Hello everyone. I got into an argument with some rather vociferous atheists the other day, and I was wondering if anyone here could help me out.
My problem is that the issue of a man being unable to truly serve two masters was raised along with Paul’s teaching that Christians are to be obedient to the secular authorities. My debating opponent sees this as being contradictory, and I’m unsure as to how to explain the apparent clash in logic.
First, it sounds like the passages in question are being taken out of context. The two are totally unrelated in my opinion. In one, Jesus is speaking about the love of riches over the love of God, not of a literal “master,” i.e. government. Secondly, Paul says we are to submit to the authorities in Romans 13 because they are God’s agent to punish with the sword those who do evil. Lastly, in Acts when Peter and John are commanded to stop preaching by the “authorities,” they stated, “we will obey God rather than man.” The teaching on authority needs to be understood in its totality, not outside the context of the rest of the New Testament. Of course, an atheist is highly unlikely to accept this reasonable approach.
We are to submit to secular authority, unless that authority conflicts with God’s authority, then we submit to God’s authority and suffer the consequences from the secular authority.
So, you can take your pick: answer a fool according to his folly, or don’t (Prov 26:4-5). BTW, that’s another “contradiction” atheists love to point out, but it’s merely a figure of speech that simply means, “darned if you do, darned if you don’t.” This illustrates the ridiculous lengths atheists go to in order to find “contradictions.”
