# Christian response to persecution



## Joe Keysor

I don't know if this is the proper place for this post, but I would be interested in some feedback:

The early Christians allowed themselves to be killed, and their faith was victorious.

The French Protestants took up arms and fought and were defeated, Catholicism remained dominant. If they had passively allowed themselves to be killed and accepted death calmly as I believe scripture indicates, might the Catholics have looked on and though "Maybe they are right, maybe we are missing something"?

If there was some passive acceptance of suffering, I would welcome more information on that also.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

As a descendant of the French Protestants who you say were "defeated," I beg to differ. Success for the faithful is not measured in terms of political victory. Many hundreds of thousands of French Huguenots were martyred, perhaps more in number than the early Christians, and many Roman Catholics were converted by the steadfastness of their faith as they sang the psalms of Marot while being consumed by the flames. In France, yes, Roman Catholics maintained the ascendancy just as in the early Roman Empire false religion maintained the ascendancy even after Constantine. But like the early Church which spread abroad the whole known world, so likewise did the French Huguenot disaspora of the 17th and 18th centuries leave a lasting effect upon much of the world. French Huguenots were dispersed to England, Holland, Germany, Switzerland (think Calvin), the US, South Africa and more. The political resistance of the French Huguenots was extremely influential in the American War for Independence a century after the diaspora (think Brutus' _A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants_ (1579)). Their political resistance to tyranny is based on the Augustinian and Calvinistic application of Biblical principles of free republican government, to which Western civilization today owes a great debt. The early Christians laid down their lives because there were no Christian lesser civil magistrates to stand up to tyrants. In the Reformation there were Christian civil magistrates who defended the liberties of the saints against tyranny. Thus Christians witness against tyranny differently in different circumstances. There is no warrant to adopt the pacificistic view of non-resistance to tyranny simply because the early Church lacked those in authority to stand up to tyrants. Both the early Church and the French Huguenots (and Scottish Covenanters, American Presbyterians, etc.) all testified to Christ's Crown & Covenant in their own way in their own time.


----------



## Peter

The Covenanters did not always have a "lesser magistrate." I prefer to think the early Christians didnt take up arms and fight because they didnt have the means. Note that whether fighting for your principles against the government, or dying for them at the hands of the government you are still disobeying the govt. Passive resistance is still resistance. The early Christians didnot raise arms only because it was not expedient. There was no hope of success and fighting would only cause bloodshed, social discord, and if it could be saved otherwise, the end of their own lives.


----------



## Ranger

I personally think there is a call to suffering as long as the suffering is brought about by the purposes of God. In these situations, we should rejoice, not rebel against the suffering for it is producing fruit in our lives.

On a separate note, do you really live in Oman? I spent some time growing up in Sana'a, Yemen.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Ranger]


----------



## RamistThomist

Although it is no surprise, I agree with Andrew and Peter. Furthermore, although not directly related, let us not have a warped, masochistic view of suffering and martyrdom. If we view suffering merely for suffering's sake, then we have missed the point. Now, you might ask, who has that kind of view? I fear that we miss the most obvious hope of martyrdom/suffering: vindication. The Christian can hope in suffering for the gospel for his is _a suffering unto victory_, whatever shape that victory may take. This is why I, as a postmillennialist, can reconcile the obvious "pessimistic passages" (although the fact that Paul was talking to his own time period is often ignored) with the general triumph of the gospel. If we are in a society where preaching the gospel will be met with _statist_ resistance, then we MUST by all means testify to the *crown rights of King Jesus*.


----------



## Joe Keysor

> Success for the faithful is not measured in terms of political victory.


True. I was not thinking of political victory but spiritual victory, the collpase of the pagan religion - though of course there was still a lot of sin and evil.



> Many hundreds of thousands of French Huguenots were martyred, perhaps more in number than the early Christians, and many Roman Catholics were converted by the steadfastness of their faith as they sang the psalms of Marot while being consumed by the flames.


I confess to not having as much knowledge as I should, and not doubt brave martyrs glorified Christ by their deaths, but a Huguenot general, attacks, hangings, vengeance, rebellion, only served to fan the flames of hatred and did not glorify Jesus Christ.

As to the Huguenot Diaspora, that was undoubtedly God's providence, he brings good out of evil and all things work in the end to his glory.



> The political resistance of the French Huguenots was extremely influential in the American War for Independence a century after the diaspora (think Brutus' A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants (1579).


I think the Americans could have achieved independence gradually, as the Canadians and the Australians did. I have read, and think it is reasonable, that at the time of the revolution 1/3 of the colonists were for independence, 1/3 wanted to stay with Britain, and 1/3 were waiting to see which side won. I think the American revolution was unbiblical, a resistance to divinely ordained authorities. The leaders of the revolution, including Franklin, Jefferson, and John Adams were not bible believing Christians.



> Their political resistance to tyranny is based on the Augustinian and Calvinistic application of Biblical principles of free republican government, to which Western civilization today owes a great debt.



It is true western civilization owes Christianity a great debt, as I have seen from living in Asia and the Middle East. One great biblical principle is obedience to the law and to the authorities. Other principles are spiritual: God knows what you do, you will be judged, this life is only a preparation for eternity, forgive others, and such spiritual truths. I do not see armed resistance to tyranny in the bible.




> The early Christians laid down their lives because there were no Christian lesser civil magistrates to stand up to tyrants. In the Reformation there were Christian civil magistrates who defended the liberties of the saints against tyranny. Thus Christians witness against tyranny differently in different circumstances.


True, there were no civil magistrates, but I don't see them taking up arms and fighting in any case. That is purely speculative, we have to rely here on holiness and the Spirit and wisdom from God. In the Reformation, civil magistrates such as the elector of Saxony had the duty to defend his state, but Luther was no advocate of military means to resist Catholicism. I suppose it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line in every case, it depends on the leading of the Spirit. But I believe scripture does not want people to fight for Christ.



> There is no warrant to adopt the pacificistic view of non-resistance to tyranny simply because the early Church lacked those in authority to stand up to tyrants. Both the early Church and the French Huguenots (and Scottish Covenanters, American Presbyterians, etc.) all testified to Christ's Crown & Covenant in their own way in their own time.


The Scottish Covenanters (to take one example) were obviously correct in refusing to accept the authority of a church they felt was unbiblical, but to take up arms and fight is a different matter entirely. Paul says the authorities are ordained of God. He did not say you can resist them if lesser magistrates support you.

There is a quote from William Wallace - very stirring, but was he a Christian?


----------



## Joe Keysor

> I prefer to think the early Christians didnt take up arms and fight because they didnt have the means. Note that whether fighting for your principles against the government, or dying for them at the hands of the government you are still disobeying the govt. Passive resistance is still resistance. The early Christians didnot raise arms only because it was not expedient. There was no hope of success and fighting would only cause bloodshed, social discord, and if it could be saved otherwise, the end of their own lives.



Paul did not say "You may resist the authorities when it is expedient." He said the authorities are ordained of God. I think some advocates of Christian resistance do not believe this. Did God ordain George III? He did. I believe the early Christians did not fight because they were more concerned with spiritual things - though of course their situation was very different.

