Romans 13 and Revelation 13

[barnhart]

I don't believe everything in these books that are not in the Canon, but I also do not accept that all books placed in the canon by the priests of Constantine in the 4th century are therefore inspired of God. Some books are to test us. Deuteronomy 13:3

Each book and writing should stand on its own based upon God, not man.

The only way I can make Romans 13 fit with how governments of man are viewed in the rest of the Bible, like the beasts in Revelation 13, is that we do not understand the context of Romans 13.

If one is inclined to question the canon, there has been more doubt about the acceptance of the Revelation than about Romans.

And the non- cannon writings...

[eccentric_rambler]

And the non- cannon writings...

Explosive point.

[barnhart]

And the non- cannon writings...

Explosive point.

I don't aim to be divisive but using non-cannon writing to discredit the cannon certainly catches my attention.

[JohnH]

What would be an example of cannon writing?

[ohio jones]

What would be an example of cannon writing?

[eccentric_rambler]

And the non- cannon writings...

Explosive point.

I don't aim to be divisive but using non-cannon writing to discredit the cannon certainly catches my attention.

Aim is critical when small arms attempt to disable artillery.

[JohnHurt]

I don't believe everything in these books that are not in the Canon, but I also do not accept that all books placed in the canon by the priests of Constantine in the 4th century are therefore inspired of God. Some books are to test us. Deuteronomy 13:3

Each book and writing should stand on its own based upon God, not man.

The only way I can make Romans 13 fit with how governments of man are viewed in the rest of the Bible, like the beasts in Revelation 13, is that we do not understand the context of Romans 13.

If one is inclined to question the canon, there has been more doubt about the acceptance of the Revelation than about Romans.

The Book of Revelation was nearly rejected by the "Canon Authorities" in the 4th century as Rev 2:14, 20 contradicted 1 Cor 8. And there are some evidences of the trial of Rev 2:2 in Ephesus that the Roman Catholic church found uncomfortable.


Here is what we know about the Canon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_ ... ian_canons

The canon of the Catholic Church was affirmed by the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), two of the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419), the Council of Florence (1431–1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Those established the Catholic biblical canon consisting of 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament for a total of 73 books.[20][21][a][23]

The canons of the Church of England and English Presbyterians were decided definitively by the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), respectively. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) established additional canons that are widely accepted throughout the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[JohnHurt]

Friends,

So I did a lot of research on how Romans 13 applied to a corrupt government, with statements on Romans 13 by men such as Noah Webster, Adam Clarke, Jonathan Mayhew, William Blackstone and others.

There was a lot more interest how Romans 13 applied to government in the 1600's to 1800's, more than today, mostly because of the Reformation and American Revolution and other events. In a nutshell they implied:

1. That Romans 13 only applies to governments that meet the qualifications given in Romans 13.
A "Romans 13" government is one that is:

(a) ordained of God
(b) Not a terror to good works, but to evil.
(c) a government that praises those that do good.
(d) a minister of God to thee for good.
(e) a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

And this may apply only partially. If you are in Communist China or North Korea where Christians are persecuted, you need to obey all traffic laws, but you don't have to accept that Xi or Kim are "ministers of God to thee for good."

Romans 13 is not a blanket statement. It is a qualified statement, and very limited, but with the following purpose:

2. The New Testament is written in a code that only those that study it can truly understand.

A government official under Nero would read Romans 13 and find no fault as he would believe that everything the Roman State did was "good" as "good" was enshrined into Roman Law, and everything that did not obey Roman Law was "evil." So the Roman State is always "good."

So a Roman official would accept that Romans 13 means all Christians must submit to Roman authority and Roman Laws based on Romans 13, and they would demand obedience to the State. I am certain Constantine approved of Romans 13.

A mature Christian who reads the entire Bible will know that only God can define what is "good" and what is "evil" and would recognize the difference, that Romans 13 does not apply to every government, if any of them.

A mature Christian knows that every government of man is inferior to the government of God, and that when we accept Man's government as supreme, we have rejected God as our ruler and are "serving other gods." (1 Sam 8:7-8)

3. We are not teaching the correct interpretation of Romans 13 today.

Around 2000, My friends and I established a new church in a very old church building in Carthage, TN. We decided to not go under the 501(c)3 tax code as it put us in an inferior position to government. Also we did not believe in having paid ministers, with all donated money just for a collection for the poor and to pay the light bill for the building.

We thought not using 501(c)3 could impact our tax free property status and make us liable for paying back taxes. We found that this very old church property had never been listed on the tax rolls, and so no property taxes would ever be due. The church building had been established at a time when the United State government understood churches could not be taxed, as the power to tax is the power to destroy.

The 501(c)3 tax payment, or tax dodge, puts the Church under the authority of the State. It prevents the Body of Christ from speaking out about any matters of public policy, such as John the Baptist criticizing his government leaders for being unlawful. Matt 14:4 If you speak out, you lose your 501(c)3 tax exemption.

As a result, no church will speak out against homosexuality, the trans-gender movement, or even that war is morally wrong for Christian participation. Otherwise, they lose their tax exempt status.

