Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

So its the legality or illegality of a substance that makes it a sin to use?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Could it be Paul is saying that if everyone in the assembly is speaking in tongues and there is no interpretation, then the unbeliever or unlearned visitor will conclude everyone is insane and thus will remain in unbelief? And that therefore everyone speaking in tongues with no interpretation produces the same basic situation as described in Isaiah, namely unbelievers refuse to repent and believe? And that therefore, the assembly should seek to prophesy or at least have interpretation, in order to avoid repeating the typology of judgment found in Isaiah?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Paul certainly addresses the madness of everyone speaking in tongues all at once without an interpreter and how that will be perceived.

However, when he speaks of the sign to unbelievers and quotes from Isaiah as proof of his point, he merely writes "wherefore tongues are a sign".

He doesn't write "everyone speaking tongues all at once without an interpretation are a sign". He seems to suggest the charismata itself, when in operation, is for a sign to the unbeliever, not the abuse of the charismata, is the sign.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Although yes, abusive tongue speaking in front of unbelievers will probably hinder their ability to enjoy the presence of God and get anything of value from their time among God's people, because the experience will likely turn them off, or be unfruitful because of the lack of interpretation.

In this way, what you write is true.

However, going back to Isaiah, Isaiah writes the main issue in chapter 28 is the "word of the Lord" having to be here a little, there a little, instead of being fully declared because God's priests and prophets are too drunk to receive It and give It to God's people the way God expects, so God will bring foreigners who can only be understood in small snatches and bits and pieces of their language, limiting the understanding of what is being said, in just the same way the priest's and prophets are limiting the word of the Lord to the people.

Since God could only speak to His people in small amounts, He decided He would bring Assyria to Israel and speak to Israel that way, in small amounts of grasped at words and phrases being said by the invaders. Then, when He did that, Israel would be knocked back, stumble, and fall, just like the drunken priests and prophets who stumbled around and passed out in their vomit.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

None of which has anything to do with speaking in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance in Holy Spirit baptism.

That form of tongue-speaking is the return of a pure language to God's people (Zephaniah 3:9) as the fulfillment of Joel 2:28 (that is, so the people of God could once again call on the name of the LORD in a way that was pure and pleasing to God).

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
(Isaiah 28:11-12)

The way I read chapter 28, it seems that the priests and prophets etc were complaining about the words of God, that they were "precept upon precept, here a little, there a little" (v 10, 13), that the instruction of God's word by His true prophets was (to them) condescending and suited for children. In other words, they (the priests and "prophets") were more advanced than simple instruction from God. They got too smart for their britches. I found an interesting comment in Barnes:

Line upon line - This word (קו qav), properly means “a cord, a line;” particularly a measuring cord or line (2Ki_21:13; Eze_47:13; see the note at Isa_18:2). Here it seems to be used in the sense of “a rule,” “law,” or “precept.” Grotius thinks that the idea is taken from schoolmasters who instruct their pupils by making lines or marks for them which they are to trace or imitate. There is a repetition of similar sounds in the Hebrew in this verse which cannot be conveyed in a translation, and which shows their contempt in a much more striking manner than any version could do - לקו קו לקו קו לצו צו לצו צו כי kı̂y tsav lâtsâv tsav lâtsâv qav lâqâv qēv lâqâv.

So the people and their leaders had refused to hear the true word of the Lord. In consequence, God would instruct them in another manner, by the Babylonians, in fulfillment of Deut. 28:

Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things; Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee. The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
(Deuteronomy 28:47-49)

So Isaiah is saying that since they would not listen to the Lord's prophets, they would "listen" to the Babylonians. God would "instruct" them through the chastisement of foreign conquest and captivity. He had told His people "here is the rest, whereby you may refresh the weary" - meaning, here are My Ways, walk in them and be blessed - but the people had not listened. So now they faced punishment through the mechanism of foreign oppression.

So then the "strange/unknown tongues" in Isaiah has reference to being a sign of unbelief. Because the people did not believe, they would be forced to hear the "stammering lips and foreign tongue" of a foreign conqueror. The "tongues" then were a sign of Judah's unbelief and disobedience to the Word of the Lord. Or to put it another way, the foreign tongues would be a sign in consequence of their unbelief.

Now, Paul takes up the subject:

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
(1 Corinthians 14:20-25)

Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not. In Isaiah, which Paul references, the tongues were for a sign to unbelieving Judah. The presence of foreign tongues was a sign to the Judahites because of their unbelief. In the present case of an unbeliever or one who is unlearned coming into the meeting, and everybody speaking in tongues (with no interpretation), they will remain unbelieving and unlearned. They will say "You are all mad (crazy)" and will not glorify God.