George III was far less oppressive and cruel than the Caesars, he was not persecuting Christians, and "No taxation without representation" is not a biblical principle. Can you imagine Paul saying to the Corinthians "The Romans are taxing you unjustly, take up your weapons and fight for independence"? There might have been some local magistrates who would have gone along, the Greeks had tried to revolt against the Romans before.


----------



## Joe Keysor

> I personally think there is a call to suffering as long as the suffering is brought about by the purposes of God. In these situations, we should rejoice, not rebel against the suffering for it is producing fruit in our lives.


Here is the crux of the matter. And if the authorities are ordained of God? And if suffering is part of his plan for us? And to die is gain?




> do you really live in Oman? I spent some time growing up in Sana'a, Yemen.



Yes, I do live in Oman, I have been here for over a year now and like it a lot. If I had not personally experienced it I would not have believed Moslems could be so friendly and easy to get along with. There is negativism toward Bush and Israel, but none against me. My biggest problem is with an English teacher at our school, who is a really evil person, obscene, vulgar, immoral, conceited, bitter, resentful, trying to find happiness in life by pretending she is a man, chiefly interested in sex and booze - a real trial sent by God for my edification.

When were you in Yemen?

I am drawn to the Middle East, and feel quite at home here.


----------



## Ranger

I lived in Yemen in 91-93 and again in 97-98. 

I strongly believe that there is a call to suffering, and that if that results in martyrdom sobeit. I don't think that leads us to become pacifists though. We still must fully submit to the authorities. So I guess I'm kinda with both of you, hehe.


----------



## Joe Keysor

I am not a thoroughgoing pacifist. Romans says clearly enough that God has given governments the power of the sword - without that there would be chaos. I think a Christian can serve in the military or on the police force, and use force to protect others, but only as a legitimate representative of a government enforcing order.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> 
> I confess to not having as much knowledge as I should, and not doubt brave martyrs glorified Christ by their deaths, but a Huguenot general, attacks, hangings, vengeance, rebellion, only served to fan the flames of hatred and did not glorify Jesus Christ.
> 
> As to the Huguenot Diaspora, that was undoubtedly God's providence, he brings good out of evil and all things work in the end to his glory.


 I think the point in your initial post was to say that the early Church succeeded in its testimony because Roman Christians did not fight back against the Roman Emperor; whereas French Huguenots failed in their testimony because they did fight back against tyrannical kings. 

In both cases, Christians were slaughtered and scattered which God used providentially to build the Church ("the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church" -- Tertullian; cf. Acts. 8.1). Both testimonies succeeded in spiritual terms. 

The hangings and "vengeance" that occurred in the French Wars of Religion, to the best of my knowledge were conducted by Roman Catholic moncharist forces, not by Huguenots. It was their atrocities against the faithful that excited the flames of passion in the rest of Europe against Roman Catholic tyranny. Remember the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre (1572)? I contend that the French Huguenots both in situations where they were martyred for the faith and where they fought back testified wonderfully to the grace of God in their sufferings. 



> I think the Americans could have achieved independence gradually, as the Canadians and the Australians did. I have read, and think it is reasonable, that at the time of the revolution 1/3 of the colonists were for independence, 1/3 wanted to stay with Britain, and 1/3 were waiting to see which side won. I think the American revolution was unbiblical, a resistance to divinely ordained authorities. The leaders of the revolution, including Franklin, Jefferson, and John Adams were not bible believing Christians.


It seems by this statement that you support the idea of seccession as long as it is not done by means of force. In other words, you support seccession only if the chief magistrate(s) agree that the citizens may choose their own government. And if the tyrant in charge doesn't agree, you seem to be making the case that his will should prevail. It is my view that magistrates both lesser and greater have a duty to be a minister of God to the people for good. When they abuse the legitimacy of their office, and instead turn on the people they are supposed to protect and nourish, they may be held accountable by the law and resisted in self-defense if they persecute the very people they are appointed to shepherd. 

It is true in America that there was division among the colonists about both the wisdom and justness of the cause of independence. But every colony sent legislators to the Continental Congress, petitioned the king and Parliament for redress of grievances, and ultimately signed the Declaration of Independence. 

It is also true that many leaders on the American side were unbelievers. America has paid a big price for that since. The Constitution that we have today is unBiblical in many respects. I am not blind to the deficiencies of our Founding Fathers -- far from it. However, those who did the fighting were very often faithful believers. King George III himself spoke of the "Presbyterian rebellion" because so many Presbyterian pastors lead the way and were followed by so many Scotch-Irish Presbyterian citizens. 



> It is true western civilization owes Christianity a great debt, as I have seen from living in Asia and the Middle East. One great biblical principle is obedience to the law and to the authorities. Other principles are spiritual: God knows what you do, you will be judged, this life is only a preparation for eternity, forgive others, and such spiritual truths. *I do not see armed resistance to tyranny in the bible.*


I would encourage you to consider the writings below as well as the numerous Scriptural examples of Biblical resistance to tyranny (read also the Book of Judges!).

See Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex (1644): http://www.constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm

See Junius Brutus' A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants(1579): http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm

See Theodore Beza's Concerning the Rights of Rulers Over Their Subjects and the Duty Of Subjects Towards Their Rulers(1574): http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Beza1.htm

See Christopher Goodman's How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed(1558): http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Goodman1.HTM

See John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), Book IV, Sec. 20 (30-32):


> Quote:
> (Constitutional magistrates, however, ought to check the tyranny of kings; obedience to God comes first, 30-31)
> 30. When God intervenes, it is sometimes by unwitting agents
> 
> Herein is the goodness, power, and providence of God wondrously displayed. At one time he raises up manifest avengers from among his own servants and gives them his command to punish accursed tyranny and deliver his people from calamity when they are unjustly oppressed; at another time he employs, for this purpose, the fury of men who have other thoughts and other aims. Thus he rescued his people Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh by Moses; from the violence of Chusa, king of Syria, by Othniel; and from other bondage by other kings or judges. Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans; the confidence of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, - Cyrus having previously subdued the Medes, while the ingratitude of the kings of Judah and Israel, and their impious contumacy after all his kindness, he subdued and punished, - at one time by the Assyrians, at another by the Babylonians. All these things however were not done in the same way.
> 
> The former class of deliverers being brought forward by the lawful call of God to perform such deeds, when they took up arms against kings, did not at all violate that majesty with which kings are invested by divine appointment, but armed from heaven, they, by a greater power, curbed a less, just as kings may lawfully punish their own satraps. The latter class, though they were directed by the hand of God, as seemed to him good, and did his work without knowing it, had nought but evil in their thoughts.
> 
> 31. Constitutional defenders of the people's freedom
> 
> But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves, the Lord by their means equally executed his own work, when he broke the bloody sceptres of insolent kings, and overthrew their intolerable dominations. Let princes hear and be afraid; but let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer.
> 
> I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings, (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.
> 
> 32. Obedience to man must not become disobedience to God
> 
> But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command any thing against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates - a dignity to which, no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree, (Dan. 6: 22,) because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions, (1 Kings 12: 28.) With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet, (Hosea 5: 11.) So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining any thing imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are condemned. As Solomon says, "The wrath of a king is as messengers of death," (Prov. 16: 14.) But since Peter, one of heaven's heralds, has published the edict, "We ought to obey God rather than men," (Acts 5: 29,) let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional considerations (1 Cor. 7: 23,) that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety.





