Yes and no. 

No other authority is not the same as no other authorities.  A particular person in authority can abuse his authority and essentially give up his right to have it and require no more allegiance.  Example:  Hitler.

The Scriptures also say that we must obey God rather than men.

I will grant him the respect he is due if and when he reveals his long form birth certificate.

Also, one problem with applying this passage is precisely because it was written under a Neronian rule.  What if the authority in question resides ultimately in the people as allegedly it does today in our country?  Now the authority set up by God is 'We the People.'  The president serves at our pleasure.  This complicates the question.

But I respect what you're saying.  It is a good attitude, and if Obama didn't seem to be hiding something(s) I would share it.

"Dear Hitler, Hi, I'm God. I am going to put you in a position of authority if you are only a good person. If you turn out to do a bad thing then don't point the finger at Me as being the One that put you in authority. You are on your own then, buddy."

Well, then it is a point of disagreement.   I believe Hitler should have been opposed and that God wouldn't have wanted Christians to stand by as millions of Jews were marched off to concentration camps.  I do not believe that Christians like Corrie Ten Boom, who protected the Jews, and consequently broke the law of the 'authorities' was acting in disobedience to the Scriptures.  I believe that the Scriptures definitively show that authorities themselves are judged.  And how are they judged?  By other people or nations.

"That is taken way out of context. Paul is taling"

The passage I referenced was Peter speaking, sir.

"The scriptures you allude to has to do with spreading the gospel and had to do with the Circumcision religious priests who were under the thumb of the government."

No, that's not true.  The scripture I reference was in regards to the Sanhedrin ordering Peter and the disciples to no longer preach in the name of Jesus.  See Acts 4:19

"Does it make sense that God puts men in a position of authority only if they fulfill all the laws of due process? especially when they get into that position illegally anyway?"

I do not accept your premise that he has placed Obama in a position of authority.  The rule of law specifies certain requirements for the Presidency.  If he doesn't meet them, he is not a legitimate authority according to the authority of the rule of law.

"We, the people, are not the commander in chief of the armed forces. We have given that responsiblity to the President. We, the people vest all authority in the president."

But that is the complicated part.  Surely the one who vests authority ultimately has more authority than the one who receives it?  One cannot give what he does not have.  If the people have the authority to delegate authority then they have the authority to retract it.  This is the complicated nature of applying Romans 13 to a democracy such as ours.  You see, by your argument, it would be just as accurate to say that God has appointed authorities- and we are them.

"What president was there that was faultless?"

I'm not asking him to be faultless.  I'm asking him to be legitimate.  As a citizen of this country which is established on the authority of the United States Constitution, I suggest that I am well within my rights- even according to Romans 13- to insist that those we delegate our authority to respect the actual governing 'entity' which in this case is a document.  This same document says that 'we the people' are the ultimate 'authority.'

I'm not saying it makes it easy or that there is absolutely no merit to your position.  The problem here is that it is not precise to simply say that Obama is an authority placed by God, because even by that argument, the authority placed by God actually is 'we the people.'  We therefore have the right, as authorities, to ensure that those we delegate our authority meet the requirements that we set.  It's complicated.

"The scriptures you allude to has to do with spreading the gospel"

Doesn't this then admit a principle into the equation by which one can justly disobey an authority?

"Dear Hitler, Hi, I'm God. I am going to put you in a position of authority if you are only a good person. If you turn out to do a bad thing then don't point the finger at Me as being the One that put you in authority. You are on your own then, buddy."

Well, then it is a point of disagreement.   I believe Hitler should have been opposed and that God wouldn't have wanted Christians to stand by as millions of Jews were marched off to concentration camps.  I do not believe that Christians like Corrie Ten Boom, who protected the Jews, and consequently broke the law of the 'authorities' was acting in disobedience to the Scriptures.  I believe that the Scriptures definitively show that authorities themselves are judged.  And how are they judged?  By other people or nations.

But Johnny, it was God's mandate that millions of Jews be marched off. Remember when God raised up Nebuchadnezzar to be ruler over the earth and he marched the Jews to captivity? That was God's mandate. Had you tried to gather together a force to withstand ole Nebu, you would have found yourself fighting God. It is no different with Hitler. Nothing, and I mean nothing happens to God's people without His O.K.

Tony wrote: "That is taken way out of context. Paul is talking"

Johnny replied: The passage I referenced was Peter speaking, sir.

Tony's reply: Wow, you just took my quote out of context. Here is what I said:

Johnny wrote: "The Scriptures also say that we must obey God rather than men."
I replied: "That is taken way out of context. Paul is talking about obeying those that have been set in authority as kings and to pay tax to whom tax is due. The scriptures you allude to has to do with spreading the gospel and had to do with the Circumcision religious priests who were under the thumb of the government."

When I wrote "Paul it talking about" I thought you would draw the line of logic to Romans 13:1,2 which is what Paul said. You bringing up what Peter said has a whole different context of obeying men who were not set up over men in governmental positions of authority.