From this, it seems to me that Paul is saying don't allow meetings to be dominated by uninterpreted tongue-speaking, because if you do you are setting things up for failure if an unbeliever or one who is unlearned comes to visit. They will reject the Gospel message because they think you guys are all crazy. They will remain in unbelief. The tongues then become a sign to those who do not believe. Not in the sense of a sign from God meant to convince the unbeliever of anything, but rather in the sense of a sign confirming that the unbeliever remains an unbeliever (as in the case in Isaiah).

On the contrary, Paul says wherefore prophesying serves not for the unbelieving, but for those who DO in fact believe. Why? Because if all prophesy, the unbelieving visitor is convicted, his heart is revealed to him, he falls down and worships God, and reports that God is truly among these people. So then prophesying goes along with believing, whereas foreign unintelligible tongues go along with unbelief and lack of repentance (as per the OT scriptural example Paul was working from).

When Paul speaks of tongues and prophesying as being "signs" he does not mean "a sign for the benefit of" one particular group or another. Rather, he means in the sense of a "sign that indicates" either continuing unbelief vs repentant believing. In the case of tongues, the result is likely to be continuing unbelief among the visitors, whereas in the case of prophesying the result is likely to be repentant belief among the visitors. In which case, each form of utterance (tongues, vs prophesying) becomes a sign of what's going on and the effect(s) upon the visitors.

And since it is better for people not to continue in unbelief, but to repent and give glory to God, it is therefore better to prophesy than to speak in tongues (with no interpretation).

That's how I've always understood the passages in question.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city! She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the LORD; she drew not near to her God. Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow. Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law. The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame. I have cut off the nations: their towers are desolate; I made their streets waste, that none passeth by: their cities are destroyed, so that there is no man, that there is none inhabitant. I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted all their doings. Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
(Zephaniah 3:1-9)

Seems the "turning to the people a pure language" is timed AFTER a gathering of the nations to receive the fiery judgment of God. This is a common theme in prophecy, that God would gather the nations together and punish them for their iniquity and their persecution of His saints. The prophet tells the reader to "wait... until the day" of this gathering of the nations for judgment. And then God will "turn to the people a pure language". So it seems this event is to come AFTER the prophesied judgment upon all the nations, which as far as I can tell did not occur before the first Pentecost under the new covenant (Acts 2).

Perhaps you have a different take on the passage in Zephaniah? If so , please exegete. :)

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Check this out:

The princes of Zoan are become fools, the princes of Noph are deceived; they have also seduced Egypt, even they that are the stay of the tribes thereof. The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit. Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail, branch or rush, may do. In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid and fear because of the shaking of the hand of the LORD of hosts, which he shaketh over it. And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the LORD of hosts, which he hath determined against it. In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction. In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them. And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it. And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them. In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.
(Isaiah 19:13-25)

Especially, note the reference to how the Egyptians shall "speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord". this seems an obvious parallel to the Zephaniah passage - God would bring punitive judgment upon Egypt, but the end result would be that Egypt would "speak the language of Canaan and swear unto the Lord" and be counted among His people. In other words, the themes are almost identical:

• Divine judgment upon the heathen
• Change of language
• Worship of God

To "speak the language of Canaan", in Isaiah's day, seems to refer to speaking Hebrew. (Nevermind the fact that the Canaanites and the Israelites pretty much spoke the same language anyway.) And this appears to be a euphemism for the heathen learning the ways of Israel and her God. IE a conversion. So in Zephaniah it seems to be that the "pure language" is a euphemism for Hebrew, itself being a euphemism for the proper and true worship of God. So that, a "pure language" refers not so much to any actual linguistics (whether tongues of men or of angels) but to the true and correct worship of God.

(Note, I am not saying that glossolalia is not involved here at all, but rather that the contexts seem to suggest something beyond mere Pentecostal manifestations, and in Zephaniah seems to refer to the final conversion of the nations after a Divine Judgment upon them, which as far as I know has not yet happened.)

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Ok, now we are into the territory I find interesting.

Legal or Illegal are man made laws, sin may be against man, or God, bur is it sin simply because its not legal.

I would venture some in churches have "shared" prescription stuff with brothers or sisters in the church.
This is clearly illegal as these items are supposed to ve obtained by writ only from a script provided by a licenced person, and dispensed by another licensed person. Not shared or sold in tge street. Is this then sin or compasion on a less fortunate one....