> Scriptural examples of lawful resistance to tyrants:
> 
> Quote:
> (1) Abraham resisted the wicked alliance of kings who had conquered Sodom and Gomorrah, and did not acknowledge them to be "the minister of God" merely because they had gained a military power to rule (in God's providence), but rather Abraham defeated them and rescued Lot from their clutches (Gen. 14:13-16).
> 
> (2) Moses did not recognize Pharaoh as "the ordinance of God", but resisted his tyranny and delivered Israel from servitude in Egypt (Ex. 7-14).
> 
> (3) Judges such as Othniel (Judg. 3:8-11), Ehud (Judg. 3:12-30), Shamgar (Judg. 3:31), Deborah and Barak (Judg. 4), Gideon (Judg. 6-8), Jephthah (Judg.11-12), and Samson (Judg. 13-16) resisted tyrants who ruled over Israel rather than granting to them subjection for conscience sake.
> 
> (4) David did not subject himself for conscience sake to Absalom as a "higher power" to whom honor was due as "the ordinance of God", but resisted him even though Absalom had won the hearts of all the people of Israel and had gained military control of Israel (2 Sam. 16:15; 2 Sam. 18:6-8).
> 
> (5) Elijah did not honor Ahab as "the minister of God" for good, but resisted him by fleeing from him and his wicked queen (1 Kgs. 17:3; 1 Kgs. 19:3), and by taking the sword from the hands of Ahab so that he and the people slew the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs. 18:40).
> 
> (6) Elijah did not acknowledge the lawful authority of king Ahaziah to rule over Israel, for he resisted the king by not obeying the king's order to compear before him and even brought God's fiery judgment upon the representatives of Ahaziah's authority (2 Kgs. 1:9-13).
> 
> (7) Jehoiada did not subject himself for conscience sake to the tyrant Athaliah, but put her to death even though she accused all those who resisted her of treason (2 Chron. 23:12-15).
> 
> (8) God Himself resisted the idolatrous kings of Israel by not acknowledging them to be ministers whom He appointed (Hos. 8:4).
> 
> (9) Jesus instructed His disciples that when they were delivered up to gentile kings for Christ's sake, rather than acknowledging them to be "the ordinance of God", they were to testify against them (Mt. 10:18), and to flee their tyranny rather than submit to them for conscience sake (Mt. 10:23).
> 
> (10) God gives wings to the church to flee from the persecution which Satan brings against her by means of tyrannical civil and ecclesiastical government rather than commanding the church to render conscientious subjection to such tyranny (Rev. 12:14).
> 
> (11) "The prince of this world" (Jn. 14:30) is to be resisted by Christians (Jms. 4:7). If Satan (who grants power to wicked tyrants to rule) is to be resisted, should not tyrants who rule by Satan's wicked power also be resisted? If we cannot be subject for conscience sake to Satan, how can we be subject for conscience sake to those who rule by his power ?



Source: http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/bibcivgv/bibcivgv.htm 




> True, there were no civil magistrates, but I don't see them taking up arms and fighting in any case. That is purely speculative, we have to rely here on holiness and the Spirit and wisdom from God. In the Reformation, civil magistrates such as the elector of Saxony had the duty to defend his state, but Luther was no advocate of military means to resist Catholicism. I suppose it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line in every case, it depends on the leading of the Spirit. But I believe scripture does not want people to fight for Christ.



I'm not sure why you can justify armed resistance on the part of the Elector of Saxony against the greater authority of the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope (who don't forget historically has claimed the highest authority in all civil as well as ecclesiastical affairs), and yet not approve of Huguenot resistance against Catholic authorities in France. 



> The Scottish Covenanters (to take one example) were obviously correct in refusing to accept the authority of a church they felt was unbiblical, but to take up arms and fight is a different matter entirely. Paul says the authorities are ordained of God. He did not say you can resist them if lesser magistrates support you.


 I think you have a misunderstanding about what Paul is saying when he speaks of the higher powers which are ordained of God. First of all, as Calvin notes in his commentary on Romans 13.1, "powers" is plural with reference to all the civil magistrates in a given state, both the lesser and the greater. What does a citizen do, for example, when as in the US, there exist co-equal branches of government (at least constitutionally that is the case in America)? When Congress and the President or the Supreme Court are at odds, the Constitution does not give one branch authority over another. So where does the citizens' allegiance lie? How about with the magistrate who is adhering to God's law, whether lesser or greater or equal? Also, what does it mean to be "ordained"? God in his providence certainly raises up and casts down kings, sometimes as a blessing to the people and sometimes as a judgment. God's providence ordains all that comes to pass, does it not? Yet, Paul goes on to describe the office of the magistrate as a "minister of God for good." Does a tyrant meet that qualification? I think not. Romans 13 is not a blank check to tyrants and it is not justification for pacificism on the part of Christians. The Sixth Commandment obligation to preserve our lives and the lives of others in self-defense is not overruled by the Fifth Commandment obligation to obey our superiors. As Peter said, "We ought therefore to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5.29). Magistrates are not above the law. The law holds tyrants to account (Lex Rex) and the law must be enforced even if it takes a citizen army to do it. The principle underlying Romans 13 is that we obey in the Lord. That is how children and wives are to obey their fathers and husbands, for example. Self-defense is a natural right given to all men. Would you tell a child who is being beaten to death by an abusive tyrannical father that the Fifth Commandment prevents you from reaching out to save the child? I hope not. When self-defense is not an option, and there is no lesser civil magistrate to interpose himself between the tyrant and the people, then, yes, there is no doubt that Christians are called to glorify God through suffering. Yet, to fail to resist tyranny when it is lawful and appropriate to do so is a violation of the Sixth Commandment and an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Christian citizen. 



> There is a quote from William Wallace - very stirring, but was he a Christian?



I don't claim that Wallace was a Christian. I do believe he is an outstanding example of a patriot who resisted tyranny lawfully.


----------



## RamistThomist

Andrew,
I am tempted to throw in the Harry Seabrook essay you gave me. 

Joe,
Also, Wallace was ordained for the clergy until other matters prevented his going. Secondly, he always carried a Psalter with him wherever he went and died with it next to his heart. Does that make him a Christiah? No, but I would rather him die with that next to him that cursing God.


----------



## Joe Keysor

About Wallace, I only asked, I know nothing about his spiritual life.
Many people who are not Christians at all can be brave patriots who will fight and die for their country, but what will it profit them on the day of judgment?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Andrew,
> I am tempted to throw in the Harry Seabrook essay you gave me.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Here's a little article about William Wallace that you might find interesting: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no09/vo12no09_braveheart.htm

Patriotism and courage in the face of evil are virtues to be commended whether they are manifested in a believer or an unbeliever.


