Richard Baxter on speed limits - Obedience to every ordinance of man

[Solparvus]

Good clickbait, no?

Once in a while the question of speed limits comes up. This thread came up last year, "Should Christians obey the speed limit", in which we had discussion of whether the letter of the law is to be obeyed, or the substance and intended rule.

No Christian dare deny that we are to be subject to every ordinance of man. The problem is, what is the ordinance? And in recent threads, what about when man's law and God's law are mutually exclusive? What about laws that are oppressive? Tyrannical? Impossible?

Sometimes the question comes up, what is the nature of penalties?

In this section from the Christian Directory, Baxter first began previously by discussing whether the payment of a penalty is acceptable in the place of the thing commanded. Now he discusses whether it is a sin to break every penal law. My best understanding (someone correct me!) is that a penal law is a law that's not moral in nature, but may be just for good order and effective rule. For example, it's not an inherent sin to drive 75 miles per hour, though there might be a penalty if you do so.

With that, here are some directions that I have myself found quite helpful.

EDIT: I have provided a "modernized" version for ease of reading. The original is found in quotes at the bottom.

1. A law represents a ruler's will, and is law no further than it truly represents a ruler's will.
2. Lawmaking is a power given from God. If it is not an exercise of that power, it is not a law.
3. Reasons laws are given:
   1. God's glory and pleasure - Common good. The common good includes the honor of the ruler and welfare of the society. So, you are not obliged to obey a law which is:
      1. Against God
      2. Against the common good
   2. Human laws are beneath God's law (in nature and Scripture). So no law may command us to sin, or to break God's law.
4. Laws govern a whole society, and are usually written in general terms in order to govern the general population. However, there are always very particular issues that the law may not address, and to obey the strict letter of the law would be a sin. Necessity needs no law. So we can conclude:
   1. You do not sin in breaking a law that is against God, or breaking a law He does not authorize (eg. Laws set up by an usurper).
   2. As far as any law doesn't represent a ruler's will, you don't sin in breaking it. It doesn't matter what the words of the law are.
   3. The letter of the law is not enough to understand a law. You should understand why governments are instituted, and you should judge the law by the rules of humanity (clarity, anyone?).
   4. Rulers can't predict all exceptions to a law. What is the nature of the exception? If the ruler were to judge the case, might he agree that the law doesn't concern this special situation? If so, this gives a hint as to the ruler's true will.
5. Some laws are general and can have exceptions. Sometimes a ruler has a particular command for a particular person, like when a parent gives a child a command to do a certain thing. There can't be an exception to obedience to the mandate here, even if there can be exceptions to general laws.
6. Laws sometimes fail to remain as laws because rulers neglect them, don't enforce them, let them become obsolete, or they grow out of use. Sometimes he chooses not to execute them for a time to particular persons. This means that the law may not be the law at this time. Not always, but sometimes may be. Sometimes the lawgiver will make plain whether a law is suspended. For example, during the fire of London some laws could not possibly be obeyed. In was understood that the ruler would not enforce those laws at that time, thus those laws were understood as suspended.
7. Sometimes it is as acceptable to break the law and pay the penalty as it is to obey the law, as sometimes either action may satisfy the governor's will.
8. Sometimes it's plain and clear that a law is meant for some persons and not others. Those that aren't concerned with it may not be bound by it, and a secret omission of obedience by those unconcerned may be acceptable, so long as they impede no one or cause public harm. However, if their liberty in not following that law causes scandal, or is not for the public good, they should obey that law.
9. (I need help with this paragraph) Sometimes a ruler clearly makes an exception: "Unless they have just and reasonable cause." For example, laws about church attendance. If against the public good though, the law obliges. But for actions that are indifferent in themselves, it may be implied (even if not clearly stated) that an excuse for just and reasonable cause applies.
10. Nature gives rules as well. You do not sin when you break laws that are impossible to keep.
11. The sense of a law may change over time, or when different rulers are in charge. It doesn't represent the will of rulers who are dead, but those who are living. Henry VIII may have made certain laws about religion, and perhaps those laws are still not repealed in the time of King Edward, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, King James, etc., but we should not think that the laws still bind with the original sense given by Henry VIII. Words are capable of several meanings, and we aren't bound to the very original sense. We are bound by the law in the sense given by those who now govern us.
12. Some laws are given for a special reason. If that reason is gone, then so is the law, so long as the ruler makes no attempt to enforce that law.
13. In some cases it is dangerous and sinful to keep a law. There might be a law against giving money to a beggar; but if that beggar is going to die, the law of charity demands you give to him. Scripture commands charity in this kind of case. You are not bound by a law of fasting if it destroys your health. Duties of rest and sacrifice on the Sabbath do not excuse you from works of mercy.
14. If there are two duties commanded that cannot both be kept, you must keep the greater one. That's the rule when understanding the law of God--much more when understanding men's laws, which can contradict each other.
15. (Need help with this paragraph). If two laws are inconsistent, you must use your best private judgment to decide between the two which one to obey. If a ruler is involved in the resolution, his decision binds. Sometimes you might be bound by two different laws that cannot both be kept, but against your best efforts you suffer penally for lawbreaking. You have not sinned, and you must suffer patiently.
16. Aside from such exceptions, you must obey the law, and you sin against God if you disobey.
17. (Need help) Even if a law doesn't seem to make sense in your situation, but if you think that it will be to public harm if you omit obedience to that law, then you should obey that law for the sake of the public good, even if you suffer harm as a result.