All acts of illegality are not sin, nor are all legal things Godly.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Ok, now we are into the territory I find interesting.

Legal or Illegal are man made laws, sin may be against man, or God, but is it sin simply because its not legal.

I would venture some in churches have "shared" prescription stuff with brothers or sisters in the church.
This is clearly illegal as these items are supposed to ve obtained by writ only from a script provided by a licenced person, and dispensed by another licensed person. Not shared or sold in the street. Is this then sin or compasion on a less fortunate one....

All acts of illegality are not sin, nor are all legal things Godly.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

I agree.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

So if I'm on Fetanyl patches, and you have a back ache that would be compassion to give you one? Just because people in the church have done it, doesn't make It right.


So man made law or not what are you going to do with this Romans 13:1-2 "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." As long as the man made law doesn't contradict the law of God scripture shows you are bound to it, it even says you bring judgement on yourself for breaking it.

I will agree everything illegal isn't sin, but it is sin to rebel against it. And everything legal isn't Godly neither could everything be! Not in a fallen world.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

So souls behind what once was the iron curtain of Soviet control, that met, against the law, were rebellious? Rebellion is the sin of witchcraft, so obviously these were terrible people that should have turned on their fellows as following the law of the land equates to following the law of Christ?
I do not feel any law above the natural law that is found in the ten commandments is valid law. Thus those in the church that break these laws are by definition law breakers, but that does not make it sin, nor rebellion against God.

Seems very convenient that US law as often cited and encouraged by Republicans is a big deal to many conservative Christians including those that also love "standards" mostly that include 1950s values. Yet Champion Mrs. Davis for not handing marriage licences to gays, which was a directly rebeliious act. -
Before anyone then claims that this is somehow a statement supporting gay marriage, let me state that I can be for the rights of someone to do something, under the law of the land, that I disagree with, or even find sinful, without condoning the sin itself. I can also state that it would seem sin by scriptural references, thus I dont condone gay marriage in the church. This is strictly a government question. I can also say that equivocating non-biblical standards to sin, does not elevate disagreement with them to rebellion to bring us back to a Christian discussion.
In the bit I quoted the words "As long as the manmade law does not contradict the law of god"....do not appear in the scripture quoted...it rather simply states that all authority is placed in that position by God, thus if you do not like law that allows abortion, your protest is rebellion....using this verse alone.

Yet the story of the three Hebrews and a fiery furnace states exactly the opposite and the actions of Shadrach, Meschak, and Abendego, were in facr out-right rebellion, which give credence to the Jefferson statement "that rebellion against tyrants, is obedience to God.

The problem is that many Christians have become tyranical and wish to have their convictions converted to the law of the land. As a Libertarian I abhor all tyrants, no matter if they are of the right or left wing. I also tend to think this is a more Christian view, as the right of self determination is sacrosanct to choosing to follow to ones own salvation. There ouggt not to be laws of man that force this, or that force from this, so logically the less law on the books the less the liklihood of doibg either by authority of man.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

You are going to all these extremes trying to justify this reasoning. But I said "As long as the man made law doesn't contradict the law of God scripture shows you are bound to it, it even says you bring judgement on yourself for breaking it." Per Romans 13:1-2 point blank! So that debunks all the things you just threw out. The Kind Davis thing, the 3 Hebrew, boys, and the Berlin Wall.

Anything that's against the law of God doesn't matter what man says. In those cases it doesn't matter what man says. But what you are talking about doesn't fall under that. In that case rebellion would be as the sin of witchcraft as you said.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

The scripture from Romans you quoted does not contain an exclusion for the laws of god. You have to be pulling that from somewhere else. Therefore the extreams I covered would all still count. You need more scripture to support your words. My bet is that more scripture will point out the error that some church folk use to accuse brothers and sisters of rebellion when they cross man written rules over beards, ties, dresses, etc.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Im not the only person that argues your use of this scripture in the manner you used it.

http://www.gotquestions.org/American...Romans-13.html

Like the Pharasees ultra-cons, and like Publicans the left, add laws to the books to satisfy their OWN version of right and wrong. If a law contradicted any of the 10 commandments, it is not to be obeyed and one would be in keeping with many bible heros to stand up to it. I think we agree there.
However, suppose a UPCI member pastor is president. He orders all to be in complience with the doctrines of holiness standards, and declares the only legal religion to be in line with the UPCI. Great for us, A devout Catholic may rise up in rebellion for the same excuse you give and would be justified by his religious view.
This is why I prefer that gooberment be kept far from religions and religions far from gooberment.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Romans 13 teaches that civil government is accountable to God and has a moral obligation to punish evil and protect/reward good.

