Just a thought I had as I read the article (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=277): Wouldn't the attacks performed by our armed forces under the direction of our government also be the ordained acts of God? Just because God put someone in charge would not necessarily mean that that person should be left in command. God often used the overthrowing of kings throughout the Bible (check Caeser and Belshazzar). Good thought, but a little more research should be done before making statements such as these.

-DM-

Thank you for your feedback regarding St. Paul: Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein--Ministers of God by Daniel G. Jennings. Jennings has been notified of your feedback. You might want to check back from time to time for a possible response from him. In the meantime, note that Paul does not say that all acts of government are god-ordained but rather that governments ("governing authorities") themselves are appointed by "God." Of course, it seems to follow from this that the policies put into practice by government would be the will of "God." Still, Jennings' assertion, "In other words it is a sin to oppose a government policy no matter how evil, corrupt or oppressive," seems correct given Paul's statements in Romans 13.1-2: "Let every soul to the higher authorities be subject, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities existing are appointed by God, so that he who is setting himself against the authority, against God’s ordinance hath resisted; and those resisting, to themselves shall receive judgment."

In any case, you don't specifically identify what it is that you had in mind when you said "good thought" or "statements such as these," thus your criticism about "a little more research" is rendered more or less moot.

Regards,
-Don-

I would have to considerately disagree with you, Don. You seem to contradict yourself. How can the acts of a “God” appointed government NOT be god-ordained but still be the will of “God?”

I would also have to disagree with Jennings' assertion: "In other words it is a sin to oppose a government policy no matter how evil, corrupt or oppressive." It seems he missed the closing phrase at the end of your Romans 13:1-2 quotation; “and those resisting, to themselves shall receive judgment." Why is a dire judgment assumed? You should have included what follows up in Romans 13:3, “for rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.” Of course, it seems to follow from this that since these verses are taken from the Bible it would refer to “right” and “wrong” in the Biblical sense. There would be no contradiction to “God’s will,” though there may be other, more pertinent consequences depending on what governing authority “God” has permitted to take power.

Respectfully,
Steve

-DM-

The fact that a government might be appointed by "God" says nothing necessarily about the acts of that government. In fact, the Bible itself is replete with examples of governmental acts of which "God" allegedly would or allegedly did disapprove, as well as governmental leaders of whom "He" would and did disapprove..

A "dire judgement" is assumed given that it is allegedly a sin to resist a governmental policy.

I disagree that this need be included. Paul is wrong--unless by "right" he simply means what is right according to one's governmental rulers.

What is "right and wrong in the Biblical sense" often depends very much on where one goes in the Bible to find what is right and wrong. Not only that, there are few biblical precepts of any importance that "God" himslef does not violate, thus making it seem if "He" himself is a believer in situation ethics. Further, I personally think that the biblical "God" is somewhat immoral even by "His" own schizoid standards--and definitely immoral according to my standards.

-Don-

P.S. I am moving this to Moral Foundations & Principles in order to facilitate open discussion. I am traveling at the moment and do not want to get further involved in an ongoing discussion of this sort.