_________________

Quest, ii. ' But is it a sin to break every penal law of man?'

Answ.

1. You must remember that man's law is essentially the signification of man's will; and therefore obligeth no further than it truly signifieth the ruler's will.

2. That it is the act of a power derived from God; and therefore no further bindeth, than it is the exercise of such a power.

3. That it is given,

1. Finally for God's glory and pleasure, and for the common good (comprehending the honour of the ruler and the welfare of the society ruled). And therefore obligeth not when it is,​

(1.) Against God.
(2.) Or against the common good.

2. And it is subordinate to God's own laws, (in nature and Scripture) and therefore obligeth not to sin, or to the violation of God's law.​

4. You must note that laws are made for the government of societies as such universally; and so are fitted to the common case, for the common good. And it is not possible but that a law which prescribeth a duty which by accident is so to the most, should meet with some particular subject to whom the case is so circumstantiated as that the same act would be to him a sin: and to the same man it may be ordinarily a duty, and in an extraordinary case a sin. Thence it is that in some cases (as Lent fasts, marriages, &c.) rulers oft authorize some persons to grant dispensations in certain cases; and hence it is said, that necessity hath no law. Hereupon 1 conclude as followeth.

1. It is no sin to break a law which is no law, as being against God, or not authorized by him, (as of a usurper, &c.) See R. Hooker, Conclus. lib. viii.
2. It is no law so far as it is no signification of the true will of the ruler, whatever the words be: therefore so far it is no sin to break it.
3. The will of the ruler is to be judged of, not only by the words, but by the ends of government, and by the rules of humanity.
4. It being not possible that the ruler in his laws can foresee and name all exceptions, which may occur, it is to be supposed that it is his will that the nature of the thing shall be the notifier of his will, when it cometh to pass; and that if he were present, and this case fell out before him, which the sense and end of the law extendeth not to, he would say, This is an excepted case.​

5. There is therefore a wide difference between a general law, and a personal, particular mandate; as of a parent to a child, or a master to a servant; for this latter fully notifieth the will of the ruler in that very case, and to that very person. And therefore it cannot be said that here is any exception, or that it is not his will; but in an universal or general law, it is to be supposed that some particular excepted cases will fall out extraordinarily, though they cannot be named; and that in those cases, the ruler's will dispenseth with it.

6. Sometimes also the ruler doth by the mere neglect of pressing or executing his own laws, permit them to grow obsolete, and out of use; and sometimes he forbeareth the execution of them for some time, or to some sort of persons; and by so doing, doth notify that it was not his will that at such a time, and in such cases they should oblige. I say not that all remissness of execution is such a sign; but sometimes it is :. and the very word of the lawgiver may notify his dispensation or suspending will. As for instance, upon the burning of London, there were many laws (about coming to parish-churches, and relief of the poor of the parish, and the like,) that the people became incapable of obeying; and it was to be supposed, that the ruler's will would have been to have excepted such cases if foreseen; and that they did dispense with them when they fell out.

