Patriotism

[cupotea]

Jason,

1. Given the essentially pan-ethnic nature of Christianity, I do not believe that there is a biblical argument for National religion, and

2. I don't see a direct biblical mandate for patriotism but consider it to be consistent with biblical principles regarding the duties of citizens to the state.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Michael,
On the first of your two observations (not the ones to Jason) I agree. I do not think overthrow of tyranny is biblically [i:3021c8ea1d]mandated;[/i:3021c8ea1d] and by mandated, I am assuming you mean [u:3021c8ea1d]commanded[/u:3021c8ea1d] or at least [u:3021c8ea1d]promoted/encouraged[/u:3021c8ea1d].

I do believe that in certain instances it is [i:3021c8ea1d][u:3021c8ea1d]permitted/justified[/u:3021c8ea1d].[/i:3021c8ea1d]

On the second point, I'm on the other side NOT principally because I can offer much beyond the facts already mentioned--facts not persuasive to everyone but persuasive (so far) to me. Mainly I hold my opinion because I think its more important to understand why so many who fought clearly believed they were biblically justified to do so, rather than read their behavior in the light of modern prejudices and opinions about what constitues actual tyranny.

I'm saying we need to distinguish between
1) Whose (moot point) side we come down on today or who we think we might have supported at that time (with all the benefis of hindsight), and
2) Understanding what motivated those patriots--especially the Christian believers--to such profound action, and critiquing them both from within their worldview (were they rational and consistent?) and from without (how does what they did line up with [i:3021c8ea1d]our[/i:3021c8ea1d] biblical understanding?).
It's a little different from critiquing our own religious/social/political issues, because we are inside the same cultural currents and breathe the same air.

Fact is, right or wrong (if there be some way to objectively measure that) the Americans did think they were tyrannized, and felt it to the point of arming themselves. You or I may think they should not have felt that way for many reasons, including some that they themselves could not possibly have understood. But many of them believed they were biblically justified in resisting.

I'll try to illustrate the difficulty I see by a modern hypothetical example: it might well be unfathomable for someone in another time or place to conceive of Americans today (however they relate to us as an alien people) going to war with authorities because some strange "right" embodied in the "2nd Amendment to the US Constitution" had been repealed--all dressed up in legalese, all formally properly executed by the government, and what have you. I don't know if I would be a combatant in such a hypothetical conflict, but I'm almost certain I would openly support the "old order."

But it's all so theoretical. What objective standard of "tyranny" can we point to that says that in the 21st century, or any time ever, absolutely restricting ownership of "firesticks" is a tyrannical move? Or for that matter repealing any of the enumerated rights in the Constitution? Its almost too plain to say that such a move would fracture this country. (Maybe not, if the rights were eroded over many years.) The menace many would feel at seeing this or other dearly held freedoms stripped away would easily be understood by us. Yet, at some distance, that feeling and the violent actions it led to might seem quite unjustified to an observer.

Similar observations could be made regarding Covenanters (already mentioned), the Roundheads (I mentioned), the Confederates, and how many others?


I think the inherent difficulty of this question is demonstrated in what is perhaps the main biblical example illustrating this whole question of resistance/separation--the dividing of the Kingdom, I Kings 11-12. Men turn to sin what God nevertheless ordains, and in this case even commands and promises (conditionally) to honor and bless (see I Ki. 11:35, 38-39). Solomon, for his part though he knew the Word of the Lord had been uttered in this thing, nevertheless attempted to assasinate Jereboam (v. 40).

I Ki. 12:1-12 shows a model of probity and decorum in the people's conduct, though it might be mixed with pride and baser motivations. Rehoboam shows himself the fool (v. 8, 13-14). The people's response is indignation (v. 16), not wholly unjustified. The rebellion is of mixed character indeed, yet verses 15 and 21-24 prove that this outcome was from God himself.

