Defining Evangelicalism Down

You would like a gray area, but apparently you don’t really see any balance in scripture. If you are calling Ehud a murderer, when scripture clearly indicates he was brought forward in answer to a prayer to God, we don’t really have any common ground, HarleyD. By this logic, Jesus was a sabbath-breaker for defying the Pharisees, who were, after all, in authority over Him. We know Christ was without sin, so defying man’s law to honor God’s, is not sin, except in the pharisaical technical sense of the term, not in God’s sense of the transaction.

Moses never asked the people to do something objectively evil, something that was beyond question, outside the revealed will of the Lord, and you have no basis for saying I would propose any such thing at all, or that I would be the one to determine what is right or wrong.

Earlier you stated that MacArthur would have made a good "jew-killing Nazi Lutheran" (post 20). Tell me what MacArthur is asking the people to do that is "objectively evil"? Fact is there isn't anything. The only thing you're criticizing him for is that he is stating that we should obey authority and he's using Romans 13 as his text.

I would say the number of times I have seen MacArthur on television, he has ALWAYS defended the gospel and stated honestly and openly what the gospel is. This is far more than I can say for people like Rick Warren, Joel Osteen and, yes, even Billy Graham.

Earlier you seemed to admit that there are occasions when higher laws are obeyed over lower ones. Don't let your defense of a mere man--John MacArthur--cloud your defense of scripture.

The ONLY time we are to obey the "higher laws" are when they conflict with our relationship with God. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were willing to serve King Nebuchadnezzar and act as his advisors carrying out his laws-as reprehensible as they were. However, they were not willing to bow down to a golden statue he had made. There are limits but they have to do with spiritual limits-not legal ones. Like abortion in the US, we can (and should) vote against it, but that is where our authority ends. The responsibility rest with those who carry it out.

Earlier you stated that MacArthur would have made a good "jew-killing Nazi Lutheran" (post 20). Tell me what MacArthur is asking the people to do that is "objectively evil"?

When he gives sermons without qualification, saying "Obey Hitler," "Obey Caligula," that is very much what he is paving the way for. The sermon posted above is a very good indication why "submission" does not always mean abject obedience. Your wife owes you submission, but if you ask her to murder for you, she does not owe you obedience. You, and MacArthur, can't hide behind a coward's absolutist interpretation of Romans 13. If a ruler tells you to kill someone, and you know you are not executing a just sentence, the sin will be upon your head.

If you are calling Ehud a murderer, when scripture clearly indicates he was brought forward in answer to a prayer to God,

God executes His will in all sorts of ways. David murdered Uriah. That doesn't make what David did right, it simply happened. Uriah's time to die was appointed to him by God and that is the method that God chose for Uriah.

Ehud murdered the king. So? All men are sinners and all men do bad things-even Christians. Sometimes we do those bad things in the name of the Lord. So what? Peter tells us "let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evildoer, or a meddler in the affairs of others" (1 Pet 4:15) Peter felt that being a murderer was just as bad as meddling in the affairs of others.

By this logic, Jesus was a sabbath-breaker for defying the Pharisees, who were, after all, in authority over Him.

Your premise is wrong. The Pharisees were NOT in authority over Christ. He made that perfectly clear on several occasions.

Context clearly indicates David was killing so as to have Uriah's wife. There is no defense for that, and, of course, the end of the Biblical story makes that clear. Not so with Ehud. His act is seen as a virtuous act of heroism and an answer to the prayers of the faithful. There is not a single trace of divine judgement towards Ehud anywhere in scripture, or towards Rahab, or towards the midwives, or towards Jesus for overturning the money changers' tables.

The Bible is not really a simple man's game. The definition of heresy is literally to lift one truth out of the whole and make it your gospel hobby. That is precisely what John MacArthur is doing, and it really is no more than cowardice, because the truth is it is much easier, much less stressful, much more comfortable to simply obey any and all edicts that come down from the magistrate, but that is simply not the plain spoken word of scripture, nor is it the story of our Lord.

I count it a victory for the story of Christian civilization that the Nuremberg trials did not accept your logic, and your excuse--"I was just following orders."

Your wife owes you submission, but if you ask her to murder for you, she does not owe you obedience.

Of course she doesn't owe me obedience. That, like the midwives, is what the higher and lower laws are all about. As with the Egyptian midwives they didn't obey Pharaoh and God blessed them. I would also venture to guess the same would happen with my wife for refusing to go through with my scheming murder plot. That doesn't mean they are not committing sin. They're in fact are by refusing to obey authority. It's just that it isn't as high of a sin.

You, and MacArthur, can't hide behind a coward's absolutist interpretation of Romans 13.

There is nothing absolutist about it. Romans 13 plainly states that we should obey authority. 1 Tim 2 says we should pray for those in authority. You have offer no plausible counter interpretation except simply to say this refers to church authority. No commentator that I can find would agree with your interpretation.

David had a high regard for authority. On several occasions he had an opportunity to kill Saul, yet refused. Keep in mind that Saul was running around the country killing the priest of God, yet David did nothing. Finally when someone lied to him saying that he killed King Saul, he had him executed for putting his hand to the "Lord's anointed". By your logic David was irresponsible and culpable.

There is nothing absolutist about it. Romans 13 plainly states that we should obey authority.

Did Jesus have any temporal authority over the administration of the temple yard--where the money changers worked? Did Jesus commit a "lower" sin by enforcing the "higher" law?

