Putin sent by God

It could well be that he was sent for this time, but...

I can't resist, the Apostle Paul?

Bad link. Still, can't help thinking that Putin rigged the vote so God would send him.

That stinks. I don't have any reason to believe God had anything positive to do with it.

As one who believes that all is providential which serves the interests and lives of Christians, both collective and individual, I have absolutely no problem with this quote. Indeed, the Russian Orthodox Church has been blessed by his support.

We are all sent by God for a purpose. Sometimes we choose to follow His will and sometimes we don't.
To discern is the purpose of contemplative prayer.

I saw this stupid story earlier but didn't want to post it here. I have no faith in Major Putin of the KGB. Under his leadership Russia has reverted to being a country that is not free in any real sense of the word. I wish the Russian Orthodox Church would condemn this KGB imposter.

I think our problem is that we continue to use our own experience of democratic institutions and government as a yardstick by which to view other nations. It seems to me it's gotten us into a lot of trouble around the world. Our experience has been conditioned by Western European culture and history. Other nations have not had that experience and it makes trying to transplant our ideas of freedom, how governments should work, and how people should live their lives not only difficult but often doomed to fail.

Bob

I agree 100% with every word written in your post, Bob.

Dear Alice and Theophan,

what you are advocating is called cultural relativism. I suppose it is foolhardy to take on two administrators at once, but it is something with which I do not agree.

The kind of support Mephistopheles gave to Dr. Faustus. Not the kind of bargain into which the Russian Church should ever have entered.

Whether nominally Orthodox or nominally Communist, a thug is still a thug. Putinism is rapidly driving Russia into the ground and returning its people to the mire of tyranny from which they only recently emerged. It is too easy to forget that Orthodoxy is a faith founded on human freedom.

LC:



Perhaps it is cultural relativism. But I'd argue that the only objective truth is that which the Church possesses: that which Christ taught. How we put that teaching into effect is not orthodoxy, but orthopraxy. Orthopraxy we can all argue about because, as flawed human beings, we'll never get our orthodoxy perfectly into practice in this fallen world.

It was not so long ago in human history that our idea that the governed should be the basis from which lawful government arises was a radical one. Russia may still be in the vast majority of cultures that support a strong personal authority figure. That point I'll yield to Stuart and other historians. And I do agree with Stuart that the man is a thug. But how many others can we count in history as thugs--across so many cultures--kings, czars, pharaohs, etc.? Absolute rulers always seem to get there by being the biggest thug in the group.

My argument is that some cultures seem to view a strong leader as necessary, even when he/she may ultimately be what we call a thug. So for us to sit and down the model seems to me to be a cause of a lot of needless strife in our relations with others.

My own fear is that our experiment in relative freedom and self government seems to be in grave danger of dissolving in the same way that so many other empires did: out of control spending, high taxes, and the inability to find a way out even as external threats loomed.

Bob

Theophan

Your argument is well made. I agree that there are significant differences between Russia and Western Europe. For instance, Russia never experienced the age of enlightenment, and, thankfully, Western Europe never experienced Lenin's and Stalin's age of electrification.

Still, I think human beings have the same fundamental desire for freedom. By most accounts, Putin is not living up to that desire, and that, I think, one day, will be his downfall. It is foolish to think that Russians are somehow different from other people. Until recently, many people would have thought that the Chinese were immune to the ideas of freedom, but just watch what is happening now (below the radar of most international news agencies). If Chinese Catholics are courageously demanding freedom, then why not the Russians too?

You're all right. There's no necessary connection between an absolute ruler and thuggery, just as democracy is no guarantee of much except entropy. America's got plenty of corrupt thugs in leadership, but I don't think anybody seriously contests the legitimacy of their democratic elections. On the other hand, many great Saints were absolute monarchs. So while I agree it's a mistake for the West (read: the US) to try to export our system to the world, that shouldn't make us hesitate to identify a clear bad guy like Putin. If God sent him, He sent him as chastisement.

Well said, JDC!