We may speak of sin on both sides, of the rapid fall into idolatry of Israel, of their neglect of the Temple, of their sin of despising David's house. All quite true and tragic. But none was inevitable, except in the secret decree of God. God might have preserved Israel in righteousness, instead of letting them slide into apostasy, for his own holy ends, ultimately uniting them again secularly in David's house in a happy reunion. Or perhaps only uniting them at last in the Spiritual Kingdom of David's Son, the Messiah, which was always the final goal of the kingdom anyway (the earthly destined to pass away). But in [i:3021c8ea1d]retrospect[/i:3021c8ea1d] we know that was not his design.

On that day of Revolt (even if never again!), the Ten Tribes could say in TRUTH, "We are justified in rejecting this fool and tyrant, and have done even according to the Word of the Lord in departing the house of David this day" (see 19-20, cf. 15-16). [b:3021c8ea1d]God evidently sanctioned this Declaration of Independence.[/b:3021c8ea1d]

This illustration is no apology for the American Rebellion, but an example of how thorny the question is.

 

[smhbbag]

only skimmed the thread.....but this is a subject I've discussed a lot in the last few months, so here's my few cents:

1)The Roman authority Paul has in view in Romans 13 was 1000 times more tyrannical than the British rule over the colonies - yet he does not even entertain the notion of an armed rebellion/overthrow, or permit it.

2) Disobedience to rulers is assumed and encouraged in the case of a public/secular law declaring right Christian conduct illegal (Acts 5:40-42). Yet Scripture never (to my knowledge) prescribes or permits usurping this tyrannical and unBiblical authority by forceful or illegal means - regardless of the extent of their tyranny.

3) Those under an authority have no right to displace it; it has been established over them by God for a purpose - and "whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed" (Rom 13:2). Those outside the rulership of an unjust authority (i.e. another nation or entity) are NOT bound to obey this ruler who has no position over them....and are not explicitly commanded to keep from overthrowing them (this means that under certain circumstances, nation-to-nation conflict is permissible - but this is not the topic at hand).

4) Already mentioned, but Paul, in Romans 13, includes the tyrranical Roman government as a legitimate, binding authority on believers (recipients of this letter). The Roman authorities were "ministers of God" (Rom 13:6) even in their degenerate state of rule.

 

[twogunfighter]

[quote:a23e0b9da9]1. that the overthrow of tyrants is biblically mandated, and [/quote:a23e0b9da9]

I think that mandation is too high a bar. The Bible never "mandates" the overthrow of tyrants. In some cases the overthrow is righteous though. I think that the example of Israel is instructive. On several occasions Israel as the covenant people threw off ungodly tyrants that ruled them. Leaving Egypt was seen by the Egyptians as a slave revolt. Throughout Judges they threw off outside tyrants. With Jehu and Jereboam they threw off tyrannical leaders of their own ethnicity. The chief priest felt it his duty to install a 7 yr old boy as king instead of Athaliah despite the fact that she had been reigning for six years and had consolidated the kingdom to herself. Should not God's covenant people of today be prepared to bear arms against tyranny as they did back then?

Just because it is sometimes righteous though does not mean that it always is. The people under Nebuchadnezzar were in the same situation as when they were under Eglon but God required them to live under that tyranny. In fact the prophets told them that they were to endure the tyranny until God decided to deliver them. God calls some to fight by faith and others to endure by faith. When to fight is a call that must be based on the situation that the people of faith live under.

[quote:a23e0b9da9]Heb 11:32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36 Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, F55 were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented-- 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. [/quote:a23e0b9da9]


Some other interesting verses:

[quote:a23e0b9da9]1 Samuel 11:14 Then Samuel said to the people, "Come, let us go to Gilgal and renew the kingdom there." 15 So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal. There they made sacrifices of peace offerings before the Lord, and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly. [/quote:a23e0b9da9]

The people established the king.

[quote:a23e0b9da9]1 Samuel 12:16 "Now therefore, stand and see this great thing which the Lord will do before your eyes: 17 Is today not the wheat harvest? I will call to the Lord, and He will send thunder and rain, that you may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the Lord, in asking a king for yourselves." 18 So Samuel called to the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. 19 And all the people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to the Lord your God, that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking a king for ourselves."[/quote:a23e0b9da9]

God is not necessarily "pro" power consolidation. In this case He states that asking for a king is sinful. In other places Samuel made a substantial case for the foolishness of having a King.