7. Sometimes also the penalty of violating a law, is some such mulct or service, which the ruler intendeth as a commutation for the duty, so that he freely leaveth it to the choice of the subject which he will choose. And then it is no sin to pay the mulct, and omit the action; because it crosseth not the lawgiver's will.

8. Sometimes also the law may command this principally for some men's sake, which so little concerns others, that it should not extend to them at all, were it not lest the liberty of them should be an impediment to the obedience of others, and consequently of the common good. In which case, if those persons so little concerned, do but omit the action secretly, so as to be no scandal or public hurt, it seemeth that they have the implicit consent of the rulers.

9. Sometimes particular duties are commanded with this express exception, "Unless they have just and reasonable impediment." As for coming every Lord's day to church, &c.; which seemeth to imply, that (though in cases where the public good is concerned, the person himself shall not be judge, nor at all as to the penalty; yet that (in actions of an indifferent nature in themselves, this exception is still supposed to be implied, " unless we have just and reasonable impediments," of which in private cases, as to the crime, we may judge.

10. I need not mention the common, natural exceptions: as that laws bind not to a thing when it becometh naturally impossible; or ' cessante materia, vel capacitate subjecti obligati,' &c.

11. Laws may change their sense in part by the change of the lawgiver; for the law is not formally to us his law that is dead and was once our ruler, but his that is alive and is now our ruler. If Henry the eighth make a law about the outward acts of religion, (as for coming to church, &c.) and this remain unrepealed in King Edward's, Queen Mary's, Queen Elizabeth's, King James's days, &c, even till now; as we are not to think that the lawgivers had the same sense and will, so neither that the law hath the same sense and obligation; for if the general words be capable of several senses, we must not take it as binding to us in the sense it was made in, but in the sense of our present lawgivers or rulers, because it is their law.

12. Therefore if a law had a special reason for it at the first making, (as the law for using bows and arrows,) that reason ceasing, we are to suppose the will of the lawgiver to remit the obligation, if he urge not the execution, and renew not the law.

13. By these plain principles many particular difficulties may be easily resolved, which cannot be foreseen and named, e. g. the law against relieving a beggar bindeth not, when he is like to die if he be not relieved; or in such a case as after the burning of London, when there was no parish to bring him to. A law that is but for the ordering of men's charity, (to soul or body, by preaching or alms,) will not disoblige me from the duties of charity themselves, in cases where Scripture or nature proveth them to be imposed by God. A law for fasting will not bind me, when it would be destructive to my body; even on God's sabbaths duties of mercy were to be preferred to rest and sacrifices.

14. If God's own laws must be thus expounded, that "When two duties come together, and both cannot be done, the lesser ceaseth at that time to be a duty, and the greater is to be preferred," man's laws must also be necessarily so expounded: and the rather, because man's laws may be contradictory when God's never are so, rightly understood.

15. Where the subject is to obey, so far he must discern which of the laws inconsistent, is to be preferred: but in the magistratical execution, the magistrate or judge must determine.
E. g. One law commandeth that all the needy poor be kept on the parish where they were born or last lived. Another law saith, that Nonconformable ministers of the Gospel, who take not the Oxford oath, shall not come within five miles of city or corporation (though they were born there) or any place where they have been preachers. In case of necessity what shall they do? Answ. Whither they shall go for relief, they must discern as well as they can: but whither they shall be carried or sent, the magistrate or constable must discern and judge.

Also whether he shall go with a constable that by one law bringeth him to a place, which by the other law he is forbid on pain of six months imprisonment in the common gaol to come to? Answ. If he be not voluntary in it, it is not his fault: and if one bring him thither by force, and another imprison him for being there, he must patiently suffer it.

16. But out of such excepted cases, the laws of our rulers (as the commands of parents) do bind us as is afore explained; and it is a sin against God to violate them.

17. Yea, when the reason of the law reacheth not our particular case and person, yet when we have reason to judge, that it is the ruler's will that all be bound for the sake of some, and the common order and good will be hindered by our exemption, we must obey to our corporal detriment, to avoid the public detriment, and to promote the public good.

