# Does Rom. 13 demand bowing to NWO? What about Knox



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2007)

Romans 13 says we must be in obedience to authorities. No argument here. But what about conflicting authorities? What if the NWO demands we not homeschool our chirrens, but we have local magistrates (see John Knox) that allow us to homeschool our chirrens? 

Big Government in america will soon fall. It is bloated beyond belief. It is predicated on state-worship and is basically incompetent. This will allow regions to seceede from the Empire (see the original intent of Thomas Jefferson). We will have something like the Old Confederacy.

However, let's say that The State still retains a nominal, but not functional claim to control. And then the United Nations steps in and claims jurisdiction. At this point, must the small Confederate states yield to the UN on the basis of Romans 13?

For your reading, see my refutations of state worship:
Rushdoony: Enemy of "The State"

The Hunt for Confederate Gold

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God

The Rule of Law

Them Duke Boys

A Pre Manifesto

The Failure of Reformed Pluralism

Christian America and the Rule of Law

Applications of Localism


----------



## Croghanite (Aug 28, 2007)

link
to article and video "Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law " using Rom 13.


----------



## KMK (Aug 28, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Big Government in america will soon fall. It is bloated beyond belief. It is predicated on state-worship and is basically incompetent. This will allow regions to seceede from the Empire (see the original intent of Thomas Jefferson). We will have something like the Old Confederacy.



The South will rise again!!!!!!!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2007)

KMK said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Big Government in america will soon fall. It is bloated beyond belief. It is predicated on state-worship and is basically incompetent. This will allow regions to seceede from the Empire (see the original intent of Thomas Jefferson). We will have something like the Old Confederacy.
> ...



The South MUST Rise Again


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Aug 28, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> However, let's say that The State still retains a nominal, but not functional claim to control. And then the United Nations steps in and claims jurisdiction. At this point, must the small Confederate states yield to the UN on the basis of Romans 13?


There is a big difference between the states yielding and the citizens yielding. We as Christians are called to give honor to those in authority in everything except that which contradicts the word of God.

If the State has a representative government that refuses to submit to the U.N, they obviously have the right to do so and they must lawfully harness their resources to resist such a claim on their territory. If push comes to shove and the U.N persists in claiming jurisdiction and it comes to a show of arms, practicality and wisdom must be invoked. *Luke14:31Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

32Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.*

If perchance there is a war, and the U.N wins and mandates that we not home school but send out children to public schools then we willingly have to choose to go to the gallows.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2007)

> If perchance there is a war, and the U.N wins and mandates that we not home school but send out children to public schools then we willingly have to choose to go to the gallows.



Give my people a little credit. The U.N. wins? Come on now. The UN can't even defeat African guerrilla fighters armed only with machetes. The UN is a toothless bulldog that should be laughed at.


----------



## satz (Aug 28, 2007)

I am not sure what the UN has to do with this, since I don't believe even the most 'statist'-minded christians believe romans 13 teaches submission to foreign governments.

No christian would deny that there is a time to obey God rather than man and defy authority. But I think many a times the definition of when defiance is both needed and allowed is cast too wide.

Incompetence or excess of control is not, as far as I can see, a legitimate reason to defy authority. A child may chafe at his or her parents' setting of an arbitrary age before which he or she can drive, but that is no reason for rebellion. No one, myself included like to be controlled, but it does seem that the only time for rebellion against authority is in matters of clear sin.

As far as homeschooling goes, I know this is a sensitive topic in reformed circles, but I am not convinced that it is a matter that requires, or allows rebelling against the government. Nor do I think it is consistent for churches to say it is, unless they already discipline each and every parent that does not homeschool.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2007)

satz said:


> I am not sure what the UN has to do with this, since I don't believe even the most 'statist'-minded christians believe romans 13 teaches submission to foreign governments.



It's a little more complicated than that. The U.S. hypothetically abdicates to the UN.



> No christian would deny that there is a time to obey God rather than man and defy authority. But I think many a times the definition of when defiance is both needed and allowed is cast too wide.



That is why I ask hard ethical questions.



> Incompetence or excess of control is not, as far as I can see, a legitimate reason to defy authority. A child may chafe at his or her parents' setting of an arbitrary age before which he or she can drive, but that is no reason for rebellion. No one, myself included like to be controlled, but it does seem that the only time for rebellion against authority is in matters of clear sin.



I don't know what that has to do with my post.