[quote:a23e0b9da9]1 Kings 19:15 Then the Lord said to him: "Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria. 16 Also you shall anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi as king over Israel. And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place. 17 It shall be that whoever escapes the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill; and whoever escapes the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill. 18 Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."
[/quote:a23e0b9da9]

The church leadership appointed a private individual to lead in a bloody coup de etat against the duly constituted government. Hmmmm.....

[quote:a23e0b9da9]2.that the British were in actual fact sufficiently tyrannical to justify such an overthrow.
[/quote:a23e0b9da9]

What would you suggest would be a sufficient level of tyranny?

Chuck

 

[twogunfighter]

[quote:83f388442e]3) Those under an authority have no right to displace it; it has been established over them by God for a purpose - and "whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed" (Rom 13:2). [/quote:83f388442e]

So Jehoiada was acting sinfully? Was Jehoiada not appointed by God to heroically depose the evil Athaliah to show that even governments are under the law of God? Would it have been possible for a chinese christian to righteously stand in Tianamen square braving the tanks or is that level of valor only for non-Christians and we must just always take what the government metes out until a one less righteous than us rebels and we can reap the benefits?


2 Kings 11:3 So he was hidden with her in the house of the Lord for six years, while Athaliah reigned over the land.

4 In the seventh year Jehoiada sent and brought the captains of hundreds--of the bodyguards and the escorts--and brought them into the house of the Lord to him. And he made a covenant with them and took an oath from them in the house of the Lord, and showed them the king's son. 5 Then he commanded them, saying, "This is what you shall do: One-third of you who come on duty on the Sabbath shall be keeping watch over the king's house, 6 one-third shall be at the gate of Sur, and one-third at the gate behind the escorts. You shall keep the watch of the house, lest it be broken down. 7 The two contingents of you who go off duty on the Sabbath shall keep the watch of the house of the Lord for the king. 8 But you shall surround the king on all sides, every man with his weapons in his hand; and whoever comes within range, let him be put to death. You are to be with the king as he goes out and as he comes in." 9 So the captains of the hundreds did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded. Each of them took his men who were to be on duty on the Sabbath, with those who were going off duty on the Sabbath, and came to Jehoiada the priest. 10 And the priest gave the captains of hundreds the spears and shields which had belonged to King David, that were in the temple of the Lord. 11 Then the escorts stood, every man with his weapons in his hand, all around the king, from the right side of the temple to the left side of the temple, by the altar and the house. 12 And he brought out the king's son, put the crown on him, and gave him the Testimony; F10 they made him king and anointed him, and they clapped their hands and said, "Long live the king!"

 

[smhbbag]

I still see absolutely no reason in that text to conclude that the overthrow of authority was sanctioned or commanded by God (although we do know it was decreed by Him to happen).

As for the Tianamen Square question - that is an unlawful protest....and actions which are not commanded for us directly by scripture.....so I am consistent, and I see no warrant for any Christian to break the law of the land outside of a direct Biblical mandate. You call that protest "valor" - I call it passionate rebellion against the holy God who established those authorities.

Again, we have the authors of NT scripture living under equal, if not greater, tyranny than the believers in China - and Paul calls these evil, deplorable men "ministers of God" appointed over believers. They have a legitimate authority, and are not to be disobeyed unless they command disobedience to a higher authority - the Lord of all Lords Himself.

By the way, in your signature (twogunfighter) - "It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers" - That is precisely what Paul did.

 

[twogunfighter]

SMH

[quote:93275b1cf0]2 Kings 12:20 And his servants arose and formed a conspiracy, and killed Joash in the house of the Millo, F12 which goes down to Silla. 21 For Jozachar F13 the son of Shimeath and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, F14 his servants, struck him. So he died, and they buried him with his fathers in the City of David. Then Amaziah his son reigned in his place.

