WHEN EARLY CHRISTIANS DEFIED THE LAW
As followers of Jesus, we are called to be peacemakers not troublemakers, respecters of authority rather than despisers of authority. In fact, in one of the strongest rebukes of false teachers in the New Testament, Jude writes that these men reject authority (Jude 8), while other passages call on Christians to submit to earthly authorities (see, for example, Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14).At the same time, there are clear biblical examples where Gods people disobeyed the law, and there are examples from ancient history where the early church followed suit.In the Bible:The Hebrew midwives refused to comply with Pharaohs edict to kill all male Israelite babies, as a result of which God blessed them (Exodus 1).Daniels three colleagues refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzars idolatrous statue, as a result of which they were thrown into a fiery furnace but delivered by God (Daniel 3).Daniel himself refused to obey the kings command not to pray to any other deity for a one-month period, as a result of which he was thrown into the lions den but also delivered by God (Daniel 6).The wise men who came to see the baby Jesus disobeyed King Herods order to report back to him, having been warned not to do so by the Lord in a dream (Matthew 2).The apostles refused to stop preaching and teaching in Jesus name despite an order from the Sanhedrin, their Jewish leadership, to cease and desist, saying in response: Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard; and, We must obey God rather than men (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29).Put another way, obedience to God sometimes requires disobedience to man.But this is anything but an excuse for rebellion, self-will or pride. To the contrary, it requires emptying of self, crucifixion of the flesh and complete submission to Gods will, which is often challenging and costly.But we are called to obey the Lord and his Word, regardless of cost or consequence, and the early Christians followed the example of the apostles, refusing to sacrifice to Caesar or call him lord, even to the point of horrific torture and death.By saying no to man, they were saying yes to God.The culture war is not over! Gain hope, courage and practical advice in Michael Browns latest book, Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the TideIn the words of New Testament scholar N. T. Wright (in his book, Simply Jesus), The day the church can no longer say, We must obey God rather than human beings (Acts 5: 29), it ceases to be the church. This may well mean suffering or persecution. That has been a reality since the very beginning, and for many Christians it is still the case today. Some of the most profound passages in the New Testament are those in which the churchs own sufferings are related directly to those of Jesus, its Messiah and Lord. Kingdom and cross went together in his own work; they will go together in the kingdom work of his followers.The early Christians also took a stand against infanticide, one of the banes of the ancient Greco-Roman world, widely practiced, often legal, and socially acceptable.Unwanted infants, in particular unhealthy males or most females (if the parents already had one daughter), would be drowned or thrown away, left outside for the forces of nature or the animal world to kill.The early Christians stood against this firmly, with one of their foundational documents, called the Didache, stating plainly, You shall not commit infanticide. Other early Christian leaders even stated that infanticide was child murder.So, these believers challenged the prevailing customs and laws, appealing to the government to make radical changes and ultimately changing the laws when they came into majority, to the point that infanticide carried the death penalty by the end of the 4th century A.D. in the Roman Empire.But thats not all that these Christians did. While infanticide was still legal and while it was against the law (and/or the customs of the day) to rescue abandoned babies, these believers went as far as taking in and supporting babies which had been left to die by exposure by their pagan parents, something that put them at great risk themselves.Yet what else could they do?They knew what the law said, but they also knew that God called them to rescue the perishing (see Proverbs 24:11-12), and so obedience to God required them to reject the standards (and even laws) of the society.Today, as we are increasingly confronted with challenges to our conscience and beliefs, we do well to remember the example of the early Christians.Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/09/when-early-christians-defied-the-law/#VPxmk7uquZkWsrYR.99
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
Yeah, my bad; Christ has nothing to do with Christianity what was I thinking?
Does immigration have anything to do with defying the law or amending existing laws?
How about deporting the children of illegal immigrants, children who are AMERICAN CITIZENS BY VIRTUE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT but who many of those good Christian conservatives want to DEPORT by AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION?
How about CHIP or food stamps for the WORKING POOR thatgood Christian conservatives want to take away?
