Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
No King but Jesus:
An Theonomic exposition of Romans
13
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:
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.
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:
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.
We intend, in fact, to show eventually that the Decalogue of the ancient Hebrew religion, which declares itself to be a revelation, is a Magna Charta for liberty as no subsequent document has ever been. -- Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be
.
We intend, in fact, to show eventually that the Decalogue of the ancient Hebrew religion, which declares itself to be a revelation, is a Magna Charta for liberty as no subsequent document has ever been. -- Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be
We intend, in fact, to show eventually that the Decalogue of the ancient Hebrew religion, which declares itself to be a revelation, is a Magna Charta for liberty as no subsequent document has ever been. -- Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be
From a prior thread:
Lemme get to brass taxes. I walk up to God and say, "Lord I wish to live in a land were temptation is not rampant. Where my beliefs are supported by my government. Where I can know that I won't have to walk into a store and ever consider if I will ever have to question if I want to pick up a nice sack of top quality smack. Will God then look at me and say, "Son, you cannot live in such a land, for I deem it to be unchristian. You must open your laws to all immoral things. You cannot condemn anything which brings you harm." -- Texaggie79
In the first place, it is inappropriate for any Christian to ask another to “speak for God” when God has already spoken in the Word of Scripture. hence, I will not attempt to answer your question as one who would speak on God’s behalf; rather, I will simply repeat to you that Scripture is our sole rule of faith and practice, and refer back to Scripture.
Lord I wish to live in a land were temptation is not rampant.
This is a fantasy. There is no such land, nor could there ever be. Scripture records the establishment of God’s Church as a haven from the temptations of the flesh; for you, it seems, the Church is not good enough; you seek an earthly Utopia.
Without any Scriptural support for your authoritarian Utopianism.
Where my beliefs are supported by my government.
Where, in Scripture, is it the role of the State to support the Church?
And whose “beliefs”? I would support no Government which offered support to Roman Catholicism on equal terms with Reformation Christianity. And yet many Papist Conservatives would (understandably) object to a Government which established my own Orthodox Presbyterian Church (And the OPC only, of course, despite the fact that we oppose any Establishment of Religion in our favor thank-you-very-much) and yet regarded Romanism as heresy. Best, therefore, that the State should get out of the business of “supporting beliefs” entirely.
Where I can know that I won't have to walk into a store and ever consider if I will ever have to question if I want to pick up a nice sack of top quality smack.
”ever have to question if I want to pick up a nice sack of top quality smack” -- If you have to ask yourself this question, your problem is not an insufficient amount of Law. It’s an insufficient amount of Scripture.
Will God then look at me and say, "Son, you cannot live in such a land, for I deem it to be unchristian. You must open your laws to all immoral things. You cannot condemn anything which brings you harm.”
Do you suppose that God will look at you instead and praise you for overstepping the Boundaries of Government which He has prescribed? Will He thank you for thinking up all the Laws which He forgot to include? Will He overlook the fact that, in your Banning of “immoral things”, you neglected to ban all False Religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism, atheism, and - if the Reformers were right - Roman Catholicism) which have done far more Biblically-defined Evil in keeping men from Salvation in Christ Alone than drugs and gambling have ever done?
You claim, in contravention of the clear teaching of Paul, that the post-Incarnation, post-Levitical State must still enforce the Moral Law. But it’s a make-it-up-as-you-go, salad-bar kind of Moral Law... you would send a man to prison (for his own good, I suppose?) for smoking the wrong kind of cigarette, but if he should openly blaspheme the Lord God and proselytize unceasingly for a False Religion which leads straight to the gates of Hell, then all of a sudden the State has no business interfering. Rather an inconsistent and selective kind of “Moral Law”, I must say.
Or perhaps, you will resolve your Moral and Intellectual inconsistencies by declaring that the State should punish all violations of the Moral Law, not just the faddish few moral vices for which you currently support State Prohibition. In which case, the question inevitably follows...
”Blasphemy” by whose definition?
”Idolatry” by
whose definition?
”False Gods” by whose definition?
The Mormons and the
Catholics aren’t very likely to support my take on the subject...
So
who gets to be the tinpot Ecclesiocratic Totalitarian running the show, and which heretics
may we burn?
Nice work.
I'll read it over and get back to you.
In the Koran, baby Isa ('Jesus') says...
[19.30]
He said: Surely I am a servant
of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a
prophet;
Bookmarked bump for consumption (maybe) tomorrow. I like the title (reminder of John Ashcroft's recent victory over lberal cowards), as well as the catechism style reminiscent of other great teaching from Scripture.
Intriguing. But if Abdullah is a direct lineal descendant, why aren't the Shi'ites lining up behind an "Abdullah for Caliph" banner? Genuinely curious to know your thoughts.
Glad you liked the title; hope you'll like the Essay.
BTW, this is the Essay which you may post at your website. Incidentally, if you like, I could also throw together a piece discussing the correlations between folks' disparate Theonomic and Eschatological outlooks...
Daniel 11:23-24
23 And after the league made with him he shall work
deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a
small people.
24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the
province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done,
nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey,
and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices
against the strong holds, even for a time.
'Awrence to Ali...
"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against
tribe
so long will they be a little people
a silly people
greedy, barbarous, and cruel
as you are."
'We are a small country with a big future'
So I'm guessing that perhaps, in your view, the answer to my question
why aren't the Shi'ites lining up behind an "Abdullah for Caliph" banner?
is "Not Yet".
Thanks for the info.
So who gets to be the tinpot Ecclesiocratic Totalitarian running the show, and which heretics may we burn?
Me, me! Oh, please let it be me! (...still considering who I'd like to torch...)
You quote from some interesting sources. I'll have to check them out.
Excellent essay as always. Thanks for the flag Uriel.
We intend, in fact, to show eventually that the Decalogue of the ancient Hebrew religion, which declares itself to be a revelation, is a Magna Charta for liberty as no subsequent document has ever been. -- Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be
Outstanding.
Do you have links to the references of Nymeyer on the web?
I'm currently reading "The Interpreter's Bible, Volume 9 (Acts, Romans)" published by Abingdon Press (no website.)
"Christian fully provided all benefits from scripture"
Absolutely!! If you just read the letters Paul wrote to the church (the Epistles), in a good translation - either Amplified and/or Living Bible - you will find the most wonderful treasures of what God did for us "in Christ". In Christ is the secret. God has given to us EVERYTHING he gave to Jesus. If you have Jesus in your heart as your Lord and Savorior, then you have God's ability in you - it's not your ability, it's God's ability in you. Check out some books by Mark Hankins which relate the promises based on the IN CHRIST scriptures. In the Epistles, Paul uses the phrases in Christ, in Him, in Whom, etc. more than 130 times. We truly serve an awesome God.
I don't think very highly of "Living Bible" (there are a number of instances --Romans 8 & 9 for example -- where LB specifically subverts the clear wording of the Greek), but I do like a good Amplified Bible.
bookmarking... glad I ran across this today.
MA
Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be Are Ordained Of God, courtesy of Progressive Calvinism (original and unedited): HERE (Essay posted in serial form distributed through several monthly issues)
Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be Are Ordained Of God, courtesy of Contra Mundum (updated & edited): HERE (Essay posted in consolidated form)
Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be Are Ordained Of God, courtesy of Free Republic (excerpted and edited by Uriel): HERE (Essay posted in consolidated form)
The Living Bible is okay for new Chrisians who have a diffucult time understanding what the King James says - that's the only reason I referenced it. I prefer the Amplified myself.
Glad you liked (I knew I forgot to flag several folks... mea culpa)
The Living Bible is okay for new Chrisians who have a diffucult time understanding what the King James says - that's the only reason I referenced it. I prefer the Amplified myself.
Yeah, my preference (besides a good Greek/Hebrew-English Interlinear Text) is Ryrie NAS as far as readability goes, but I decided awhile back that I would generally use KJV in posting whenever and wherever its meaning is clear and easily grasped, because I know that some of the brethren prefer KJV and I have no personal objection to using it. It's a pretty solid translation excepting a few typographical errors which have already been identified and annotated for the reader by many commentators.
BTW, this is the Essay which you may post at your website.
Very nice work. As I write this, I'm getting ready to go out, but I'll definitely be putting this on my site with the next update. In the meantime, I'll be going over this piece again late tonight and getting back to you with any comments, arguments, or fine-tuning I might think of.
Incidentally, if you like, I could also throw together a piece discussing the correlations between folks' disparate Theonomic and Eschatological outlooks...
Hmmm . . . sounds interesting, and I'll bet I can guess at the angle you'll be coming at it from. Fire away!
Yours in Christ,
Oh boy! Here we go again! The desperate druggies must not be getting their drugs.
T, That's what I was thinking! Seriously, Uriel. I'm Christian and I believe in my heart and mind that Jesus Christ is Lord. I'm reading the Bible and I read your quotes of Scripture above. However, I don't think that Governing and Worship go hand in hand. And, if they do, could you imagine the problem. We have enough trouble in this country interpeting our very short constitution. Libreals see one thing permitted and Conservatives see another. How would we interpet a 1000+ page Bible? Anyway, I'm impressed that you put so much time and effort into it.
Good evening, old sport.
Bump for later reading.
Seriously let's not turn this into a drug thread... please dear God, not a drug thread!
It's always nice to see such a well reasoned response to an article that has at least prima facia merit. Bon mot, Sir! Bon mot.
You're misinterpretation of Romans 13, will never let you see. God shall have no problem if my state decides that it will not allow sale of alcohol on Sunday, just as he would have no problem when we keep drugs illegal. In a world that is not "RULED" by God. We must take measures to insure our desired community living. We set standards and live by them. God does not tell government it cannot make harmfull things illegal.
Are we to just sit back and let God take care of the crack head parents that neglect and abuse their children? No Are we supposed to allow mothers to go out and legally sell their body in our neighborhoods, no.
God does speak if you listen. He does not say, hey go look at the Bible, that's the only way I will talk to you.
Uriel, as good a sermon for a Palm Sunday as I can imagine!
God Bless you and may He continue to guide us here who fight for His Law and His Truth!
Have you heard Dr. Greg Bahnsen's 81 tape set on Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion? Righteous!
Authority, then, is something quite different from power.
Strong's Concordance has Authority at 1839, and Power at 1411. KJV often uses "Power" for both of these, and I think you have indicated something crucial by pointing out the distinction.
Oh boy! Here we go again! The desperate druggies must not be getting their drugs.
NUT BALL ARERT! NUT BALL ALERT! WACKY UNELECTABLE FRINGE GROUP ON THE
MARCH AGAIN. LMBC!
Posted on 04/08/2001 15:51:54 PDT by Thorondir
It's always
nice to see such a well reasoned response to an article that has at least prima facia merit.
Bon mot, Sir! Bon mot.
Posted on 04/08/2001 16:53:20 PDT by johnboy
Thanks for noticing, John.
The fact of the matter is, there’s not one word in this Essay which advocates that Christians run out and join the Libertarian Party; in point of fact, I am not a registered Libertarian, not a paid-up member of the Libertarian Party, have personally cast more GOP votes in my life than LP votes, and have endorsed many, many good GOP candidates on this website (Ron Paul, Steve Forbes, and Murray Sabrin spring immediately to mind).
I am not particularly interested in advising Christians to bind themselves to any given Party Label (whether Republican, Libertarian, or Constitution Party); what I am interested in doing is recalling Christians to the appreciation of Scripture as their sole Rule for Faith and Practice, and a return to the Reformed doctrinal tradition of a strictly-limited Government which attends only to that which God has ordained for it, usurping nothing from the Authority of the Church.
If Christians reject the Messiah-State Authoritarianism of the godless “Social Gospel”, and will return to a careful and diligent consideration of the Scriptural foundation for any legislative policy they propose to enact, I will applaud their efforts to advance the cause of a Biblically-limited Government in whatever Party they are active. I have no objection whatsoever to voting for a GOP-lapel-pin-wearing yellow-dog Republican who will respect my Rights and advocate a Government which attends solely to “this cause” and “this very thing” (Rom 13:6) -- the enforcement of the Second table of the Law, and that only (Rom 13: 8-10). Such Republicans I have no reservation about offering my fullest support.
T, That's what I was thinking! Seriously, Uriel. I'm
Christian and I believe in my heart and mind that Jesus Christ is Lord. I'm reading the
Bible and I read your quotes of Scripture above. However, I don't think that Governing
and Worship go hand in hand. And, if they do, could you imagine the problem. We have
enough trouble in this country interpeting our very short constitution. Libreals see one
thing permitted and Conservatives see another. How would we interpet a 1000+ page
Bible? Anyway, I'm impressed that you put so much time and effort into it.
Good evening, old sport.
Posted on 04/08/2001 16:09:55 PDT by jay gatsby
Well, we could start “interpreting” Scripture by READING it before we advocate policies that may very well go against the Mandate of Authority which God has actually authorized the State to exercise.
Because, you see, I both agree, and disagree, that “Governing and Worship don’t go hand in hand”.
I agree that “Governing and Worship don’t go hand in hand” in that I see many “christians” advocating the enforcement of the Moral Law by the power of the State, ignoring the fact that Scripture clearly delineates a division of duties between Church and State, authorizing a strictly-limited State to enforce the Second Table of the Law, the Civil Law only, and defining that enforcement as “the fulfillment of the Law”. For Christians to assume that “Governing and Worship go hand-in-hand” in this regard is to brazenly ignore the Biblically VERY LIMITED Moral Authority which the State actually enjoys.
But I disagree that “Governing and Worship don’t go hand in hand” when we are discussing the willingness of Christians to assume that they’re “on God’s side” when they support authoritarian policies without once referencing the actual teachings of Scripture. IN FACT, the Christian Magistrate cannot “make it up as he goes”, he MUST, like any other Christian, turn to Scripture not only for his authority to govern, but also for instructions on how to govern (whatsoever actions he may Biblically undertake, and whatsoever actions he may NOT Biblically undertake, according to the teachings of Scripture).
