Glad to hear your ideas, and glad to discuss.

> 1 Samuel 8.6-9

This would be a logical fallacy of composition. You have found one situation where a particular form of governmental change (monarchy vs. theocracy) is censured, and arrive at the conclusion that all governments therefore exist because people refuse to honor God. The problem with your flow of thought is that the proposed monarchy of Israel is not the first government. The particular problem with Israel is not the idea of government, but in their motive for wanting a change. Government had been instituted long before this, and it was generally serving its function, whether elder rule, monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, or whatever.

This text is not an argument for Christian Anarchism—nothing of the sort. Israel had been suffering (through the period of the judges) at the hands of their enemies, possibly for centuries, and they wanted a different political structure. But they weren't asking for anarchism, with all authority in the hands of the people. They wanted to be unified under one leader to prevent the constant and debilitating incursion of political and military enemies. Ultimately they were seeking a political solution to a spiritual problem. It's assuredly not an argument for Christian Anarchism.

God doesn't want to be the only one in charge. Rather he wants to be the foundation of the thoughts and actions of the one in charge. He was glad to appoint Moses as head over Israel, as priests in charge of the Tabernacle, Joshua over Israel, and to empower various judges who would rule as he would. That's what inherent in the charge to humanity in Gen. 1.26-28: To rule the earth and subdue it as co-regents with God. Rule, but rule as he would. Be responsible. Care for it as God would. Be the kind of king God would be were he sitting in your place. Co-regency.

Ancient Israel was the only theocracy ("the world would be a better place if God were in charge," says God). After Israel fell in 586, there has been no attempt to restore theocratic rule anywhere, and especially not in the New Testament. The issue at the temptation scene was whether or not Jesus would submit to a quick fix to gain his kingdom rather than the torturous path of suffering. He could be a self-constituted Messiah, the same mistake Adam and Eve made: their own source of wisdom and order. Jesus wouldn't fall for it.

When he teaches not to resist evil in Mt. 5.39 he speaking to individuals in the context of personal affront, not to people in danger or to governments. He is not saying all police forces and military units are ungodly or immoral. People were taking the "eye for an eye" philosophy as an excuse for person vengeance. That's what Jesus was saying was wrong. There is a place for "the punishment fits the crime," and that's where government comes in. There is no supposition in what He said to construe that he's advocating the abrogation of the law or its enforcement. The government is not in question, the disciple of Christ is. Men are allowed to protect themselves; governments are allowed to enforce laws. What Jesus is teaching is that his followers are never to inflict suffering in a spirit of revenge. Evil people and criminals should be resisted, and they should be punished, but as believers in Christ we are never supposed to be motivated by malice. That's what Jesus is talking about.

I was going to say that there are some good arguments for Christian Anarchism. Like like in Book of Samuel.

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

It's possible that the only reason government exists is because people refuse to honor God.

Secondly, Matthew 4:8-10:
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[a]”

God wants to be the only one in charge, and the world would be a better place if it were so. Secondly, rebelling is not what God wants. He says to not resist evil (Matthew 5:39). So we just let God deal with all of the evil in the world, and the only way to overcome evil is by doing good.

Just thought I'd throw a few of these ideas out there.

> Did Hitler's Authority Come from God, or is Romans 13 untrue?

Neither. There's at least a 3rd choice. Romans 13.1 states that the idea of government was established by God, not that every leader in government was put there by God's choice. God is saying that government is better than anarchy. In ordering government, God is not approving of what all governments do, nor is God responsible for what they do. He says that authority is one way to restrain sin, so create authorities and submit to them. It is not making a comment about or endorsing immoral leaders, evil governments, and despicable policies, but only that governmental authority is a good idea. The text does not affirm the divine right of kings or government, nor does it oppose revolution for a change of government. What Paul opposes is lawlessness and disorder that result from anarchy.

> verse 2

He who rebels against the concept of government and the ideal of authority then is also rebelling against God, who governs the earth through various people and who is supposed to be recognized as an authority over humans. Government is supposed to do on earth what God would do if he were in the king's throne or on the president's seat. And if that is the case, rebelling against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted. If you want to get rid of all government and be anarchic, you are rebelling against God. But there are certainly governments that are corrupt and are not being God's representative on Earth. There are certainly kings and presidents who are evil and should be brought down.

But there is a time and place for justifiable and proper rebellion.

- Ex. 1.15-21: The midwives disobeyed the Pharaoh's order of infanticide.
- Joshua 2.1-6, 15: Rahab acted against her own government and hid the spies (Heb. 11.31 lists her as a hero).
- Daniel 3: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego engage in civil disobedience
- Daniel 6: Daniel broke the laws of the king
- Matt. 2.7-8: The magi disobeyed the orders of Herod
- Acts 4.19-20: Peter and John refused to obey the Sanhedrin
- Acts 16: Paul and Silas stage a sit-in instead of following the government's orders

The Scriptures provide examples of proper times, situations, and methods for civil disobedience, and refusal to comply with governmental orders.

Christians: Did Hitler's Authority Come from God, or is Romans 13 untrue?

> Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.
Romans 13:1a (NIV)

Let me start by giving a little background: I would LIKE to consider myself a Christian, but I don't know if I can believe that all parts of the modern Bible are absolutely true and correct. This seems to be a dealbreaker for pretty much any kind of contemporary Christianity, and yet in a sense I feel like a Christian anyway because I pray, I believe in Incarnation, Sacrifice, and Resurrection, and I pursue a personal relationship with God. So this is a personal - not merely an intellectual - question and problem for me.

Romans 13 clearly states that government authority is to be accepted unquestioningly, on the basis that " the authorities are God’s servants" (verse 6b).

And yet, it was collusion between the Pharisees (Jewish authorities) and Pilate (a Roman authority) that ordered Jesus' crucifixion, and the Roman Centurions (enforcers of Roman authority) who physically carried out the public torture, humiliation, and execution of the Savior. The Savior, we know, had to be crucified for the Sins of Mankind. It does not make any sense that God the Father would appoint the very authorities that would command God's Only Begotten Son to be crucified:

if it were the case that God the Father appointed the Pharisees and Pilate as authorities, then God the Father would essentially be endorsing the Sins of Mankind. God the Father would be taking a side against God the Son. This simply makes no sense! I'm sorry, but I don't think that any possible explanation exists to square this circle. You simply cannot prove or explain how God favors the Sins of Mankind over God's Only Begotten Son.

To me, this is proof that Romans 13 is untrue and incorrect.

Another example...

> " whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted" (verse 2)

So, I suppose that Jesus rebelled against what God instituted? Because Jesus certainly, unarguably rebelled against the Pharisees throughout his ministry and the money-changers in the Temple on at least one occasion.

Again, this doesn't make any sense, and I don't think that sense can be made of it.

Rebellion against authorities is a sin; Jesus himself rebelled against authorities; Jesus was never a sinner - all 3 of these propositions cannot be simultaneously true.

I could go on and on about all the philosophical problems that I have with this text, but I'll try to keep it focused by stopping here. What say you, Christians?