----------



## Joe Keysor

VirginiaHuguenot,

Please excuse the brief nature of my response, I would like to cover your post as much as possible in a limited space.

It seems to me, though I recognize that I do not have enough knowledge as I should, that one group overcame a false religious system, where as in the other case the false religious system remained intact. I am not convinced by the argument that Christians can take up arms and fight the authorities.

Wasn't there a Protestant general, Coligny? I thought the Protestants justified armed resistance and practiced it. You yourself say they fought back, which I think was unbiblical.

"It seems by this statement that you support the idea of seccession as long as it is not done by means of force. In other words, you support seccession only if the chief magistrate(s) agree that the citizens may choose their own government." 

If the higher power agrees, and it is amicable, why not?

"And if the tyrant in charge doesn't agree, you seem to be making the case that his will should prevail." Right. You said "It is my view that magistrates both lesser and greater have a duty to be a minister of God to the people for good. When they abuse the legitimacy of their office, and instead turn on the people they are supposed to protect and nourish, they may be held accountable by the law and resisted in self-defense if they persecute the very people they are appointed to shepherd." But Paul does not say "You only have to submit to the authorities as long as they don't abuse you." The Romans were very abusive. 

I agree there was support in every colony, but also opposition and passivity.

I know many Christians were involved in the American Revolution - their mistake in my view. Even Christians can be wrong. They had far more freedom under George III that the early Christians did under Rome, and the justifications of the Declaration of 
Independence seem strained to me. I am no fan of Jefferson's. Here is a link showing the depth of his paganism: 
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html

About biblical examples of resistance to tyranny, the Old Testament is the word of God with many wonderful truths, but many things were done there not suitable for Christians, we have a higher revelation and a better covenant. Romans takes precedence in my view.

The other links you gave look interesting. For now i will confine myself to the comments in your post.

Cerainly the rulers have an obligation, but when they disobey and are wicked? The early Christians endured them. True, they did not have lesser magistrates to support them, but it is difficult to imagine them fighting in any case.

Calvin gives some examples that you cite. Moses is a unique exception, what other rebellion has ever been directly supported by God in such a way? Old Testament examples are not more important than Romans. Jael killed Sisera and was praised for it - does that mean I can kill my enemies now? Or have an adulteress stoned to death? He gives other examples, "Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans..." But those were pagans. God can use pagans to overthrow powers when he chooses - Churchill and Roosevelt were not Christians. That does not guide the conduct of believers.

Just as kings may punish their own satraps because they have a higher power, so Christians can punish kings because they have a higher divine power? The higher power of the Christian is not in my view of this sort. Calvin's argument seems weak here. It is not the calling of the Christian to punish rulers and remove them at will as a king may remove a satrap.

Calvin says: "let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. I speak only of private men." 

So, private men should not resist, we agree on that.

If a magistrate supports it? Magistrates supported the Confederacy in the Civil War - I don't believe that sanctified the rebellion. Magistrates can be found who will resist for their own ends or advantage. Romans says be subject to the higher powers, not the lower ones. 

David did not subject himself to Absalom, David was the higher power, of course the government has the right to resist rebellion. This shows George III had the right to resist the colonists.

Elijah slew the prophets of Baal? Shall I go kill the liberal pastors who teach a false gospel? He called down God's fiery judgment? Why didn't the American revolutionaries try that? They could have asked God to send down fire on the armies of George III.

Yes, Christians can flee persecution, that is allowed specifically. But the early Christians, when unable to flee, were led like sheep to the slaughter.

The prince of this world is to be resisted, by spiritual means, not earthly ones.
Satan is to be resisted - so if a minister of Satan is persecuting me should I punch him in the nose? "If we cannot be subject for conscience sake to Satan, how can we be subject for conscience sake to those who rule by his power?" Jesus was not subject to Satan, but he submitted to the authorities unto death, he did not say "I will resist Satan, and his agents too" and encourage his men to fight. Of course, he came to die, but the early Christians died also. Are we not supposed to be like Christ, and have the mind of Christ? 

You say "I'm not sure why you can justify armed resistance on the part of the Elector of Saxony against the greater authority of the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope (who don't forget historically has claimed the highest authority in all civil as well as ecclesiastical affairs), and yet not approve of Huguenot resistance against Catholic authorities in France."

The Elector was a legitimate authority. The Pope had no authority, and did not even think of ordering the Elector to hand over Luther. The Pope had a false authority, and Luther resisted it only with the word and the Spirit. If he had been taken he would have gone to his death like John Hus.

About Romans 13 not being a blank check to tyrants, I have the following comments on the subject (written on another topic and pasted). I assert that even a tyrant can be part of God's plan for a larger good.

"This passage leads to difficult questions, the chief of them being, "Does this make God responsible for evil? Did he ordain Hitler and Stalin? Were they ordained of God?" Looking at this question - and Paul was writing at a time when the government was a rapacious and blatantly imperialist power that actively persecuted Christians - we can be sure that God does not do wrong or evil. He is the father of lights, in whom there is no imperfection. Evil cannot tempt or approach him, but evil does exist in the world, as well as in the unseen spiritual realms, and in some way God controls it, and regulates it, without being touched by it himself. And, the final day will come when the kingdom of God is revealed and evil is finally banished.
"If, though, it says in Romans that rulers "are not a terror to good works, but to evil"; that the ruler is the minister of God for good; that he is the minister of God to execute wrath on evildoers; that we should be subject to the authorities - does this apply to Hitler? That seems impossible - but first, it is necessary to note that Paul is not writing to the world at large. He is not writing here to ordinary people, who are subject to only common emotions. He is writing here, as it says in the opening sentences of the letter, to those that are beloved of God, called to be saints.
"Those who have experienced the power of God unto salvation; who know that the world lies in wickedness, but they have been chosen and called of God; who know that to die is gain; who know that the hairs of their heads are numbered by God, and have faith that their times are in God's hands, and believe they will not die until it is God's time for them to depart to a better world; these with a divine strength given by God do not fear those that can only destroy the body, but after that can't do anything else. They know what the bible means when it says "Fear none of those things which you will suffer," and can endure torture, "not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection," as it says in Hebrews. 
"More than that, they not only do not fear death and suffering. They can (in the strength of God's Holy Spirit, not in the strength of the flesh), rejoice if they are made partakers of Christ's sufferings, and glorify God when they suffer for his sake, as God speaking through Peter said: "if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." He also says:

Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you. 
But rejoice, inasmuch as you are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