God is sovereign and has the full right to exercise His sovereignty among men. Serendipity is untenable.


Surely the Sovereign God raises up rulers among men which He chooses for them. So He must provide rulers which suit His purpose in time. Thus democracy is merely another tool He uses to achieve His purpose. He may use other systems as well.

Just because people "vote" does not mitagate the sovereign rule of God. A bad ruler is also God's just provision to men according to His Own purpose. Else the Apostle Paul did not write Romans 13:1-8 in all candor.

μιχαηλ η συστρατιωτης

If that were the case, would the American (or any other) Revolution have been ungodly, as it was a rebellion against the ruler that God raised and chose for the colonies?

Do kings have a Divine Right?

Isn't it clear and widely accepted among the kind of good Christian men who consider such matters that the American Revolution was immoral?

I do not think revolution is of necessity inconsistent with the purpose of God in the world of sinful men. Has God really abdicated His sovereignty in favor of men's wisdom? There is more than one way for those who think themselves wise to be revealed as fools not giving glory to God.

Since God seems to have given success to the rebels' side in the Revolution, one could argue that His sovereign purpose was served in it. Many argue thus anyway. But did men really execute the American Revolution for God, or for some rather material reasons instead? Was it not rich idealists stirring up poor men to fight and die? Just because men do not see the workings of God does not mean God is not working His purpose.

Daniel did say that God also "removes kings". Many kings have indeed been removed by revolution. Nevertheless, King George was not removed from his throne by the American Revolution. His offspring still sit there.

I would argue that either scripture means something, or it means nothing at all. And if it meanins something, then faithful men are bound to abide it.


μιχαηλ η συστρατιωτης

I don't believe they do. If I recall correctly, God did his best to warn the Israelites of the shortcomings and failures of kings when they pressed for one. The divine right theory seems to have had Martin Luther and King James of England as its greatest proponents. Of course, the fact that it served their purposes, not God's, might have had a great deal to do with their positions.

The Apostle Paul is speaking specifically to the Romans about their government, which was unique and generally beneficial to its citizens. A moderator to the cited verses about respecting authority is "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)

A government or ruler should command respect; however it doesn't have divine authority else you are a believer in their "infallibility."

That doesn't follow, Paul. Fathers have god-given authority over their children and bishops over their churches. That fact doesn't make them infallible by any means.

JCD,
I was responding to Systratiotes comment about the Scripture quote I would argue that either scripture means something, or it means nothing at all. And if it meaning something, then faithful men are bound to abide it. (Rom 13:1-8)


To be governed blindly without objection is a form of acceptance of infallibility, or in the least, an apathy toward human dignity. We should respect our leaders as authorities even when we disagree with them (think President [fill in the blank]) but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't oppose them by moral means.
My comment about infallibility was a bit of a stretch but it could be implied with a radical adherence to "Divine right." Getting back to the original subject, Vladislav Surkov can be inplying that Putin IS infallible.

Sent by God.....possible; infallible....no way!

I don't disagree. Scripture is clear that all authority comes from God. Since all our various powers do, this would seem evident. The extent to which a given authority is willing to reserve or abuse his power, and the point at which good people must oppose by less peaceful means an abuse of power, and related matters are secondary. The point is, authority comes from God, with the right and duty to exercise it or to restrain it, in charity and prudence. This may have application in discussions of Primacy.

I would agree with this argument, and suggest that the understanding of the meaning of this scripture is what is in question.

How exactly does God influence popular elections? Did I vote, or did God vote through me? Did everybody who voted for a losing candidate by definition oppose the will of God?

If you limit Romans 13:1-8 in application ONLY to the Roman Christians in their day and not at all to ourselves, then how do do justify applying any of the other doctrines Paul wrote in that epistle to ourselves in our day? Paul's Epistle to the Romans is source of much doctrine for the Church.