Christians must turn to Scripture, and Scripture alone, for instructions on HOW TO govern. To “lean upon our own understanding”, rather than submitting our political philosophy to our Sole Rule of Faith and Practice, is simply Idolatry.
You're misinterpretation of Romans 13, will never let you see.
It’s no misinterpretation whatsoever. Men of State may not morally employ coercion to Restrain any other Evil than that which Common Men may morally employ coercion to restrain.
Again, this is not a “misinterpretation” of Romans 13; it is the only logical and scripturally-consistent reading whatsoever of Romans 13:
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
ONLY the Theonomic reading of Romans 13 does any justice to the passage whatsoever. ANY other reading sets Scripture against itself and creates the “damnable inconsistency” of DIFFERENT rules of morality for Men of State, than for Common Men (a double inconsistency in a representative Republic where the Men of State ARE the Common Men).
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.
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. -- Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be
It would not be Moral for a Christian to pick up a handgun and blow someone’s head off for smoking the wrong kind of cigarette, and it is no more moral for him to hire Men with Guns under the flag of State to do it for him. Force which would be immoral for a Common Man to employ himself he cannot “sanctify” by delegating the Aggression to hired guns.
God shall have no problem if my state decides that it will not allow sale of alcohol on Sunday, just as he would have no problem when we keep drugs illegal.
No procurement of alcohol on Sundays?
Aside from the fact that I’ve had an Eastern Orthodox parishioner assure me that Orthodox congregants would stage a church mutiny if any Protestant preacher ever tried to make them use grape juice rather than real wine in their Communion service, I’m guessing that you are unaware that the Wedding at Cana (where Christ turned the water into wine) was in all probability held on a sabbath, given that it occurred (in John 2) ay” following the prior four days to which John had already referred (in John 1):
These seven days correspond to the seven days of creation in Genesis. John 1: 1, 29, 35, 43. "In the beginning…(29) The next day…(35) The next day… (43) The next day…" this brings us to the fourth day. The next reference to time is found in John 2:1 "On the third day there was a marriage at Cana…" But the third day from the fourth day is the seventh day. Thus the third day and the seventh day are the same day. In the New Covenant of Jesus Christ we have a new seventh day, but it is also the third day - the day He rose from the dead -- SABBATH AND THE FIRST DAY, by John Raphael Hellmann.
And was in keeping with Jewish Wedding custom:
Oytrufnl - On the Sabbath morning, before the wedding, the hatan (groom) is honored by being called up to the reading of the Torah in the synagogue. The Talmud speaks of how king Solomon built a gate in the temple where residents of Jerusalem would sit on Sabbath to perform kindness to bridegrooms who came there. When the temple was destroyed, the custom arose of honoring the groom in the synagogue. After the groom recites the final blessings, it is customary to throw candy raisins at him to ensure a good life to him and his bride. -- “Jewish Marriage Rituals”
Gee, I’m sure glad that Social Authoritarians have taken up the slack of advocating all that State Authority which God apparently FORGOT to mandate in Scripture!!
In a world that is not "RULED" by God. We must take measures to insure our desired community living.
No. We must take measures to bring our Laws into conformity with the Mandate of Authority which God has specifically established for the State -- the enforcement of the Second Table of the Law, and nothing else. To advocate the usurpation of any more Power to the State than what God has specifically ordained, is Idolatry.
We set standards and live by them.
No. God sets the standards for all Christian Works, including the work of Godly Government -- the enforcement of the Second Table of the Law. We either advocate God’s standards, or we oppose them. There is no middle ground, and no moral “autonomy” of Self-Law. There is only God’s Law or opposition to God’s Law.
God does not tell government it cannot make harmfull things illegal.
In fact, God specifically tells Government WHICH harmful things it MUST make illegal -- murder, adultery, theft, false witness, and coveting. To support the making of all “harmful things” ILLEGAL is to brazenly disreagrd the actual mandate of Authority which God has given the State; and, as noted above, to advocate such necessitates an Ecclesiocratic Totalitarianism --
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.
Are we to just sit back and let God take care of the crack head parents that neglect and abuse their children?
No. Child abuse directly harms the Neighbor (the child) and thus violates the Royal Law of Romans 13: 10.
No Are we supposed to allow mothers to go out and legally sell their body in our neighborhoods, no.
Odd, God specifically ordered the prophet Hosea to marry a harlot with bastard children. Nowhere did God endorse this sort of immorality, of course; rather, He enjoins believers to meekly and prayerfully call them to repentance in mercy and love. But I suppose we’d be a little too busy throwing them in jail for all that.
God does speak if you listen. He does not say, hey go look at the Bible, that's the only way I will talk to you.
Frankly, I’ve requested a SCRIPTURAL critique of the Theonomic position on Romans 13 for some time now; I’m anxious to read a Biblical criticism of my position whenever one may be offered.
None has been.
I’m still waiting.
And I don’t see any evidence of an argument offering the “Scriptural Basis for Social Authoritarianism” forthcoming anytime soon.
Mainly ‘cause the Authoritarians don’t have any Scriptural Foundation to point to.
They’ve been challenged; the challenge remains unmet. Biblically, they haven’t got a leg to stand on.
Sorry, all words of Romans 13 is for Christians, and how we are to live (i.e. treat our government and our fellow man).
When you choose to bring poison into our country, you will be punished. This very possesion of this poison violates the rights of you neighbors to live in a community without such devastating substances, similarly to nuclear weapons.
Have you heard Dr. Greg Bahnsen's 81 tape set on Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion? Righteous!
Bahnsen's excellent, but no, I haven't heard the tape set of which you speak. I like Bahnsen, but I like Sandlin even better and Nymeyer (Progressive Calvinism) best of all.
IMHO Nymeyer is arguably the best political philosopher of the Twentieth Century. Of course, he was Fundamentalist Christian, Calvinist, Creationist, and Theonomist, so of course practically no-one has ever heard of him (i.e., Nymeyer is "wrong" on just about every point that the Post-Modernist Marxists of the Ivory Tower hold dear!!)
Anyway, I'm impressed that you put so much time and effort into it.
Ditto. , but sadly, Jehovah's Witnesses spend just as much time as well.
"is" should be "are"
Sorry, all words of Romans 13 is for Christians, and how we are to live (i.e. treat our government and our fellow man).
And it is the "fulfillment of the law" for Christian Magistrates as much as for Common Men.
When you choose to bring poison into our country, you will be punished. This very possesion of this poison violates the rights of you neighbors to live in a community without such devastating substances, similarly to nuclear weapons.
Ban roach hotels immediately.
And while we're at it, ban False Religions. All of 'em. They've done far more damage to men's souls in keeping them from Christ than rat poison, marijuana, and gambling combined.
HAIL CAESAR, GOD OF GODS.
I know they used wine. I don't personally agree with the law about no alcohol sales on Sunday here in Alabama, but it is the choice of the community. If I don't like it, I can go to a state that does.
Samuel Rutherford bump.
And while we're at it, ban False Religions.
That is forbidden by the constitution.
I know they used wine. I don't personally agree with the law about no alcohol sales on Sunday here in Alabama, but it is the choice of the community. If I don't like it, I can go to a state that does.
Nope. The Christian duty is not to run away.
It is to oppose all Usurpations of Power which violate God's clear Mandate of Authority to Government -- the enforcement of the Second Table of the Law, and that only.
Thanks very much.
Regards,
L
And while we're at it, ban False Religions. ~~ That is forbidden by the constitution.
The Christian doesn't begin at the Constitution, he begins at the Bible. According to the USSC, banning Abortion is "forbidden by the Constitution".
Well, that's horsepuckey. "Whatever is, is Right"? Hogwash. We do not get our Rule of Faith and Practice concerning the legitimate authority of the State from nine unelected lawyers. We get our Rule of Faith and Practice concerning the legitimate authority of the State from Scripture alone. Anything else is Idolatry.
So, Biblically speaking -- should the State enforce the Moral Law, or not?
My pleasure.
The Christian duty is not to run away.
It is not, by any means, running away, yet it is WISE. Does God wish that an alcoholic constantly go to bars, so he does "not run away from alcohol"?
Why did not God say if your hand causes you to sin, leave it on so you won't be running away. He says to CUT IT OFF.
It may be forbidden to technically BAN some religions, you know what, some religious practices were banned such as divination etc. Also, sabbath-breaking was illegal (James Madison, the father of the First Amendment, was a major proponent of this). Christianity was given very high status in this nation. I remember a Supreme Court case in the 1800's where a man blasphemed Jesus and it ended up being that the court rejected his argument that he had a right to say his blasphemy due to free speech. The court ruled his speech was Un-American and repulsive to any decent person. This may have been a state Supreme Court, I do not remember. But, it was not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in any case if it was a state Supreme Court ruling. Funny thing is, the courts didn't care about blasphemy toward other religions.
It is not, by any means, running away, yet it is WISE. Does God wish that an alcoholic constantly go to bars, so he does "not run away from alcohol"? Why did not God say if your hand causes you to sin, leave it on so you won't be running away. He says to CUT IT OFF.
So, you gonna run away, or fight to CUT OFF all Usurpations of Power by the State which God has not authorized?
So, Biblically speaking -- should the State enforce the Moral Law, or not?
The Bible says that a government is a servant to Him, for us. If we are do fear the government when we do wrong, how could we, if it did not enforce any moral law.
It may be forbidden to technically BAN some religions, you know what, some religious practices were banned such as divination etc. Also, sabbath-breaking was illegal (James Madison, the father of the First Amendment, was a major proponent of this). Christianity was given very high status in this nation. I remember a Supreme Court case in the 1800's where a man blasphemed Jesus and it ended up being that the court rejected his argument that he had a right to say his blasphemy due to free speech. The court ruled his speech was Un-American and repulsive to any decent person. This may have been a state Supreme Court, I do not remember. But, it was not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in any case if it was a state Supreme Court ruling. Funny thing is, the courts didn't care about blasphemy toward other religions.
All of which begs the question:
Is the State charged with the Enforcement of the Moral Law, or not?
ROMANS 13: 9-10 -- 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.
Romans 13:8-14 has nothing to do with government.
The Bible says that a government is a servant to Him, for us. If we are do fear the government when we do wrong, how could we, if it did not enforce any moral law.
We are to fear Government when we break the Civil Law, the Second Table of the Ten Commandments.
>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
So long as we abide by the Second Table of the Law, we should have no fear of the State. For the State to alter this definition in any way, and thereby void the promise of Paul to his reader, would be usurpation and idolatry by that State.
the civil magistrate is the sword of God. How can it be any clearer?
So, you gonna run away, or fight to CUT OFF all Usurpations of Power by the State which God has not authorized?
READ Romans 13:1-7, he HAS given government authority.
Nope. You misinterpret. Romans 13:8-14 speaks of how we are to treat each other, it has nothing to do with government and the implication thereof.
Romans 13:8-14 has nothing to do with government.
Bald assertion, completely unsupported, countermanded by every theologian referenced above, presupposes the damnable inconsistency that there is a different rule of morality for men of state than for common men, and an assertion made ONLY because you DO NOT WANT to admit that Romans 13: 8-10 binds men of State as surely as any other Christian.
You who call Scripture "severe" will apparently assert whatever you have to to escape from the teachings of Romans 13. But Men of State are JUST AS BOUND by Romans 13: 8-10 as any other men. The "fulfillment" of the Civil Law for them is the same as for Common Men. It is the Second Table of the Law, and naught else.
the civil magistrate is the sword of God. How can it be any clearer?
The Sword, To Enforce the Second Table of the Law.
Men of State are EVERY BIT as bound by Romans 13: 8-10 as any other Christian. They are NOT exempted from it's mandates by virtue of the their position as Magistrate.
the civil magistrate is the sword of God. How can it be any clearer?
I agree. Does God wish that his sword allow ALL immoral things, to allow the destruction of the nation for believers as well as non.
The state IS CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE MORAL LAW. ANY SANE PERSON SEES THIS AND IT IS BEYOND ME TO IMAGINE THAT MOST CHRISTIANS DON'T. It is just common sense. The civil magistrate is the Sword of God in Romans. Jesus never repealed the moral law, but made it stronger by his comments in occasions....such as adultery in the heart is just as bad as the real act etc. Furthermore, he never made any comments that removed God's command over government. I challenge any Christian, including Texasaggie, to show me a Scripture where Christ did. If I am wrong, I will admit error. But, I don't see how I could be. I believe you are correct, Uriel.
Ok so we are bound by the Golden Rule. Well I would wish civil punishment upon myself if I were to ever do HARD drugs. So I love my neighbor with this same wish.
I agree. Does God wish that his sword allow ALL immoral things, to allow the destruction of the nation for believers as well as non.
Of course not. The State is Empowered to Punish violations of the Second Table of 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.
And this passage is the fulfillment of the Civil Law for Magistrates as much as for any other Christian.
I challenge any Christian, including Texasaggie, to show me a Scripture where Christ did.
I challenge you to show me ANY scripture where goverment is bound by God to ONLY enforce the "second table". I have already told you that Romans 13:8-14 talks only to how we are to treat others, not how we shall make our laws.
Ok so we are bound by the Golden Rule. Well I would wish civil punishment upon myself if I were to ever do HARD drugs. So I love my neighbor with this same wish.
No. You DO NOT "love your neighbor" by seeking to bring The Sword upon him for immoral actions which God has not authorized the State to Proscribe.
How curious, that you would wish Punishment on your neighbor for using intoxicants, but not for worshipping false gods. An utterly inconsistent and Self-Willed "Moral Law" with no foundation whatsoever in the Law of God.
