Replies

OP, you spend an awful amount of time lambasting anyone who disagrees with you but an apparently minimal amount of time defending your 'biblical' ideas with scripture. Perhaps if you would tone down your personnal attacks and ratchet up your scriptural evidence people could take you more seriously.

Uh huh.

Tell you what: Read the following Essay (which establishes Romans 13:8-10 as the defining rule for Romans 13:1-7 by no less than five directly-Biblical arguments, each of which must be independently refuted or the Rule of Romans 13:8-10 over the Magistrate stands), and get back to me.

No King but Jesus:
A Theonomic exposition of Romans 13
4/8/01 by OP
________________________________________________________

Contention I: The Authority of Scripture

Question: Does Scripture FULLY equip the Christian to all Good Works, including the Work of Good Governance?
Answer: Scripture does FULLY equip the Christian to all Good Works.

II TIMOTHY 3: 16-17 -- All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Contention II: The Scriptural Mandate for Government

Question: Since the Christian Magistrate MUST, under the terms of 2 Timothy 3: 16-17, turn to Scripture and SCRIPTURE ALONE for instructions on Government, what Scripture passages instruct the Magistrate on precisely how to Govern?
Answer: Among other passages, the Christian Magistrate may turn to the passage of Romans 13: 1-10 for instruction on how to govern.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 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: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 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.

Contention III: God's Grant of Authority to Government

Question: Is the Grant of Authority given to Government in Romans 13 unconditional, giving Moral Legitimacy to all exercises of State Power; or is it conditional, giving Moral Legitimacy only to certain specific exercises of State Power?
Answer: The Grant of Authority given to Government in Romans 13 is conditional, affirming Moral Legitimacy only for those specific exercises of State Power which the State is authorized by God to perform.

Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be (excerpted) --
The context of the statement, the powers that be are ordained of God, clearly reveals what the obvious and only interpretation is which can be given to the text.

The whole quotation clearly refers to a good government and a good government only. The Apostle Paul recommends that we obey only a government promoting the good.

About twice as much space is used by Paul to make clear that he is talking about a good government only than he gives to the admonition to obey that government.

If men insist on reading Paul's rule out of context an obvious and grievous error of interpretation will result. Anyone reading the rule must read the reason for the rule. Paul says: Obey the powers that be because they reward good and restrain evil.

Other references in Scripture to obeying the "powers that be" have the same assumption underlying the requirement of obedience, namely, that the government is essentially good. There are no exceptions to this.

Authority, then, is something quite different from power. Authority involves the idea of rightness, and justice, and of being workable, and useful to all, and suitable to obtain the end sought. Now, if Scripture authorizes an authority which violates those ideas, then Scripture gives a stamp of approval to an evil government, a thought repulsive to every responsible and well-intentioned man. Scripture, of course, does nothing of the sort.

What is it then that gives a government genuine authority? And when is a person obligated to obey and when obligated to disobey a government? Is there anything in Scripture which unqualifiedly gives the answer to such questions? We believe that there is, but the statement does not appear in any of the writings of either Paul or John. The only simple and comprehensive statement regarding what is legitimate power, that is, what is authority, was stated by the Apostle Peter. His great principle, which we consider fundamental, was expressed when Peter was in a dangerous situation before the high priest and his party. That great principle is:

Acts 5:29b -- We must obey God rather than men.

When, then, preachers in various Reformed churches speaking in the pulpits of their own denomination, or member of the staff of a university which has the word "free" in its title, or a religious leader whose ideas are called neo-orthodox -- whether they or anyone else declares that it is required of Christians to obey a government regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and regardless whether it observes what is declared to be the revealed will of God, there can be only one conclusion, namely, those teachers are declaring a doctrine which sets human power above divine authority. Consequently, we hold that no government should be obeyed which does not operate according to the revealed will of God; the corollary is: every government should be disobeyed which does not operate according to the revealed will of God. We consider it to be as great a sin to obey an evil government as to disobey a good government.