[/quote] Tony wrote: "The scriptures you allude to has to do with spreading the gospel and had to do with the Circumcision religious priests who were under the thumb of the government."

Johnny replied: No, that's not true.  The scripture I reference was in regards to the Sanhedrin ordering Peter and the disciples to no longer preach in the name of Jesus.  See Acts 4:19[/quote]

The Sanhedrin was comprised of religious Jews.

Tony wrote: "Does it make sense that God puts men in a position of authority only if they fulfill all the laws of due process? especially when they get into that position illegally anyway?"

Johnny replied: I do not accept your premise that he has placed Obama in a position of authority.  The rule of law specifies certain requirements for the Presidency.  If he doesn't meet them, he is not a legitimate authority according to the authority of the rule of law.

If he is sworn in as president then he is president. He is then in the position of authority. If later it is found out he is a fraud the senate can remove him.

Tony wrote: "We, the people, are not the commander in chief of the armed forces. We have given that responsibility to the President. We, the people vest all authority in the president."

Johnny replied: But that is the complicated part.  Surely the one who vests authority ultimately has more authority than the one who receives it?  One cannot give what he does not have.  If the people have the authority to delegate authority then they have the authority to retract it.  This is the complicated nature of applying Romans 13 to a democracy such as ours.  You see, by your argument, it would be just as accurate to say that God has appointed authorities- and we are them.

Try to make a citizen's arrest on the president if you see him breaking a law and see how much authority you have.

Tony wrote: "What president was there that was faultless?"

Johnny replied: I'm not asking him to be faultless.  I'm asking him to be legitimate.  As a citizen of this country which is established on the authority of the United States Constitution, I suggest that I am well within my rights- even according to Romans 13- to insist that those we delegate our authority to respect the actual governing 'entity' which in this case is a document.  This same document says that 'we the people' are the ultimate 'authority.'

Tony's reply: So in Paul's day, when a leader would murder another leader and take over, you would not recognize him as your leader? This happened all the time in Paul's day. Paul never said "as long as they are a leader legitimately, otherwise, don't obey them."

Johnny wrote: I'm not saying it makes it easy or that there is absolutely no merit to your position.  The problem here is that it is not precise to simply say that Obama is an authority placed by God, because even by that argument, the authority placed by God actually is 'we the people.'  We therefore have the right, as authorities, to ensure that those we delegate our authority meet the requirements that we set.  It's complicated.

Tony's reply: But we the people voted for him to be commander in chief and president. But we could not vote for him if God had not put him in the position of being votable in the first place. We give up our authority to be commander in chief and president and let him do his thing.

Tony wrote: "The scriptures you allude to has to do with spreading the gospel"

Johnny replied: Doesn't this then admit a principle into the equation by which one can justly disobey an authority?

Actually it was stated differently:
Act 4:19  But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. "

They did not say this to Ceasar but to the religious leaders.

"But Johnny, it was God's mandate that millions of Jews be marched off."

That is your view.  I do not share it. 

"When I wrote "Paul it talking about" I thought you would draw the line of logic to Romans 13:1,2 which is what Paul said. You bringing up what Peter said has a whole different context of obeying men who were not set up over men in governmental positions of authority."

:)  But Romans 13 does not specify 'governmental' positions of authority.  It says all authority....

"The Sanhedrin was comprised of religious Jews."

Yes, it was.  But we were talking about different passages.

"If he is sworn in as president then he is president. He is then in the position of authority. If later it is found out he is a fraud the senate can remove him."

I don't agree.  A man who steals a police officer's uniform does not automatically become a police officer.   Besides, I'm not saying that I'm going to do anything concrete here.  I'm only saying that I will not give him the respect and honor due a president (ie, one in authority) until I'm convinced he is not a man who 'stole a police officer's uniform.' 

"Try to make a citizen's arrest on the president if you see him breaking a law and see how much authority you have."

See above.

"Tony's reply: So in Paul's day, when a leader would murder another leader and take over, you would not recognize him as your leader? This happened all the time in Paul's day. Paul never said "as long as they are a leader legitimately, otherwise, don't obey them.""

Like I said, its different because according to our system of government each of us are the 'leader.'  The authority that our governmental officials have is delegated to them by us.  So, 'all authority has been established by God' and that includes the authority that we have as citizens in a democratic country.  That to me means that if we have delegated our authority to one that we find out is a fraud we have the right to retract that authority.  I will give Obama the same respect that I give a police officer who refuses to produce his identification and his badge.  The fact that both have the power to hurt me does not mean that they are legitimate authorities.  I might be incapable of removing each of them from their ipso facto position of 'authority' but I need not whitewash the situation.

"They did not say this to Ceasar but to the religious leaders."

But Romans 13 does not limit itself to governmental authorities.  It says ALL authority.

"for there is no authority except under God."

Sure, ok, it didn't say 'all authority' but it means 'all authority.'  The 'no authority' is synonymous with 'all authority.'  There is no authority except under God, and the ones that exist have been set up by God.