I challenge you to show me ANY scripture where goverment is bound by God to ONLY enforce the "second table". I have already told you that Romans 13:8-14 talks only to how we are to treat others, not how we shall make our laws.
Read the Entirety of Contention V.
Romans 13: 8-10 binds Men of State as surely as Common Men. There is NO different rule of morality for men of state than for any other Christian. They are just as bound by Romans 13: 8-10 as any other believer.
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. -- Nymeyer, ibid.
You seem to think that the state should not take charge over the moral law. I am not so sure about that position, but then again I really haven't looked at the issue of govt. much. All I know is that Scripturally, God needs to be acknowledged and govt. needs to bend its knee to the Almighty and fulfill its obligation to be God's sword. Whether that is the moral and civil law or just the civil, I do not know. I would think just based on my logic....WITH NO BIBILICAL THOUGHTS COMING TO MIND...so this has no authority behind it....just that God would want govt. to advance true religion and to repel false religion. In addition, I would think he would like blasphemers to be punished. But, then again that is MY viewpoint just based on my thinking and not from Scripture, so I can't say whether that is Biblical or not. I would appreciate some critque though.
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Even if I ever were to think that Romans 13:8-14 had anything to do with government. I could argue how using drugs harms your neighbors.
The state IS CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE MORAL LAW. ANY SANE PERSON SEES THIS AND IT IS BEYOND ME TO IMAGINE THAT MOST CHRISTIANS DON'T. It is just common sense. The civil magistrate is the Sword of God in Romans. Jesus never repealed the moral law, but made it stronger by his comments in occasions....such as adultery in the heart is just as bad as the real act etc. Furthermore, he never made any comments that removed God's command over government. I challenge any Christian, including Texasaggie, to show me a Scripture where Christ did. If I am wrong, I will admit error. But, I don't see how I could be. I believe you are correct, Uriel.
My point is simply this:
Romans 13: 8-10, the Second Table of the Law and that only, is either the fulfillment of the Civil Law for ALL Christians (including Magistrates), or it is Nonsense.
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. -- Nymeyer, ibid.
Romans 13: 8-10 binds Men of State as surely as Common Men. There is NO different rule of morality for men of state than for any other Christian. They are just as bound by Romans 13: 8-10 as any other believer.
How is not allowing one to destroy himself and his family, not loving that neighbor?
His point, RW is to get DRUGS, PROSTITUTION, and other immoral things to be fully legal.
Uriel1975, the only way your "perfect government" could work is if it were to be for an entirely Christian nation. For this cannot work for non-believers.
I don't understand how you think the first table of the law is somehow exempt. I mean, in the OT, people were punished by the state for more than just crimes against others. Am I wrong in this regard? If I am not, what in the NT changes that?
You seem to think that the state should not take charge over the moral law. I am not so sure about that position, but then again I really haven't looked at the issue of govt. much. All I know is that Scripturally, God needs to be acknowledged and govt. needs to bend its knee to the Almighty and fulfill its obligation to be God's sword. Whether that is the moral and civil law or just the civil, I do not know. I would think just based on my logic....WITH NO BIBILICAL THOUGHTS COMING TO MIND...so this has no authority behind it....just that God would want govt. to advance true religion and to repel false religion. In addition, I would think he would like blasphemers to be punished. But, then again that is MY viewpoint just based on my thinking and not from Scripture, so I can't say whether that is Biblical or not. I would appreciate some critque though.
Blasphemy by whose definition? You can be darn sure I don't like the Catholic dogma of "Mary as co-redemptrix with Christ"; do I get to be the one who determines that this dogma constitutes Blasphemy against Salvation in Christ Alone?
Read the Above Essay through, every word.
If you can find one theological error therein, I will be pleased to hear you out.
If not, then I maintain with Paul that the State exists to enforce the Second Table of the law AND THAT'S IT. The Church can, I believe triumph by the very real power of the Holy Spirit without the need for state "support" (indeed, the record of State-established churches is rather sad, and riddled with apostasy). IMHO, what the Church requires of the State is the Enforcement of the Second Table and, otherwise, for the State to stay out of her way.
When you choose to bring poison into our country, you will be punished. This very possesion of this poison violates the rights of you neighbors to live in a community without such devastating substances, similarly to nuclear weapons.
...or devastating handguns.
Handguns serve a purpose my friend, and are a guaranteed right by our constitution.
Congratulations. Never has there been a more boring, yet irrelevent, posting on Free Republic.
Well, he is in a theonomist group that believes in such. There are other theonomists like myself, that believe prostitution and such should remain illegal. I see no NT warrant to change that.
LOL. But is not legalizing drugs relevant? LOL
There are other theonomists like myself, that believe prostitution and such should remain illegal.
Yes, and I maintain that the majority of them agree with you.
I don't understand how you think the first table of the law is somehow exempt. I mean, in the OT, people were punished by the state for more than just crimes against others. Am I wrong in this regard? If I am not, what in the NT changes that?
The First Table is exempt because the First Table constitutes the Moral Law, the relations between Men and God. This Law is, properly, the province of the Church. It was enforced in Israel precisely because the Church and State were specifically fused in a *unanimous consent* Covenant (Deuteronomy 27: 14-26). Thus both the Mandatory character of the State and the Voluntary character of the Church were affirmed in the Governing Constitution of the Nation, for ALL ISRAEL unanimously consented to the Covenant.
But the Levitical Covenant is NOT the mandate of government for post-Levitical gentile nations!! NOWHERE in Scripture does God offer us a Church-State Covenant, and we have never *unanimously* affirmed such a Covenant even had one been offered. Rather, Paul identifies the SECOND TABLE of the law as the Civil law for the post-Levitical gentile state; if this is the fulfillment of the Civil Law for Christians, it is the fulfillment of the Civil Law for Christian Magistrates. As I said, please read the essay through carefully (if you haven;t already done so); I believe I establish this quite soundly.
You depart from our Puritan forefathers and Calvin's Geneva in this regard.
I think you are much more armed to take on Uriel in this debate. I simply use common sense and my understanding of God's word, you are more well studied.
From the portion of your essay I read (not all just yet; sorrty), I like it. I also would like to know if you have any online links to the Author you site. His work(s) sound quite interesting.
You might be interested to learn that I reposted to Demidog's Thread II of "Lord God, The State" in a rather frustrated fashion. I couldn't find ONE answer to any of the posts I placed with the limited scriptural references my addled brain could come up with by any of the fundamentalist whom I presume would argue with your position vehemently.
I especially enjoy how you show the rationality of the State being given God's sanction to enact laws on the basis of solely the basis of the portion of the Ten Commandments you site.
I find especially intriguing some of your arguments questioning where government derives its authority to provide welfare or regulate business, etc.
While I consider myself of a libertarian mindset, I do approach it from somewhat of a liberal point of view. One, I might add, that grows more concservative as I age. Whether or not I end up totally agreeing with you and your points or not, I find incredibly refreshing to find such intelligence. (As opposed to the wit and wisdom of an unamed poster earlier this morning on Thread II of Demidog's post which said, and I quote: "...piss off, you twit."
This from a presuably self defined practicing Christian. But aside from the un-Christian-like thought expressed in such a thought, it is simply childish and a complete waste of the intelligence God has given all humans, but that they be willing to seek out His wisdom, with scripture as a mainstay of guidance of course. Thanks for the excellent post.
Arthur Jensen
Even if I ever were to think that Romans 13:8-14 had anything to do with government. I could argue how using drugs harms your neighbors.
Not with an appeal Scripture, you couldn't. There is not one passage of Scripture which places the prohibition of Intoxicants within the bounds of State Authority, and the Levitical Covenant certainly could've done so if such were appropriate. It didn't.
Uriel1975, the only way your "perfect government" could work is if it were to be for an entirely Christian nation. For this cannot work for non-believers.
On the contrary. The ONLY WAY that you could enforce the FIRST TABLE is if all citizens were Christians. But the Second Table -- don't kill, don't steal, etc. -- is entirely workable because even non-Christians don't want to be murdered or stolen from -- even if they do worship false gods.
Not with an appeal Scripture, you couldn't. There is not one passage of Scripture which places the prohibition of Intoxicants within the bounds of State Authority, and the Levitical Covenant certainly could've done so if such were appropriate. It didn't.
Funny, I don't see scripture pertaining to my having a nuceal warhead in my basement. HMM, guess that nixes that idea.
Well, he is in a theonomist group that believes in such. There are other theonomists like myself, that believe prostitution and such should remain illegal. I see no NT warrant to change that.
It has nothing to do with a "NT warrant to change that", it has everything to do with the fact that there was never any authority in the first place to proscribe prostitution. Even in the Levitical Covenant, Prostitution -- though it was certainly regarded as a moral sin -- was NOT punished by the State except for daughters of Levitical Priests (reflecting the Church-State fusion of the Levitical Covenant).
How then, could the MORE-LIMITED grant of authority pronounced by Paul in the New Testament, grant to the State authority which even the Levitical Covenant did not?
Paul authorizes the State to enforce the Second Table of the Law.
And that's it.
There are other theonomists like myself, that believe prostitution and such should remain illegal. ~~ Yes, and I maintain that the majority of them agree with you.
No, they don't. The rejection of the laws against "sumptuary vices" is one of the cardinal developments in Theonomy for the last half-century. Nymeyer had been preaching the STRICTLY-LIMITED authority that the Bible grants to the State since 1955, and increasingly Chalcedon and other centers of Theonomic exegesis are adopting his position 'cause they don't have any Biblical basis to advocate that the State proscribe these things.
Handguns serve a purpose my friend, and are a guaranteed right by our constitution
"Arms" are mentioned in the constitution, not "handguns." I believe your original point was that "poisons"(by which I am assuming you meant "drugs") could be prohibited in a community because they are as "devastating" as nuclear weapons. For starters, my guess would be that you would not side with those "liberal" communities that claim local authority over the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Your argument goes rapidly downhill from there.
I am just a lowly teenager here. I don't know half of his terminology. I do know that I just don't think he is right about this. But, I could be wrong, too. But, I don't think so. Uriel is right that the church has most issues of religion given to it, but at the same time, I don't see Scriptural support that the state is to just sit back and let Jesus be mocked and reviled endlessly.
You depart from our Puritan forefathers and Calvin's Geneva in this regard.
No, even the Puritans recognized that the enforcement of the Moral Law was, Biblically, a COVENANTAL undertaking. To IMPOSE the Moral Law on those who have not been regenerated to abide by it is the anti-Scriptural position.
The Geneva Covenant was ratified by UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the men of Geneva.
If you don't have Covenanted Consent for the Moral Law (and Deuteronomy 27: 14-26 demands it), then you have no Biblical basis to extend State authority beyond the specific grant of Romans 13: 8-10.
No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God’ sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced. -- Chalcedon Foundation Vision Statement, Rev. Andrew Sandlin
If you do not have COVENANT, you have TYRANNY. And Tyranny is ever the Devil's handmaid.
"Arms" are mentioned in the constitution, not "handguns."
A point, you have. Communities should be allowed to decide the extent of arms it shall allow within it.
I am just a lowly teenager here. I don't know half of his terminology. I do know that I just don't think he is right about this. But, I could be wrong, too. But, I don't think so. Uriel is right that the church has most issues of religion given to it, but at the same time, I don't see Scriptural support that the state is to just sit back and let Jesus be mocked and reviled endlessly.
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 you really want to mock Jesus...
...have the State take over as Messiah.
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
If we want to give the Spirit His due...
...it behooves us to look to Spirit-inspired Scripture alone for instructions on what Authority the Magistrate has, and what not.
I simply use common sense and my understanding of God's word
Where?
Point it out so we can all see it.
I am just a lowly teenager here.
Then I have you beat by a few years perhaps.
My conclusion of Romans 13:1-7 is that it speaks to the civilians under government. It tells us that government is here as a servant under God,and that we are to pay taxes for it's service.
We are to only fear it if we do what is WRONG. I don't know about you, but I would place smoking crack under the wrong category.
Romans 13:8-14 goes on to tell us how to treat one another.
Therefore this entire chapter sums up how we are to live.
You depart from our Puritan forefathers and Calvin's Geneva in this regard.
From History of Colonial Law:
The heritage of old Massachusetts is most striking in the punishments provided for crimes against religion and morality. The legislature consisted in large part of the same men who had composed the legislature of the Bay Colony, and the same Puritan spirit was visible in their enactments.[69] Accordingly, the initial laws of the province made sodomy, bigamy, incest, blasphemy, idolatry, and witchcraft capital offenses. Sodomy and bigamy remained capital offenses throughout the period, although bigamy had the benefit of clergy.[70] The statutes providing for capital punishment for the other crimes were disallowed by the Privy Council, because the penalty was too severe, or because the crime was too ill defined, and subsequent legislation provided a lesser penalty. Incest was made punishable by up to 40 lashes, an hour on the gallows, and wearing a cloth letter I.[71] Blasphemy was to be punished by any two of: imprisonment up to six months, boring through the tongue with a hot iron, whipping, sitting in the pillory, or sitting on the gallows.[72] There were no further provisions for punishing witchcraft; the general remorse that followed the Salem witchcraft trials must have made the idea of further legislation on the subject unappealing.[73] Nor were there any further provisions regarding idolatry, a crime which might have posed a serious threat to society in ancient Israel, a nation surrounded by actually or potentially hostile neighbors professing strange gods, but which could not have been a subject of much real concern in eighteenth century Massachusetts.
Other laws of the early Provincial period include two which provided for the punishment of fornication and transvestitism with fines of up to 5 pounds, or by corporal punishment.[74] Adultery, no longer a capital offense as it had been in the Bay Colony, was made punishable by up to 40 lashes, an hour on the gallows, and wearing a cloth "A". The dropping of the death penalty for adultery may have been prompted by the difficulty of getting juries to convict under the old law.[75] Even apart from jury reluctance to impose capital punishment for it, adultery seems to have been a hard crime to prove, or so provisions for punishing persons found in circumstances strongly implicative of adultery would suggest. A law was enacted subjecting a man and a married woman other than his wife found in bed together to a penalty of up to 30 lashes.[76]test
go away.