Contention IV: The Conditionality of the Authority which God has Granted to Government

Question: If Government is empowered ONLY to punish Evil, and if those who do Good should therefore have no Fear of the Government, what Evil is the Government empowered to punish?
Answer: The State is empowered ONLY to punish those who violate the Second Table of the Law.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

This exegesis is soundly supported by the mainstream of Reformation political theology (or "Theonomy") which provided the philosophical basis for our own American Revolution, and which holds that Paul clearly defined the Evils which the State was to punish 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.

So long as Paul's readers abided by these Commandments, they should have no Fear of the State. It follows, then ,that any re-definition of "Evil" by the State, other than that which Paul has specifically authorized, is illegitimate and UnScriptural; for if the State could define as "Evil" anything it wanted to define as evil, then Paul could not offer his readers his assurance that, by upholding the Second Table of the Law, they had "fulfilled the law" and should therefore "not be afraid of the power". A few expository quotes will suffice to demonstrate this point:

Indeed, the admonitions concerning love for others (Romans 13: 8-10) are not a departure from the previous topic but are rather a climax of the entire discussion. -- "Hard Sayings of the Bible", by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch

According to the Bible, the state is a legitimate institution, but its scope is severely limited. In Romans 13, St. Paul makes clear that it exists to punish external evildoers. By what standard? By the standard of God's written law. In large measure, this reduces to a defense of what the early Americans considered that great trio of "rights," life, liberty, and property. -- "War, the Bible and the State", by P. Andrew Sandlin

Rutherford (Samuel Rutherford, author of Lex Rex, one of the principal foundations of American Founding thought) properly argued from passages such as Romans 13 that the king, as well as anyone else, was under God's law and not above it. -- "Christian View of Government and Law", Kerby Anderson

It was not until after the flood in the Noachic covenant that God first delegated such authority to civil magistrates acting as his ministers (Genesis 9, Romans 13). But he only delegated authority to suppress such second table offenses as murder (Genesis 9:6). Under the Noachic Covenant there is no authority given to the civil magistrate to enforce God's will in matters of religion. -- "The Scriptural Doctrine of the Civil Magistrate", Louis F. DeBoer

The so-called "authority from God" is neither a manifestation of bald power to act nor an automatic blessing from God because that power to act exists, but is based on obeying the revealed will of God, obeying the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments. The authority of any government rests on its establishing laws based on and in conformity with the Decalogue, specifically the Second Table of the Decalogue (Commandments V through X). -- "The Powers that be are ordained of God", Frederick Nymeyer

Contention V: The Necessity of Romans 13: 8 - 10 for Godly Government

Question: What theological problems are created when we ignore the applicability of Romans 13: 8 - 10 in instructing the Christian Magistrate how he should Govern?

Answer: 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.

The Biblical Rule of Morality is precisely the same for Men of State, as for Common Men.

Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be (excerpted)
Maybe we have failed. Maybe we are incompetent readers of Scripture. But we have searched the Scriptures in vain for any indication that any government or "sphere of sovereignty" has any authority whatever to do more than an individual may do. If any government or "sphere of sovereignty" has any such power, where is the text that supports that proposition?

In fact, if there were any text in Scripture of such a kind then the definition of brotherly love would be different for a group than for an individual. That, we believe, would be a damnable situation and an outrageous inconsistency.

We are confident that nothing in Scripture can be quoted as giving broad coercive power to any government over men, unless the definition of brotherly love has previously been improperly extended as by Nygren and by various sanctimonious and confused theologians, inside and outside the ranks of nominal Calvinists. By that device, namely an extended definition of brotherly love, a government or a sphere of sovereignty can appear to have a proper range of authority beyond what Scripture really has set.

One way to destroy the mythical power pipe lines from God to government and sphere sovereignties is:

1. To insist that brotherly love does not go beyond the exact definition given in Scripture.
2. To insist that no group, political or nonpolitical (government or sphere sovereignty), has any more power than an individual has. Proper group action then becomes brotherly love exercised collectively rather than individually (for economy of effort's sake).

If those two ideas are accepted then there is no inconsistency between the rules of Scripture for individuals and for groups (governments of sphere sovereignties).