The problem is that Romans 13 does not issue modifiers and caveats about different kinds of authorities.  All of the authorities that exist have been set up by God.  This forms the basis also of instruction of children to obey their parents.  While it is probably true that Paul does not have the Jewish religious leaders in mind when he is writing it is clear by 'no authority except under God' and 'the ones that exist have been set up by God' is all inclusive.

Teachers, parents, police officers, etc, are all 'authorities.'

This is just parsing on your part.  It says 'governing authorities' but it doesn't follow that this only means Rome.  It would be nonsense and historically inaccurate to believe that Paul is here saying that among the Jews it was every man for himself with no proper deference due the Chief Priest or King Herod, etc, and it was only the Romans that ought to be respected.

If you don't believe me, hear it from Paul himself in Acts 23:4-5

It is true that Romans 13 seems to be referencing a specific kind of government but you are confused because you think that Paul is asserting something new and unique about authority.  In fact, it is precisely because of the fact that God has established the authorities- all of them- that he is able to extend this to Rome, etc.  If you deny this, you deny the basis upon which Paul rests his argument, and hence, you destroy it.

It is true that Romans 13 seems to be referencing a specific kind of government but you are confused because you think that Paul is asserting something new and unique about authority.  In fact, it is precisely because of the fact that God has established the authorities- all of them- that he is able to extend this to Rome, etc.  If you deny this, you deny the basis upon which Paul rests his argument, and hence, you destroy it.

Acts 23:4-5

You have the whole thing on its head.  The reason why the government needs to be respected is because all authority is set up by God- and Paul is saying that this includes the Romans, etc.  The fact that all authority is set up by God is the principle by which he is able to extend it also to the Romans.

Isn't it ironic that when push came to shove I have a higher respect for authority than you do?  I understand that God has established various orders of creation at numerous levels and the proper deference to authorities in all of them are due.  When confronted with apparent disobedience to these authorities, rather than acknowledge that it is not an iron clad deference, you simply say they are not authorities.

But what if we removed the situation from the Sanhedrin to Nero.  Instead of the chief priests, imagine it was Nero that said, "No longer preach in the name of Jesus."

Would you then say, "Oh well, he's an authority appointed by God, I have to obey!"  ?

Of course not.  You would say with Peter "judge for yourself whether it is more proper to obey God rather than man."

Right?

Sorry Johnny, I don't work well with "what if" situations which may never come to be.

No, of course not.  In this instance it would so self-evidently push you to accept my position that one wouldn't want to do so. 

So let's play it your way.  This isn't a 'what if' at all.  In China, Christians are not allowed to preach or be parts of 'unauthorized' Christian communities.  The authorized church is, of course, heavily sanitized, or else the Chinese wouldn't allow it.  So, are all of these Christians in China, facing death and prison daily to spread the Gospel, sinning?  They are definitely disobeying the governmental authorities.  But are they wrong to do so?

This is no 'what if.'  It is happening now.  What do you say?

So, if a government says that spreading the Christian message is prohibited, that is definitely the same thing as the Holy Spirit saying 'keep out'?

Well, Satan's strategy is clear, then, isn't it?  All he needs is for every government to make it a law that you cannot spread the Gospel and since every Christian must submit to the government in any and all cases, even to the extent of seeing such prohibitions as the 'Holy Spirit', they'll stop spreading the word.

Got it, Tony.  Got it.  :)

heh well, what we have going on here is your universalism and views on 'free will' coming into play.  I don't think we are really talking anymore about the Scripture's views on Christian obedience to authorities. 

So, no only is it that Satan can't do anything without God's approval, but so to us.  Since we're all going to be saved, it isn't as critical that we bend over backwards to fight evil so long as it is within our power.  This forms the difference between our views about the Jews under Hitler, as well.

Well, it was a good conversation :)

That link has already been provided.  It has already been established in this thread that this refers to the 'short form' birth certificate.  There is a 'long form' birth certificate that has been sealed by the governor of Hawaii.  According to the governor, they would make the certificate available if Obama requested it- but he has not requested it.

My problem with your argument is that it seems as though by respect that means 'give the guy a pass.'  In other words, if you 'give the guy a pass' we'll actually never find out what his birth certificate really says.  We're not going to get the 'irrefutable' evidence if by 'respect' and 'support' we mean stop asking for the evidence.

The man is hiding something and we have a right to know what it is.

Incidentally, there are two court challenges that I am aware of that are still on the table.  Berg pressed his case all the way up to the SC and Souter, as I understand it, didn't reply favorably, but did require that the Obama campaign 'respond to the writ.'  Whatever that means.

http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/news/52-us-supreme-court-awaits-response-to-berg-writ-of-certiorari-from-obama

The other is in Hawaii, where a judge has agreed to hear the case.

A person who claims to be a police officer deserves our support and respect, too- after he has proved that he really is a police officer.