"To such Paul is writing, and while those who are walking in the light of Christ experience the full range of normal human emotions, they are not subject to those emotions, but transcend them and conquer them with a peace that the world cannot give or take away. Jesus even said that those who are persecuted for his sake are blessed, supremely happy, though this is folly and stupidity to the world. They see Herod in his glory, sitting in wealth and ease, and imagine that he is better off than John the Baptist in a dungeon, about to be beheaded, but they judge by outward appearances only.
"With this in mind we can see more readily that Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Castro, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or any of the other institutionalized powers of evil that systematically inflict horrible cruelties, are "not a terror to good works." They are the ministers of God to execute wrath on the world by means of the powers God specifically allows them to receive from Satan. In some way that we do not know, they all contribute to the culmination of world history when God will be glorified, and his full justice will be seen. The evildoers will receive the full measure for what they have done - wrath, tribulation, and anguish - while the righteous will receive glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.
"More specifically, about God's providence including even the reign of Hitler, could not God have caused Hitler to be killed in World War I? Hitler was in the thick of some of the most destructive battles in the history of the world, yet he survived while people all around him were slaughtered. Could not God have caused Hitler to drop dead of a heart attack at any time after the war? The fact is, that God could easily have removed Hitler at any time but decided not to do so (and those who deny him this power do not even believe in God at all). Was it because God was helpless, powerless to intervene, or because God was subject to human free will and unable to override it, that Hitler was allowed to survive, and flourish, and magnify himself to such an astonishing height of evil? Or was it because Hitler was in some way part of the grand scheme of things? Hitler was not allowed to win, but he was allowed to act for a time, and the limits were precisely set, to the day and to the hour."

Paul says the higher powers. If a magistrate wants to rebell can I say, "He is the magistrate, now I am free to rebell." How much suffering and misery is caused by these rebellions? To no purpose. If Bush tries to seize power and establish a dictatorship and the governor of Indiana leads a force to oppose him, you can join him if you like, I will not. That is between you and God.

In the US, where branches are co-equal, there has been no occasion for fighting and rebellion in my lifetime. But, in a crisis, where does the citizen's allegiance lie? I believe in freedom of religion, they can decide for themselves.
I would not want to take up arms to fight for any of those people, that will not solve the spiritual problems of the American people.

What does it mean to be ordained? If Julius Caesar is in power, he is ordained. If someone assassinates him and wins the civil war, that person is ordained, God is at work in those things. A Christian should not take sides in a conflict of that sort, when both sides are carnal. When the government is actively persecuting the church, then they can flee, or submit if taken.

By the way I do not believe George III was abusing his power and do not see taxation with representation as a divine right guaranteed in the bible. They had more freedom from the taxman under George than we do today - shall we rebell? 

God's providence does set up and remove kings, and he brings it to pass according to the infallible counsels of his secret will. Mostly he uses wicked men consumed with a lust for power to achieve those ends it seems.

Of course we should not obey the authorities if they command us to do somehting contrary to scripture. That is not armed rebellion.

Self defense is a natural right given to allmen? Why didn't the first Christians avail themselves of it (other than by flight and evasion)? I don't see that in the bible.

I could try to save a child who was being beaten to death, that is not a case of a higher power as described in Romans.

If you feel that under a lesser magistrate you can resist the tyrant, that is between you and God. As to "an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Christian citizen," I think refusing to take part in the American Revolution would have been in no sense an abdication of responsibility. 

Christians have ben consistently abdicating their responsibilities in America for the last fifty years. It is not a question of resisting tyranny, but of failing to stand for biblical truth.

One could write a book on this subject. My comments are far form exhaustive, just some thoughts. I do not think Calvin is the last word on a subject (not that you said he was).


----------



## Joe Keysor

Thanks for the article about Braveheart, very interesting. But, why didn't the apostles take up arms to fight the foreign oppressor? The Romans blatantly invaded and oppressed another country, yet Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are due to Caesar."

As to what extent the patriotism and courage of unbelievers are to be appreciated, all of their virtues are as filthy rags.

[Edited on 1-7-2005 by Joe Keysor]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> Thanks for the article about Braveheart, very interesting. But, why didn't the apostles take up arms to fight the foreign oppressor? The Romans blatantly invaded and oppressed another country, yet Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are due to Caesar."
> 
> As to what extent the patriotism and courage of unbelievers are to be appreciated, all of their virtues are as filthy rags.
> 
> [Edited on 1-7-2005 by Joe Keysor]



Why didn't the apostles take up arms against Caesar? Because they were called to be ministers of God's word not generals.

Yes, we should render unto Caesar that which is due Caesar, but also to God that which is due to God. "Obedience to tyrants is rebellion against God." -- John Knox

Yes, virtue in the unbeliever or believer does not warrant any standing before God. The best of our good works are unclean. But don't condemn good works _per se_ by unbelievers simply because they are unbelievers. The Reformed doctrine of common grace applies. The world we live in is better because God restrains the evil of men and society could only work if even unbelievers cared about some virtues. Don't despise the virtue just because it is practiced by unbelievers as well as believers.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to think the early Christians didnt take up arms and fight because they didnt have the means. Note that whether fighting for your principles against the government, or dying for them at the hands of the government you are still disobeying the govt. Passive resistance is still resistance. The early Christians didnot raise arms only because it was not expedient. There was no hope of success and fighting would only cause bloodshed, social discord, and if it could be saved otherwise, the end of their own lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul did not say "You may resist the authorities when it is expedient." He said the authorities are ordained of God. I think some advocates of Christian resistance do not believe this. Did God ordain George III? He did. I believe the early Christians did not fight because they were more concerned with spiritual things - though of course their situation was very different.
> 
> George III was far less oppressive and cruel than the Caesars, he was not persecuting Christians, and "No taxation without representation" is not a biblical principle. Can you imagine Paul saying to the Corinthians "The Romans are taxing you unjustly, take up your weapons and fight for independence"? There might have been some local magistrates who would have gone along, the Greeks had tried to revolt against the Romans before.
Click to expand...


Rom 13:3-4 & 1 Pe 2:14 carefully defines for us what a power ordained by God is: they are sent by God to punish evil, a minister of God for good, to be a terror to evil works not good. Any one who providentially wields power yet does the opposite of those things aforementioned is not a "power" in the biblical sense, but a "liscentious deviation of a power." (S. Rutherford.) Tyrants do not fit the bill.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> VirginiaHuguenot,
> 
> Please excuse the brief nature of my response, I would like to cover your post as much as possible in a limited space.



Brief?  I know, it's hard to keep posts on this subject brief, and I apologize in advance for the length of my own.



> It seems to me, though I recognize that I do not have enough knowledge as I should, that one group overcame a false religious system, where as in the other case the false religious system remained intact. I am not convinced by the argument that Christians can take up arms and fight the authorities.
> 
> Wasn't there a Protestant general, Coligny? I thought the Protestants justified armed resistance and practiced it. You yourself say they fought back, which I think was unbiblical.



Coligny was a leading Huguenot general. Yes, French Protestants justified and practiced armed resistance under the theories, writings and examples of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Goodman, etc. 