2 Kings 14:3 And he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like his father David; he did everything as his father Joash had done. 4 However the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. 5 Now it happened, as soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, that he executed his servants who had murdered his father the king. 6 But the children of the murderers he did not execute, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, in which the Lord commanded, saying, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall be put to death for his own sin." F18 [/quote:93275b1cf0]

This is how the rebellion against Joash was written about. Note the description of "murderers".

[quote:93275b1cf0]2 Kings 11:13 Now when Athaliah heard the noise of the escorts and the people, she came to the people in the temple of the Lord. 14 When she looked, there was the king standing by a pillar according to custom; and the leaders and the trumpeters were by the king. All the people of the land were rejoicing and blowing trumpets. So Athaliah tore her clothes and cried out, "Treason! Treason!" 15 And Jehoiada the priest commanded the captains of the hundreds, the officers of the army, and said to them, "Take her outside under guard, and slay with the sword whoever follows her." For the priest had said, "Do not let her be killed in the house of the Lord." 16 So they seized her; and she went by way of the horses' entrance into the king's house, and there she was killed.

17 Then Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord, the king, and the people, that they should be the Lord's people, and also between the king and the people. 18 And all the people of the land went to the temple of Baal, and tore it down. They thoroughly broke in pieces its altars and images, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. And the priest appointed officers over the house of the Lord. 19 Then he took the captains of hundreds, the bodyguards, the escorts, and all the people of the land; and they brought the king down from the house of the Lord, and went by way of the gate of the escorts to the king's house. Then he sat on the throne of the kings. 20 So all the people of the land rejoiced; and the city was quiet, for they had slain Athaliah with the sword in the king's house. 21 Jehoash was seven years old when he became king.

2 Kings 12:2 Jehoash did what was right in the sight of the Lord all the days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him. [/quote:93275b1cf0]

Now if Amaziah put to death the murderers of his father, why would not Joash do the same thing if Athaliah (his grandmother) was indeed murdered? Why is Jehoida not characterized as a murderer if scripture is clear on the status of Joash's servants? How could Jehoida be an evil murderer and treasonous subject and still be allowed to lead the people in renewing their covenant? And why is Jehoash's righteousness at least partly attributed to Jehoida's instruction?

But if that does not answer, then Jehu son of Nimshi a regular guy is called upon by Elisha a prophet of God and an officer of the church to kill all of Ahab's descendants and ascend to the throne himself. Was he wrong to do so? Was Elisha wrong to commission him for the task?

What of David, as leader of the breakaway province of Judah, who waged a war directed by GOD against the duly constituted head of the state of Israel?

[quote:93275b1cf0]2 Sam2: 4 Then the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, "The men of Jabesh Gilead were the ones who buried Saul." 5 So David sent messengers to the men of Jabesh Gilead, and said to them, "You are blessed of the Lord, for you have shown this kindness to your lord, to Saul, and have buried him. 6 And now may the Lord show kindness and truth to you. I also will repay you this kindness, because you have done this thing. 7 Now therefore, let your hands be strengthened, and be valiant; for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah has anointed me king over them."

8 But Abner the son of Ner, commander of Saul's army, took Ishbosheth F1 the son of Saul and brought him over to Mahanaim; 9 and he made him king over Gilead, over the Ashurites, over Jezreel, over Ephraim, over Benjamin, and over all Israel. 10 Ishbosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. Only the house of Judah followed David. 11 And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.
[/quote:93275b1cf0]

I am in no way trying to say that rebellion is the norm for Christian dealing with disagreeable government. In fact I believe that Rom 13 sets out the norm and the anecdotal evidence that I have shown from the OT proves that there are exceptions. My difficulty is that you refuse to say that there any exceptions. Scripture clearly shows that in certain extreme circumstances rebellion against tyranny is a righteous option. The fact that you refuse to see it is of little consequence to me since Calvin, Du Plessis Mornay, Kuyper, Knox and others have aggreed with my side.

http://www.kuyper.org/stone/lecture3.html#1
http://www.crta.org/calvinism/
http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm

The difficulty is in determining what the circumstances are. Which is why I think that any judging of the founding fathers should assume their innocence rather than making them treasonous rebels based on our idea of what tyranny is "bad enough" to warrant rising against the tyrant.