 

[OPC'n]

I started to read it but I would need it translated into English first

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I started to read it but I would need it translated into English first

I will try to read it when I set aside some time to do so. Brevity was not one of Richard Baxter's strong points. Here is something that I posted elsewhere recently that is of relevance:

Commenting on Richard Baxter's apologetic writings, William Cunningham reminds us of the need for good editing to cut out the superfluous waffle that tends to present itself in rushed work:

Like most of Baxter's other works, they were written far too hastily and hurriedly to be well digested or compacted; they present a good many digressions, and much irrelevant matter, by which the continuity of the argument is sometimes broken or hidden ...

William Cunningham, Theological Lectures on Subjects Connected with Natural Theology, Evidences of Christianity, the Canon and Inspiration of Scripture (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1878), Lecture XVII, p. 225.

 

[Solparvus]

I'll try to put it in bullets at some point.

 

[Henry Hall]

a penal law is a law that's not moral in nature

Many of God’s penalties are moral, most notably those for capital crimes.

In cases such that God has revealed that for crime x the penalty is to be y, and no less, it would be *immoral* for the civil magistrate to give less of a penalty.

 

[Solparvus]

@OPC'n

I have modernized Baxter as well as I could. See if this helps.

In certain places I'm not confident that I've got the precise sense. I've indicated those places. Second sets of eyes appreciated from those who are used to this kind of run-on Puritanse (Ahem @Reformed Covenanter ).

 

[Solparvus]

Many of God’s penalties are moral, most notably those for capital crimes.

In cases such that God has revealed that for crime x the penalty is to be y, and no less, it would be *immoral* for the civil magistrate to give less of a penalty.

Yes, God does impose moral penalties for moral crimes. What penalties a lawgiver should impose is beyond the scope of this thread.

But some laws that we institute are not because the action forbidden is a sin in and of itself. For example, driving 75 miles per hour is not sinful by itself. However, the lawgiver still has a right to say you may not drive above 70-mph on such-and-such road.

But what do you do when, for example, virtually everyone else is going 85? What should you conclude if you, with your cruise control driving at 69, are passed on the left by a cop who is clearly going 75 or more?

What I want is for there to be a guide on PuritanBoard that could help fellow believers in resolving some really knotty questions. Some nasty cases of conscience emerge in this area.

 

[KMK]

Brevity was not one of Richard Baxter's strong points

Or as Baxter would say, "I lack the virtue of saying in the fewest words possible, the truths of the doctrines of the holy word of God, but clear the heads of each point with exhausting loquaciousness, and the reason for this I shall explain in the following fourteen points..."

 

[Henry Hall]

Yes, God does impose moral penalties for moral crimes. What penalties a lawgiver should impose is beyond the scope of this thread.

But some laws that we institute are not because the action forbidden is a sin in and of itself. For example, driving 75 miles per hour is not sinful by itself. However, the lawgiver still has a right to say you may not drive above 70-mph on such-and-such road.

But what do you do when, for example, virtually everyone else is going 85? What should you conclude if you, with your cruise control driving at 69, are passed on the left by a cop who is clearly going 75 or more?

What I want is for there to be a guide on PuritanBoard that could help fellow believers in resolving some really knotty questions. Some nasty cases of conscience emerge in this area.

Agreed.

 

[W.C. Dean]

I personally always strive to stay at the speed limit, rarely going over. But I am also a somewhat paranoid driver and I despise how much disregard there is for road laws. I'm not saying everyone who goes a few miles over the speed limit has a disregard, but many do.

 

[Chad Hutson]

I thought the signs are only recommendations!
And it depends on how late I am for church. I usually drive to church under grace, but drive home under the law.

 

[De Jager]

I was the one who started the thread last year. I still struggle with the issue. Where I live there are mostly 2 lane roads (1 lane each way). The speed limit is 80 km/h (50 mph). The problem is most people go 95-100 km/h (60 mph). Whenever I have tried to set the cruise to 80, I get a massive lineup behind me and people try dangerous passes to get around me. It also causes me a ton of anxiety. For those reasons I have sped up a little bit. It's actually a bit safer to go the expected average speed of traffic. I think.

 

[W.C. Dean]

I thought the signs are only recommendations!
And it depends on how late I am for church. I usually drive to church under grace, but drive home under the law.