Acts 5:29 does not moderate Paul the Apostle's writing. Acts 5:29 states the principle that men of faith must follow when the dictates of men in power are contrary to the will of God. Mortal men are not infallible (myself included). The faithful are not called to follow political leaders when they compel us to disobey God. Even the Roman Christians didn't obey Caesar's demand for personal worship. That is why so many faithful were martyred under the authority of Imperial Rome.

Yet, didn't our Lord Himself say, "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's? If we limit our Lord's answer only to money, we miss His point.

Romans 13:1-8 gives instruction to believers living in this world under its "worldly" governments. (I write "worldly" as a pejoritive.) In 1st Timothy 2:1-8 the Apostle tells believers why:



Μεθ ημων ο Θεος! Γνωτε εθνη και ηττασθε!
-With us is God! Know ye nations and be dismayed!- (Isa.8:8c-9a)

μιχαηλ της συστρατιωτης

I can agree with the above statements, the second paragraph is an excellent supplement.

Christ is amongst us!

I am still curious as to how you would answer my questions.

Responding to this question we have to defer to God's gift of free will to humanity. In cognizance of free will, the answer would have to be "No, god doesn't influence elections." But this has to be modified by saying that, for those who pray about the voting decision, God will provide inspiration. If most voters would pray about this THEN we could say that God does indeed influence election -- one vote at a time.

Prior to the elections we can pray for the candidates, that God inspire them to act according to His will. And the same applies to current leaders, be it a monarch, dictator or the elect. And we the Church pray for our leaders in the Divine Liturgy.

I agree, but that seems to be at odds with Systratiotes who said above:



Either we choose a leader or God does, what is at question is who has the primary creative agency in these situations - God or man?

If it is man, then God can grant success, failure, even inspiration, but it is man who must take up the cause (as it was Mary who was presented with the *choice* to bear the Son of God, her "yes" undoing Eve's "no", and we thank her for her affirmative decision very often).

Systratiotes seems to say that it is God who makes these decisions for us by placing people in power (it is easier to believe this when we are talking about kings who take the throne of their own means, it gets stickier when talking about elected officials). He hedged a bit above, though, and said that perhaps God gives the victory to successful revolutionaries, but again one must ask if it is God removing the object of revolutions, or granting success to those who undertake the effort of their own decision. Free will in this (not necessarily preknowledge) is what is at stake. Who elects leaders (or topples them): God or man?

As for Paul and submission to authorities, you can't get carried away taking that literally and without context as well. He spent 6 years of his ministry in prison by these same Roman authorities and was likely beheaded by them. Either he is a hypocrite or he meant something else by his letter to his fellow Romans.

You correctly state my position. If God is truly Omnipotent how can His purpose fail just because men don't comply? Does God administrate His creation Personally? Or does He just let it run through serendipity as though He were away on vacation?

Surely the Sovereign God does not set aside His governance in the affairs of men just because men created so-called democracy. He Who in His Own time through revolution raised up Nebuchadrezzar to chastise unfaithful Judah, and then again in His Own time through a coup d'état raised up Cyrus in grace to restore the faithful remnant certainly remains able raise up numbers necessary to affect His will in a so-called free election.

Further, God is not obligated to achive anything through "faithful voters" however well intended. Just because we pray for a certain result, does not we understand God's intention. He also can affect His purpose among men through means besides the political.


If not literally, then how else should we understand the Apostle's imperative according grammar and context? Otherwise, interpreters construe the chosen Apostle's intent according to their own purposes, thus making the authority of the Apostle subservient to the inferrior thoughts of diverse men. That happens a lot is seems.

μιχαηλ η συστρατιωτης

Who said anything about His purpose failing? That is a strawman you are attacking. You presuppose that God directly chooses each leader, and based on this supposition, you infer that if He did not, then he would therefore not be omnipotent. This is a faulty line of thinking, because it ignores the free will that He has given us. I think what you are trying to say is that this free will is a gift from God and is not of itself a virtue of mankind, however you confuse this with God's purpose, which is supreme despite, not instead of, our free will.

