Does God Hold Us Accountable for Voting?

Any rejection of the authority of government, police, etc, should take into account a balanced, contextual understanding of Romans 13, also, that there are 10 words even scarier than "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

The 10 scarier words are "There is no government and I'm here to kill you."
 
Any rejection of the authority of government, police, etc, should take into account a balanced, contextual understanding of Romans 13, also, that there are 10 words even scarier than "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

The 10 scarier words are "There is no government and I'm here to kill you."
This is pretty much the reality of places like Mogandishu, Somalia where the one who rules is the one who can amass the largest mob with the most firepower and your safety and sense of well-being is dependent upon which tribe you belong to and which religion you follow.

Really puts things in perspective and makes you thankful for the corrupt government you do happen to have in place! It can always be worse.
 
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a bit...

What do you make of John MacArthur's defiance of LA County's ban on meeting as part of COVID related restrictions?

This is a multi-faceted issue and it illustrates the complexity of how and when we must take an Acts 5:29 stance.
I believe it was the right stance. MacArthur is respectable to the "Powers that be" but he is not about to let them run roughshod over him! It was not about him but about the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and the flock of God of which the CHIEF SHEPHERD has given him oversight! He was compliant but when they went too far, he pushed back and declared "We ought to obey God rather than men."

Also, based upon his own testimony, it was HIS CONGREGATION who decided to come back on their own. Johnny Mac WAS NOT coercing his membership to attend.

I believe that Churches throughout Southern California and perhaps the whole world owe a debt of gratitude for John Macarthur and Grace Community Church's courageous stand!
 
I believe it was the right stance. MacArthur is respectable to the "Powers that be" but he is not about to let them run roughshod over him! It was not about him but about the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and the flock of God of which the CHIEF SHEPHERD has given him oversight! He was compliant but when they went too far, he pushed back and declared "We ought to obey God rather than men."

Also, based upon his own testimony, it was HIS CONGREGATION who decided to come back on their own. Johnny Mac WAS NOT coercing his membership to attend.

I believe that Churches throughout Southern California and perhaps the whole world owe a debt of gratitude for John Macarthur and Grace Community Church's courageous stand!
I won't argue with you on that. I especially agree with your last sentence. HOWEVER, you will find those who claim to be believers to be critical and saying he went too far. So, objectively, in a debate, who is correct? Why?
 
I won't argue with you on that. I especially agree with your last sentence. HOWEVER, you will find those who claim to be believers to be critical and saying he went too far. So, objectively, in a debate, who is correct? Why?
Johnny Mac is definitely correct. The Government was basically trying to shut down the Church making it non-essential and forbidding ANY SORT of congregational activity (including meeting in "Home Fellowships" and singing together congregationally). Had the Church NOT pushed back the way it did, the government would have taken things to the furthest extreme possible!
 
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a bit...

What do you make of John MacArthur's defiance of LA County's ban on meeting as part of COVID related restrictions?

This is a multi-faceted issue and it illustrates the complexity of how and when we must take an Acts 5:29 stance.
The stance of Grace Community Church was to comply with the original shutdowns in March 2020 out of caution and because people were assured it was a short-term, temporary solution to limit the spread of COVID-19. When the restrictions dragged on beyond the original stated time, the elders decided that the state was acting in bad faith and would no longer be permitted to usurp the authority of the church. They chose to obey God rather than men and defied the ongoing orders.

By contrast, my own church (also a local megachurch) initially complied with the lockdown, but also negotiated with the local government and health unit to determine how they could remain open, albeit at limited capacity.

I think both approaches were considered, biblical, and correct.
 