That is why we need the Solemn Leage or some other covenant again. I see where you are coming from and well, you are right on one thing that the moral law won't save people. Thanks for some Scripture refs.
While I consider myself of a libertarian mindset, I do approach it from somewhat of a liberal point of view. One, I might add, that grows more concservative as I age
Good. One of the chief problems with liberalism (among others), as I can see it, is that there is no way whatsoever to enact Economic Liberalism without massively violating the Eighth Commandment. Voluntary Charity is noble and righteous and healthy and good, but State Welfare is always Theft.
Granted, this leaves the State with nothing much to do but Enforce the Second Table of the Law... but that is what I'm advocating.
Links to Nymeyer (the best, the absolute best IMO) are on post #21.
Drugs harm society in general, so I agree with you. Now, some things like alcohol should be allowed for Communion and in moderation, but drunken behavior should be punished severely......possibly flogging.
All that, and our fonders were supposedly libertarian? LOL
possibly flogging.
ROFLMBO
NUT BALL ARERT! NUT BALL ALERT! WACKY UNELECTABLE FRINGE GROUP ON THE MARCH AGAIN.
So one is only considered respectable dependent upon one being deemed "electable"?
Following this logic, Adolf Hitler was easily among the most respectable leaders of the 20th Century.
That is why we need the Solemn Leage or some other covenant again. I see where you are coming from and well, you are right on one thing that the moral law won't save people. Thanks for some Scripture refs.
Covenanted Communities are an IMPOSSIBILITY as long as Federal (and State, though they be lesser offenders) Government has massively extended its Power into areas of Voluntary Association.
I am 100% in favor of Right-of-Free-Association Covenanted Communities of shared purpose, but there's NO WAY to establish these unless you remove the State from all those areas which it has usurped.
And return it to enforcing the Second Table of the Law, and that only.
Men may Covenant together, and Contracts should be enforced (Thou shalt not bear false witness). But how is Covenanted Free Association even possible when "the State is All, and the Individual and Family nothing, and Liberty destroyed"? (to quote Dr. J. Gresham Machen, founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, mentor to Francis Schaeffer).
Well, something needs to be done to make drugs being illegal and alchol not kind of equal out....extremely harsh penalties for getting drunk would serve that purpose.
go away.
You're on the ropes waiting for the bell.
Try breathing.
Excellent post. If we only followed the US. Constitution we would have the Government described here, as the Constitution was based upon Christian principles.
Drugs harm society in general, so I agree with you. Now, some things like alcohol should be allowed for Communion and in moderation, but drunken behavior should be punished severely......possibly flogging.
Public Intoxication (with ANY drug) represents a despoilment of YOUR property. (Do not your taxes pay for Public Commons?) Such despoilment violates the Tenth Commandment.
But where is there any verse of Scripture which authorizes the State to proscribe Intoxicants on a man's own property??
I believe Christians should get our "Theonomy" from Scripture, or it isn't theonomy at all, but autonomy.
State prohibition of Intoxicants on Private Property. Chapter and Verse. With all respect... I'm waiting.
Yes, your insults, lacking substance, are vexing to me. "I'm terribly vexed."
Excellent post. If we only followed the US. Constitution we would have the Government described here, as the Constitution was based upon Christian principles.
Well, we'd have to follow the original intent of the Constitution, not what nine unelected lawyers tell us it means this decade.
If Christians strive to uphold a Second-Table-of-the-Law State as the keystone of our Theonomy, I have every expectation that this Biblically-centered "political science" will have the benefit of turning Christians towards a fight for full restoration of our original, highly-limited Constitutional Government.
So do you have an argument? Is it that of common sense that you claim I am lacking in?
Let's look to the last election. If legalizing all drugs were common sense, what of the election results?
Bump to mark for later
You read the article?
You realize that it demonstrates the Biblical foundation for a far more limited State than most Authoritarians advocate?
Understand where Biblical Fundamentalists are coming from. We regard Holy Scripture as the Infallible Word of God. As long as Christian Fundamentalists believe that the Bible endorses Authoritarianism, they are not going to be firm allies in the fight for liberty.
And we represent at least 40% of the Republican Party. If Christian Fundamentalists do not seek to demonstrate to their brethren the necessity of upholding the Perfect Law of Liberty... who will?
"If you crush out individuality by the strong arm of the State, then ultimately the state will be all, and the individual and the family will be nothing, and liberty will be destroyed." -- J. Gresham Machen (1934), Founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church
What's so hard about admitting you're wrong?
I do it all the time, it's how I learn and grow.
For whatever it's worth I admire you and others like you who hang on to the state for truth.
I'm sure it's more comforting than the intangible.
What about letting go and letting God?
Hey, my friend. Glad you found your way over here.
Enjoy the article.
What's so hard about admitting you're wrong?
I do as well, and have threads to prove it. But I will never support legalization of ALL drugs, sorry.
One of the major changes Jesus brought, other than salvation of course, was a NEW understanding of God. No loger were we blind followers who simply did as we were told, without knowledge of why (and we can still be required by God in some cases to do this today). With the NT we have an understanding of the LAW and what makes it so righteous. God allows us the wisdom to understand why it is we follow this law. In other words, God's law makes complete sense.
Now how does making hard drugs, such as crack, safer, cheaper and legal make sense?
God's law makes complete sense.
I agree.
You really seem quite adrift in all ways....
God's Law made perfect sense, even before Christ came, it's just that the Jews being human, they could never KEEP the law and had started caring about the LETTER of the law, such as which sects they belonged to, more than its spirit.
THAT is the point of this thread and from whence springs the criticism of current criminal laws, like the WOD.
A set of laws such as those encompassed by the WOD teach citizens new understanding of God, alright--that He is cruel, punishing, retributive for minor "sins," and can curse you for the rest of your life with jail sentences and criminal records.
It was to abolish pointless, unjust and petty laws such as these that Christ came to offer Himself as an atonement for Sin before God.
The Lord was crucified Himself for breaking the Pharisees law against "healing on the Sabbath" and "blasphemy."
I do as well, and have threads to prove it. But I will never support legalization of ALL drugs, sorry. One of the major changes Jesus brought, other than salvation of course, was a NEW understanding of God. No loger were we blind followers who simply did as we were told, without knowledge of why (and we can still be required by God in some cases to do this today). With the NT we have an understanding of the LAW and what makes it so righteous. God allows us the wisdom to understand why it is we follow this law. In other words, God's law makes complete sense. Now how does making hard drugs, such as crack, safer, cheaper and legal make sense?
Christians do not "lean on our own understanding" -- i.e, make the Law of God conform to our fleshly and Fallen "common sense".
We strive to make our "common sense" conform to the Law of God.
Alcohol, Cannibis, Opium, etc., were all known in Old Testament times, used for various medicinal and recreational purposes in Egypt, Sumeria, etc. There is, of course, not a single verse of Scripture which could be used to support the proposition that "Intoxication" on hashish is morally acceptable; even though most passages on Intoxication refer to alcohol, there's no reason to think other forms of Intoxication are not equally sinful.
But these substances and their Intoxicant qualities were commonly known. If God had intended that the State should proscribe sumptuary intoxicants on Private Property, there was every opportunity to include such proscription in the Levitical Covenant.
At least then the Authoritarian would have A (meaning one, singular, unitary) verse of Scripture at least supporting the idea that the Prohibition of Intoxicants is ever a Biblical function of the State. Granted, he's still got enormous theological hoops to jump through in applying this to post-Levitical gentile states, but at least he'd have one Scripture supporting the proposition that somewhere, sometime, at some point in Scripture, the State is authorized to invade Private Property and proscribe private consumption of Intoxicants.
Chapter and Verse.
I'm still waiting.
I did, and enjoyed it very much so... thanks!!
Thoughts?
We intend, in fact, to show eventually that the Decalogue of the ancient Hebrew religion, which declares itself to be a revelation, is a Magna Charta for liberty as no subsequent document has ever been. -- Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be
For your bookmarks, old FRiend.
Thank you bump...
A set of laws such as those encompassed by the WOD teach citizens new understanding of God, alright--that He is cruel, punishing, retributive for minor "sins," and can curse you for the rest of your life with jail sentences and criminal records.
First off, what is life but a speck in eternity?
Second, civil law is not to force people to be right with God. I agree with Ureil on this.
Civil law is the structure and foundation which society is built upon, the "ground rules", if you will.
They are the rules required for a pursuing, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in our case. And drugs destroy the fabric of our society. They consume, not only the lifes of those that take them, but their friends, family, company, and community as well.
Look at the law on yelling fire in a public theater. Where does God say we must not allow words of panic and chaos to be yelled in crowded buildings? Nowhere. This is a rule that has been deemed necessary, for society to function properly.
If God had intended that the State should proscribe sumptuary intoxicants on Private Property, there was every opportunity to include such proscription in the Levitical Covenant.
Those types of laws would not have worked, first, and would not have made a difference, second, back then.
Today is a completely different situation. Technology and population make the need for more regulation necessary.
Is the Bible to say: "Here are some laws for governments to make, but wait until the 19th century until you do so. This is preposterous.
You want a verse? Name me ONE verse where drugs laws are condemned, Romans 13:8-14 have already been disputed.
Funniest thing about the WOD, it was like yelling for someone to set a fire in a crowded theatre--the American drug problem didn't get really bad until Nixon funded the WOD in the '70's and Reagan gave it more punch in the '80s.
As long as there's a WOD and certain drugs are illegal, there will be a 'drug problem.'
Tex, we've talked to you about this until some of us are almost weak from fatigue!
The WOD is self-fulfilling, self-escalating and self-promoting because of the MONEY.
Make those drugs legal--all of them, too! not just pot--defund the WOD and declare it Unconstitutional (which it is!) and there will be no more drug problem!
We cite God's laws, because there is no Scriptural basis for laws for crimes concerning what a man takes into his body.
It's been cooked up by moral Puritans, such as yourself.
Other than "be not a drunkard" and "your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit," it just isn't in the Bible!
Look at the law on yelling fire in a public theater. Where does God say we must not allow words of panic and chaos to be yelled in crowded buildings? Nowhere.
Balderdash.
Exodus 20: 16 -- Thou shalt not bear False Witness against thy neighbor.
...covers malevolent Fraud in general. If more specificity is desired, then we could always mention...
Exodus 23:1 -- Thou shalt not raise a false report.
By contrast... Any Scriptural support for State Prohibition of Gambling, Intoxicants, and other such sumptuary vices on Private Property?? Chapter and Verse??
Heck, even one Chapter and Verse??
Still waiting....
You want a verse? Name me ONE verse where drugs laws are condemned, Romans 13:8-14 have already been disputed.
Sorry, you've been answered. Until you can DEMONSTRATE that Romans 13: 8-10 is not every bit as much the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law for the Christian Magistrate as much as any other Christian, there can be no basis to presume that the Christian Magistrate is not PRECISELY bound to regard this passage as the fulfillment of the Civil Law, the fulfillment of the Law of relations between Men and Men, as much as any other Christian. Unless you can DEMONSTRATE that the Christian Magistrate should not regard Romans 13: 8-10 as what it claims to be -- the fulfillment of the Civil Law -- then the Christian Magistrate must regard Romans 13: 8-10 as the fulfillment of the Civil Law as much as any other Christian.
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. -- Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be
The ball is now in YOUR court. If the Christian Magistrate is somehow entitled to read Romans 13: 8-10 as anything other than the fulfillment of the Civil law, SHOW ME.
'Cause otherwise, the Magistrate must regard Romans 13: 8-10 as the fulfillment of the Civil Law as much as would any other Christian.
Make those drugs legal--all of them, too! not just pot--defund the WOD and declare it Unconstitutional (which it is!) and there will be no more drug problem!
I'm sorry, but that is the most false statement you can make. (I'm not trying to be insulting) We Americans are of sound reason. Yes there are some stupid people out there, but when presented with the facts, we can see truth.
Case in point, evolution: as much as all Christianity has been opposed to the idea, it has now accepted that it does occur in some form. Not, that we humans evolved from apes, but the scientific notion of evolution in living organisms does exist to some extent.
What I'm saying is that if your argument had merit, MORE people would believe it. But the life experiences of Americans know that this cannot be true. They have experienced drugs rip their families apart, and making it cheaper, safer, of better quality, and legal will skyrocket the use of drugs.
Our society, sadly, consists of people who can't be self responsible (growing in number everyday), and cause deterioration to our society because of that.
We cite God's laws, because there is no Scriptural basis for laws for crimes concerning what a man takes into his body.
I cite it because there is no scriptural basis that laws can't address that issue.
Exodus 20: 16 -- Thou shalt not bear False Witness against thy neighbor.
Guess we should arrest every politician huh?
Heck, even one Chapter and Verse??
Give me ONE verse telling government that it can't. ONE LITTLE ONE.
I cite it because there is no scriptural basis that laws can't address that issue.
Nope, totally refuted above.
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. -- Frederick Nymeyer, The Powers That Be
The ball is now in YOUR court. If the Christian Magistrate is somehow entitled to read Romans 13: 8-10 as anything other than the fulfillment of the Civil law, SHOW ME.
'Cause otherwise, the Magistrate must regard Romans 13: 8-10 as the fulfillment of the Civil Law as much as would any other Christian.
I cite it because there is no scriptural basis that laws can't address that issue.
Wait. The willingness of cultists to twist scripture knows no limits.
Give me ONE verse telling government that it can't. ONE LITTLE ONE. 131 Posted on 04/09/2001 00:24:53 PDT by Texaggie79
Done.
