Okay, so you are basically saying "of the Abraham Isaac Jacob linage AND having the proper 'inward' disposition toward God" or something very similar - correct?
In a manner of speaking, yes. Paul identified Israel by way of two differing definitions, depending upon to what the relationship is being directed:
In relation to prophecy, Israel is the
ENDURING bloodline Jews and the proselytes to Judaism as well as Messianic Jews.
In relation to the spiritual realm of existence, it is inclusive of all who are of faith in Christ Jesus...again, in a manner of speaking.
Replacement theology, in all its Satanic moorings, has ancient Israel entirely replaced by the Church today, which ignores who were the very first member of the Church, which was Jews only, including proselytes. I'm making issue of this for the sake of others who may have been leaning in that direction. It's not an accusation against you personally.
I uphold the still-existent distinction because Paul also made the distinction in his statements concerning the "natural branches" and the "wild" branches, both with grafting into the Vine, which is Christ Jesus.
That is well and good - thank you for the clarification; however, it was the thrust of mine.
My main point was to drive home the fact that the 'instructions' of God in this matter have a 'common law'/'common sense' limitation.
If the government were to make a decree tomorrow that all 'citizens' are now "commanded" to follow Islam under sharia law - are you going to "fall in line" as a completely cooperative 'citizen' (who thinks God told them to do whatever the government says they should do) and follow it?
If God does not sanction it - should we sanction it? No - absolutely not. Have I made my point?
Yes, although I don't see the connection.
As recorded in the U.S. Constitution, our government was originally set up to be a servant of the people - not the other way around.
The government should be such that the "allegiance" of the citizenry is to God while the "allegiance" of the government is to the citizenry - i.e. citizens should serve God and government should serve citizens.
Actually, no. The government is sanctioned by God to serve
in the place of the citizens, with certain of the citizens being the
arm of the government for executions and punishment of evil. Granted, there are many rabbit holes one can try to traverse as a convolution of the topic, but I will stay the course as best I can into this particular vein you seem to have traipsed.
What God created was the idea that a people of like mind could/should create a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" - to/under which the people would agreeably be obligated to for the sake of having a stable society. While dictatorial governments have been used by God in His infinite wisdom for His own purposes - I really do not believe that it is what God had in mind when He gave His "instructions" for us to follow.
Yes - there is an extent to which we are to follow [whatever the 'law' happens to be at the time] for the glory of God - and, this is included in those "instructions" that He gave to us.
Nonetheless, beyond that - in the "big picture" of things - we have "other [overriding] instructions" in the Bible that we must [also] follow with priority intact.
God created 'government' in general - not each and every specific [man-made] government that has ever existed. And, there is a vast difference between the two - especially, where the biblical "instructions" of God are concerned.
What you say is true; however, individuals should use whatever lawful means is available to them to prevent the wrongs before they happen inasmuch as they are able to do so. This includes preventing wrongs that have already happened from happening again.
Romans 13:1-7
1 Let
every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves
damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but
to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt
have praise of the same:
4 For
he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs
be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are
God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
So, no. True government is not a creation of man. It is of God when it's rooted and grounded in His absolute morality. The founders of our government were of that mind. The creations of governments that punished and killed the innocent such as that of atheists, they were not of God and thus not worthy nor representative of God's ordination.
So, I'm arguing in favor of your statement above in your fourth paragraph. However, Dennis Raider, who openly and boldly executed an abortionist in Wichita, Kansas out in the foyer of his liberal churchianity building while ushering, it's questionable to say one way or the other as to if he was justified and in the will of God for what he did to take justice into his own hands by shooting that man down who was likely going to perform more killings the very next day.
The allegedly conservative judge over his case didn't allow his defense to present the perspective of defending the unborn, which was wrong for him to do. The liberals who were controlling his strings possibly threatened him behind the scenes, those who didn't want that defense being used because it may have gotten him a far lighter sentence if not set free entirely, thus setting a precedent for future executions.
Foxx's Book of Martyrs shows to us many, many examples of illegitimate governments and an illegitimate religion in particular that lacked legitimacy because of their lack of standing upon the defining principles and authority of God's word, which continues to this day all around the world when we look at the lack of purity in adhering to the very word of God as a defining foundation for their exercised authority in both government and doctrine.
MM