Further, is it just the primary leaders of nation-states that God chooses? (You still haven't explained how it is He does this through a popular election of constituents whom He has given free will). Or entire houses of congress? State government? Does it also apply to leaders of local governments? City leaders? Policemen? Where do you draw the distinction?

I believe you are missing the forest for the trees.



Surely He does not. How do you correlate the two?



More than you realize, if Paul himself was put to death by these authorities. Tell me, was he killed because he was obeying Roman law?

I'm not attacking anybody. It isn't really a strawman either. If man can choose rulers apart from God's choice through exercise of his free will vote then man creates a logical paradox by defeating the choice of the Sovereign God - if it so be Daniel is correct that God estabishes and removes rulers.


It isn't my presupposition. There is a wealth of scripture estabishing the doctrine that God adminstrates the governance of men according to His purpose and scripture does not circmscribe any level where God ceases to be Sovereign so that man can be.


Ah! I said nothing about men's "free will". How do I distinguish my personal will from the assumption of some fuzzy free will that pleases God? I entirely deny it. Therefore I say, sin is a man having his own way in opposition to God's will. It was so in the original garden. It is the same all through scripture. I know I draw not one breath without sin, because I still live in this body of sin. So then where is this "free will" virtue of man expressed? Neither do I hold any so-called "doctrine of the permissive will of God". Because He is perfect, God's will is His perfect will. When I assume my free will before God's perfect will, I am again found in sinful rebellion against God (Romans 7:14-24). Thus, I must each day depend alone upon God's infinite grace and salvation got for me at Golgotha where the Son of God died for sin. (Romans 7:25)

Κυριε ελεησον ημας


But Jesus having called them to Him, said, Ye know that the rulers of the nations exercise lordship over them, and the great exercise authority over them. It shall not be thus amongst you, but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your servant; Matt 20:25-26

I ask myself why should I be concerned about men electing men? If in the Body of Christ men should not exercise lordship over one another, why should I be concerned with what men do outside? That is why I don't vote. But surely I've already answered your question, God is able to affect the vote as pleases Himself and must answer no man for doing it. Our times are not in our own hands. The Sovereign God also rules in the kingdom of men (Dan.4:17).


I think you miss the point. Paul was judged by Nero to whom he had appealed (Act.25:11). He was not judged by the laws of Rome, but by the caprice of its absolute ruler - who was indeed placed there by God and Paul certanly knew that. Paul was martyred for his Testimony of Christ not regarding any Roman law.

Incidentally, in the Greek the word for "martyr" and the word for "testimony" are the same. If we would really be a testimony for God among men, then we should be prepared to be the same kind of testimony the Apostle Paul was. Paul wasn't concerned about his own free will, but doing the will of the Lord Whom he served.

Tell me, do you think your own decease is matter some assumed free will you own? Or is the very second of your decease already predetermined according to the design and purpose of the Sovereign God Whom you depend upon for ultimate salvation?

μιχαηλ της συστρατιωτης

They could have been punished with Obama.

Sorry, but you are tripping all over your presuppositions. Here, you state that God chooses a ruler and that free will would interfere in this choice, should it be granted. The presupposition is that God has not granted us the free will to choose our own rulers. You further presuppose that, if this were the case, it would de facto *not* be a part of His sovereign plan by virtue of the free will He has afforded us, which is an error in my opinion.



Does God command us to obey specific individuals, or ideologies? Or does He instead command us to place ourselves under the jurisdiction of civil authorities? I argue for the latter.



Pardon me for asking, but are you Calvinist?



It sounds to me like you are not following the scripture you are quoting. (Assuming you live in a democracy, which I suppose I should not), you are a part of the civil authorities (in theory, at least). Voting is the election of representatives who are to represent your will and ideas. When you opt out of this process, you are violating the scripture that you endlessly quote. You are commanded to be subject to the civil authorities, and in the case of a democracy, YOU are a civil authority. When you decline to elect someone to represent you, you are negligent in this duty.



So, if everybody in the country you live in refused to vote as you do, on Election Day everybody would wake up and God would have somehow appointed the next set of representatives?