> As far as homeschooling goes, I know this is a sensitive topic in reformed circles, but I am not convinced that it is a matter that requires, or allows rebelling against the government. Nor do I think it is consistent for churches to say it is, unless they already discipline each and every parent that does not homeschool.



Your last line is a red-herring fallacy.


----------



## satz (Aug 28, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> > As far as homeschooling goes, I know this is a sensitive topic in reformed circles, but I am not convinced that it is a matter that requires, or allows rebelling against the government. Nor do I think it is consistent for churches to say it is, unless they already discipline each and every parent that does not homeschool.
> 
> 
> 
> Your last line is a red-herring fallacy.



My point, be it correct or not, was that rebellion is only allowed in matters of sin. If christians do not see non-homeschooling as sin enough to require discipline, why should they see it as enough to warrant rebellion against authority?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2007)

satz said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > > As far as homeschooling goes, I know this is a sensitive topic in reformed circles, but I am not convinced that it is a matter that requires, or allows rebelling against the government. Nor do I think it is consistent for churches to say it is, unless they already discipline each and every parent that does not homeschool.
> ...



Your point only stands upon the assumption that *all* Christians would either see non-homeschooling as a sin. My point, and this is an insight into the Southern American mind, is the govt, the local seceeded govt, resists the outside forces. Therefore, given the Romans 13 argument now applies to those under said govt, Christians now have the right to resist. I will say the argument another way.

1.Romans 13 says Christians should obey the govt.
2. The new govt, the said seceeded govt, goes to defensive war and enlists the aid of its populace, which includes Christians,.
__________________________
Conclusion
3. Christians can wage defensive war is this context against foreign (UN) invaders. 

This is a basic syllogism.


----------



## satz (Aug 28, 2007)

If a seceeded govt is fighting against a foreign power, what did it seceed form, and what role does this - lets call it federal govt, play in the conflict?

I ask this because while I think I agree with your logic, one point of qualification I would make is that if the states were previously legitimately under the authority of a federal power, it does not seem obvious to me that the seceeding govt would have legitimate authority over its citizens as opposed to the federal government. Or, to put it in other words, I am not sure Romans 13 would apply to mandate obedience to the seceeding government as opposed to the federal one.

Wouldn't it come down, in the end, to a discussion on the justness and biblical legitimacy of the seceession?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2007)

satz said:


> If a seceeded govt is fighting against a foreign power, what did it seceed form, and what role does this - lets call it federal govt, play in the conflict?
> 
> I ask this because while I think I agree with your logic, one point of qualification I would make is that if the states were previously legitimately under the authority of a federal power, it does not seem obvious to me that the seceeding govt would have legitimate authority over its citizens as opposed to the federal government. Or, to put it in other words, I am not sure Romans 13 would apply to mandate obedience to the seceeding government as opposed to the federal one.
> 
> Wouldn't it come down, in the end, to a discussion on the justness and biblical legitimacy of the seceession?



Doesn't matter. Paul doesn't say what kind of govt, or if lawful, etc. He just says "powers that be." If I take your logic--which I do in other cases--then I would be forced to resist this unlawful govt. Either way we are resisting govt.

I know what you are getting at. I wasn't as clear in my post, but I am using secession in a lawful sense (I can explain that later).


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Aug 28, 2007)

satz said:


> As far as homeschooling goes, I know this is a sensitive topic in reformed circles, but I am not convinced that it is a matter that requires, or allows rebelling against the government.


since the public schools in america are overtly secular and overtly anti christian, you honestly believe that it is God honoring for Christians to allow their children to be under such a system?


----------



## satz (Aug 28, 2007)

> since the public schools in america are overtly secular and overtly anti christian, you honestly believe that it is God honoring for Christians to allow their children to be under such a system?



I do not believe the typical verses and reasoning used by homeschool proponents are enough to prove it a _sin_ for parents to do so.

God's commandment is for parents to bring up their children in the fear and nurture of the Lord, not to homeschool them per se. Homeschool may well be the best way to go about that, but if the government, which is a God-ordained authority, were to mandate public schooling, at present I think christians should comply and do their best to counteract the negative influences.