So-called "religion-neutral government" is a lie, it is actually "humanist government" where humanism becomes the state religion. Other religions are tolerated but only as long as they support the state religion, aka "public policy" which is determined by humanists and enforced by guys with guns and badges. The practical result is the society we see right now, where perverts and baby butcherers are protected and Christians, conservatives, and everyone else not on Team Left are marginalized, penalized, and (in the final phase of humanism) exterminated.

Which is just the modern day evolution of Imperial Roman policy of religio licit.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

All Romans 13 teaches is that the Roman government (human government itself) is ordained of God, to punish evil and keep some measure of peace. Therefore, we should submit and pay taxes.

Paul doesn't tell Christians to involve themselves in the Roman government. Paul doesn't tell Christians to revolt against the Roman government to set up a "Christian government" either.

We submit, pay taxes, and live peaceably in society. In it, but not of it. And, we see it demonstrated that when edict or law of human government contradicts the Gospel, the Apostles obeyed God rather than human government, willingly suffering death if necessary.

This is an admonishment against violent or criminal revolt, against breaking law and bringing reproach, not a directive to enshrine some half-baked theocracy.

The desire for power of the root of all heresy.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

We could suppose a lot of things. But the simple fact is follow the law of the land and don't be found as a transgressor. But if the law is contrary to the ordinances of God don't do it. You don't like standards, don't follow them. Find a church that doesn't enforce them they are everywhere! If it doesn't come from your heart you might as well not do it anyway, because in the end your only going to do whats in your heart anyway.

Got questions.org is a seventh day adventist website. That puts them in the likes of Ellen G. White and Dave Koresh, so that should say enough.

And now Ultra-cons are Pharasees huh? Well I guess the liberals would be the Saducees then huh? Dont believe fat meat is greasy, don't believe in deliverance from sin, the power of God, or anything else. Nothing but sloppy agape.. "If your belief is not able to transform you, it's not the true gospel!" Simple and plain!

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Ah, so only the UPCI, and specifically only elder UPCI that follow the standards and uphold the values of the Republican party are the actual arbitors of all scripture truth? The Adventists, and other Protestant groups that may have a measure of truth, but lack the oneness gospel, and babtism in Jesus name are in all other things that may be correct - suspect- for which you bring up named examples of way out there to support your statement.
Cute, I supose then I should beleive every word of the pastor I know of in Michigan that throws song books at people who have hair he disagrees with, forced victory marches are also part of his game. Calling a young mans new jacket gay because he disapproves of the color, then implying the man must also be gay ......these are the work of a true Christian? The Apostolic/Pentecostal tradition has its share of nuts too, but to call the pope out for his part in spreading heresy, is OK, calling out the pastor in Michigan is rebellion I suppose. Hmmmm

And since the only rightous government that will ever be on earth will be in the 1000 years Christ reigns after the trib, that I choose to stand for none on earth now, a citizen only of my own domain, I'm surely a rebel withoutca cause even more. Lol......whateva

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Do what? All your words not mine. That guys out of line, but all I can say is they should find a new church. And I'm not in support of the UPCI as a organization, maybe of old, but not today anyway.

You created all these crazy scenarios (straw men really) and acted like I said anything against these extreme situations you keep bringing up.

Simple fact is this. If something is illegal by law that is not immoral being against what God sets forth, scripture mandates you follow it. Now if you don't want to that's fine, that's your choice not mine. But while your in this room speaking non sense I'm going to speak up, to let you know I don't agree. Even show you why I don't agree. The rest is up to you.

If you go to a church with a Pastor as you described, that's ridiculous. Although, all the rest of the stuff you said was exteme trying to prove a point, so that story probably falls in the same line. People take things and blow them out of proportion, and then want people to back up what they are saying. If you don't like standards go to a church that doesn't preach them. But I can tell you don't go to a church at all, and all these things your saying is your reason you don't am I correct?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Nope.

Go to church every Sunday.

Ran from the building where the nutcase that throws stuff is. Never went back. A freind of mine, dear sister for most of my life, in fact went muslim over the jacket incident, as well as the rather over the top adoration of old families that have a long history of being pastors in the UPCI. She was married into one, that turned into a disaster. Altogether too much for her so she went to the roots of her Lebonese heritage. Her Dad was a UPC pastor , and also the pastor who baptized me. He seems disallusioned with the UPC as well. No longer pastors.