Chuck

 

[RamistThomist]

[quote:839aa74d7d="smhbbag"]
By the way, in your signature (twogunfighter) - "It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers" - That is precisely what Paul did.[/quote:839aa74d7d]

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. In this case, and I can't do it now resource wise, isn't a more valid option to see Paul speaking prescriptively, not descriptive? Doesn't that make more sense? After all, Paul had a strong ethical component in his letters, exhorting the Christians to good behavior, among other things. If Nero is "a minister for good," and the Christians read that, what are they to conclude? After Paul has been exhorting them to love and good works and then pronounces Nero "good," has God now changed his standard?

No, I do not believe Paul is describing the current situation. If so, then we need to redefine the word "is." It makes more sense to see Paul laying the ethical demands for rulers. Now as a word of caution to what I am saying: There is more to this text than a categorical "ought," although that is most surely there.

 

[Puritanhead]

Really a Rebellion?

I see some reducing the war for American independence to some bourgosie crusade for economic freedom and liberation from taxation. What distinguishes the so called American "rebellion" from the French Revolution, is that the lesser magistrates in the colonies interposed against the usurpations of King George and the Crown... The French Revolution was just a bloodletting by quixotic egalitarian ideologues. The colonials relentlessly pleaded their sufferings by petition for more than a decade, and it was far more than taxation abuse, as they enumerated in detail those usurpations in the Declaration of Independence. The struggle was very much a war for restoration of the Anglo-American common law tradition, as well as political and economic independence. And likewise in the Second War of Independence in 1861, the lesser magistrates interposed and it was no more of a"rebellion." In both cases, our country was invaded by a foreign oppressor who sought to subjugate us in both cases. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is similar. I recommend the Vision Forums CD/Tape series in the Christian Controversies Series, such as Yankees v. Rebels and Patriots v. Tories.

:bigsmile:

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Puritanhead]

 

[Puritanhead]

Yankee Inconsistency

Originally posted by pastorway
It was not a rebellion.

England severed all ties with the Colonies first, declared them a foreign threat, and then when the King and Parliament could not determine what course to take regarding future relations with the Colonies decided to invaded in order to attempt to conquer us!

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=40

Phillip

Unfortunately, the Yankee oppressors of my Southron ancestors couldn't maintain such consistency.... First, the Confederates were considered rebels against the central authority, but during the occupation years we were considered a foreign power and treated as conquered territory. For whatever reason, our constiuent states incorporated back into the Union abrogated any claim to state sovereignty at the behest of the radical republicans and a puppet regime called the shots so as to illegally and unconstitutionally preserve the unpopular Republican majority in the Congress and control of the White House. Republican self-government was vanquished as the South was likewise subject to the oppressive heel of the jackboot, military dictatorship, and disenfranchisement. At least, the British were consistent in that regard.

[Edited on 2-19-2005 by Puritanhead]

 

[Richard King]

I am probably oversimplifying but in answer to whether we should be patriots I have always felt that if my father and others before him fought to give me a life that is more free than other countries then I should honor my father and mother and others before them that paid a high price for this country. I am not a blind patriot. I am fully aware of the abuses and the wrongs our country supports. (For instance abortion. ) but I consider our Romans 13 type king or power or authority that we are blessed with in America is our Constitution and the Bill of Rights...not mere men like Lincoln or Janet Reno or Roosevelt or GW, or any political party or movement like moral majority. If they counter our Constitution or Bill of Rights they are breaking Roman's 13. This flawed country was a bold experiment led by men that have the same theology as many of you. If we feel no responsibility to that well at least I think there are scriptures that support protecting and defending the helpless. I cannot find anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that is contrary to scripture.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by smhbbag
only skimmed the thread.....but this is a subject I've discussed a lot in the last few months, so here's my few cents:

1)The Roman authority Paul has in view in Romans 13 was 1000 times more tyrannical than the British rule over the colonies - yet he does not even entertain the notion of an armed rebellion/overthrow, or permit it.