A man, as an individual, may and should employ violence and coercion to restrain improper acts (especially those forbidden in the Sixth to Ninth Commandments). I may resist bodily harm, and adultery, and theft, and falsehood attempted on me and on others by a neighbor. But in regard to everything else I must leave my neighbor free and he must leave me free.

Contention VI: The Authorized Powers which the Government may morally exercise

Question: The Christian must support the Biblical Mandate for Government, and not that which is Unbiblical. What Evils, then, does the Biblical Mandate require that the Government Punish?
Answer: The Christian should support that Government which restricts itself to the authority granted it in Romans 13: 1-10 -- punishing offenses against the Second Table of the Law.

Thou shalt not kill. -- Government must punish Murder, and Manslaughter, and criminal negligence which risks Harm to the Neighbor.
Thou shalt not commit adultery. -- Government must punish the violation of Marriage Covenants, providing Justice to the Wronged Party who brings suit against a Contract-Breaker.
It is important, however, to note that nowhere in Scripture is Government given the power to define Marriage; that Authority rests with the Church alone, acting in concordance with the Biblical standards for Marriage. The power of the State is not to define Marriage, but to punish Adultery. The State can, and should, punish the adulterous contract-breaker who has Harmed his Neighbor (his spouse) and reneged upon the covenant which he has sworn, just as the State should punish any contract-breaker; but the State may not usurp the Right to define the Marriage Covenant from the rightful authority of the Church alone.
Thou shalt not steal. -- Government should punish Theft, and Malfeasance, and Embezzlement of all sorts.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. -- Government should punish Fraud, and Perjury, and Contract-Breaking, and False Advertising of all sorts.
Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's. -- Government should punish the attempt to use Extortion or Coercion by one citizen to Use, Control, or Despoil the property of another citizen without that citizen's consent. Governments which fail to punish those Politicians who Covetously redistribute property from one citizen to another as being traitors under the terms of this Law, are probably out of conformity with God's revealed Will for Government.

These Five Laws represent the major components of the Specific Authority which God has Granted to Government; as to any other laws, let no Christians seek to go beyond that instruction which God has provided:

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.

Contention VII: Powers which Government MAY NOT Morally Exercise

Question: What current Government policies, then, are out of conformity with God's Law for Government?<
Answer: The following list (by no means exhaustive) provides some examples which are out of conformity with the Authority which God has given to Government, and which Christians should therefore oppose:

Welfare -- Where, in Scripture, is Government given the Authority to undertake this?
Education -- Where, in Scripture, is Government given the Authority to undertake this?
Prohibition of Intoxicants -- Where, in Scripture, is Government given the Authority to undertake this?
Gun Control -- Where, in Scripture, is Government given the Authority to undertake this?
Prohibition of "Moral Vices" (Gambling, Prostitution, etc.) -- Where, in Scripture, is Government given the Authority to undertake this?
Environmental Laws -- Save where specific harm against the Neighbor may be demonstrated, Where, in Scripture, is Government given the Authority to undertake this?
Business Regulation -- Save where specific harm against the Neighbor may be demonstrated, Where, in Scripture, is Government given the Authority to undertake this?

Many more instances of Leviathan-State usurpation of authority could be offered, but these will serve as a start.

These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Numbers refer to your contentions, letters to subpoints within each.

1. Agreed

2. A Christian magistrate must follow scripture but we don't have a theocracy here. You never establish vs 7-10 as applying to gov. All commentaries I've found list them as individual duties.

3. Agreed. (but still no specific duties listed)
I do however disagree with Frederick Nymeyer's contention that Paul was referring only to 'good' governments. Jesus commanded his followers to obey Roman law even though Rome was not a 'good' government.

4.Rom 13:8-10 is a list of individual duties, not a list of gov duties.
Additionally Rom 13:3-4 gives the power the authority to promote good.
Rom 13:3b "do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4a For he is the minister of God to thee for good."

