do not want to kill people, that is my furthest want. I do want to protect my family should the need arise
and I dont feel at all 'guilty' about practicing or being aware and capable of doing that. Jesus did turn the other cheek and that is fine when it is just a disagreement
or something similar, its altogether different when someone is on drugs and breaks into your home or tries to sexually assault your wife or something.
My wife and daughter need me to be there not the thief, rapist, or terrorist. i didnt make their choices for them they did.

Glad you posted this OP, great thread.  I've thought about this subject for many years.  My opinion is this, a righteous man has a moral duty to help those that cannot help themselves.  This is not a grey area.  If a government of man passes a law that hinders my ability to do so, then it is not a law that I am morally obliged to follow.  Case in point, The Fugitive Slave Act.  This law stated that it was illegal for the citizenry to offer shelter or food to fugitive slaves.  A runaway slave is exactly the kind of person that would knock on your door cold and hungry, exactly the kind of person I am commanded by God to assist, exactly the type of law I would have no problem breaking.  If there is justification in Romans 13 for slamming the door in a runaway slaves face, it hasn't properly been explained to me.  Bottom line, moral men are not required to follow immoral laws, at least that is my opinion anyway.

This guy gets it.  We are judged at the judgment but nations are judged in real time.  I fear we are being judged now so if this is true then our troubles are from God.  But 2 Cor 7:14 gives us the answer on how to stop the troubles in their tracks.  We just have to read its clear meaning and understand every part of that verse and then do it.  Otherwise, the troubles game continues until we do understand it.  

EXACTLY.

Government's authority here in America is there only if it is within the confines of the Constitution. As long as we don't act ourselves outside of that same authority, we are within our right to resist; not as christians however, but as citizens. If the government compelled us to disobey God, (this is NOT the case here) then we would be compelled as His children to disobey.

That's not the authority we're working from though.

There's a distinction.  In each of the cases you cited, men were opting to follow a God given command which was in direct conflict with a man-made command.

Other than Jesus telling his disciples to get their swords, there isn't anything in the NT that I know of that says you have the God given right to defend yourself with deadly force or own weapons.  So I tend to put it in the area of law that Christians are supposed to follow out of respect for the leaders that God has allowed to rule over them.

Neither Franklin nor Jefferson could be best described as theologians of any sort, let alone christians. From everything recorded about them, they'd be described as "Political Christians" at best. Jefferson flat out denied Christ's diety, and Franklin owned a pew in just about every influential church in Boston. He even contributed money for the construction of a synagogue in Boston.

cite.

Jefferson was raised in the Church of England. but as he grew older, he became more Unitarian, rejecting the Trinity. Research the "Jefferson Bible".

From  The Bible According to Thomas Jefferson
by: Peter Carlson

“I am a sect by myself,” Thomas Jefferson once wrote, commenting on his eccentric religious views. Born into the Church of England, Virginia’s official religion, Jefferson studied under Anglican clergymen from elementary school through college, and attended Anglican services all his life, although not always faithfully. He wasn’t the kind of man who accepts dogmas uncritically. Brilliant and intellectually curious, Jefferson preferred to make his own judgment in matters of religion, and advised others to do the same.

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God,” he urged his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1787, “because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

Further...

Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

But the Devil does, and he's afraid of Him.

What's a religious cook?  All I ever see is them danged thin wafers and they don't offer second helpings.  

 

Tagged to see if this gets more interesting...

Tom Jeff didn't write the book of Romans.

True..but with most things that I follow in the word, it has to pass the "smell" test for me. Does it line up with the word of God? Do I have a peace in my spirit? Do the leaders or laws go directly against what the word of God says? I will not bow nor follow an evil leader. Period. Are there specific examples in the word for me to emulate?

Force or weapons? I will not commit murder but I take up the sword against an oppressor or the man who wants to do me or my family harm. You do realize God told many of his men in the word to kill other men? That is rhetorical, I know...but for me it releases me to at least the thought that God will allow me to take another human's life but I do not see me having to ever say, God told me to do so. I would rather say, I have peace about the act I am about to do. This is a quick answer to a situation that requires more time...but I hope you get my meaning.

Nope