It depends, if I jump off a bridge, it's my own free will (to disobey God). Unless, that is, you believe that all those who have taken their own life actually had no power over those decisions. If I get hit by a meteor, we can debate about whether God predetermined this to happen, or if He foreknew it, what the difference may be, and how he incorporates our free will into His perfect plan.

What if Mary said "no"?

Its a moot question given the grammar of the text.

Luke 1:34-37 But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man? And the angel answering said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of the Highest overshadow thee, wherefore the Holy One also which shall be born shall be called Son of God. And behold, Elizabeth, thy kinswoman, she also has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month to her that was called barren: for nothing shall be impossible with God. (My translation)

The angel wasn't asking her permission. Considering the common understanding of the word "shall" as the angel employed it would seem all option was removed from her in the matter. Vocabulary and grammar are quite important. The acts of a Sovereign God do not require men's acquiescence.


No, I don't suscribe to any ecclesiology ending in "ism" - even the big ones. I just read the scripture where I find passages like Isaiah 64:6 that says the very best exercise of my "free will" really is "putrid rags" in God's sight. So how could one consider free will a virtue?

Nevertheless, I'm quite aware that you and I employ very different systems of hermeneutics. So, I frankly don't think it likely we can resolve anything on this question. I tend to intrepret and apply the words of scripture according to the meaning of vocabulary, grammar and context. There is an established principle inolved. Scriptue is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness - 2 Tim 3:16. The rationalizations of uninspired men are less so.

In the USA one has the right to vote, but there is no legal obligation. Your pretense of moral posturing is quite beside the point. If I choose not to vote, I also exercise a legal right. Scripture doesn't show Paul voting, even though as a Roman citizen he was entitled. Do you also impune him for negligence?

I AM subject to the civil authorities as God has established them and scripture enjoins me. I pay my taxes and obey the speed limit among many other things I am often less than happy to do. But there is no statute that requires anyone in the USA to vote.

As we seem to have begun a cycle of repetitive rhetoric, and personal indictment I shall leave the remainder of your elucidations politely without further comment. Ad hominem becomes neither of us.

As Pilate answered them: "ο γεγραφα γεγραφα" - "What I have written, I have written" - John 19:22. So say I in conclusion.

μιχαηλ της συστρατιωτης

Folks,

Keep the thread civil and charitable. It's a less than edifying read in several respects and, should that trend continue, it will be closed.

Many years,

Neil

The next verse is equally important as the grammar of the previous: "Then Mary said, 'Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her."

You may say that Mary's acceptance and obedience to this encounter is irrelevant, as the will of God supersedes Mary's thoughts on the matter, but Tradition disagrees. In the icon of the Annunciation, her right hand is stretched forth in acceptance of the message.

This Melkite site highlights her "yes" with prominence as well:

http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokosannunciation.shtml

"Action of event: Future Theotokos' accepting Holy God's will saying yes to Holy God."

Mary's unquestioning obedience is significant because it is a model for us, a "yes" that is of the same free will as Eve's "no" to God, the former undoing the damage of the latter. We are not just spectators, God has privileged us with the awesome responsibility of being actors in His divine plan.

Those are two small examples, there are many others. That Mary said "yes" is very prominent in the Tradition of our faith.

Again, her free will, which is at the crux of our conversation and why I brought it up as an example, is what we disagree about here, whether it be the role of the Theotokos or Vladmir Putin.



You don't have to label yourself with an "ism" if you do not wish, but my original question still stands, wondering if you subscribe to that worldview (or, to put it another way, if you believe Holy Scripture does).



This sounds very sola scriptura to me. What import do you afford Holy Tradition in your system of hermeneutics?



Participating in the representative governance of the nation involves more than adhering to laws and making payments, it requires active participation by all in order for the process of governance to succeed. Because participation in representative governance is not legally mandated does not mean rejection of it is not negligent.

Again, I ask, if all believed as you do and did not participate, how would God establish a representative government?



As you wish.