I quite enjoy the last sentence, it's quite relatable. As one who not too long ago studied driver education material, I can tell 1 mile over the speed limit is technically illegal, and going under the speed limit is lawful, within reason. Police will pull you over for noticeably slow speeds.

 

[brent20]

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21 I would say then, that by the letter of the law we are required to obey the speed limit and not 1 mph over. However, as noted in other other posts, most people do not obey the speed limit exactly, and nor do I. For often it is safer to drive faster, rather then having the cars pile up behind you. And so in these instances, it then becomes a necessity to drive above the speed limit and thus the letter of the law does not apply in these circumstances. For the law is there for the safety of those on the roads. So if the intent of the law is for the safety of those drivers, and driving faster increases safety, then for all intensive purposes driving faster is still within the law.

 

[Ben Zartman]

"He said 95 was the route you were on; it was not the speed limit sign"--Jim Croce. I think about this a lot, since I drive on I-95 every Lord's Day.

 

[PreservedKillick]

I personally always strive to stay at the speed limit, rarely going over. But I am also a somewhat paranoid driver and I despise how much disregard there is for road laws. I'm not saying everyone who goes a few miles over the speed limit has a disregard, but many do.

I agree, and with the documented uptick in fatal crashes in the last decade, I don't think it's paranoid at all. I consider the reckless and distracted driving I see around me on a regular basis as a violation not just of civil laws, but also of the implications of the Sixth Commandment.

 

[Grant]

Yes obey all speed limits unless in a emergency (ex. Medical emergency).

As Christians we should bend over backwards to obey our magistrates so long as they are not asking us to violate God’s law. Further, we need to remember it is a speed “Limit” and not a “Required” driving speed.

It is a testament to our sinful impatience that we try to justify going over the maximum “limit”, as if all are required to go the maximum limit allowed. What makes more sense to our fallen flesh, speeding or obeying a magisterial limit? Our flesh whispers “just a little faster” or “hurry your late, so it’s okay”. Fight your flesh and be more disciplined to leave early and obey the law.

I disagree with the thoughts expressed here that we should just drive however fast the majority are driving. Really? Obey the magistrates laws as unto the Lord with joy so long as they do not ask you to disobey God’s law.

Lastly, there is a reason insurance companies are now giving discounts to drivers who obey limits (voluntary smartphone tracking app). Statistically you must be less likely to wreck and cost them less money. Otherwise why would they offer the discount? They want more profit not less.

 

[ZackF]

I was a reckless driver in youth with racing, three digit speeding, screeching tires, doughnuts, and so forth. Thanks be to God I didn’t get hurt.

Nowadays my wife complains when I don’t at least get up to the speed limit. When I hear “um honey...” I know what’s next.

I try to be scrupulous on trips. Back in the day I was tempted to go about 2 mph above the speed limit on the interstate. That seemed to minimize lane changing.

Now I go about 1-2 miles under the limit on the interstate in obedience to the law. This has led to even less lane changing AND less reminding by the wife.

 

[Logan]

As Christians we should bend over backwards to obey our magistrates so long as they are not asking us to violate God’s law. Further, we need to remember it is a speed “Limit” and not a “Required” driving speed.

I used to think exactly this way. And still sometimes do. As a disclaimer, I do drive the limit and have never been even pulled over in 20 years of driving.

However, just from an engineering standpoint, let me offer a few thoughts about speed limits:

• The limit posted is often slower than the designed speed in anticipation that people will go faster (e.g., if officers don't pull you over unless you're going more than five over, then what is the "actual" limit?)
• The absolutely safest speed would be crawling. It would also be the most inefficient. There is some compromise between the two reached when posting a limit.
• The big problem with limits are that they are a single number to fit all scenarios, so by necessity are designed for worst case maximum load, bad conditions, least competent drivers.

Does it make sense to have one limit for a four-lane interstate that applies both to a rainy night-time rush hour and to a bright sunny day with no one else on the road?

Our system of limits is not ideal in my opinion, and it's arguable that it's unnecessary in many places. In Germany's system, there is no limit but there is often a recommended speed and if you are exceeding that and cause an accident then you are more liable than if you were not. So while not illegal, you assume more responsibility.