2) Disobedience to rulers is assumed and encouraged in the case of a public/secular law declaring right Christian conduct illegal (Acts 5:40-42). Yet Scripture never (to my knowledge) prescribes or permits usurping this tyrannical and unBiblical authority by forceful or illegal means - regardless of the extent of their tyranny.

3) Those under an authority have no right to displace it; it has been established over them by God for a purpose - and "whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed" (Rom 13:2). Those outside the rulership of an unjust authority (i.e. another nation or entity) are NOT bound to obey this ruler who has no position over them....and are not explicitly commanded to keep from overthrowing them (this means that under certain circumstances, nation-to-nation conflict is permissible - but this is not the topic at hand).

4) Already mentioned, but Paul, in Romans 13, includes the tyrranical Roman government as a legitimate, binding authority on believers (recipients of this letter). The Roman authorities were "ministers of God" (Rom 13:6) even in their degenerate state of rule.

What an incoherent and utterly repugnant view of civil govt. 1st of all its historically inaccurate. Roman govt under Nero at this point really wasn't that bad. The letter was written circa 56 AD, Christian persecution didnt begin until after the fire in Rome circa 64 ad.
2) Contradictory- in #3 you say tyrants are put in authority for a reason, and those under their authority cannot rebel, yet you say foreign nations may overthrow them. Well if God desires the reign of tyrants for a reason (& we are not speaking of His secret will) then it is sin for anyone to remove them. Think of how absurd this view of yours is- its a sin for a Christian to resist a tyranical prince providentially wielding mere power (simply the ability to do something) over a plot of land he happens to reside on, yet his neighbor who he doesnt own that power over may depose him.
3) This view makes God the author of sin, it confuses his secret will and his revealed will. The view that Rom 13 states anyone providentially wielding the mere ability to coerce people has the authority to do so believes MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. This is the biggest logical fallacy in the book- argument ad bacculum. Essentially its baptized social darwinism- that God gives the authority to do something to those who have the power to it- the idea is repulsive. I quote Samuel Willson,

Submission to the Powers that be
http://covenanter.org/JMWillson/submission.htm
But what does this ordinance comprehend? Does it embrace no more that the affixing of a divine sanction to the exercise of such authority among men as is denominated civil?—leaving every thing relating to its ends, its limits, its exercise, completely independent of God's will and direction? Certainly not. A divine ordinance is something. God's minister has something to do in that character. And whatever government is, it must be moral—for God is holy and good. Whatever his servant has to do, he must, in doing it, bear the image of God for whom he acts. It is monstrous even to imagine that the Most High has impressed his sanction upon every kind of human authority, however immoral, profane, blasphemous, requiring of the unhappy and tempted subject of such dominion, not merely a peaceful subjection to irresistible power, but a conscientious reverence of its officers and agents, as his ministers. We are not left to adopt any such revolting conclusion.

Here is what I am contending for: Paul no where calls Rome the ordinance of God or a power. Paul was writing to those people within the church who believed all civil govt unnecessary and evil, and to the church in all ages not just 1st century believers in the city of Rome. Paul carefully defines what a power is in vs 3,4 a terror to those that do evil and a minister of God for good, tyrants do not fit the description. Ex 18:21 further defines the biblical qualifications for a magistrate, he must fear God. Deu 17:14-20, sets many specific requirements, among them that he must know the Law of God and enforce it. I view these requirements as essential to the constitution of a civil minister as 1Tim 3 is essential to an ecclesiastical minister. If either minister lacks their respective requirements they are not a minister but an unlawful corruption thereof. Nero is no more a civil minister as a female "pastor" is an ecclesiastical minister.