I took issue not with what you said entirely, but with the fact that you defend it with one verse that does not say what you said....that being that there are exclusion from the verse for ungodly law... you have still not provided the verse for the exclusion, so Im still asking about it.
All of the things I mentioned as reflections of my questions are things which have actually happened. And relate to the single verse issue I have with your statement.

Now - you like many other UPC or old line holiness folks, appear to be taking the line that I must be a bitter ex-churchy for continuing to press. Seems it goes this way with the standards. If I recall that is the subject of the OP. When pressed into a point where you must admit that your beleif is in tradition not biblical entirely, folks respond with .."you must be in rebellion".....he/she left the "holiness" church to go somewhere more in line with their beleif. "Must be backslid", lets all talk about em behind their backs....

I have one or two small issues with my current church, but folk like you will only make it worse if I try to adjust the standards to allow me to minister in my manor, not in what I find to be now either fakery or pride.

I may have to find another church if my discussion with my pastor is met by the same ridicule you and other cons here dish out.

I do wonder what is implied by what appears to be a change of support for the UPCI on your part?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Making a single universal theory out of Romans 13 is a bad idea, in my opinion, because governments change or are different from one location to the next. What the hidden Christian in North Korea has to do versus what an American Christian gets to do, are two different things, for example.

Here in the USA, and really the "West", but elsewhere, too, we the people have the power of election and the ability to literally see laws change, or be interpreted differently by or through the judicial system.

This shows that in such a governmental structure, our laws are very mutable. But God's laws are not mutable. So what do I mean as it relates to Romans 13?

Here in WI I can write to and/or call my state legislature and even get a sit-down with the governor, perhaps, and attempt to sway public policy through personal lobbying of what I believe to be right, moral, ideas that best serves the interests of my home state.

But a universal theory of Romans 13 that has to be applied in one direction only would suggest me doing the above is tantamount to resisting the powers that be that were ordained by God, because by actively pursuing political and legislative changes, I am making a de facto claim that I believe that those currently in existence are wrong, and that the people in power who implemented them are likewise in the wrong, and so, will use whatever ability I have, up to and including my voting rights, to see the entire system brought down.

I may or may not succeed. But that is the whole thrust of what our government is supposed to be.

But that's also a built in resistance to the powers that be, since it is God and not man, that institutes governments and those who hold office in them.

So unless we are going to advocate total abstinence from political and governmental involvement (and maybe we should???) any involvement whatsoever could be construed as resisting the powers that be, because our very own system of government actively encourages it, thus demonstrating a revolt against what Romans 13 teaches, if there's only one universal theory being presented.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Goes both ways, by the way. (Not to mention the whole "liberal vs conservative" thing is way overblown...)

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

I see what you are getting at, I referenced Romans 13 because I could interject my words, but what's the point if the Word of God is forever settled in Heaven? So I quoted the Word of God instead. What was being said is that it's ok to do illegal activities, as they are not bad in and of theirself. Which I do understand that line of thinking,. But Paul says something completely opposite in Romans 13:1-2.

Now, all I was saying is that if a law does not directly contradict the word of God you should follow it. If it does God's law is greater. I was saying only this period. What you are saying is true brother, and should be greatly considered.

Me personally I'm a felon I never voted, what I do is trust God. I don't put my vote forth especially in places 1 I don't know even who these people are, or what they are about. 2. Where I don't have full confidence in someone. I never have seen a candidate yet that fits that criteria. So in that I trust God. I may not agree and be submissive to the law of the land, but I keep the Spirit of obedience to it. (The Lord is working on me, He's not finished with me yet!!) So while I may not agree with it, I just do it because what's being said doesnt contradict the word of the Lord.

But what I was saying isn't the only interpretation of Romans 13, because your right that could be something totally different somewhere else, and under different conditions. Although in America I believe mostly, we aren't faced with things that are contrary to the word and law of God, making it fit for us to not follow. But, in the case of Kim Davis and Homosexual marriage she was correct that clearly went against the Law of God, she stood against it. All I can say is good for her!

As people we look for reasons, to justify doing what we believe is best. "But even the wrath of man will yet praise God", that's such a beautiful truth out of the Word of God. It just let's me know, it's all in His hands. It let's me know that all these in a position of power, God has already took that into consideration. Whether for good or bad, and it will not hurt the plan of God. In the end it will yet, give Him praise. In that we should walk in liberty, knowing it's all in His hands!