0 Shares

Are Even EVIL Governments Appointed by God? – LIVE Q&A for October 10, 2024

Are Even Evil Governments Appointed by God?

A question from Sherpa70:

Romans 13:1-2 tells us that there is no authority except from God… appointed by God. But Hosea 8:4 says that the people set up kings, but not by God. We know of many evil kings in the Bible, and government leaders today who have done much evil (Hitler, etc.). Even some leaders in the United States currently promote abortion, LGBTQ, transgenderism and more.

Are all authorities from God? Or… does God “allow” some authorities to be in office as a judgment against a people?

Romans 13:1

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.

Subject to the governing authorities: The connection between Romans 12 and Romans 13 is clear. If the Christian is not to seek personal vengeance, it does not take away the government’s authority to punish wrongdoers.
Every soul: This certainly includes Christians. Paul simply says that we should be subject to the governing authorities. This was in contrast to groups of zealous Jews in that day who recognized no king but God and paid taxes to no one but God.
For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God: We subject ourselves to governing authorities because they are appointed by God and serve a purpose in His plan.

We remember that Paul wrote this during the reign of the Roman Empire. It was no democracy, and no special friend to Christians – yet he still saw their legitimate authority.

Because the authorities that exist are appointed by God, Paul wrote this in Romans 13:2: whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God. Since governments have authority from God, we are bound to obey them – unless, of course, they order us to do something in contradiction to God’s law. Then, we are commanded to obey God before man (as in Acts 4:19).

So, the principle stands in Romans 13:1: No authority except from God. If God wanted a nation to have different leaders, He would work so as to change the leader.

Maybe the leader is voted out, and a new leader is voted in.
Maybe the leader dies or becomes disabled.
Maybe the nation’s citizens overthrow the leader.
Maybe another nation removes the leader by conquest.

Sherpa70 was correct: God appoints a nation’s leaders, but not always to bless the people. Sometimes it is to judge the people or to ripen the nation for judgment.

One last thing: In a democracy (or in a democratic republic), the people have a share in the governing authority. It is a small share, but it is something. If you live in a democracy, are you fulfilling the role God has given you as a part of that democracy?

Does the government promote abortion? Enough voters allow this.
Does the government promote a homosexual and transgender agenda? Enough voters allow this.
If we say, “God is going to judge our unrighteous government,” don’t forget that in a democracy, in some way, the voters are part of that government.

This is the sense of the other verse that Sherpa70 mentioned, Hosea 8:4:

Hosea 8:4a

They set up kings, but not by Me;
They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.

Ancient Israel was not a democracy, but there were still people who had a role in choosing and supporting and legitimizing kings and rulers. When the people chose and supported wicked leaders, or the more wicked leaders, it was a sin that God would hold them responsible for. It was a sin like idolatry is also a sin, as the full verse explains:

Hosea 8:4

They set up kings, but not by Me;
They made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.
From their silver and gold
They made idols for themselves—
That they might be cut off.

So, when wicked or incompetent leaders come to power, it’s not like God took the day off. At the very least, God could have stopped such a thing, and did not – yet those who supported the leader will have their responsibility before God.

According to some recent surveys, there are 41 million self-identified Christians in the United States who do not plan to vote in the upcoming election. That’s wrong – it’s a poor use of the share we have in the governing authority. I understand that the candidates are both unattractive and have plenty of flaws.

Yes, choose the candidate that is less bad. Politics is complicated, but voting is not. You have a choice, and in the USA that is almost always among two candidates.
Or, choose the part that represents the less bad political party.
Or, choose a third-party candidate.
Or, write in a candidate.
Or, leave the presidential box unchecked and vote in the other elections.
In my opinion, the worst and most irresponsible option is to not vote at all.

In the USA, I think (can’t prove, but I think) that most Christians who don’t vote don’t do it out of some principled declaration, but they fail to vote out of discouragement and laziness. In my opinion, those aren’t good enough reasons to fail to vote.

At what point in time does God give grace to the unbeliever?

At what point in time does God give grace to the unbeliever? My belief is that grace and faith were given to the unbeliever before the foundation of the world (i.e., when God foreknew us. Your thoughts?

First of all, it depends how you define grace, and what kind of grace you’re talking about. There is such a thing that we call common grace. God gives common grace to believers and unbelievers all the time. The sunshine in the sky is a manifestation of God’s common grace. Every pleasant meal is a manifestation of God’s common grace. So, God is giving grace to an unbeliever all the time. But if your question is, “When did God give the grace that would act towards a person’s salvation?”, I would say that God did not give that grace until it actually happened. It was in His heart and mind to give it before the foundation of the world. But it’s hard for me to see how God can give grace to a person who does not yet exist. I did not exist before the foundation of the world, but God knew I would exist. It was in His heart and mind that a man, David Guzik, would exist in the United States of America, in Southern California, in the 20th and 21st centuries. God knew that He was going to pour out His favor and His goodness upon me before the foundation of the world. But I have a hard time logically considering how God could actually do that until I existed.

Here’s the way I would say it: it is in God’s heart and mind to give grace before the foundation of the world, but it does not actually happen until I exist. That’s the way it makes the most sense to me.

What does it mean when a person is referred to as being “anointed”?

Pastor Guzik, can you explain what a person means when they refer to another person as being “anointed”? We hear this often at our church and would like to understand this.

I love this question. It reveals one of the weaknesses in our Christian world, which is that we often use “Christianese” or church-specific terminology that may not be understood by everybody. If you hear people at your church referring to “anointed this” or “anointed that,” it’s very fair to ask what it means.