This is obviously one of those subjects that is not able to be answered comprehensively with merely a sentence or two, and I ain't about to make one of those gargantuan-length sermons to do so <phwew, ain't ya glad 😁). But briefly, in the areas of agreement I have with what I perceive you to be saying is that we indeed do have a different form of government whereby we are free to elect those to represent out beliefs, and by the grace and mercy of God we should do that. Intricately related to that notion is our 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech (and consequently to freely dissent). I have no problem with disagreeing with people over matters of principle, goodness knows that is part of what makes this wonderful place called the FFF so long-lasting and interesting. Where I would encourage my Christian brethren, as in this case, is to disagree charitably (to "live peaceably with all men" if you will). There's no need IMNSHO to disparage a noble profession such as the police/sheriffs/patrolmen/etc by calling them "gangs" and imply that they are, as a unified body, doing the bidding of Joe Biden and the liberal elite. Or if we were to consider the other side of the coin I don't think it appropriate to claim that the right-wing side of the spectrum is fascist for trying to enforce the laws of the land as it pertains to the lewdness of public displays of the Drag-queen Story Hour crowd. To take it to a higher level of personal sensitivity on my part, I didn't like Bush 43's use of broad powers in instituting Homeland Security, and Snowden proved that to be a dangerous over-reach. I have no problems with exercising our right to call out error, but I think we are called to speak the truth in love, not just to the lost as it pertains to the state of their eternal souls. Well, that was the short version, so I'll stop there, before being sucked back into the vortex, lol
it was another 3 am sleepless session when i wrote that last post..... and i left out half of what i intended to write... ... sorry about that.. i also wasn;t intending to respond to your post specifically... but in general to most of them i have seen in this thread..... sorry about that too....:confused:. but anyway.... ..

in the years since i joined the many different fff forums.... and first ventured into the world of fundamental baptistry.... i have seen romans 13 used to tell christians everything, from - they should not vote at all - that God chooses both kings and presidents.. and we should submit without question to whatever government He chooses for us.... ... .... to arguments on the other end of the spectrum saying paul was talking about church and christian leadership only... . and was not referring to the roman government thugs ..(like paul had once been himself..persecuting christians).. and that in fact paul wasn;t speaking of secular governments at all.... .... and of course there have been countless different arguments in between... ..

and unfortunately what i have noticed about it is - that rather than standing on a firm principle .... people everywhere...not just here... tend to lean on which ever side of romans 13 suits their purpose at the moment.... . and that leaves me not wanting to discuss it at all in most instances.... ...i don;t know why i chose to this time except i might have been struck with the temptation to play devils advocate myself....:rolleyes: and gave in.....

but anyway.. again....

i never intended to justify disparaging those in law enforcement.... i agree it is a very noble profession when it;s duties are performed correctly.... when protect and serve... (the motto of virtually every police department in the nation).. is taken to heart... ..but long before i was born.. and for reasons i;ve heard conflicting excuses for.... police departmenst started becoming militarized and thus added the military motto of search and destroy to the traditional one they had always had.. those 2 things are seldom if ever compatible....

and in the case of federal law enforcement it not only became militarized but under obama it also became politicized.... and politicized heavily to the left.. .. and can anyone look at what the various federal agencies... and even what some state justice departments are doing now, under biden and company... and not come away with the belief that they are waging a war against christians?.... even a war against God?... .... are we to submit ourselves to that under the assumption that they are Gods ministers? .."ordained of God"?. like it says in romans 13... and that they are watching for our souls?......

when american patriots stood against british soldiers in the revolution they were rebelling against a government which had treated them far better and with more respect than our own government is treating us now.... ..what was the big battle cry during the revolution?..... (and sorry guys... but it had nothing to do with morals or religious freedom)..... it was "taxation without representation!"...... later in the war of 1812... which some people believe was all part of the same revolution but with 2 hotpoints at each end - and simmering tension in the middle.... the battle cry was "free trade and sailors rights!"...... ... ...

can anyone imagine justifying a physical war with the government over issues like that today?...... after winning those rights from england americans have in the years since turned around and lost those very same rights to their own government ....the government they started themselves..... and did exactly what patriots in 1776 warned about - they traded one tyrant over a thousand miles and an ocean away, for a consortium of tyrants much closer to home.....