Does it make sense for someone else to tell me how fast I can safely drive? Based on my personal observations, in very hazardous conditions, people self-regulate their top speed (i.e., very few people drive all the way up to the limit in a heavy downpour). The same with going around sharp turns. People ignore the signs but are often under the recommended speed.

There is also a gross incentive for the city to set the speed limit lower and fine those who go over it. Do you trust your magistrates to not to want to raise some money this way? It's a huge source of income in some towns. If they really cared about safety, wouldn't they enforce something more impactful though less easy to measure, like following distance?

In short, the primary thing speed limits do is not make us safe, but make those of us who follow them mad at those who don't. They are not wise or often well-thought-out and may be unjust. I think it's arguable most of them on the highway don't make anyone safer either. Wouldn't a far better way to increase safety be to enforce safe driving distance, no matter the speed?

All that to say, I still obey the limits even if I think far less of them than I did before!

 

[Logan]

One other interesting thing: speed limits are supposed to be set after a traffic study. The study is supposed to determine the speed at which 85% of drivers self-regulate and then set the limit there. Clearly that's not being done in my state!

 

[Grant]

I used to think exactly this way. And still sometimes do. As a disclaimer, I do drive the limit and have never been even pulled over in 20 years of driving.

However, just from an engineering standpoint, let me offer a few thoughts about speed limits:

• The limit posted is often slower than the designed speed in anticipation that people will go faster (e.g., if officers don't pull you over unless you're going more than five over, then what is the "actual" limit?)
• The absolutely safest speed would be crawling. It would also be the most inefficient. There is some compromise between the two reached when posting a limit.
• The big problem with limits are that they are a single number to fit all scenarios, so by necessity are designed for worst case maximum load, bad conditions, least competent drivers.

Does it make sense to have one limit for a four-lane interstate that applies both to a rainy night-time rush hour and to a bright sunny day with no one else on the road?

Our system of limits is not ideal in my opinion, and it's arguable that it's unnecessary in many places. In Germany's system, there is no limit but there is often a recommended speed and if you are exceeding that and cause an accident then you are more liable than if you were not. So while not illegal, you assume more responsibility.

Does it make sense for someone else to tell me how fast I can safely drive? Based on my personal observations, in very hazardous conditions, people self-regulate their top speed (i.e., very few people drive all the way up to the limit in a heavy downpour). The same with going around sharp turns. People ignore the signs but are often under the recommended speed.

There is also a gross incentive for the city to set the speed limit lower and fine those who go over it. Do you trust your magistrates to not to want to raise some money this way? It's a huge source of income in some towns. If they really cared about safety, wouldn't they enforce something more impactful though less easy to measure, like following distance?

In short, the primary thing speed limits do is not make us safe, but make those of us who follow them mad at those who don't. They are not wise or often well-thought-out and may be unjust. I think it's arguable most of them on the highway don't make anyone safer either. Wouldn't a far better way to increase safety be to enforce safe driving distance, no matter the speed?

All that to say, I still obey the limits even if I think far less of them than I did before!

Questioning the motives behind limits is fine for discussion. None of what you have asked takes away from the biblical/confessional principle that the magistrate can lawfully and should set laws that concern safety. So long as that law does not require us to break God’s moral law, then we are biblically required to obey it as it is from our Lord with joy. In using the words of Sproul, Sr., we should bend over backwards.

I have many friends who go down the road of well “just why does the magistrate really set those limits” or “they don’t care about the safety they are just greedy”. However, we must be careful there as we are called to give magistrates as charitable a view as we can (the 9th commandment). I love our local police and appreciate them stopping speeders. Also probable cause often works out for our safety. For the 1 cop abuse click-bait story, there are hundreds of good deeds that never get reported.

I say all this as one who fully acknowledges that this can be hard to do, especially on those 25mph and 30mph zones, but I’m a sinner and I often wrestle with being obedient to all sorts of good laws. Further I fully acknowledge that there is clear proof that magistrates (cops included) have had and have sinful greedy motives in setting certain limits and laws.

The speed limits do not make us mad. Normally it’s my fleshly impatience that does that and says “I have a right to be angry as this magistrate’s law” or “if it wasn’t for the dumb limit I would be on time”. Both of those thoughts are wrong headed. Additionally, it’s not always wrong for Christian’s to feel a sense of anger when they behold sin in others or sin in themselves. I often do get angry when someone rounds the curve at 30mph in my small neighborhood while my girls are playing on bikes.