> "It seems by this statement that you support the idea of seccession as long as it is not done by means of force. In other words, you support seccession only if the chief magistrate(s) agree that the citizens may choose their own government."
> 
> If the higher power agrees, and it is amicable, why not?
> 
> "And if the tyrant in charge doesn't agree, you seem to be making the case that his will should prevail." Right. You said "It is my view that magistrates both lesser and greater have a duty to be a minister of God to the people for good. When they abuse the legitimacy of their office, and instead turn on the people they are supposed to protect and nourish, they may be held accountable by the law and resisted in self-defense if they persecute the very people they are appointed to shepherd." But Paul does not say "You only have to submit to the authorities as long as they don't abuse you." The Romans were very abusive.



Paul is not the only word on the subject and I believe you have deeply misunderstood what he is saying in Romans 13.



> I agree there was support in every colony, but also opposition and passivity.
> 
> I know many Christians were involved in the American Revolution - their mistake in my view. Even Christians can be wrong. They had far more freedom under George III that the early Christians did under Rome, and the justifications of the Declaration of
> Independence seem strained to me. I am no fan of Jefferson's. Here is a link showing the depth of his paganism:
> http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html



I am well aware of Jefferson's false religious beliefs. Moreover, I have reason to think that he plagiarized the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence (1775), which was a much more explicitly Calvinistic document than his own. But in reading the 1776 Declaration, the reasons he cites for the colonies pursuing freedom are clearly Biblically justified in my view. I think the reason perhaps that the reasons seem weak to you is because in our day and age we as a society are much more comfortable with centralized tyrannical government than our forefathers were. Ever since the War Between the States (1861-1865), that has been our legacy in America: growing centralized government and passivity on the part of citizens. 



> About biblical examples of resistance to tyranny, the Old Testament is the word of God with many wonderful truths, but many things were done there not suitable for Christians, we have a higher revelation and a better covenant. Romans takes precedence in my view.



The whole word of God ought to be consulted in this matter, not merely one epistle. Moreover, as I have stated, I believe you are seriously misunderstanding what Paul has to say. 



> The other links you gave look interesting. For now i will confine myself to the comments in your post.
> 
> Cerainly the rulers have an obligation, but when they disobey and are wicked? The early Christians endured them. True, they did not have lesser magistrates to support them, but it is difficult to imagine them fighting in any case.



I think it is only difficult for you conceive of the early Christians fighting the Romans because of your presupposition that such conduct would be wrong.



> Calvin gives some examples that you cite. Moses is a unique exception, what other rebellion has ever been directly supported by God in such a way? Old Testament examples are not more important than Romans. Jael killed Sisera and was praised for it - does that mean I can kill my enemies now? Or have an adulteress stoned to death? He gives other examples, "Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans..." But those were pagans. God can use pagans to overthrow powers when he chooses - Churchill and Roosevelt were not Christians. That does not guide the conduct of believers.



I think Calvin is wise and judicial in all of the comments and examples that he cites. I think that your view of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments lacks the continuity that should be there. Both were written for our profit. 



> Just as kings may punish their own satraps because they have a higher power, so Christians can punish kings because they have a higher divine power? The higher power of the Christian is not in my view of this sort. Calvin's argument seems weak here. It is not the calling of the Christian to punish rulers and remove them at will as a king may remove a satrap.



Is it your view then that magistrates are not accountable to the law? If not, then you condone tyranny. If they are accountable, who is to hold them accountable?



> Calvin says: "let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. I speak only of private men."
> 
> So, private men should not resist, we agree on that.



Agreed.



> If a magistrate supports it? Magistrates supported the Confederacy in the Civil War - I don't believe that sanctified the rebellion. Magistrates can be found who will resist for their own ends or advantage. Romans says be subject to the higher powers, not the lower ones.



Lawful resistance and rebellion are not the same thing. The latter is sinful and the former is Biblical.

The War Between the States was a defensive war on the part of the South and an offensive war on the part of the North. 



> David did not subject himself to Absalom, David was the higher power, of course the government has the right to resist rebellion. This shows George III had the right to resist the colonists.



Governments have a right to resist unBiblical, unlawful rebellion. Tyrants have no warrant from God to resist those who would hold them accountable for their tyranny or fight back against persecution.



> Elijah slew the prophets of Baal? Shall I go kill the liberal pastors who teach a false gospel? He called down God's fiery judgment? Why didn't the American revolutionaries try that? They could have asked God to send down fire on the armies of George III.



Puh-lease!



> Yes, Christians can flee persecution, that is allowed specifically. But the early Christians, when unable to flee, were led like sheep to the slaughter.



True.



> The prince of this world is to be resisted, by spiritual means, not earthly ones.
> Satan is to be resisted - so if a minister of Satan is persecuting me should I punch him in the nose? "If we cannot be subject for conscience sake to Satan, how can we be subject for conscience sake to those who rule by his power?" Jesus was not subject to Satan, but he submitted to the authorities unto death, he did not say "I will resist Satan, and his agents too" and encourage his men to fight. Of course, he came to die, but the early Christians died also. Are we not supposed to be like Christ, and have the mind of Christ?



This stuff about punching somebody in the nose is silliness. Spiritual warfare is the lot of every Christian. Christians live in the world too, however, and as citizens have duties and responsibilities in the political arena. 



> You say "I'm not sure why you can justify armed resistance on the part of the Elector of Saxony against the greater authority of the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope (who don't forget historically has claimed the highest authority in all civil as well as ecclesiastical affairs), and yet not approve of Huguenot resistance against Catholic authorities in France."
> 
> The Elector was a legitimate authority. The Pope had no authority, and did not even think of ordering the Elector to hand over Luther. The Pope had a false authority, and Luther resisted it only with the word and the Spirit. If he had been taken he would have gone to his death like John Hus.



The Elector was not the highest civil authority. The Holy Roman Emperor was higher than him. The Elector used force of arms to resist the will of the Emperor. Was this right or wrong? The Pope claimed authority in civil matters over the Emperor. The very definition of a tyrant is "usurper." That is precisely what I am arguing. A tyrant is a usurper without legitimate authority. You have just made my point that a tyrant lacks the authority to command allegiance, despite your emphasis on Rom. 13.1. 