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.
Unless you can demonstrate that the "fulfillment" of the Civil Law, the law of relations between Men and Men, IS NOT every bit as much the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law for the Christian Magistrate as it is for any other Christian, then the Christian Magistrate cannot choose to exempt himself from regarding this passage as the fulfillment of the Civil Law. The passage does not say, "except for magistrates". Period.
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.
'Cause otherwise, the Magistrate must regard Romans 13: 8-10 as the fulfillment of the Civil Law as much as would any other Christian.
Absoloutly false. Romans 13:8-10 tells us how to treat each other. It says NOWHERE that these are the only laws that you should follow, period. It is ONLY addressing relationships with other fellow men.
Here, let me make it simple for you. Romans 13 in a nut shell:
Parents talking to their kids before they leave them with the babysitter for the night----
Romans 13:1-7 "Kids you mind the babysitter. She has our permission to punish you if you are bad. And if she needs help with anything, you help her."
Romans 13:8-10"Now kids, you be nice to each other. Don't tease each other. Billy, treat you sister the way you want her to treat you, and Sally the same goes for you."
Now in this passage, are we to assume that as long as the kids do what their mom said in the second half, about being nice to each other, they should not expect any other rules from the babysitter.
Read post above.
Wait. The willingness of cultists to twist scripture knows no limits.
Cults are usually found in small sects. Let's take a poll of America.
Oh wait, we had an election recently, check there.
Now Uriel you have no Romans 13:8-10. How sad now that all your philosophy relied on 3 sentences of scripture, that turned out to be misinterpreted by you.
Now in the words of the great Master Yoda: "Rest, yes, rest I need."
G'nite :^)
LETTER of the law
I'm not sure how the obscure and inane interpretations of the Jewish law are analogous to smokin crack, but, hey, I'm sure someone with 3rd-eye magnification will enlighten us.
Absoloutly false. Romans 13:8-10 tells us how to treat each other. It says NOWHERE that these are the only laws that you should follow, period. It is ONLY addressing relationships with other fellow men.
"It says NOWHERE that these are the only laws that you should follow, period" -- Hogwash. What part of
hath fulfilled the law
Don't you understand?
If this is the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law for Christians, it is the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law for Christian Magistrates. NOWHERE does Scripture say, "but magistrates do not fulfill the law unless they do more than this". It says, these things are the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law. And if this is true for all other Christians, it;s true for Christian Magistrates.
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.
If it would be immoral for a Christian to take a handgun and blow someone's head off for gambling or smoking hashish, it is just as immoral for that "christian" to delegate that Aggression to a Hired Gun.
Here, let me make it simple for you. Romans 13 in a nut shell: Parents talking to their kids before they leave them with the babysitter for the night---- Romans 13:1-7 "Kids you mind the babysitter. She has our permission to punish you if you are bad. And if she needs help with anything, you help her." Romans 13:8-10"Now kids, you be nice to each other. Don't tease each other. Billy, treat you sister the way you want her to treat you, and Sally the same goes for you." Now in this passage, are we to assume that as long as the kids do what their mom said in the second half, about being nice to each other, they should not expect any other rules from the babysitter.
You have implicitly divided Morality into distinctly DIFFERENT rules for the Christian Magistrate (the "babysitter") as for any other Christian (the "children"). But SCRIPTURE supports no such division of Morality whatsoever. That which would be immoral for any other Christian, is equaly immoral for the Christian Magistrate.
Again, If it would be immoral for a Christian to take a handgun and blow someone's head off for gambling or smoking hashish, it is just as immoral for that "christian" to delegate that Aggression to a Hired Gun.
Romans 13: 8-10 is the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law. If the Christian Magistrate believes that it does not represent the fulfillment of the Law for him as much as any other Christian, I want to see Chapter and Verse for his claim.
None has ever been provided, of course, because there isn't any such Scripture.
Bless you for your wonderful exegesis, but I think our FRiend Texaggie has problems with the word "NO" and it goes downhill from there!
Now Uriel you have no Romans 13:8-10. How sad now that all your philosophy relied on 3 sentences of scripture, that turned out to be misinterpreted by you.
Gee, how strange, then, that a tremendous weight of Scriptural exigesis, all clearly referenced and annotated above, supports my position, and you haven't a single verse to support your idea that the Magistrate is not bound by Romans 13 as much as any other Christian.
If you're so right...
...and the Magistrate is so unconstrained by the commands of Romans 13: 8-10...
...how come all the serious theologians who've studied this passage acknowledge that "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"???
Funny, that.
Here, in terms of America 2001, laws against smoking crack as enforced as they are by asset seizure, jail terms, no knock raids, and even killing of innocent suspects is akin to abiding by the LETTER and not the spirit of the Law.
Politicians enacted these drug laws in an attempt to "correct" men's behavior, in effect treating the symptoms of American malaise and not the sickness of heart and of spirit that accounts for it.
People who smoke crack are often men who don't love themselves and aren't very likely to love their neighbors.
It's a political effort to get men to live justly working from the outside in, from observed, "sinful" behavior to a pathetic attempt via imprisonment and forced rehab, to change attitudes.
Whether there is an effort to change mens' hearts and souls is a goal which got lost in this enforcement of outward behavior and secular laws.
The most serious corruption by the WOD has become that of our judiciary and law enforcement officials, which is like the moneychangers in the temple of Christ's day.
The money changers were there to provide sums to buy sacrificial animals.
All only "surface" obediance to God's Laws.
Cops, judges, criminal lawyers and prison guards have become the Moneychangers of America today.
Any Scriptural support for State Prohibition of Gambling, Intoxicants, and other such sumptuary vices on Private Property?
Of course this is a cute argument. But only deals with these vices in their theoretical state. Unfortunately, we live in a very real world. What are the effects of gambling upon the family of the addicted gambler? Does the Bible support not paying what you owe? Does the Bible support eating without working? Does the Bible support the love of money? Nope. Nope. Nope. What are the effects of intoxicants upon the family and those in contact with the chronically intoxicated? Does the Bible promote drunkenness? Does the Bible promote behaviors that are often committed by drunks? Does the Bible say "Seek out altered states of consciousness?" Nope. Nope. Nope. As for the state, you can argue all you want for a libertarian government, but don't drag the Bible into it. I don't think the Bible would like it.
"Let's take a poll of America."
Already been done. The overwhelming majority of Americans are disgusted with the WOD. And immigration. And, etc., etc. But who cares? Besides you and me, that is.
You are mixing Biblical and Spiritual laws with those of the secular state, which is the problem we have now....
Yet, plenty of Americans gamble even when it is illegal. Or drink. Or visit prostitutes. Or take drugs.
If men do not have built-in morality from their families and churches, who is the State to teach them morality?
Virtue is it's own reward, don't forget.
Who are you asking to save you from yourself? God or the State?
If you answer the State, be prepared to ask for a theocracy such as the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The problem with your argument is that it ignores the present passage of discussion. The present passage says that one should obey the government that is in place. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Romans 13:1 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. Romans 13:5
It seems completely out of context to argue against the WOD from this passage. If God instituted this present government (from the passage, there appear to be no other kind), then the laws that emanate from the government are to be obeyed.
Of course this is a cute argument. But only deals with these vices in their theoretical state. Unfortunately, we live in a very real world. What are the effects of gambling upon the family of the addicted gambler? Does the Bible support not paying what you owe? Does the Bible support eating without working? Does the Bible support the love of money? Nope. Nope. Nope. What are the effects of intoxicants upon the family and those in contact with the chronically intoxicated? Does the Bible promote drunkenness? Does the Bible promote behaviors that are often committed by drunks? Does the Bible say "Seek out altered states of consciousness?" Nope. Nope. Nope. As for the state, you can argue all you want for a libertarian government, but don't drag the Bible into it. I don't think the Bible would like it.
Does the Bible say that all sins are to be considered as state crimes??
Nope.
It's not surprising that you "don't want the Bible dragged into it". In point of fact, the Bible offers no support whatsoever for the UnBiblical and authoritarian usurpations advocated by so many "christian" socialist, Statists, and other assorted heretics.
Biblically, it's high time that Christian realize that The State Is Not Your Real Mother.
The State does not exist to punish violations of the Moral Law of the Commandments (the First Table), but only of the Civil Law (the Second Table). Anything else, is usurpation and Idolatry.
Because if you want the State to proscribe "harmful vices", there is no vice more Biblically harmful than the worship of False Gods. False Religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, even Catholicism if the Reformers were right) have done more Harm in sending men to Hell than dope, alcohol, and gambling combined.
But you're not really concerned with outlawing those Moral Vices, are you?
You've got your "pet" Vices about which you feel justified in playing tinpot dictator, but other Moral Offenses you're perfectly happy to let slide, in this Salad-Bar Theology which is more-or-less nothing but a pious facade to justify your own authoritarianism.
...never mind that you haven't a whit of Scriptural support for any of it, anyway...
...'Cause I rather doubt you're at all concerned with paying any attention to what Scripture authorizes, as genuinely being Caesar's, in the first place.
It seems completely out of context to argue against the WOD from this passage. If God instituted this present government (from the passage, there appear to be no other kind), then the laws that emanate from the government are to be obeyed.
Any Law? Every Law? Poppycock. Read the Essay.
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.
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).
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?
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.
Paul writes Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them Romans 2:14,15
You wrote: To IMPOSE the Moral Law on those who have not been regenerated to abide by it is the anti-Scriptural position.
Paul seems to think that there is law that is somehow part of our make-up as humans that is not dependent upon regeneration. I think that those parts of the law would be the parts which societies have held in common throughout time (C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man has a lot of good stuff on this). Namely, the don't kill, don't steal, etc...
There is also Biblical authority to resist unjust govenrment, as well as the same imperative given to us by our Founding Fathers, based on their Christian Faith.
Thomas Jefferson tells us that it is not only right, but our DUTY to resist "bad" or tyrannical governments and laws!
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.
I assume that what is being referred to is vv. 1-5. If it is asserted that the only governments that are referred to here are "good governments," then Paul's letter would have made not a lick of sense to any of its readers. The letter to the church in Rome? The seat of the Roman empire? If the statement that was made is true about this only applying to "good" government (I would assume that "good" here does not mean efficient or powerful, but rather morally good), then the whole passage is irrelevant to its readers as Paul would surely know before he even penned it. Poppycock.
But in regard to everything else I must leave my neighbor free and he must leave me free.
James 5:19,20: My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
Paul writes Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them Romans 2:14,15 ~~ You wrote: To IMPOSE the Moral Law on those who have not been regenerated to abide by it is the anti-Scriptural position. ~~ Paul seems to think that there is law that is somehow part of our make-up as humans that is not dependent upon regeneration. I think that those parts of the law would be the parts which societies have held in common throughout time (C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man has a lot of good stuff on this). Namely, the don't kill, don't steal, etc...
Paul's teachings on "the inward law" have been summarized in what Calvinists call "The Doctrine of Total Depravity", which stipulates that although man has a rudimentary innate awareness of what is Right, the Natural Man cannot be expected to do what is Right because he is Fallen. He knows Righteousness, at least a rudimentary and flawed concept thereof; but in his heart, God is hateful to him, he is "at enmity" with the things of the Spirit.
Such a man may be expected to constrain himself to the Civil law, for to have protections against Murder, Theft, etc., is very much in his own selfish interest -- although even then, Men are tempted to the violence proscribed in the Second Table. But to expect the Natural Man to abide by the Moral Law of the First Table, is precisely analogous to expecting a Corpse to get up off the ground and dance. Man's spirit is dead and it is foolish to write laws demanding Moral Behavior of him as if it were otherwise. The Civil Law he may uphold in that it is commensurate with his own selfish interest, but the Moral Law? An utter dead-end for the State to even attempt. The spirit needs Salvation to attend to the Moral Law, not Legislation, and any attempt to go beyond the authority which Paul has given the State -- which is, to enforce the Second Table of the Law -- simply ignores this fact.
My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. And use a gun to do so, even though such coercion violates the Sixth Commandment.
Nope, don't buy it.
"Submit or die for Jesus" is not the Christian way...
..and if it's immoral for a Christian to blow a man's head off for gambling or drinking or smoking the wrong kind of cigarette, it's every bit as immoral for him to delegate that Aggression to a Hired Gun.
You sound like a Puritan from the the 1600s in Salem Mass. You sound like you want a 'renewed' method to tell everyone your stinkin' concepts. You want a witch hunt, not a free Republic.
If men do not have built-in morality from their families and churches, who is the State to teach them morality?
The purpose of the State's law is not to teach, but to provide order. In much the same way that God mirrored what was important to Himself and provided the boundaries of a relationship with Him in the Decalogue, the State should mirror what is important to it in its laws and provide the boundaries for a relationship between the State and the citizen. Now, don't think that I wish that these were the same. It is impossible and impractical to think that we will be a theocracy (or anything approaching that). However, our laws should (and will) mirror what is important to us. If we value permissiveness, our laws will (and do) mirror that. If we value stability, (insert value here), our laws will mirror that.
Saint Paul was neither enamored of the Roman government nor they of him or they wouldnt't have crucified him in Rome, either.
You sound like a Puritan from the the 1600s in Salem Mass. You sound like you want a 'renewed' method to tell everyone your stinkin' concepts. You want a witch hunt, not a free Republic.
I hate to tell you, but this guy is on your side. LOL
I assume that what is being referred to is vv. 1-5. If it is asserted that the only governments that are referred to here are "good governments," then Paul's letter would have made not a lick of sense to any of its readers. The letter to the church in Rome? The seat of the Roman empire? If the statement that was made is true about this only applying to "good" government (I would assume that "good" here does not mean efficient or powerful, but rather morally good), then the whole passage is irrelevant to its readers as Paul would surely know before he even penned it. Poppycock.