They day is coming when the Church will be underground again, if it is to be the salt that changes the world. Matt 5:13

I believe the incorrect interpretation of Romans 13 is what created the 501(c)3 problem.

[JohnH]

Around 2000, My friends and I established a new church in a very old church building in Carthage, TN. We decided to not go under the 501(c)3 tax code as it put us in an inferior position to government. Also we did not believe in having paid ministers, with all donated money just for a collection for the poor and to pay the light bill for the building.[/quote[

The applicable section of the tax code is 501(a), and churches are never required to register for "tax exempt" status. The same appears to be true under state law as well. Shall I quote?

Organizations not required to obtain recognition of exemption.

The following types of organizations may be considered tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) without filing Form 1023 (or Form 1023-EZ).

• Churches, including synagogues, temples, and mosques.
• Integrated auxiliaries of churches and conventions or associations of churches.
• Any organization that has gross receipts in each tax year of normally not more than $5,000. For more information on gross receipts exceptions, go to
  IRS.gov/Charities.

Even though these organizations aren't required to seek recognition of exemption, they may choose to file Form 1023 (or Form 1023-EZ, if eligible) to receive a determination letter stating they are recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3) status. The determination letter will also state whether an organization must file annual information returns or notices and will specify whether contributions to that organization are tax deductible.

[qoute=JohnHurt]We thought not using 501(c)3 could impact our tax free property status and make us liable for paying back taxes. We found that this very old church property had never been listed on the tax rolls, and so no property taxes would ever be due. The church building had been established at a time when the United State government understood churches could not be taxed, as the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Not being listed on the tax rolls doesn't mean property tax isn't due. However, the county auditor probably never bothered to list the property since it had always been a church, and wasn't going to bother now since it was also a church when you and your brethren continued to operate it as one.

As I detailed above, the U.S. government still doesn't tax churches. A long time ago, though, it did tax the citizens in order to pay for churches to operate.

The 501(c)3 tax payment, or tax dodge, puts the Church under the authority of the State. It prevents the Body of Christ from speaking out about any matters of public policy, such as John the Baptist criticizing his government leaders for being unlawful. Matt 14:4 If you speak out, you lose your 501(c)3 tax exemption.

No it doesn't. As detailed above, a church doesn't need to file for a 501(c)3 letter to be automatically qualified. But a church can if it wants to, simply to get a letter saying so.

Churches are allowed to criticise government leaders and always have been. They aren't allowed to engage in positive campaigning, because that's running a political campaign for a candidate, not being a church.

As a result, no church will speak out against homosexuality, the trans-gender movement, or even that war is morally wrong for Christian participation. Otherwise, they lose their tax exempt status.

My church has spoken out against all of these things and has a formal 501(c)3 recognition.

The Methodist church in town has spoken out against the first two things.

The Eastern Catholic church near me has spoken out against all 3 of those things. It continues to be entirely 501(c)3 exempt, including a monastery whose entire property is exempt too.

They day is coming when the Church will be underground again, if it is to be the salt that changes the world. Matt 5:13

I agree, but I don't think that has anything with America's 501(c)3 legislation.

I believe the incorrect interpretation of Romans 13 is what created the 501(c)3 problem.

501(c)3 was established in 1954 in legislation proposed by then-Senator Johnson who sought to prohibit 501(c)3 exempt organisations from engaging in political campaigns.

[Bootstrap]

1. That Romans 13 only applies to governments that meet the qualifications given in Romans 13.
A "Romans 13" government is one that is:

(a) ordained of God
(b) Not a terror to good works, but to evil.
(c) a government that praises those that do good.
(d) a minister of God to thee for good.
(e) a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

And this may apply only partially. If you are in Communist China or North Korea where Christians are persecuted, you need to obey all traffic laws, but you don't have to accept that Xi or Kim are "ministers of God to thee for good."

In that case, it did not apply to Nero Caesar, who Paul was talking about when he wrote Romans 13. So ... Paul apparently did not mean what he said when he wrote it? Paul did not understand Romans 13?

Your proposed interpretation is clearly not how Paul understood it. To understand the passage correctly, you have to look at what Paul meant.

2. The New Testament is written in a code that only those that study it can truly understand.

A government official under Nero would read Romans 13 and find no fault as he would believe that everything the Roman State did was "good" as "good" was enshrined into Roman Law, and everything that did not obey Roman Law was "evil." So the Roman State is always "good."

So a Roman official would accept that Romans 13 means all Christians must submit to Roman authority and Roman Laws based on Romans 13, and they would demand obedience to the State. I am certain Constantine approved of Romans 13.

Romans 13 was not written to government officials. It was written to Christians, telling them to obey the law. The first step in any study is to ask who it was written to and what it said to them.

3. We are not teaching the correct interpretation of Romans 13 today.

Depends on what you mean by "we". I agree that you are not teaching the correct interpretation. But I think some people are.

Can we focus on what the passage itself can reasonably be understood to mean, using the text of the passage? That often helps clear things up.