Speed limits, as well as speed bumps for that matter, tend to make places safer. Just ask your traffic director who helps kids cross the street, ask the mom and dad who go bike riding with kids in the neighborhood. Ask the elderly who have to cross to check the mail.

Would I like the speed limit in my neighborhood to be 30mph instead of 15mph? No Way! As soon as the magistrate raises the limit, guess what? It will not be long before there is another childish outcry to say “Faster Faster we want another Master!”.

But again the principle stands: Inferiors should obey the magistrate’s law as if it were from our Lord so long as it does not require us to break our Lord’s superior moral law.

 

[Solparvus]

Questioning the motives behind limits is fine for discussion. None of what you have asked takes away from the biblical/confessional principle that the magistrate can lawfully and should set laws that concern safety. So long as that law does not require us to break God’s moral law, then we are biblically required to obey it as it is from our Lord with joy. In using the words of Sproul, Sr., we should bend over backwards.

I have many friends who go down the road of well “just why does the magistrate really set those limits” or “they don’t care about the safety they are just greedy”. However, we must be careful there as we are called to give magistrates as charitable a view as we can (the 9th commandment). I love our local police and appreciate them stopping speeders. Also probable cause often works out for our safety. For the 1 cop abuse click-bait story, there are hundreds of good deeds that never get reported.

I say all this as one who fully acknowledges that this can be hard to do, especially on those 25mph and 30mph zones, but I’m a sinner and I often wrestle with being obedient to all sorts of good laws. Further I fully acknowledge that there is clear proof that magistrates (cops included) have had and have sinful greedy motives in setting certain limits and laws.

The speed limits do not make us mad. Normally it’s my fleshly impatience that does that and says “I have a right to be angry as this magistrate’s law” or “if it wasn’t for the dumb limit I would be on time”. Both of those thoughts are wrong headed. Additionally, it’s not always wrong for Christian’s to feel a sense of anger when they behold sin in others or sin in themselves. I often do get angry when someone rounds the curve at 30mph in my small neighborhood while my girls are playing on bikes.

Speed limits, as well as speed bumps for that matter, tend to make places safer. Just ask your traffic director who helps kids cross the street, ask the mom and dad who go bike riding with kids in the neighborhood. Ask the elderly who have to cross to check the mail.

Would I like the speed limit in my neighborhood to be 30mph instead of 15mph? No Way! As soon as the magistrate raises the limit, guess what? It will not be long before there is another childish outcry to say “Faster Faster we want another Master!”.

But again the principle stands: Inferiors should obey the magistrate’s law as if it were from our Lord so long as it does not require us to break our Lord’s superior moral law.

What do you think of all @Logan said in light of Baxter's principles?

 

[Grant]

@RPEphesian

My thought on Baxter’s 17 points?

I found it helpful, but overly complex. How could this be navigated by a laymen? Should one check it through the 17 points for each law?

I think the simpler and less winded principle is far more helpful and easier to apply in a consistent manner. Does the civil law require you to disobey God’s Moral law? If not, then obey it as unto the the Lord. If so, then disobey it and obey the Lord (the Supreme Superior). Simply because one finds a law silly or nonsense does not give one a free ticket to disobey. It seems Baxter would agree with some of that.

Trying to answer all of Baxter’s check points can get relative really fast for individuals. In other words, it likely would not do a great job of promoting unity of opinion. Example: Is exceeding the speed limit (outside of emergencies and emergency vehicles) sinful?

What do you think of all @Logan said in light of Baxter's principles?

I thought I expressed my opinion of it already. Which question do you want me to answer?

It would seem Logan and I have the same conclusion in our practice, just a different opinion of the law itself.

All that to say, I still obey the limits even if I think far less of them than I did before!

 

[Logan]

Simply because one finds a law it silly or nonsense does give one a free ticket to disobey.

You heard it here first, folks!
Reminds me of the "adultery Bible".

 

[Grant]

You heard it here first, folks!
Reminds me of the "adultery Bible".

Thanks, I fixed the typos.