No, it was very relevant to Paul's readers. The major Persecutions had NOT begun in earnest when Romans was penned.
Accordingly the arrival of St. Paul in Jerusalem and the composition of the Epistle to the Romans, which occurred in the preceding few months, must be referred to the years 56-59, or better 57-58.
And this Point is addressed by Nymeyer in "The Powers That Be":
Paul was a Roman citizen, who prized his citizenship, and who had generally found the Roman government to be a rather satisfactory government. The Romans, after all, were famous for their attempts to promote justice. Paul's work as a missionary had undoubtedly been promoted by the wide domain of Roman government and the general attitude of that government. (Obviously there were local exceptions.) Paul identified the current Roman government with a government ordained and favored by God. But note that his unqualified restriction obviously is this: that Roman government must and would operate on the principle of rewarding the good and retraining the evil. Consider what he writes:
For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good and thou shalt have praise from the same; for he is a 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 a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.
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.
Nymeyer continues...
The Apostle John had experienced less favorable treatment of the Roman government than the Apostle Paul had. John, near the end of his life had been banished to the lonely Mediterranean island of Patmos. There, with a vision of the future, he considered the eventual and final government of the world to be the greatest possible organized evil, or has he called it, the Great Beast (Chapter 13). Nowhere does John recommend cooperating with such an evil government, and nowhere does he say that God requires us to cooperate (by obedience) with such an evil government.
These two contrary notes, one by Paul and the other by John -- one to obey a government and the other that is a monstrous beast -- cannot be reconciled unless they describe different circumstances, a good government in the first instance and an evil government in the second instance.
You sound like a Puritan from the the 1600s in Salem Mass. You sound like you want a 'renewed' method to tell everyone your stinkin' concepts. You want a witch hunt, not a free Republic.
You know, I hate to agree with Texasforever, but he's right.
I'm on your side.
Read the Essay.
(I'll happily accept your apology when you finish actually reading the posted essay).
;-)
These two contrary notes, one by Paul and the other by John -- one to obey a government and the other that is a monstrous beast -- cannot be reconciled unless they describe different circumstances, a good government in the first instance and an evil government in the second instance.
Would the Jews of Jesus time have considered Rome a "good" government? Doubtful. And yet, still Jesus exhorts them "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." If the Romans passage applies only to good governments, does that mean that we don't have to pay taxes to "bad" governments. Write back quick. Because April 15 is comin quick.
The purpose of the State's law is not to teach, but to provide order. In much the same way that God mirrored what was important to Himself and provided the boundaries of a relationship with Him in the Decalogue, the State should mirror what is important to it in its laws and provide the boundaries for a relationship between the State and the citizen. Now, don't think that I wish that these were the same. It is impossible and impractical to think that we will be a theocracy (or anything approaching that). However, our laws should (and will) mirror what is important to us. If we value permissiveness, our laws will (and do) mirror that. If we value stability, (insert value here), our laws will mirror that. 160 Posted on 04/09/2001 01:42:49 PDT by the808bass
This in no way instructs the Christian on what sort of Laws he should advocate. Fact is, the Christian's responsibility is to ONLY advocate those Laws which are in concordance with Scripture.
And Romans 13: 8-10 tells us that the Second Table of the Law is the fulfillment of the Civil Law.
And that's it.
" I hate to tell you, but this guy [Uriel1975] is on your side." -- Texasforever
I am confident that many people are on "my side." I am not on FR to be stroked, I'm here to learn. I pray that others are as well.
I am confident that many people are on "my side."
I see you have had a complete change of heart as to your original post. Gosh does that whiplash hurt? ROTFLMAO Any port in the storm huh?
Would the Jews of Jesus time have considered Rome a "good" government? Doubtful. And yet, still Jesus exhorts them "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." If the Romans passage applies only to good governments, does that mean that we don't have to pay taxes to "bad" governments. Write back quick. Because April 15 is comin quick.
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
If this doesn't impel you to ask the question, "WHAT, then, is Caesar's??", then you're kinda missing the point.
Of course, as long as he'll send men with guns to punish you for not coughing up every dime he says is his, it's probably healthiest to pay.
But that doesn't mean those things Biblically are Caesar's, or that you should continue to support his claim that they are.
What is Caesar's, is the Enforcement of the Second Table of the Law (Romans 13: 1-10).
And That's It.
I really don't see what's so amusing (in a demonic kind of way) to men of "like mind" finding each other, unless you're on the Dark Side.
Uriel has spent much time and effort with his exegesis here, exhorting us to live by God's word as American citizens.
If people here find "Common Cause," which we can only pray that they do, then to God be the Glory!
If you date this letter around 58, then it is approximately 4 or so years after Claudius' decree banishing all Jews from Rome. Christians were still regarded at this time to be inextricably linked to the Jews and would have likely been included in this edict. Suetonius, in fact, states that the Jews were making constant disturbances under their leader "Christus."
From Clarke's commentary on Romans 13: With such political notions, grounded on their native restlessness, it is no wonder if in several instances they gave cause of suspicion to the Roman government, who would be glad of an opportunity to expel from the city persons whom they considered dangerous to its peace and security; nor is it unreasonable on this account to suppose, with Dr. Taylor, that the Christians, under a notion of being the peculiar people of God, and the subjects of his kingdom alone, might be in danger of being infected with those unruly and rebellious sentiments: therefore the apostle shows them that they were, notwithstanding their honours and privileges as Christians, bound by the strongest obligations of conscience to be subject to the civil government.
And while you may discount the interpretation of Clarke, you cannot discount the fact that the Christians in Rome would have been living in a climate far from being hospitable and open to their beliefs. Nero's persecutions of the next decade were not born out of thin air, but rather of a climate of suspicion and distrust for the Christian.
Just to boil down my #143 real simply, the problem with your post is this:
You assume that the "babysitter" (the magistrate) is not bound by the same "THIS IS THE FULFILLMENT" command as are the "children" (the citizens).
But you have offered zero Scripture to support the idea that there is a different rule of morality for Magistrates as for Common Men.
In fact, the Rule of Morality is exactly the same; only the Role is different. The Citizen Obeys the Civil Law and the Magistrate both Obeys and Enforces the Civil Law.
But ALL CHRISTIANS WITHOUT EXCEPTION are bound to regard Romans 13: 8-10 as the fulfillment of the Civil Law, for NO Christians are exempted from it.
Whether their role is merely to Obey, or both to Obey and to Enforce, ALL CHRISTIANS EQUALLY must regard Romans 13: 8-10 as the fulfillment of the Civil Law. For Paul says that this is the fulfillment of the Civil Law, and does not exempt the Christian Magistrate from EQUALLY acknowledging it as such.
If the Christian Magistrate wants to claim that he is not MANDATED to regard Romans 13: 8-10 as the fulfillment of the Civil Law, I want Chapter and Verse for his claimed exemption.
No such Scripture exists.
This observation does not change the central point Nymeyer is making:
A government's legitimacy is founded upon it's concordance with the Second Table of the Law, and naught else. The farther a Government is from the Second Table of the Law, the less Biblically legitimate it has become.
Christians SHOULD NOT expect that Romans 13 would bind them in obedience to the Beast of Revelation. Why? Because the Beast is a government which is totally out of conformity with the standard of Romans 13: 1-10. Our government may be hostile to Christianity -- as was 57 AD Rome -- but it remains the Minister of God as long as it has some semblance of conformity to the Second Table.
This does not, however, change the Christian's duty to seek to bring their government into perfect conformity with Romans 13: 1-10. That is our standard and we should strive for no less.
Actually, official attitudes on the Christians changed frequently, often within an emperor's reign; Claudius, I think, first allowed them as a "cult," then banned them.
To argue your case from ancient Roman history is missing the point of the Scriptures, however and doesn't prove your point.
As I stated before, Saint Paul was still crucified in Rome itself as an "enemy of the state."
Christ had to perpetually remind the Jews that he WAS NOT a political King, but one of Heaven.
We are merely trying to obey God's Law as Christians and to conform our civic selves to our Spiritual higher selves.
God's Law is higher than Man's Law--it's purer, more just, and it's eternal, not earthly.
When men attempt to be God or to set their laws above God's, and we would argue that this is the situation we have in our country today with too many laws, they are doomed to fail, especially when they legislate with the evil in men's hearts as a guide, and not Man's God-given goodness.
WOW!
Even before I get to read and digest the original post, this thread grows to 175 posts. Hope it is a slow day today so that I can catch up!
"We truly serve an awesome God."
We certainly do. One who knows the end from the beginning, and is never frustrated in His purpose. One who has chosen His elect prior to the foundation of the world, and One who has done everything "in Christ" to bring them to Himself. One who is the beginning, middle, and end of salvation.
This does not, however, change the Christian's duty to seek to bring their government into perfect conformity with Romans 13: 1-10.
I think I am olny beginning to grasp your argument. You are arguing (of course, correct me at your pleasure) that the beginning 5 verses of the passage set out for a government how it should act. A government that acts in this manner is worthy of being obeyed. As believers we fulfill the Law (not the law) as we love our neighbor as ourselves. Christian lawmakers should do the same and only that. Therefore, the only laws that can be made are those that fit within the confines of the "2nd Table of the Decalogue."
While Metzger's et.al. book "Hard Sayings of the Bible" may submit that the last bit is not a departure but a culmination of the passage, I doubt their exegesis would have to do with the limiting of governmental spheres of influence. If it does, please post the relevant bits. The passage is not addressed to governments or government officials. It is addressed to believers. Therefore, it is not a treatise on how government ought to act, but rather on how a believer interacts with government. When Metzger et. al. say that the last bit is the culmination of the passage, it would seem to speak of the believer's relationship to society at large and again have nothing to do with the limiting of government powers. In other words, Paul did not intend this to be a pamphlet on how government ought to act. You are eisegeting that into the text.
In a Republic, aren't "we the people" the government? Why wouldn't Romans 13:8-14 apply? You haven't given any answers, Biblical or otherwise, to this question. You sound like a broken record.
To argue your case from ancient Roman history is missing the point of the Scriptures, however and doesn't prove your point.
This argument rests precariously upon two presuppositions. (1) that it made sense to the readers (not a bad presupposition at all except for the second one) (2) that it is only addressing good government and a Christian's response to good government. If the sitz im leben of the readers makes the passage irrelevant to the readers (i.e. - the Romans were not a good government), then yes, that has everything to do with its interpretation. It makes the passage pointless. "Hey, if your government's good, do this. Never mind. It's not a good government." You can just hear the Roman readers saying, "Skip a bit." (Of course they'll speak with a British accent.) Therefore, the 2nd presupposition would appear to be incorrect. And it would not be the first or the last time that Paul advises Christians to behave in a way that does not bring needless accusations of contentiousness upon the early Christian.
What part of hath fulfilled the law Don't you understand?
Oh, come now Uriel, I know you're smarter than that. The "law" is not the law of government but of God. Read it in context. Continually does it speak of the OT law and how loving each other as we love ourselves is fulfillment of that law.
You still have no ground, on which to stand to support Romans 13:8-10 having anything to do with government. Yes the members of government are bound by this law as all Christians are, but having a crack head arrested is not breaking God's law.
Stop saying blowing their head off, I probably know 20 people, through school and such that were arrested for possesion of hard drugs, and all of them still have their head.
Romans 13:8-10 does apply to the lives of government officials, and therefore it applies to thier laws as well. But government is not LIMITED to it.
Laws against drugs breaks NONE of Gods laws.
"You want a verse? Name me ONE verse where drugs laws are condemned."
LOL!
Nothing like trying to prove a negative! Could it be that "drug laws" aren't condemned in Scripture because there were no "drug laws" to condemn? You are desperate.
"It's been cooked up by moral Puritans, such as yourself."
Please don't give the Puritans a bad name. I know the Puritans, TexasAggie ain't one!
Gee, how strange, then, that a tremendous weight of Scriptural exigesis, all clearly referenced and annotated above, supports my position, and you haven't a single verse to support your idea that the Magistrate is not bound by Romans 13 as much as any other Christian.
You have NO scriptural support. Yes, because Romans 13:8-10 is for all Christians it applies in a circular way to government, however NOWHERE is government limited to it.
...how come all the serious theologians who've studied this passage acknowledge that "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"???
HAHAHAHAHA. What do you consider SERIOUS theologians? Only the ones that agree with you. PULEEZ Do you think that the majority of Christian theologians support a completely different idea than that of the majority of Christian institutions?
So it is not addressed at all. Then we agree. Romans 13 does not restrict government.
Did you even bother to read Uriel's original article. Sheesh, must be a product of a public school!
Excellent post. If we only followed the US. Constitution we would have the Government described here, as the Constitution was based upon Christian principles.
Hi Matsuidon! Exactly. And nowhere in that document is there a warrant for the state to be in the "morality business." Thanks for the bump to this fine article, Mat. best wishes, bb.
passage is not addressed to governments or government officials. It is addressed to believers. Therefore, it is not a treatise on how government ought to act, but rather on how a believer interacts with government.
Believe me, I have been arguing this with Uriel for weeks. He is obviously set in his determination to legalize all drugs.
One can't help but wonder about someone so motivated to lagalize HARD drugs.
Arguing with Uriel, reminds me of when I argued with Jehovah's Witnesses that came to my door. They are just so convinced by their misinterpretation of the Bible.
"Stop saying blowing their head off, I probably know 20 people, through school and such that were arrested for possesion of hard drugs, and all of them still have their head."
And what if they chose to not go peacefully? And what if they chose to escape from jail? BANG!
HAHAHAHAHA. What do you consider SERIOUS theologians? Only the ones that agree with you. PULEEZ Do you think that the majority of Christian theologians support a completely different idea than that of the majority of Christian institutions?