YOU NEED TO LEARN THE SCOPE AND IMPLICATIONS OF THINGS YOU POST; just because your narrowly-focused agenda can't, or doesn't want to see the forest-for-trees, doesn't preclude others from educating you on your own threads.
Would you put God above laws when it comes to feeding the poor, repudiating the laws that benefit only the wealthy, et al?
Be a good Christian and think more in a Christ-like way.
You've been trolling Newstalkers since you got here after being thrown out of Newsvine, Corny. Take your shit articles to Redstate or some other extremist site.
Translation: Attention like-minded gangbangers -- in my posts, DO NOT RESPOND TO NOR ACKNOWLEDGE ANY/ALL COMMENTS/OPINIONS/INFORMATION CONTRARY TO MINE/OURS UNLESS IT'S TO DISPARAGE SUCH COMMENTS AND/OR THOSE POSTING THEm.
XX, you'd better hope your comment is not taken literally; for should it be adopted, no one will comment in your discussions.
You and some of your loyal followers have an insidious tactic, namely, calling everything and anything that is not in concert with your point-of-view "off-topic."
BAD FORM, Dude.
But you do, right?
When you finish the stream, mop the floor.
Re-read the definition.
Virtually everything you post is inflammatory (arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings), subjective, myopic and usually refutable with counter-points. Your sources are mostly right-wing extreme, and, I have, in numerous rebuttals, named the individuals, entities behind them, given their histories, court actions taken against, hidden agendas and the funding sources of them.
Posting misinformation by intent, defamatory and insulting rhetoric, lies, and lies that are allowed to remain even after being identified and called out as such these are all forms of inflammatory discourse.
Would you like me to post a list of your seeded headlines?
And you are among the first to cry "foul," or just plain whine when you can't do anything substantive in defense of your/your seeded articles' viewpoints other than double down on that viewpoint and/or have the usual defenders do it for you, drop a quip or even a personal insult.
Been down this road with you many times; a source that lacks credibility is thus by virtue of its tendency to post "information" that lacks credibility.
A subject presented with rife inaccuracies, untruths, innuendo, defamation without specific examples may be a "subject" to you, but if it's bogus, it is to be attacked for being so.
You calling me An "Intolerant Leftist" XX?
Interesting meme AMac but it went out of style with the development of Calvinism as the most influential form of Christianity . That was quite a while ago . When are you planning on getting up to date ?
How about that! And such consciences protest fundamentally opposite kinds of unjust laws than do Kim Davis and religionist-right haters.
I will explain (because you are confused).
There is a deep distinction between protesting laws that DENY civil/human rights -- laws that legalize slavery, etc., that, vs. protesting laws that abrogate guarantees granted by the Constitution!
In case it eludes some of you, laws that violate the Constitution -- laws that enabled slavery and segregation, violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment (which, contrary to religionist-Christians is not their exclusive milieux) -- ARE, wait for it -- UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Consequently, when protesting laws that uphold the Constitution and blaming it on God well that's un-Christ-like!
Legalizing same sex marriage is the ENFORCEMENT of rights granted under the First and 14th amendments which were previously denied!
So, good Christians, if you are going to protest "unjust" laws as a matter of conscience and scripture (allegedly), PROTEST THE LAWS THAT HURT AND DEPRIVE INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS instead of laws that enforce your myopic, prejudicial beliefs held in the name of God!
Protesting laws that deny rights is the polar opposite of protesting laws that extend or enforce rights granted by the Constitution
Hint, when the words "Christians" and "Law" appear in a headline, it might result in commentary about come on shout it right out
GOOD FOR YOU yes
commentary about Christianity and Law!
And all along I thought you to be narrowly-focused and dense.
"Witness credibility" has been a barometer for a long time.
Not going to explain it again.
What precisely went out of style, Petey?
Bring me up-to-date.
Your concepts of Christianity went out of style [as expressed by that meme] . The beginning of that change was Calvinism , followed by the founding of the US , a country based on fairness in taxation .
You're making you the issue.
And the gist is what God is telling man to subjugate other men?
What about one more time
Learn about your religion.
Max, I don't remember Paul Newman being one-eyed, toothless and one handed in Exodus.
Oh, whooopss, wrong Exodus.