The term “anointed” originates in the Old Testament and generally has the idea of being blessed by and specifically equipped by the Holy Spirit to do something. In the Old Testament, to anoint somebody meant to apply some kind of oil or lotion or medicine to them. That’s simply what the word anoint means. In the Old Testament, God would anoint kings, prophets, and other specific individuals, and that anointing would be symbolic of the Holy Spirit coming upon them. In the Bible, oil is a very interesting symbol or picture of the presence and work of the Holy Spirit. There are a lot of reasons for that, which I won’t go into right now. But when a person was anointed with oil, it was to demonstrate that they were gifted and equipped by the Holy Spirit to do their job as a king or a priest or whatever their role would be.

In modern Christian lingo, or “Christianese,” when we say that a person is anointed, we mean that there is a presence and a gifting of the Holy Spirit with them to do whatever work they have been given to do. So, if somebody says, “That’s an anointed preacher,” they mean that the Holy Spirit is upon that preacher to equip them to do their work. If they say, “That’s an anointed worship leader,” they mean that the Holy Spirit is upon that person to equip them to do their work. It signifies the equipping and the presence of the Holy Spirit upon a person for that ministry.

Do lukewarm “Christians” spend eternity apart from God?

Do lukewarm “Christians” spend eternity apart from God? I think so many get the meaning of Revelation 3:16 wrong.

Revelation 3:15-16 – “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.”

You are right to be concerned about lukewarm Christians. “Lukewarm” describes a temperature state that’s kind of in the middle and is neither cold nor hot. In Revelation 3:16, Jesus rebuked the church of Laodicea because they were lukewarm. They didn’t have passion one way or the other. What is really fascinating is that Jesus said in verse 15 [paraphrased], “I wish you were one extreme or the other.” It’s almost as if Jesus is saying, “I wish you were wholeheartedly against Me or wholeheartedly for Me.” It’s the apathetic middle by which Jesus was so revolted in men.

It’s strange that Jesus would say, “I wish you were wholeheartedly against Me. I wish you were cold.” But we get the idea that Jesus was rebuking their apathy in very vivid and somewhat poetic terms. Jesus was dead set against apathy. So, you are very valid in your concern about lukewarmness. Charles Spurgeon, that great preacher of Victorian England, is one of my favorite preachers. He preached a sermon about lukewarmness. I think the title of the sermon was, “An Earnest Warning Against Lukewarmness,” and it was based on this text from Revelation 3:16. Spurgeon described the lukewarm church very vividly. He said things like [paraphrase], “Lukewarm churches have prayer meetings, but there’s hardly anybody present at them. People would rather spend their evenings at home. When people come to the prayer meetings, they’re dull, because nobody wants to get too excited about coming before God in prayer. Such lukewarm churches are very content to have things done decently and in order, but with no life, with no zeal. Such churches may have Bible classes and preaching and schools and all sorts of other operations, but they might as well not have them, because no real good comes from them and no energy goes forth from them.” Spurgeon goes on very eloquently about this.

Let me read you a quote from this sermon by Charles Spurgeon. He says the following about the lukewarm church: “They are neither hot for the truth nor cold; nor hot for conversions, nor hot for holiness. They are not fiery enough to burn the stubble of sin, nor zealous enough to make Satan angry, nor fervent enough to make a living sacrifice of themselves upon the altar of their God. They are neither cold nor hot.”

You are right to be concerned about lukewarmness. However, your question is, does a lukewarm Christian spend eternity apart from God? I suppose you’re basing that question on the warning Jesus gave between Revelation 3:16, where He said, “I will vomit you out of my mouth. I’ll expel you from Me.” Ultimately, you’re either in the kingdom or you’re out. There’s not a middle ground. Now, I say ultimately, because some people appear to be in a middle ground, but they cannot ultimately remain there. Ultimately, we’re either in God’s kingdom or not. Wherever the line is between so lukewarm that you’re actually cold and you’re not hot for God at all, I don’t know. I would think that maybe it’s impossible to tell from the outside. But I would say this, a lukewarm Christian should have no sense of security. I don’t want to come to a lukewarm or compromising Christian and pat him on the back and say, “Don’t sweat it, bro. Once saved, always saved.” No, those would not be my words.

Now, I may speak very similar words to a struggling saint who did love the Lord, but because of their frailties and weaknesses, they wondered if they were really saved. To that dear saint, I may put my arm around them or pat them on the back and say, “Don’t worry, dear brother or sister, you’re secure in Christ’s salvation.”

I may give a similar assurance to somebody in different circumstances, but to the lukewarm Christian or the apathetic believer, I would not be rich with assurance for them. I want to challenge them to burn hot for God. It has been said that the job of a good preacher is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. I think there’s some truth to that. That’s a wise pastoral application of these principles. How lukewarm can a person be before they’re cold and destined for real trouble in eternity? I don’t know, but someone who is in that zone should take no assurance in their position. They should be zealous to get things right with the Lord.

In 1 Peter 1:6-7, we are told that trials come upon us for the proof of our faith. Is that to prove our faith to ourselves or others?

1 Peter 1:6-7 – In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

What a great question. First, we can be sure that our faith is not being proved to God. God knows our level of faith, so it’s not like God needs a trial in our life for it to be revealed. But who doesn’t know? Well, we may not know the level of our faith, but other people may also not know. So, I would say it’s primarily for ourselves, but it is true that in a secondary sense, it demonstrates the genuineness of our faith to other people. I would say it’s primarily to prove it to ourselves, but both are true at the same time.