Frankly, I'm not all that concerned with the readings of soteriologists and eschatologists who may or may not de dedicated theonomists. There's a lot of good eschatologists out there who aren't necessarily good soteriologists; likewise, theonomy is not a discipline which every wag who's talented in one area of Scripture is naturally going to master as well.
There aren't enough hours in the day, nor weeks in the year, for me to regard myself as a powerfully equipped eschatologist, so I tend to leave deeply involved eschatology to those who have the time to study it. But I am a fair soteriologist and a pretty competent Theonomist.
And yes, the majority of competent Theonomistic theologians DO agree with my position. Which is simply not surprising.
You have NO scriptural support. Yes, because Romans 13:8-10 is for all Christians it applies in a circular way to government, however NOWHERE is government limited to it.
Check Mate.
If Romans 13: 8-10 is the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law for ALL Christians, it is the FULFILLMENT of the Law for Christian Magistrates.
Thanks for playing.
And the fact that you don't want limits to government (Biblical or otherwise) scares me to death. As I read your posts, I get the feeling that you would have been very comfortable in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union.
You are no friend of freedom.
Your 186 is ridiculous. You asked for Scriptural admonitions against drug laws. You cannot prove a positive by way of a negative. We are not in agreement. Why would I want to agree with a fascist like you?
Uriel, I've so enjoyed your fine article. Well done! I found myself thinking while reading it: We ought to understand that the concept "our neighbor" extends equally to persons who are not our coreligionists. It makes me wince to hear a person standing firmly within a particular faith tradition suggest that another faith tradition is a sure route to Hell. It is not ours to render judgment in such matters, but God's alone. (Or so it seems to me.) God saves whom He will, according to His reasons. He probably even saves an RC or a Mormon or two, every now and then (among others). Thanks for a great post. best wishes, bb.
Uriel, thanks for another great contribution to my library. I am saddened that you have become a lightning rod for some people, but your adherence to the truth of God's Word will not go unrewarded.
You have given me great encouragement for living my life solely upon the precepts of Scripture, to include my political philosophy. As such, you have edified this Baptist pastor.
And what if they chose to escape from jail? BANG!
They are breaking God's command to obey government.
Even if you were an innocent man put in jail, do you think God would support your breaking out?
I get the feeling that you would have been very comfortable in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union.
As I read your post, I get the feeling that you are desperate to get your habit legalized.
If Romans 13: 8-10 is the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law for ALL Christians, it is the FULFILLMENT of the Law for Christian Magistrates.
Where is government limited to "CIVIL" law? NOT ONE SCRIPTURE. Government is to punish that which is WRONG.
As such, you have edified this Baptist pastor.
SIR, I pray for your congregation, all 2 of them.
As you have shown in the past, you continue to slander people without proof (and are thus guilty of God's commandment). I don't even engage in Uriel's habit of an occasional beer. I have never smoked pot, and have never injested or consumed "illegal" narcotics. Nor do I have any desire to ever use any of these. However, I must confess that I have taken as many as three extra strength Tylenols from time to time.
As a minister of the Gospel, it is my job to preach against intoxicants and their abuse. It is not government's job to enter my domain. Since I am the government (as a citizen in a Republic) is is not my desire that my government execute people for using intoxicants.
Where is government limited to "CIVIL" law? NOT ONE SCRIPTURE.
Perhaps they could offer a proof in tongues.
"SIR, I pray for your congregation, all 2 of them."
We don't need your prayers, since I have the feeling that they don't get much higher than the ceiling. I am presently in my 12th year pastoring the same congregation. They don't need your abuse either.
I have never smoked pot, and have never injested or consumed "illegal" narcotics. Nor do I have any desire to ever use any of these. However, I must confess that I have taken as many as three extra strength Tylenols from time to time.
Isn't it funny that you find that you must defend yourself. I have not denied your insults upon my person, of me supporting Hitler, because such an idea is even hideous to consider.
I just pray for your children, that you would allow them to grow up in such a community that would follow the legalization of all drugs.
Where is government limited to "CIVIL" law? NOT ONE SCRIPTURE. Government is to punish that which is WRONG.
Nope. If the Government were to punish all "WRONG", it necessarily must punish Orthodox Judaism for keeping men from Christ. Tinpot Ecclesiocratic Totalitarianism, anyone?
But of course, The FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law for all Christians is EVERY BIT AS MUCH the FULFILLMENT of the Civil law for Christian Magistrates.
You've lost the entire debate. At this point, you're just raging against the results.
But the debate is over. Thanks for playing.
I am presently in my 12th year pastoring the same congregation.
I'm not Baptist by any means, however I would love for you to submit your ideas on drug laws to the committeeo of whatever version Baptist you are.
But the debate is over. Thanks for playing.
LOL Dude, the debate was over weeks ago when you claimed Romans 13 as your only source for your entire theory. I'm just amused with how you stick with your guns, unloaded, as they may be.
Civil Law never stopped a criminal and Scriptual Law never stopped a criminal. The heart of every man is black and not to be trusted hence the need for a reborn nature one that has the nature of the Lord otherwise we have the nature of the beast. We are only reborn thru Christ...NO OTHER!! All of our pious little acts of righteousness are filthy rags to a Holy God and he is not impressed. You can take all the religions and if they don't know WHO Christ actually is they labor in vain. Flame if you want but I didn't write the rules...Flame God for HE said.."The ONLY way to the Father is thru the SON!!!" Notice the word ONLY!! ps. I'd be careful about flaming God ...his flame is bigger.
Uriel, I've so enjoyed your fine article. Well done! I found myself thinking while reading it: We ought to understand that the concept "our neighbor" extends equally to persons who are not our coreligionists.
Glad you enjoyed the article.
It makes me wince to hear a person standing firmly within a particular faith tradition suggest that another faith tradition is a sure route to Hell. It is not ours to render judgment in such matters, but God's alone. (Or so it seems to me.) God saves whom He will, according to His reasons. He probably even saves an RC or a Mormon or two, every now and then (among others).
Oh gosh, I'm certain that He does!! God certainly does save whomsoever He will.
(Although my personal opinion is that I question whether a devout Mormon, who knows that religion's teachings on the "progressivity" of God -- i.e., 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be' -- has ever sought the actual God of the Bible [a precondition to Salvation], I have no doubt that there have been nominal 'Mormons' whose view of God is [intentionally or unintentionally] analogous the Biblical view of God and so may have been Saved)
But such matters are left to God's Judgment; our duty is simply, to Preach.
But such matters are left to God's Judgment; our duty is simply, to Preach. (oh yeah and make drugs, cheaper, safer, and legal for all our communities.)
The article does a good job of setting out scriptural support for the contentions (although some of it is shoddy.)
But, there is a contention that was IMPLIED and for which no support has been given.
Namely, between Contention I and II there should have been support for the idea that Chrisitians are to be Magistrates.
The State's role -- as described in Romans 13 -- is to exectue vengeance.
Romans 12 -- the previous chapter that nobody reads -- forbids Christians from partaking in vengeance.
In short, do you really think Paul was encouraging his readers to become part of the Roman Empire and to serve in governmental positions under Ceasar? Hah.
Where is the scripture authorizing me to execute vengenace so long as I'm doing it in a uniform?
LOL Dude, the debate was over weeks ago when you claimed Romans 13 as your only source for your entire theory. I'm just amused with how you stick with your guns, unloaded, as they may be.
Sorry. The FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law for all Christians is every bit the FULFILLMENT of the Law for the Christian Magistrate. Your admission of this central fact constitutes a complete bankrupting of your entire "position" (which was always predicated upon the idea that the Magistrate is not bound by Romans 13: 8-10. Ahh, but if he's Christian, he's included in the set of "all Christians", and therefore is).
At this point, you're just trying to press your bluff.
But your bluff's been called out, and everyone's seen your hand. 7 high, different suits, no pair.
Bankrupt.
Game over, and thanks for playing.
Lets imagine for a moment that Uriel's false doctrine becomes accepted by our nation. Uriel has gotten his way and a libertarian government rules.
Let's now forward to Uriel's arrival at the Pearly Gates.
God- Uriel how have you served me?
Uriel- Well God you're gonna love me for this, I got millions upon millions of your children to start using Drugs. But it's their fault God, they had no right to be kept from that temptation. We sure showed them didn't we God. Thanks to me Drugs, prostitution and gambling run rampant in America. Aren't you proud of me God?
Civil Law never stopped a criminal and Scriptual Law never stopped a criminal. The heart of every man is black and not to be trusted hence the need for a reborn nature one that has the nature of the Lord otherwise we have the nature of the beast. We are only reborn thru Christ...NO OTHER!! All of our pious little acts of righteousness are filthy rags to a Holy God and he is not impressed. You can take all the religions and if they don't know WHO Christ actually is they labor in vain. Flame if you want but I didn't write the rules...Flame God for HE said.."The ONLY way to the Father is thru the SON!!!" Notice the word ONLY!! ps. I'd be careful about flaming God ...his flame is bigger.
All true.
But the subject of my post is not about the way of Salvation....
...it's about the Biblical mandate for Legislation.
Which is not nearly as broad a Mandate as many authoritarian Christians seem to think. (Read the Essay). Thanks, and Godspeed.
Uriel
Once again. Romans 13:8-10 addresses ONLY how we are to treat our fellow man. It, in no way shape or form, tells government that it may only enforce that as law.
Where do nuclear weapons come under that second table of yours?
But the subject of my post is not about the way of Salvation....
No it's about making all drugs, prostitution and gambling legal. Uriel here is a bit of an indulger of the flesh methinks.
Well God you're gonna love me for this, I got millions upon millions of your children to start using Drugs. But it's their fault God, they had no right to be kept from that temptation. We sure showed them didn't we God. Thanks to me Drugs, prostitution and gambling run rampant in America. Aren't you proud of me God?
Man you're upset about losing the debate!! Poor guy!!
Sorry, but non-prohibition is not promotion. Just 'cause God's Law didn't have a prohibition against bad karaoke, didn't mean that that Law was promoting it.
It does mean that the prohibition of bad karaoke is not within the Mandate of the State.
Of course, likewise, the prohibition of intoxicants, prostitution, and gambling is not within the Biblical mandate of the State. The Church must and should Preach repentance from them... but it is nowhere in Scripture a function of the State to prohibit.
But that's okay, we got TexAggie79 to think up all those laws that God "forgot". (chuckle).
No it's about making all drugs, prostitution and gambling legal. Uriel here is a bit of an indulger of the flesh methinks.
And eliminating Welfare. And Public Education. And Environmental and Business Regulation. And everything which oversteps the Biblical mandate for government.
But Texaggie79's parochial Statism is threatened by such a sweeping repudiation of the Leviathan State.
Hence, he will spare no slander, bear every False Witness he can think of, when he's losing the debate.
Which, of course, he's already lost.
Uriel,
Don't get me wrong. You are way way on the right track. A world following the rules you have set forth would be a vast improvement.
But, specifically, here is where I get stuck.
You stated:
According to the Bible, the state is a legitimate institution, but its scope is severely limited.
But, you don't cite any verses to support this. Are we to simply assume this? The only legitimate instituoin of government I see in the Bible is (a) the Temple system [which was abolished] and (b) the monarchy of Christ [which is now here.]
All other references to 'alternate' governments are unfavorable. Indeed, I Samuel 8 calls the desire of the ISraelites to set up a 'legitimate civil government' rebellion from God!
Help me out here.
-- an Anabaptist.
The Church must and should Preach repentance from them
I, know your not that clueless man. You can obviously post quotes from others, so I can see you are quite the self thinker.
Church is for BELIEVERS. Non-believers don't go. The BIBLE is not for non-believers.
As I said before, we could have your government if we were all serving Christ. But we live amongst evil and unGodly people. Our law must protect all of us from the evil of these men. Drugs are a tool of SATAN and we will not allow his tool to flow freely throughout our nation.
Once again. Romans 13:8-10 addresses ONLY how we are to treat our fellow man. It, in no way shape or form, tells government that it may only enforce that as law. Where do nuclear weapons come under that second table of yours? 214 Posted on 04/09/2001 07:59:18 PDT by Texaggie79
You mean like Chernobyl??
Nuclear Power Plants are weapons of mass destruction, if one chooses to use them that way... and yet, they're privately owned. You wish to nationalize them, I presume?
The key question in ownership of any explosive device is maintaining enough security around the device to negate the risk of negligent Harm to the Neighbor. In the case of nuclear power plants, we hope that the concrete walls will be sufficient. Nuclear warheads being more powerful still, they should properly be stored in the middle of about 40,000 square miles of uninhabited desert to avoid risk of negligent Harm. But of course, those individuals wealthy and unscrupulous enough to seek ownership of a nuclear weapon are generally do not consider themselves bound by the laws of any nation. Mr. Bin Laden in unlikely to respect any nuclear-materials-handling laws we pass; hence, the best way to avoid his psychopathy, is to maintain a peaceful and non-aggressive foreign policy which does not involve the bombing of aspirin factories.
okay, gimme a sec.
Drugs are a tool of SATAN and we will not allow his tool to flow freely throughout our nation.
False Religions are a tool of SATAN and they keep far more souls from Christ than "shrooms". Not gonna ban them, are ya?
Selective, salad-bar, self-willed "theology" at its worst.
PSSST -- your logical and theological bankruptcy is showing. ;-)
Mr. Bin Laden in unlikely to respect any nuclear-materials-handling laws we pass; hence, the best way to avoid his psychopathy, is to maintain a peaceful and non-aggressive foreign policy which does not involve the bombing of aspirin factories.
Mr. Bin Laden, if not a fugitive of the FBI, would be able to possess his weapons of mass destruction legally, if your way of government were to rule.
Mr. Bin Laden in unlikely to respect any nuclear-materials-handling laws we pass; hence, the best way to avoid his psychopathy, is to maintain a peaceful and non-aggressive foreign policy which does not involve the bombing of aspirin factories.
