[mcg1969]

That's a decent article but it's hardly perfect. It really doesn't contradict what we're saying anyway.

Again I remind you of the context in which Romans was written, when there was no such thing as a Christian government. Romans 13 must certainly have applied to all of its readers, including most certainly its first readers. So Romans 13 was not limited to Christian civil governance.

Certainly, there will be occasions when our mandate to obey God will conflict with our duty to obey the government; and in such cases God must certainly prevail. However, there are many functions and regulations of civil society that are not fully described, prescribed, or conradicted by Scripture, and in such cases we are to respect the laws of the land.

[Winston Smith Jr.]

there are many functions and regulations of civil society that are not fully described, prescribed, or conradicted by Scripture

From the article:

The following five major theological problems are created when Christians tell our Magistrates that they need “pay no heed” to the specific Authority granted them in Romans 13: 8 - 10:

• We set the Ten Commandments against themselves: Paul tells his readers, in Romans 13: 8-10, that by the doing of these things -- abiding by the Second Table of the Law -- his readers had “fulfilled the law”. Obviously, Paul could not have been speaking of the Moral Law, the Law of relations between Men and God (the First Table, Commandments I through V), for one cannot “fulfill” the Moral Law and yet be an Blasphemer, or an Idolater, or a Worshipper of False Gods. In order for Paul to assure his readers that by the doing of these things (the Second Table) they had “fulfilled” the Law, Paul must have been speaking about the Civil Law only -- the Law of relations between Men and Men. And given that these things represent the fulfillment of the Civil Law, how can the State claim any Biblical sanction to go beyond them?
• We cause Paul’s promises, recorded in Infallible Scripture, to become Nonsense: ONLY if the Second Table of the Law represents the Biblical Standard for Civil Good and Civil Evil, could Paul assure his reader that by the doing of these things, they should have no fear of the State. But if the State could define anything it liked to be illegal, then Paul could not offer his reader that by upholding the Second Table of the Law, they need “not be afraid of the power”. Thus, ANY alteration of this Mandate by the State represents a violation of the Pauline mandate and is illegitimate.
• We necessitate an Ecclesiocratic Totalitarianism as the only “Righteous” sort of Government: If the State exists to enforce the Moral Law as well as the Civil Law, there is no argument which may be made for the Prohibition of “Moral Evils” which would not necessitate the Prohibition of all religions other than orthodox Reformation Christianity, for if the State is to proscribe Moral Evil then it must outlaw Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism, deism, atheism, and (if the Reformers were right) Roman Catholicism for doing far more Moral Evil in keeping men from Salvation in Christ Alone than “Moral Vices” have ever done.
• We deny the Sufficiency of Scripture: If Romans 13: 8-10 is NOT instructive to the Magistrate as well as the Common Man, then we have denied the Promise of II Timothy 3: 16-17, that Scripture will thoroughly equip the believer for all good works -- which includes the Work of Good Governance. Where may the Magistrate find his Authority to Govern? In Romans 13: 1-7. Where may the Magistrate find his instruction on how to govern? In Romans 13: 8-10 (Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.) If we deny that Scripture instructs the Christian Magistrate on how to Govern, we deny that Scripture has thoroughly equipped the Magistrate to all good works.
• We establish a Different Rule of Morality for “Men of State”, than for “Common Men”: This is perhaps one of the most damning errors which the ignorance of Romans 13: 8-10 engenders, particularly in a Republic where the Men of State are drawn from among the Common Men. But it would be true enough in any State. A man may be King in the eyes of men and under the authority which God has granted him, but he is entitled to no different rule of morality in the eyes of God than the humblest of his subjects. It is no more Moral for a Magistrate to commit Theft, than for a Common Man. According to Romans 13, a Magistrate may tax for "this cause" and to attend to "this very purpose" -- the enforcement of the Second Table of the Law. To confiscate my monies for any purpose save that which they are specifically authorized to undertake... whether stocking their own wine cellars, or imprisoning/shooting those who have not violated the Second Table... is Theft, and may not Morally be supported by Christians.