The q. are those providentially put in power automatically the ordinance of God? I believe not.
"Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. "
Here God definiatively says that they made princes not by him, ie, they are not His ordinance. So one exception disproves the assertion God ALWAYS ordains every Government.

Why didnt 1st century Christians resist? Paul explains two types of obedience. Obedience for wraths sake and obedience for conscience sake. A Christian can never conscientiously submit to be ruled by evil. A Christian can submit because he fears the magistrates unjust wrath. He may, and often morally obliged to patiently wait under a tyrants persecutions if resistance is needlessly dangerous, or may unnecessarily cause social discord.

 

[RamistThomist]

Puritanhead:

I thought I detected Joe Morecraft in your post. Those might be some of the finer lectures I have ever heard. Every God-fearing, freedom loving Christian needs to listen to those lectures.

Richard King wrote:

but I consider our Romans 13 type king or power or authority that we are blessed with in America is our Constitution and the Bill of Rights...not mere men like Lincoln or Janet Reno or Roosevelt or GW, or any political party or movement like moral majority. If they counter our Constitution or Bill of Rights they are breaking Roman's 13.

I don't disagree. We do realize, don't we, that when a president swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, he is saying that he will face the judgment of God if he breaks it.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Richard King
I cannot find anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that is contrary to scripture.

My own view is that the Constitution on a procedural basis has much Biblical warrant (I primarily refer to the division of power amongst the three branches of government and within Congress itself as a check and balance against totalitarianism as well as the republican -- lower case 'r' -- nature of our government). However, with respect to moral, ethical and religious issues, our Constitution may be weighed on the scales of God's law and found deeply wanting.

The Preamble (which arguably lacks force of law, perhaps, but nevertheless shows the basis of authority upon which the Constitutution rests) says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is the place to acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as King over the nation and his word as the basis for establishing Justice, etc. No mention of Christ here is a sin of omission since magistrates cannot expect God's blessing without confession that he is Lord.

Article VI:
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Here again is a place where God's law ought to be acknowledged as the rule or basis of authority for government. There is a law higher than the Constitution.

Article VI:
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

God's Word requires religious tests for public office because the magistrate is a minister of God (Rom. 13.4). "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." (2 Sam. 23.3)

If the Constitution contains sinful provisions, as I argue, than the oath it requires is also sinful.

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is the duty of nations to confess Jesus Christ as Lord. It is the duty of magistrates to "maintain piety, justice, and peace" (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. XXIII.II). The establishment of a national church is precisely a Biblical requirement (see the Westminster Larger Catechism's exposition of the first, second, third and fourth commandments) and this amendment contravenes that. Free expression of all ideas and religions, heretical and nonsensical is contrary to the maintenance of piety, justice and peace (see Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. XX.IV). The magistrate's duty is to uphold the Ten Commandments and this does not allow for toleration of false and harmful religions and philosophies.

I'll skip over Amendments dealing with citizenship rights, slavery, income taxes and womens' suffrage since they came after the Bill of Rights.

My point is, our Constitution even as originally written, stands in great need of Reformation. It has much that is good in it, but its flaws are fundamental and lie at the heart of many of the problems that our society faces today.

 

[Richard King]

Good points but we have to take into account they were trying so hard to get away from a place where the Crown dictated how they would worship. I think they were just trying to avoid being Rome or the King's church etc . They did acknowledge our Creator. Still I see your points.

I just think nowadays people think bowing to authority means the UN or the NEA or the Labor unions, an unchecked FBI, or the secretary of whatever, or any other federals...when they should Constitutionally test every move the people in power make.
This country was set up with our leaders having a revocable power. They serve us ...not the other way around. For that I thank God. If only we all realized it.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think the question over whether the Crown was really tyrannical compared to Nero is beside the point. The colonials knew their english history and the precarious nature of civil liberty. If they allowed the Crown to tax them unjustly, this would set precedent for more unjust measures. This is different from your modern American. You modern asserts that taxes are okay as long as there are not a lot of them. He never asks the question as to whether they are biblical or constiutional.

[Edited on 2--18-05 by Draught Horse]