> About Romans 13 not being a blank check to tyrants, I have the following comments on the subject (written on another topic and pasted). I assert that even a tyrant can be part of God's plan for a larger good.
> 
> "This passage leads to difficult questions, the chief of them being, "Does this make God responsible for evil? Did he ordain Hitler and Stalin? Were they ordained of God?" Looking at this question - and Paul was writing at a time when the government was a rapacious and blatantly imperialist power that actively persecuted Christians - we can be sure that God does not do wrong or evil. He is the father of lights, in whom there is no imperfection. Evil cannot tempt or approach him, but evil does exist in the world, as well as in the unseen spiritual realms, and in some way God controls it, and regulates it, without being touched by it himself. And, the final day will come when the kingdom of God is revealed and evil is finally banished.
> "If, though, it says in Romans that rulers "are not a terror to good works, but to evil"; that the ruler is the minister of God for good; that he is the minister of God to execute wrath on evildoers; that we should be subject to the authorities - does this apply to Hitler? That seems impossible - but first, it is necessary to note that Paul is not writing to the world at large. He is not writing here to ordinary people, who are subject to only common emotions. He is writing here, as it says in the opening sentences of the letter, to those that are beloved of God, called to be saints.
> "Those who have experienced the power of God unto salvation; who know that the world lies in wickedness, but they have been chosen and called of God; who know that to die is gain; who know that the hairs of their heads are numbered by God, and have faith that their times are in God's hands, and believe they will not die until it is God's time for them to depart to a better world; these with a divine strength given by God do not fear those that can only destroy the body, but after that can't do anything else. They know what the bible means when it says "Fear none of those things which you will suffer," and can endure torture, "not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection," as it says in Hebrews.
> "More than that, they not only do not fear death and suffering. They can (in the strength of God's Holy Spirit, not in the strength of the flesh), rejoice if they are made partakers of Christ's sufferings, and glorify God when they suffer for his sake, as God speaking through Peter said: "if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." He also says:
> 
> Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.
> But rejoice, inasmuch as you are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
> 
> "To such Paul is writing, and while those who are walking in the light of Christ experience the full range of normal human emotions, they are not subject to those emotions, but transcend them and conquer them with a peace that the world cannot give or take away. Jesus even said that those who are persecuted for his sake are blessed, supremely happy, though this is folly and stupidity to the world. They see Herod in his glory, sitting in wealth and ease, and imagine that he is better off than John the Baptist in a dungeon, about to be beheaded, but they judge by outward appearances only.
> "With this in mind we can see more readily that Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Castro, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or any of the other institutionalized powers of evil that systematically inflict horrible cruelties, are "not a terror to good works." They are the ministers of God to execute wrath on the world by means of the powers God specifically allows them to receive from Satan. In some way that we do not know, they all contribute to the culmination of world history when God will be glorified, and his full justice will be seen. The evildoers will receive the full measure for what they have done - wrath, tribulation, and anguish - while the righteous will receive glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.
> "More specifically, about God's providence including even the reign of Hitler, could not God have caused Hitler to be killed in World War I? Hitler was in the thick of some of the most destructive battles in the history of the world, yet he survived while people all around him were slaughtered. Could not God have caused Hitler to drop dead of a heart attack at any time after the war? The fact is, that God could easily have removed Hitler at any time but decided not to do so (and those who deny him this power do not even believe in God at all). Was it because God was helpless, powerless to intervene, or because God was subject to human free will and unable to override it, that Hitler was allowed to survive, and flourish, and magnify himself to such an astonishing height of evil? Or was it because Hitler was in some way part of the grand scheme of things? Hitler was not allowed to win, but he was allowed to act for a time, and the limits were precisely set, to the day and to the hour."



Who wrote this? It is important to note that "wrath" as used by Paul in this context refers to God's wrath against injustice which the magistrate is supposed to avenge by the proper execution of his office. Tyrants are not fulfilling their obligation to God when they instead execute their own personal wrath upon citizens or the Church. 



> Paul says the higher powers. If a magistrate wants to rebell can I say, "He is the magistrate, now I am free to rebell." How much suffering and misery is caused by these rebellions? To no purpose. If Bush tries to seize power and establish a dictatorship and the governor of Indiana leads a force to oppose him, you can join him if you like, I will not. That is between you and God.



Had I lived in the 1860's when Lincoln did just that I would have joined with Davis in resisting that tyranny.



> In the US, where branches are co-equal, there has been no occasion for fighting and rebellion in my lifetime. But, in a crisis, where does the citizen's allegiance lie? I believe in freedom of religion, they can decide for themselves.
> I would not want to take up arms to fight for any of those people, that will not solve the spiritual problems of the American people.



This sounds like a blaise attitude which says that you simply don't care what happens. My view is that Christians ought to care and be involved and work towards the good of society insofar as their calling and ability enable them to do so.



> What does it mean to be ordained? If Julius Caesar is in power, he is ordained. If someone assassinates him and wins the civil war, that person is ordained, God is at work in those things. A Christian should not take sides in a conflict of that sort, when both sides are carnal. When the government is actively persecuting the church, then they can flee, or submit if taken.



Again, there is a difference between God's sovereign providence at work in the raising up and casting down of kings vs. God's ordained institution of government which does not countenance tyranny but rather justice.



> By the way I do not believe George III was abusing his power and do not see taxation with representation as a divine right guaranteed in the bible. They had more freedom from the taxman under George than we do today - shall we rebell?



If King George III's behavior is ok with you, then so be it. He was in fact a tyrant. 



> God's providence does set up and remove kings, and he brings it to pass according to the infallible counsels of his secret will. Mostly he uses wicked men consumed with a lust for power to achieve those ends it seems.



Ok. 



> Of course we should not obey the authorities if they command us to do somehting contrary to scripture. That is not armed rebellion.



Peter has previously made the wise point that passive resistance is still resistance. You say Rom. 13 prohibits resistance to magistrates, but then you make qualifications and caveats. You don't accept Paul's statement as universally binding in all situations, and neither do I. We both draw a line but the difference between our views is centered, I think, on the taking up of arms. 



> Self defense is a natural right given to allmen? Why didn't the first Christians avail themselves of it (other than by flight and evasion)? I don't see that in the bible.



Try studying the Sixth Commandment: 