for the record i do not advocate or condone anything like what happened on january 6th 2021.... i said back then it was a horrible and foolish thing those protestors did... and that it would haunt republicans for decades to come..... we can;t win this by acting the same lawless way the liberals do.... we still have rights we did not have in 1776... that of voting and petitioning our government... and that is what we have to do... . but it all means nothing if we do not stand together and stop allowing ourselves to be splintered over petty issues.... or any issues not directly related to the welfare and security of this country.. ...

and now... see?... i got sucked into the vortex myself... the pacific vortex..... ..it happens... but then i do live right on the edge of it.... that;s all..... i;m gonna take my surfboard and paddle out of it.... :cool:.
 
Last edited:
There was no small amount of debate regarding this and Christians therefore fell on both sides of the argument and therefore found themselves on both sides of the Revolutionary War. What eventually won many over to the revolutionary side was the principle of "Lesser Magistrates." Men with power and authority of whom the "Future Citizens" of the United States would submit themselves to to fight off the "greater evil. The "Colonies" therefore formed their own government and fought a REGIMENTED war against their aggressor and prevailed.

I'm sorry, but looking at what is going on today, I see all this talk of "Patriotism" and "Militias" being little different from the zealots of Jesus's day who ultimately rebelled against the Roman forces and were massacred with the fall of Jerusalem. I may be wrong but I don't believe there is any record of Christians numbered with those taking their last stand at Masada!

God spoke through the Prophet Jeremiah saying that Nebuchadnezzar was coming and that Judaea would fall and be taken captive into Babylon. Of course this did not stop the "Patriots" who still believed that "God was on THEIR SIDE" to fight to the death but in their fight, were they not fighting against God?

Yes, the American Citizens have the second amendment right to bear arms in order to protect themselves from tyranny but seeing that we have largely REJECTED AND FORSAKEN GOD, have we not become the tyrants we swore to defend against by any means necessary?

Judgment must first begin with the House of God (1 Pet 4:17). Ponder what that means for a while. Remember also that if we judge ourselves, we will not be judged (1 Cor 11:31).

America will fall, and it will happen without a single shot being fired. We are on borrowed time.
sorry.... but when i see a post written with entire phrases and sentences in all caps... i see someone trying to imply an amplified and raised volume in their typing "voice" to make specific points... ...as if to preach a sermon...... .... and in fact that;s exactly what i see - an online sermon or semonette being preached by someone whose congregation i am clearly not a member of... and would never be a member of, due to theological differences you have already made clear with all cap preachings in your other sermonettes here.... ....we have known each other a long time and i have always respected you... but i don;t trust your interpretations of scripture... and when you come off like a hostile church militant over an issue like this i feel you are disrespecting me..... and therefor i am not likely to trust your interpretations of the constitution either..... or even read them....

again.. sorry... but there it is....thanks anyway.....
 
Last edited:
A conversation from a different thread got me thinking about this question. We know, nearly universally, Democrats represent abortion, LGBTQ rights, etc. Most, though certainly not all, Republicans are anti-abortion and support more traditional views of marriage and family.

I understand not all Republicans “walk the talk” in their private lives. I also understand that some Democrats support anti-Biblical legislation, but live with decency in their private lives. However, focusing solely on what laws they support, is it a “sin” to cast a vote for someone who you fully understand is going to vote to approve or condone topics like abortion and the LGBTQ indoctrination of children?

What do you mean by accountable?
 
what was the big battle cry during the revolution?..... (and sorry guys... but it had nothing to do with morals or religious freedom)..... it was "taxation without representation!"
This…but also a number of “acts” (taxes) by King G3, and of course, the quartering of troops. To me, this must have been the ultimate kick in the pants. I’m all for supporting the military, but it doesn’t include being forced to use my house as a hotel for soldiers against my will.
 