You can't "obey" authority without defining it--as Romans 13 clearly does. Unless you want to call God a liar (do you?) someone who is not a "rewarder of those who do good" is not in authority.

I'm not sure what the draw is about Ehud. This is what the scriptures have to say about Ehud.

Jdg 3:15 But when the sons of Israel cried to Jehovah, Jehovah raised them up a deliverer, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a left-handed man. And the sons of Israel sent a present to Eglon the king of Moab by him.
Jdg 3:16 But Ehud made himself a dagger which had two edges, a cubit long. And he tied it under his clothing upon his right thigh.
Jdg 3:17 And he brought the present to Eglon king of Moab. And Eglon was a very fat man.
Jdg 3:18 And when he had finished offering the present, he sent away the people who carried the present.
Jdg 3:19 But he himself turned again from the graven images by Gilgal, and said, I have a secret message for you, O, king. And he said, Keep silence. And all that stood by him went out from him.
Jdg 3:20 And Ehud came to him. And he was sitting in the cool roof room which he had for himself alone. And Ehud said, I have a message from God to you. And he rose out of his seat.
Jdg 3:21 And Ehud put forth his left hand and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly.
Jdg 3:22 And the haft also went in after the blade. And the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly. And the dung came out.
Jdg 3:23 Then Ehud went forth through the porch, and shut the doors of the room upon him, and locked them.
Jdg 3:24 And when he had gone out, his servants came. And they looked, and, behold, the doors of the roof room were locked, they said, Surely he is covering his feet in his cool roof room.
Jdg 3:25 And they waited until they were ashamed. And, behold, he did not open the doors of the room. And they took a key and opened them. And behold, their lord had fallen down dead on the earth.
Jdg 3:26 And Ehud escaped while they waited, and passed beyond the graven images, and escaped to Seirath.
Jdg 3:27 And it happened, when he had come, he blew a ram's horn in the mountain of Ephraim, and the sons of Israel went down with him from the mountain, and he before them.
Jdg 3:28 And he said to them, Follow after me. For Jehovah has delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. And they went down after him and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and did not allow a man to pass over.
Jdg 3:29 And they killed about ten thousand of the men of Moab at that time, all lusty, and all men of might. And there did not escape a man.
Jdg 3:30 So Moab was subdued under the hand of Israel that day. And the land had rest eighty years.

That's all it states. All it states about Ehud is that he was God's deliverer. I see nothing in scripture that states this was a "virtuous act of heroism" nor do I see it as an "answer to the prayers of the faithful". Israel would continuously sin and when God's punishment got too great they would cry "uncle".

There is not a single trace of divine judgement towards Ehud anywhere in scripture, or towards Rahab, or towards the midwives, or towards Jesus for overturning the money changers' tables.

Who said anything about judgment against Ehud, etc.? Sin does bring consequences as David found out, but if you're a believer it does not bring divine judgment. There is a difference between consequences and judgment. Even though David's sin was reprehensible, God still loved him.

The definition of heresy is literally to lift one truth out of the whole and make it your gospel hobby. That is precisely what John MacArthur is doing,

Keep in mind that John MacArthur has a whole group of historical commentators to back him up. Unless you can offer a plausible explanation to Romans 13, I'd be careful about who I'd be saying is "lifting one truth".

nor do I see it as an "answer to the prayers of the faithful"

What do you think "Jehovah raised them up a deliverer" means?

Did Jesus have any temporal authority over the administration of the temple yard--where the money changers worked?

If I recall properly, our Lord Jesus told them they had made "His Father's house" a den of thieves. Since the house belong to His Father, I would say He had authority over it.

You can't "obey" authority without defining it--as Romans 13 clearly does. Unless you want to call God a liar (do you?)

And how is it defined? I believe I have stated many times now that the commentators all agree that Paul is talking about obeying government bodies. There is no need to say that God is a liar. He is rather clear on the subject.

someone who is not a "rewarder of those who do good" is not in authority.

I would call to your attention Pilate who was given the authority to execute our Lord Jesus by God. At least that is what our Lord stated.

What do you think "Jehovah raised them up a deliverer" means?

That God raised up someone who would deliver them. It doesn't mean any more than that.

If I recall properly, our Lord Jesus told them they had made "His Father's house" a den of thieves. Since the house belong to His Father, I would say He had authority over it.

He had, and has, authority over everything, but He submitted to earthly authority, else why would He allow Himself to be arrested and crucified? But according to your logic, this submission to earthly authority causes "sin" when the subject defies authority wielded unrighteously. Since we know the Lord is without sin, we know, by His example, that defiance of earthly authority, and even corrective enforcement (the money changers' tables), is sometimes within the province of the subject, and that such actions are without sin--that is, unless you are calling Christ a sinner.

And how is it [rulership] defined? I believe I have stated many times now that the commentators all agree that Paul is talking about obeying government bodies. There is no need to say that God is a liar. He is rather clear on the subject.

Yes, He is, but you don't seem to understand His plain words. He defines rulers in this verse:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Rulers "are not" by definition a "terror to good works." If a ruler is a terror unto those who do good he is not a Ruler. You don't need a "commentator" on that, unless you want to be willfully blind.

What verse tells us to transform the culture?

A transformed culture is the natural outcome of people living Christian faith in loving God and others as ourselves, but I don’t see any call in the bible to transform culture.