Westminster Larger Catechism



> Q. 134. Which is the sixth commandment?
> 
> A. The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.[720]
> 
> Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
> 
> A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, *to preserve the life of ourselves[721] and others[722]* by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[723] subduing all passions,[724] and avoiding all occasions,[725] temptations,[726] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[727] *by just defence thereof against violence,[728] * patient bearing of the hand of God,[729] quietness of mind,[730] cheerfulness of spirit;[731] a sober use of meat,[732] drink,[733] physic,[734] sleep,[735] labour,[736] and recreations;[737] by charitable thoughts,[738] love,[739] compassion,[740] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[741] peaceable,[742] mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;[743] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[744] comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.[745]
> 
> Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
> 
> A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,[746] or of others,[747] except in case of public justice,[748] lawful war,[749] or *necessary defence;[750] the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;[751] *sinful anger,[752] hatred,[753] envy,[754] desire of revenge;[755] all excessive passions,[756] distracting cares;[757] immoderate use of meat, drink,[758] labor,[759] and recreations;[760] provoking words,[761] oppression,[762] quarreling,[763] striking, wounding,[764] and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.[765]
> 
> [720] Exodus 20:13. Thou shalt not kill.
> 
> [721] Ephesians 5:28-29. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.
> 
> [722] 1 Kings 18:4. For it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.)
> 
> [723] Jeremiah 26:15-16. But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the LORD hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears. Then said the princes and all the people unto the priests and to the prophets; This man is not worthy to die: for he hath spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God. Acts 23:12, 16-17, 21, 27. And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.... And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul. Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain: for he hath a certain thing to tell him.... But do not thou yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee.... This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman.
> 
> [724] Ephesians 4:26-27. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil.
> 
> [725] 2 Samuel 2:22. And Abner said again to Asahel, Turn thee aside from following me: wherefore should I smite thee to the ground? how then should I hold up my face to Joab thy brother? Deuteronomy 22:8. When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
> 
> [726] Matthew 4:6-7. And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Proverbs 1:10-11, 15-16. My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause.... My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
> 
> [727] 1 Samuel 24:12. The LORD judge between me and thee, and the LORD avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee. 1 Samuel 26:9-11. And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD'S anointed, and be guiltless? David said furthermore, As the LORD liveth, the LORD shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle, and perish. The LORD forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the LORD'S anointed: but, I pray thee, take thou now the spear that is at his bolster, and the cruse of water, and let us go. Genesis 37:21-22. And Reuben heard it, and he delivered him out of their hands; and said, Let us not kill him. And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood, but cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, and lay no hand upon him; that he might rid him out of their hands, to deliver him to his father again.
> 
> [728] Psalm 82:4. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. Proverbs 24:11-12. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works? 1 Samuel 14:45. And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not.
> 
> [729] James 5:7-11. Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door. Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy. Hebrews 12:9. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
> 
> [730] 1 Thessalonians 4:11. And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you. 1 Peter 3:3-4. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. Psalm 37:8-11. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
> 
> [731] Proverbs 17:22. A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.
> 
> [732] Proverbs 25:16, 27. Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.... It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory.
> 
> [733] 1 Timothy 5:23. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
> 
> [734] Isaiah 38:21. For Isaiah had said, Let them take a lump of figs, and lay it for a plaster upon the boil, and he shall recover.
> 
> [735] Psalm 127:2. It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.
> 
> [736] Ecclesiastes 5:12. The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep. 2 Thessalonians 3:10, 12. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.... Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. Proverbs 16:20. He that handleth a matter wisely shall find good: and whoso trusteth in the LORD, happy is he.
> 
> [737] Ecclesiastes 3:4, 11. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.... He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
> 
> [738] 1 Samuel 19:4-5. And Jonathan spake good of David unto Saul his father, and said unto him, Let not the king sin against his servant, against David; because he hath not sinned against thee, and because his works have been to thee-ward very good: For he did put his life in his hand, and slew the Philistine, and the LORD wrought a great salvation for all Israel: thou sawest it, and didst rejoice: wherefore then wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause? 1 Samuel 22:13-14. And Saul said unto him, Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in that thou hast given him bread, and a sword, and hast inquired of God for him, that he should rise against me, to lie in wait, as at this day? Then Ahimelech answered the king, and said, And who is so faithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king's son in law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house?
> 
> [739] Romans 13:10. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
> 
> [740] Luke 10:33-34. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
> 
> [741] Colossians 3:12-13. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.
> 
> [742] James 3:17. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
> 
> [743] 1 Peter 3:8-11. Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. Proverbs 15:1. A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Judges 8:1-3. And the men of Ephraim said unto him, Why hast thou served us thus, that thou calledst us not, when thou wentest to fight with the Midianites? And they did chide with him sharply. And he said unto them, What have I done now in comparison of you? Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer? God hath delivered into your hands the princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb: and what was I able to do in comparison of you? Then their anger was abated toward him, when he had said that.
> 
> [744] Matthew 5:24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Ephesians 5:2, 32. And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.... This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Romans 12:17. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
> 
> [745] 1 Thessalonians 5:14. Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. Job 31:19-20. If I have seen any perish for want of clothing, or any poor without covering; If his loins have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep. Matthew 25:35-36. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Proverbs 31:8-9. Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.
> 
> [746] Acts 16:28. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
> 
> [747] Genesis 9:6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
> 
> [748] Numbers 35:31, 33. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.... So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
> 
> [749] Jeremiah 48:10. Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood. Deuteronomy 20:1. When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
> 
> [750] Exodus 22:2-3. If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
> 
> [751] Matthew 25:42-43. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. James 2:15-16. If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Ecclesiastes 6:1-2. There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.
> 
> [752] Matthew 5:22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
> 
> [753] 1 John 3:15. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Leviticus 19:17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
> 
> [754] Proverbs 14:30. A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.
> 
> [755] Romans 12:19. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
> 
> [756] Ephesians 4:31. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice.
> 
> [757] Matthew 6:31, 34. Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?... Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
> 
> [758] Luke 21:34. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. Romans 13:13. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
> 
> [759] Ecclesiastes 12:12. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Ecclesiastes 2:22-23. For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun? For all his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity.
> 
> [760] Isaiah 5:12. And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hands.
> 
> [761] Proverbs 15:1. A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Proverbs 12:18. There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise is health.
> 
> [762] Ezekiel 18:18. As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. Exodus 1:14. And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.
> 
> [763] Galatians 5:15. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. Proverbs 23:29. Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
> 
> [764] Numbers 35:16-18, 21. And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.... Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.
> 
> [765] Exod. 21:18-36 (containing laws for smiters, for an hurt by chance, for an ox that goreth, and for him that is an occasion of harm).






> I could try to save a child who was being beaten to death, that is not a case of a higher power as described in Romans.



If you did interfere with the father's authority, you would be saying that the Sixth Commandment duty to preserve life outweighs the Fifth Commandment duty to respect his authority. That is my point. The same principle holds true with nations as with individuals.



> If you feel that under a lesser magistrate you can resist the tyrant, that is between you and God. As to "an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Christian citizen," I think refusing to take part in the American Revolution would have been in no sense an abdication of responsibility.
> 
> Christians have ben consistently abdicating their responsibilities in America for the last fifty years. It is not a question of resisting tyranny, but of failing to stand for biblical truth.
> 
> One could write a book on this subject. My comments are far form exhaustive, just some thoughts. I do not think Calvin is the last word on a subject (not that you said he was).



Christians have a duty to stand up and testify by words and deeds the whole counsel of God.


----------



## RamistThomist

My thanks to Andrew for pointing this out to me

The Presbyterian Rebellion


----------



## Joe Keysor

Thanks for the substantive and challenging comments. Too much time at the computer is bringing back my double vision so I will have to lay off for a while. Now we see through a glass darkly...

The one thing I keep in mind is that Palestine was invaded and oppressed by a foreign power and Jesus advocated cooperation.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Joe Keysor_
> Thanks for the substantive and challenging comments. Too much time at the computer is bringing back my double vision so I will have to lay off for a while. Now we see through a glass darkly...
> 
> The one thing I keep in mind is that Palestine was invaded and oppressed by a foreign power and Jesus advocated cooperation.



You cannot take a peculiar instance and absolutize it. Jesus advocated not joining the Zealots, that is true; however, his attitude towards the Roman government was one, can we say, of contempt? I think we can. The whole "turn thy cheek" argument has already been answered. I will turn to the "render unto Caesar" argument. Why would any good Jew want a piece of metal with a pagan on it? Jesus responded to get rid of that accursed thing! 

Secondly,
We have legal rights that the native Israelites under Roman occupation do not have. We would be breaking the law (Remember that violates Romans 13 according to you) if we did not press for them! Also, the Romans admirably kept the peace and maintained the social order, if only for a limited time. I am all for cooperating with my government if it is set for maintaining the social order.


----------