And if it truely is a situation where christians are forced into doing so, I believe God would extend special grace to bless their efforts and prevent the children from being corrupted, in much the same way as a christian in a marriage with unbeliever (as per 1 Cor 7 where Paul tells them to stay together) can trust in God to protect him from being negatively influenced, even though being in such an intimate relationship with an unbeliever would typically be unwise.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 28, 2007)

Query: what type of school was Daniel the prophet educated in? (_asks the homeschooling pastor_)


----------



## Answerman (Aug 28, 2007)

I thought that we lived in a constitutional republic where the constitution is the governing authority of the land and the people of the United States are thereby protected by the constitution from anyone that would claim to be a representative of our government that would try to tell us anything different. Hence we are therefore permitted by the constitution to exercise our second amendment rights in this case and oppose anyone that would try to usurp our form of government. We should also not forget that our representatives swear to up hold the constitution. Therefore it would be anyone opposing the constitution in our country that are the ones in violation of Romans 13 and would therefore be the ones bringing judgment on themselves. In our form of government, representatives of the government are our servants, and so if our servants revolt against us we have every right to suppress this rebellion by any means at our disposal.

I have already warned my children that the day may come when the state tries to forcibly try to take them away from us and indoctrinate them into the religion of secular humanism, so they are prepared for the worst. I hate to think of what I would be capable of if they attempt such a thing.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2007)

Homeschooling wasn't the best example. Let's take China. Forced abortions. Do you resist now?


----------



## satz (Aug 28, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Homeschooling wasn't the best example. Let's take China. Forced abortions. Do you resist now?



Yes...!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 28, 2007)

Is this a Political discussion or an exegetical discussion? If the tenor of the thread doesn't change to the issue of the Scriptures then I'm going to need to move the thread.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 28, 2007)

The issue of conflicting authorities is explicitly covered in Scripture: Acts 5:29. If the state requires you to violate the 6th commandment, you are to obey God rather than man. Scripture interprets Scripture. The Scriptures (and Romans 13 in specific) say nothing about what form of government is required.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> The issue of conflicting authorities is explicitly covered in Scripture: Acts 5:29. If the state requires you to violate the 6th commandment, you are to obey God rather than man. Scripture interprets Scripture. The Scriptures (and Romans 13 in specific) say nothing about what form of government is required.



My post--sorry if it wasn't clear--was about conflicting authorities within the governmental structure. For instance, if I obey authority x I disobey authority why, yet Romans 13 only says, at a surface level reading, to be in obedience to authorities. 

As to the form of government, I didn't mean to get off on that track. Have you read Dabney's essay on "Bible Republicanism?"


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2007)

I don't think that was as clear as it could have been. I will try to clarifiy. I am not positing something as simple as "God vs. Government" conflicting authority. I am talking about conflicting human elements within the same government. When the Sherriff (who in the State of Louisiana is one of the highest ranking officers in the Parish) and equally legit authority X clash. 

Rich:
If you want to move this thread, put it into the "Law of God" forum, since it is an ethics thread.


----------



## Answerman (Aug 29, 2007)

My point was that, in this country, we are governed by the rule of law, so anyone violating that rule of law, whomever that may be, is to be resisted according to Romans 13. Therefore "lesser" authorities have the power to enforce the rule of law on the "higher" authorities and I would gladly join their cause.

BTW Jacob, are there any lesser authorities down there in Louisiana that would be brave enough to do such a thing? I fear that the lesser authorities where I live would too easily acquiece to this kind of tyranny.

But to keep this thread on track, per the moderators request, I would only say that I believe that I am only saying what many examples in the old testament would illustrate would be the case through good and necessary consequences.


----------



## KMK (Aug 29, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



I loooove John Weaver! I will have to listen to that one.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2007)

Answerman said:


> My point was that, in this country, we are governed by the rule of law, so anyone violating that rule of law, whomever that may be, is to be resisted according to Romans 13. Therefore "lesser" authorities have the power to enforce the rule of law on the "higher" authorities and I would gladly join their cause.



In other words, what John Knox said. I always say stuff like that and many Reformed people say "Nah-uh." I then quote John Knox. The following part of the discussion is quite humurous.



> [BTW Jacob, are there any lesser authorities down there in Louisiana that would be brave enough to do such a thing? I fear that the lesser authorities where I live would too easily acquiece to this kind of tyranny.
> 
> But to keep this thread on track, per the moderators request, I would only say that I believe that I am only saying what many examples in the old testament would illustrate would be the case through good and necessary consequences.



We might get a good governor, Bobby Jindal, who is a strong Second Amendment advocate.


----------