Mr. Bin Laden, if not a fugitive of the FBI, would be able to possess his weapons of mass destruction legally, if your way of government were to rule.
If he were to live in the U.S.
"I have not denied your insults upon my person, of me supporting Hitler"
You don't read very well, do you. I said that you might find Hitler's Germany to your liking, not based on lack of proof, but based upon your contention that government must regulate every aspect of life. On this thread, and others, you have been the champion of governmental control.
My children have grown up to be responsible citizens, not because of government, but in spite of it. I anticipate that the same will be true for my grandchildren as well. I recognized many years ago that my family is my responsibility, and I have done my job in training them in the way that they should go. I desire a free society for them, not the gulag that the WOD is turning this country into.
that it is only addressing good government and a Christian's response to good government. If the sitz im leben of the readers makes the passage irrelevant to the readers (i.e. - the Romans were not a good government), then yes, that has everything to do with its interpretation.
The Romans passage is speaking about the Christian's response to government, yes. But the phrase "a good government" may be a little too general to accurately construe the intent of the passage. Contained in the passage is the definition of what constitutes governmental authority. Authority means "the right to rule". In other words, government has authority to punish evil. Conversely, it has no authority to punish good.
So it's not about whether a government in general is good or bad. It simply defines what acts lie within the scope of legitmate governmental authority. There is no obligation to obey any ulta vires command of the government, for the government has no authority given to it by God to issue such commands. One could even say that an obligation exists to disobey such commands, for they constitute tyranny. The government may have power to punish the one who disobeys, as governments do, but in the case where the government acts outside the scope of its authority, then there is no legitimate exercise of that power.
Not everything about the Roman government was illegitimate. For example, the Romans had courts of law, and St. Paul took advantage of Roman law to defend himself. Those courts were not illegitimate simply because Rome was a "bad government" - they would be illegitimate only where they exceeded the scope of legitimate governmental authority, as defined by Romans 13.
Cordially,
False Religions are a tool of SATAN and they keep far more souls from Christ than "shrooms".
Government has nothing to do with your relationship with God. Government is to set fourth the rules for which keep our society functioning. Believers of false doctrines harm no on with mere belief, drug users dertroy our communities.
PSST, your obsession is showing. MR. Jehovah's Witness.
The article does a good job of setting out scriptural support for the contentions (although some of it is shoddy.) But, there is a contention that was IMPLIED and for which no support has been given. Namely, between Contention I and II there should have been support for the idea that Chrisitians are to be Magistrates. The State's role -- as described in Romans 13 -- is to exectue vengeance. Romans 12 -- the previous chapter that nobody reads -- forbids Christians from partaking in vengeance. In short, do you really think Paul was encouraging his readers to become part of the Roman Empire and to serve in governmental positions under Ceasar? Hah. Where is the scripture authorizing me to execute vengenace so long as I'm doing it in a uniform? Uriel, Don't get me wrong. You are way way on the right track. A world following the rules you have set forth would be a vast improvement. But, specifically, here is where I get stuck. You stated: According to the Bible, the state is a legitimate institution, but its scope is severely limited. But, you don't cite any verses to support this. Are we to simply assume this? The only legitimate instituoin of government I see in the Bible is (a) the Temple system [which was abolished] and (b) the monarchy of Christ [which is now here.] All other references to 'alternate' governments are unfavorable. Indeed, I Samuel 8 calls the desire of the ISraelites to set up a 'legitimate civil government' rebellion from God! Help me out here. -- an Anabaptist
Lets start with the following, from Augustine:
Epistle 138. to Marcellinus (411-12 AD): "So these precepts of patience are always to be kept in attitude of heart, and in the will. But many things must be done, even in striking the unwilling with a kind harshness [cf."tough love"]. Thought is to be taken rather for what is good for them than for what they want.... If Christianity blamed all wars, the counsel would have been given to the soldiers seeking salvation in the Gospel that they cast away their arms.... He who ordered them to be content with their pay, surely did not prohibit their being soldiers."
Epistle 189, to Boniface, a Soldier (AD 417/18): "Do not think that no one can please God who is a soldier in military arms. Holy David was among these, to whom the Lord gave such great witness [cf. 1 Kings 14.7, where God says David, "followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes:] and many just men of that time among them. Among these was Cornelius [Acts 10] to whom the angel was sent.... Among these were those who came to John for baptism.... Surely he did not forbid them to serve in arms, to whom he ordered to be content with their pay. ....Some therefore fight for you by praying against invisible enemies; you work for them by fighting against visible barbarians.... So think first of this, when you arm yourself for battle,that even your bodily strength is a gift of God...."
Thoughts?
I am a Southern Baptist, and thus believe in the autonomy of the local church. My church knows that I believe in the Word of God, and that I live according to it's dictates. As such, I am baptistic in theology, polity, and practice. The only "commitee" that I need to stand before is the one I face from the pulpit every week.
Mr. Bin Laden, if not a fugitive of the FBI, would be able to possess his weapons of mass destruction legally, if your way of government were to rule.
Bin Laden?
I thought it was Emmanuel Goldstein....
It's so hard to keep up.
(Sorry for the interruption...)
You drug freedom fighters need to distinguish between WOD and a state's right to prohibit drugs.
Mr. Bin Laden will, or will not, secure nuclear materials no matter what the law says about it.
I still maintain that the law, taking into account the risk of Negligent Harm, should require anyone who wants to "possess" a nuclear device to have it staked off in 40,000 square miles of uninhabited desert...
...But I do know that the only people seeking such devices, aren't paying any attention whatsoever to US Law.
What, Uriel did you take me off your list?;^)
Most excellent article, sir! I have an extension to a question I have asked you before about the theonomy of adultery, because I am still uncertain as to the Biblical foundation for it being treated as a civil, contractual matter. Being in the Second Table of the Law, why should it be considered a civil matter, as opposed to a criminal matter, as it was in Leviticus? Thanks again for a well written, closely reasoned article. I always appreciate your fine work.
Cordially,
should require anyone who wants to "possess" a nuclear device to have it staked off in 40,000 square miles of uninhabited desert...
OMG you better have scriptural support for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Government has nothing to do with your relationship with God. Government is to set fourth the rules for which keep our society functioning. Believers of false doctrines harm no on with mere belief, drug users dertroy our communities. PSST, your obsession is showing. MR. Jehovah's Witness.
Nope. Proselytizing men into Hell certainly Harms them. There's no argument for State Prohibition of Moral Evil which does not necessitate the State Prohibition of False Religions.
But, of course, the State has no Authority to do any of that. Because the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law for all Christians is equally the FULFILLMENT of the Civil Law for the Christian Magistrate.
You've lost, and you've nothing to fall back on but slander and False Witness. So sad to see. But no, I am Orthodox Presbyterian, not "Jehovah's Witness".
OMG you better have scriptural support for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As noted previously, Property Destruction is a form of Theft (Second Table), and Criminal Negligence regarding the Second Table falls within the Mandate of the State (Romans 13: 9b-10 -- "any other commandment... don't harm the neighbor", plus lots of Exodus).
I'm talking about the "40,000 square miles of uninhabited desert..."
Certainly you cannot rely upon man's reasoning, you MUST get this number from the Bible.
An honest question - Which Government are you saying is Godly?
There's no argument for State Prohibition of Moral Evil which does not necessitate the State Prohibition of False Religions.
I do not support drug laws, because they are immoral. I support them because drugs are destructive to our society.
I know your not Jehovah's Witness, I was just reminded of the JW's that come to my door, that do not listen to reason and blindly except their belief.
Which Government are you saying is Godly?
I know of none, do you?
What, Uriel did you take me off your list?;^) Most excellent article, sir! I have an extension to a question I have asked you before about the theonomy of adultery, because I am still uncertain as to the Biblical foundation for it being treated as a civil, contractual matter. Being in the Second Table of the Law, why should it be considered a civil matter, as opposed to a criminal matter, as it was in Leviticus? Thanks again for a well written, closely reasoned article. I always appreciate your fine work. Cordially,
No, you're certainly not "off my list". A regrettable oversight.
As to Marriage, two quick points:
1.) How could Marriage be otherwise than a matter of Private Covenant, given that the definition of Marriage is a Church function, not a State function, and the Church and State are not fused ala' Leviticus??
2.) Given that the Church and State are not fused, is not the Civil portion the contractual portion? Adulterers were not stoned in the Old Testament for the contract-breaking aspect (the Civil aspect), for contract-breakers were required to provide restitution. They were stoned for the Moral offense. Execution was the standard methodology for "cutting someone off from the people". But the function of Moral Removal fulfilled by execution for moral crimes in the OT, is fulfilled by Excommunication in the Church. The State may not presume to exercise a Moral Judgment function which, without Covenantal sanction, it is not authorized to undertake; it must restrict itself to the civil aspect which -- as noted in point #1 -- is, of necessity, a matter of the contractual.
That's my point. All government at its root is anti-Christ. Even this one. It exalts the state over the Lord.
It's a weak argument to justify government by pointing to what Christ did NOT prohibit.
Truth be told, we do not know whether the handful of Roman Soldiers who met with Christ, Peter, and Paul did or did not drop out of the military.
We DO know, however, that until Constatine -- when the Government became Christianized and Christianity became Governmentized -- christians as a rule refused to serve in the military.
St. Maximillian -- of the second century -- was martyred for taking this stand.
Was he in error?
Romans 13 is a comfort to Christians who lose hope in the face of governments. Paul assures us that, despite how it may appear, God is in control of the governments and that they are there for a purpose; namely, as instruments of His wrath and vengeance. He assures Christians that if you do what is right, you will generally go unpunished by the government.
But, I still fail to see how we go from this description of governments to a PRESCRIPTION that Christians try to set up their own.
God uses one group of evil-doers to punish and govern another group of evil-doers. Romans 12 tells us Christians not to get into this vengenace business. It tells us not to return evil for evil, not to fight against those who oppress you, and last but not least -- in Romans 13 -- not to rebel against the government.
In short, a passage saying to submit to cheek-slappers does not imply that God wants US to become cheek-slappers. Nor, does a passage telling us to submit to the governing authorities imply that God wants us to become governing authorities. (Especially in light of Jesus' constant admonitions that we be servants and that we should not "rule over one another as the Gentiles do...")
Certainly you cannot rely upon man's reasoning, you MUST get this number from the Bible.
No, Scripture doesn't specify the amount of money which qualifies as "misdemeanor theft" and "felony theft", it only mandates that Government must punish Theft.
The details differ based on the relative currency, as the details of explosive storage differ based on the relative power.
For us, it is enough to know that the State should punish Theft and Property Despoilment and Criminal Negligence.
I do not support drug laws, because they are immoral. I support them because drugs are destructive to our society.
As are false religions. Proselytizing men into Hell is destructive. A Christian may use no definition of "destructive" other than the BIBLE's, and this certainly includes worship of false gods.
Your position is bankrupt. You know it. I know it. And everyone on the thread can see it.
God uses one group of evil-doers to punish
Sentiment invalidated by the phrase, "Ministers of God" and "for Good" (Romans 13: 4).
If Magistracy is a Ministry, Christians should not shrink from the calling of that Ministry any more than from the Ministry of the Presbytery.
My big question is: what the heck are "brass taxes"? ;-)
Are you saying that a government that sets it self up on the last 2nd table of the Law of Moses is a Godly government? Are you saying that the "law of liberty" is given to a government? Again, honest questions.
The perfect law of Liberty is about salvation. When you have the heart and nature of the Lord then you can discern the true from the false...in whatever, be it gov. or religion. That is what made some understand the parables and see them in the light of freedom and others understand them and see them in the light of more rules and regulations. Your nature dictates how you will perceive..even all that you have written. I will do what the government says according to my conscience and my conscience is ruled by God. My main focus is to line my understanding up with the Lords not line his up with mine. I do not have a heart to control the hearts of others. If He is the focal point for those with true motives ,there is a people who will think and be directed as an army and not fail. The gates of hell will not prevail against them. Even if drugs and prostitution and all things were legalized this day I would have no part of it because it is not the law that controls my actions. Legalize them...a dog will always return to its own vomit...doesn't matter how much fear of the civil law you put on them.
For us, it is enough to know that the State should punish Theft and Property Despoilment and Criminal Negligence.
WHAT?!?!?!? NO!!!! We must make ALL our decisions with the Bible and God. You are straying from God.
LOL
You sure love to lighten up the mood. :^)
"Give me ONE verse telling government that it can't. ONE LITTLE ONE."
The government is you ... at least in a democratic one. When you give sanction to what it does, you are morally culpable. The judgements and retributions you advocate are written in your book of life, and you will have to answer to them.
WHAT?!?!?!? NO!!!! We must make ALL our decisions with the Bible and God. You are straying from God.
We do. God says punish Theft, so we do. Your mileage may vary depending on the value of the local currency, of course, but the State still has to punish theft, whatever varying amounts happen to be involved.
Sorry you lost the debate.
The perfect law of Liberty is about salvation. When you have the heart and nature of the Lord then you can discern the true from the false...in whatever, be it gov. or religion. That is what made some understand the parables and see them in the light of freedom and others understand them and see them in the light of more rules and regulations. Your nature dictates how you will perceive..even all that you have written. I will do what the government says according to my conscience and my conscience is ruled by God. My main focus is to line my understanding up with the Lords not line his up with mine. I do not have a heart to control the hearts of others. If He is the focal point for those with true motives ,there is a people who will think and be directed as an army and not fail. The gates of hell will not prevail against them. Even if drugs and prostitution and all things were legalized this day I would have no part of it because it is not the law that controls my actions. Legalize them...a dog will always return to its own vomit...doesn't matter how much fear of the civil law you put on them.
Right.