This…but also a number of “acts” (taxes) by King G3, and of course, the quartering of troops. To me, this must have been the ultimate kick in the pants. I’m all for supporting the military, but it doesn’t include being forced to use my house as a hotel for soldiers against my will.
actually it does.... the third ammendment says....

no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.....

there are important things to take note of in that ammendment... .. it could be argued in court that our government has been at war in one way or another ever since ronald reagan declared the famous war on drugs.... which was followed by the first iraq war..... which was then followed by clintons war on terror.... on 911 we saw terrorists attack us prompting bush the 2nd to create the patriot act... which if you examine closely declares the united states to be in a state of war until the patriot act is rescinded <- which none of them in power will ever do......

almost 20 years after bush inititiated shock and awe in iraq we were still fighting a war in afghanistan... and then even before that was ended our justice department declared war on white supremacy and parents who didn;t want their children groomed and indoctrinated by transgenders..... and the war in the ukraine is every bit as much an american war now as it is a ukrainian one.......

at any given time if the president or congress wanted to do so,, they could have declared one or more of those conflicts or situations an imminent threat to national security and then ordered us all to make room for soldiers or government officials in our houses.... and if they wanted to they could even kick us out and take them over....... that;s what the "but in a manner to be described by law" clause means.... it means you are ok for now.... but they can change it by simply submitting a bill and voting on it... or in the presidents case by simply signing an executive order......

such a thing would be political suicide for most politicans... but remember - during the civil war union troops were quartered in the homes of southerners in the south.. under the same justification that british red coats were quartered in the homes of colonist both before and during the revolution... an occupying force attempting to pacify a hostile populace.. .. so there is already precedent for it....
 
actually it does.... the third ammendment says....

no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.....

there are important things to take note of in that ammendment... .. it could be argued in court that our government has been at war in one way or another ever since ronald reagan declared the famous war on drugs.... which was followed by the first iraq war..... which was then followed by clintons war on terror.... on 911 we saw terrorists attack us prompting bush the 2nd to create the patriot act... which if you examine closely declares the united states to be in a state of war until the patriot act is rescinded <- which none of them in power will ever do......

almost 20 years after bush inititiated shock and awe in iraq we were still fighting a war in afghanistan... and then even before that was ended our justice department declared war on white supremacy and parents who didn;t want their children groomed and indoctrinated by transgenders..... and the war in the ukraine is every bit as much an american war now as it is a ukrainian one.......

at any given time if the president or congress wanted to do so,, they could have declared one or more of those conflicts or situations an imminent threat to national security and then ordered us all to make room for soldiers or government officials in our houses.... and if they wanted to they could even kick us out and take them over....... that;s what the "but in a manner to be described by law" clause means.... it means you are ok for now.... but they can change it by simply submitting a bill and voting on it... or in the presidents case by simply signing an executive order......

such a thing would be political suicide for most politicans... but remember - during the civil war union troops were quartered in the homes of southerners in the south.. under the same justification that british red coats were quartered in the homes of colonist both before and during the revolution... an occupying force attempting to pacify a hostile populace.. .. so there is already precedent for it....
We’ve been “at war” plenty (and continually, as you pointed out), but constitutionally, only Congress can declare war. The last time that was done was WW2.
 
We’ve been “at war” plenty (and continually, as you pointed out), but constitutionally, only Congress can declare war. The last time that was done was WW2.
technically true.... but their power is all in the wording - and in that last part which begins with the word "but"..... . ...when it comes to declarations like this..and most things that are supposed to be statements of fact - you can pretty much assume that any comments made before the word "but" are either lies,..or as in this case "conditional" truths subject to requirements of the government..... ..... it;s not uncommon in general conversion between regular people too....

don;t get me wrong...i;m not trying to say americans in 1776 never should have declared independence from england and fought for their freedom.... i;m very glad they did... (even though americans who came after them forced my ancestors off their land and onto reservations)..:rolleyes:... ....

what i am trying to say is that those who use romans 13 as some kind of reprimand against people upset about what our government has done in the last 2 years.. and in attempts to silence those who are questioning whether or not our government is acting in good faith now... seem to have forgotten that their own ancestors rebelled against england over much less... and in the end re-created some of the same laws in the new world they said they were upset about in the old one......

basically i guess i;m just tired of hearing baptists pull romans 13 out like some kind of trump card to end all political arguments they are having a hard time winning any other way...... ..there... i guess that sums it up in a better way....
 
