Crusades Began with Reconquista

[Matthias]

Nero being emperor when Romans was written only proves that a wicked, psychotic, pagan ruler can possess God-ordained governmental authority. It does not prove that the wicked ruler's every act suddenly becomes "God-ordained righteousness".

Thats the distinction.

Jeremiah calls Nebuchadnezzar God's “servant,” yet God later says He will punish the king of Babylon and that nation “for their iniquity.”

So being used by God does not make a ruler righteous and possessing authority under God's providence does not make every command righteous. Executing a legitimate function of government does not turn every murderous atrocity committed by that government into "divine justice".

Romans 13 does not say, “Whatever Caesar does is good because Caesar is in power.” Paul describes the proper function of governing authority --- restraining evil, punishing wrongdoing, and maintaining order.

And yes, Paul wrote that while Nero was emperor and that actually strengthens the point.

Nero could possess real governmental authority without being a righteous man. Nebuchadnezzar could be called God's servant without being a righteous man. God can use wicked rulers without calling their wickedness good.

The same principle applies in the West today.

The fact that rulers possess lawful governmental authority does not make them righteous, and it certainly does not transform every corrupt, destructive, dishonest, or wicked policy they pursue into the will of God.

Authority is not righteousness.
Providence is not endorsement.
God using a ruler is not God approving everything that ruler does.

The Bible itself makes that distinction.

Thank you. That‘s my position. You’ve stated it well.

 

[Wrangler]

Paul describes the proper function of governing authority --- restraining evil, punishing wrongdoing, and maintaining order.

Restraining evil by force when necessary is righteous, God ordained function of government. This explains why every government that ever existed had police and military - for the righteous use of violence to restrain evil as necessary.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Restraining evil by force when necessary is righteous, God ordained function of government. This explains why every government that ever existed had police and military - for the righteous use of violence to restrain evil as necessary.

You keep saying government may use force to restrain evil. Fine. Who defines evil, God, or the government wielding the force?

 

[Wrangler]

You keep saying government may use force to restrain evil

Seems you have a problem with that. Why?

Fine. Who defines evil, God, or the government using the force?

Words are already defined. Feel free to consult your favorite lexicon.

Seems you are trying to split hairs to create division where there is harmony. In theory, God defines evil. In legal practice, his servants in government define evil.

There is nothing inherently or theoretically driving in the left or right. It’s left to our servants in government to facilitate order.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Seems you have a problem with that. Why?



Words are already defined. Feel free to consult your favorite lexicon.

Seems you are trying to split hairs to create division where there is harmony. In theory, God defines evil. In legal practice, his servants in government define evil.

There is nothing inherently or theoretically driving in the left or right. It’s left to our servants in government to facilitate order.

It’s not me splitting hairs; it’s you avoiding the 10,000-pound elephant in the room which is:

If government is allowed to define the evil its supposedly “righteously restraining,” what stops Nero, Hitler, Stalin or any other homicidal regime from baptizing its own violence as righteousness? Absolutely nothing.

In order for your theory to work, I'd have to accept that Nero’s government was “doing God’s work” while it persecuted and murdered Christians simply because Nero was exercising state authority.

I’d have to accept that Stalin was ‘doing God’s work’ when his government sent state forces against peasants, arrested and executed clergy, imprisoned Christian believers, and destroyed thousands of churches.

But then you’d have to apply the same rule consistently. Hitler was also the head of a government exercising state power against people his government declared “evil and an enemy to the state.”

So was Hitler “doing God’s work” too? According to you he must’ve been.

Of course you’re not going to say that.

And the moment you refuse to say it, you’ve admitted the entire premise is false: government authority does not automatically make a government’s violence righteous.