5. Your contention is only toward the Christian magistrate. We don't have a Christian magistrate and won't until Jesus returns. I'll answer these issues anyway.

a. Paul is not limiting himself to just the last five commandments. Love fulfills the entire law. At no point in scripture is the law ever broken in pieces. When you violate one part of the law you break all of the law. It cannot be split.

b. We never need fear the state because God is on our side (or more correctly, we are on His side) and our salvation is assured in Jesus Christ. Scripture gives examples (Revelation as well as OT) of times when we may 'fear' the gov for what it can do to our bodies. We are commanded however not to fear it but to fear God for what He can do to our souls. We obey not out of fear of state but out of fear of God.
Remember that the state has only the power that God gives to it. We are to fear God's power given to the state only when we sin by breaking the law. So as long as we fear God (as commanded) we never need to fear the state. If the state is operating in accordance with God's laws then we have nothing to fear from it at all if we are also lawful. If the state is not operating according to God's laws (as it will in the end times or as it did during OT times) then we know that our soul is safe and the state can only temporarily discomfort us.

c.God never placed this requirement (to assure moral compliance) on any other gov that He set up (Babylon, Egypt,Rome,Greece, USA) Gov exists to keep civil order not to enforce moral compliance. Moral obedience has always been an individual duty. Of course God will use the gov to discipline us as detailed in Rom 13:1-6 for our failure to fulfill that individual duty as detailed in Rom 13:7-10.
Scripture tells us that Nebuchadnezzar was the servant of God (or at least the tool God used) to discipline Israel. Was the gov of Babylon righteous? It doesn't really matter, it's the tool God used at that time.

d. Disagree. You're assumption is invalid. You are assuming a perfect world where everyone is Christian. We don't have a Christian government and won't until Jesus returns. Scripture is totally sufficient for the Christian. Romans 13:1-6 tells the Christian how to relate to the gov which may or may not be Christian

e. Partially disagree. A Christian Magistrate is indeed bound by the individual duties listed in Rom 3:7-10. But a Christian citizen is bound by the requirements of Romans 13:1-10 regardless of whether that magistrate is Christian or not. We are to obey the gov as long as obeying the gov does not conflict with obeying God.
As a perfect example Daniel was required to follow all the ordinances of Babylon which did not conflict with his obedience of God. We live under the same commands.

This does not set up two moral codes. There is only one moral code. Scripture tells the Christian how to follow it in relation to any gov put over him. It does not instruct that gov in how to be moral.

[ A man, as an individual, may and should employ violence and coercion to restrain improper acts (especially those forbidden in the Sixth to Ninth Commandments). I may resist bodily harm, and adultery, and theft, and falsehood attempted on me and on others by a neighbor. But in regard to everything else I must leave my neighbor free and he must leave me free.

Your quoted author here gives gov the right to enforce mandatory DNA testing in order to resist adultery. But on with our discussion. ]

6. Neglects Romans 13:3-4 the Authority to promote good.

7. Promotion of good may cover these IF AND ONLY IF we the people (as government of this land) consider these to be good things. We (as Christians) have failed to maintain control of our government and our culture and the result is some of these programs.
Jesus never protested against Rome, nor did He command his followers to rebel against it, even though Rome practiced abomination. He did command his followers to obey the law.

__________________________________________________________

Not too bad of a study but it does not address what we were discussing. A Christian magistrate is indeed bound by all of the scripture, but scripture does not address the specific duties of government. It addresses the specific duties of Christians.

For the record I am a firm believer that the fedgov should be limited to it's constitutional duties of defense, foreign relations, regulation of interstate trade and the courts. However your angle of attack on the issue doesn't really work. We are forced to use the gov to recapture our culture and turn this place around. This is why I support mandatory DNA testing. It avoids defrauding cuckolded husbands and forces women to remain faithful (as they will be found out). If you don't want to submit to that than accept total responsibility for any child someone accuses you of fathering.

Likewise if you can't recognize the legitimacy of government then you can move somewhere where you can. The government here will not conform exactly to scripture until Jesus returns. We can work to bring it into a better alignment but only by being active in it, therefore I'd rather have you here and working towards a Godly government.

I appreciate the lack of personal attack in your post. Thank you.

GSA(P)