Last edited:
basically i guess i;m just tired of hearing baptists pull romans 13 out like some kind of trump card to end all political arguments they are having a hard time winning any other way...... ..there... i guess that sums it up in a better way.
What is meant by Romans 13? Are you saying we should follow the governing authority? I don’t think I’ve ever really heard anyone talk much about it.
 
sorry.... but when i see a post written with entire phrases and sentences in all caps... i see someone trying to imply an amplified and raised volume in their typing "voice" to make specific points... ...as if to preach a sermon...... .... and in fact that;s exactly what i see - an online sermon or semonette being preached by someone whose congregation i am clearly not a member of... and would never be a member of, due to theological differences you have already made clear with all cap preachings in your other sermonettes here.... ....we have known each other a long time and i have always respected you... but i don;t trust your interpretations of scripture... and when you come off like a hostile church militant over an issue like this i feel you are disrespecting me..... and therefor i am not likely to trust your interpretations of the constitution either..... or even read them....

again.. sorry... but there it is....thanks anyway.....
I capitalize to make emphasis upon what I am stating so that salient points do not fall by the wayside. They are my opinions and you may take them for what you will. You should really look up the matter of "Lesser Magistrates" and examine the matter for yourself as this does have a good bit to do with the thought process of many who ultimately chose to fight with the colonialists against England. This would also play into whether I personally would choose to take sides and take up arms or whatever. I am not expecting you to just "Swallow" and trust everything I am saying. No disrespect was intended and I apologize if it came across as if I was. I also do not expect you to just go along with my "Interpretation" of scripture nor do I care to argue with you unless you are the one pressing the matter but even then, I hope you would understand that I do care and that good people can agree to disagree. Yes, I am emphatic and perhaps I sound a little "Authoritative" but I tend to be that way if I believe I am right and am standing upon the authority of scripture. Sorry if you feel like I am "preaching" and perhaps I am. It should never be about "You" or "Me" though. We should both value TRUTH (emphasizing this because this point is of the utmost importance, not because I am "shouting" at you) and the truth is something we should both diligently pursue.

Now, my main point regarding any if not all of this is that we really need to keep our eyes upon Christ and upon the Word of God! I am sorry but I have never been so embarrassed at the behavior of fellow Christians and fellow Conservatives as I was regarding the January 6 debacle! I believe that much of this was likely "staged" especially with the "Shaman" and those who were running around inside the Capitol Building but a good number had told me personally that they were ready to do their "Patriotic Duty" and I will leave it to your imagination to determine what this may be.
 
it was also a government that people had no voice in and no vote with which to bring about changes.... .. americans on the other hand were allowed by God to establish a government where we choose our own leaders ...and were given the means to hold them accountable....... i believe God expects us to use that gift wisely and not just throw it away falling back on God to fix what we neglected to maintain....

however.... regarding romans 13... which has come up repeatedly and which i happen to believe is one of the most abused ad misapplied scriptures in the bible......... some believe paul was not writing about pagan roman overseers... but about obedience to christian leadership.... and that blind adherence to the whims and edicts of anti-christian "rulers" was never the intent......

and if you look at this way..... if patriots of the american revolution had been teaching romans 13 the way it is being taught in many churches today we would still be an english colony and the american revolution would have never happened...
Romans 13 says "every soul" is subject to the "higher powers." Even the Emperor, is subject to the law of God. Paul concluded that honor should be rendered to "whom it is due."

I would also point out that Paul also said in that chapter that rulers are "not a terror to good works." Therefore, those who are a terror to good works, are not rulers, and are not due any allegience or honor.

And if it is in the power of Christians to bring Caesar to justice, it is their holy duty to do so.
 
Top