st. Worm Posted June 3, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,447 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/26/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 3, 2006 ladyraven, I never said theonomy and reconstructionism was monolithic in nature. My comments, though general, accurately reflect what the movement believes about the OT judicial law. Obviously there is not 100% agreement about how that law is to instituted and administered but they all believe it should be resurrected nonetheless. The problem of course is that those laws were not given to Christians or even to OT pagans. They were given to OT Israel exclusively just like the ceremonial laws. With regard to a Christian government, which Romans 13 does not even advocate, I cannot agree that such a government, even in theory is one based on the law of Moses as theonomists generally believe. Also, I am confused with your statement that our government is illegal now. Were you saying this as an example statement or do you really believe that? sw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyRaven Posted June 3, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,981 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1964 Share Posted June 3, 2006 ladyraven, With regard to a Christian government, which Romans 13 does not even advocate, I cannot agree that such a government, even in theory is one based on the law of Moses as theonomists generally believe. Also, I am confused with your statement that our government is illegal now. Were you saying this as an example statement or do you really believe that? sw As I was attempting to say, that wasn't meant to be a treatise on government from a theonomic pov, it was meant to show how a theonomist would approach the command to submit to authorities as per Romans 13. It is one option of at least 4 (I havent found any options outside those 4 prevelent in anyone who has actually made a theological study of the proper role of the government.) You don't have to hold a theonomic POV and I wasn't trying to make you do so. As to my comments...I do believe that since the government is not behaving as the government is described in Romans 13 that it is not entitlted to my submission and obedience as per that same verse. My preference politically is along the line of constitutional libertarianism. IF I'm not going to be subject to a government which is founded by God, I desire only as much government as necessary to protect my freedom to worship and serve God as I should. I believe the constitution was probably the best earthly contrived example of small scope of government. A constitution is a covenantal contract, just as a marriage contract is. When a marriage covenant is broken due to adultery, then the injured party has the freedom to divorce. He or she is not obligated to stay in the marriage though they can if they wish. So it is with the government. When the government violates the constitution, it has broken the contract. I may continue to function within it if I wish, but I do not have to. Trying to make me do so is then illegal, laws which violate the constitution are illegal and the government making them becomes illegal, yes. Illegitimate at least, and IMO illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. Worm Posted June 4, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,447 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/26/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 4, 2006 Thanks Lady Raven. That's what I was afraid of. sw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copper Scroll Posted June 4, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 682 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 4, 2006 Traditionally there are 4 variations of interpretation of that section of scripture. What is even more confusing is when that was written the person in power in Rome was Nero. Now if you substitute Nero for the places where it says government or authority, you have something that makes little sense....Thus you have to balance it with other scriptures which allow for disobedience to the authorities. The mixing of those scriptures have led to these four common views of how to see authority: 1. Divine Right of Kings: This verse is taken very literally, the citizen must obey all laws unless they directly contradict the laws of God, because the king or authority says so. If the Government says to wear orange, everyone must do so cause nothing in scripture says that we shouldn't wear orange. IF the government says we are all to be athiests, obviously one does not do this because it's against scripture. However, in this view, you might take a bold stand if your religion was against the law, but one would not rebel. 2. Theonomy/Reconstructionist: This is the ideal for a Christian government, and the government in the Millenium. The practical side is divided here, some believe that we are free to disobey any government who does not hold to this ideal, others hold to a practical application which says obey as long as your conscience or the laws of God do not tell you otherwise. This view would allow for uprisings, such as the American Revolution, in the right context. 3. Anabaptist?pacifist View: the state is part of the system of this world, the kingdom of satan. Submission in the context of Romans 13 is passive, though sometimes unavoidable conflicts will occur. During those times you do what is right and if you get caught you submissively allow yourself to be led to your punishment. 4. Freedom Of Conscience: Submission to the state is passive here also, the state being part of the kingdom of the world. Romans 13 is seen as a pragmatic treatise, this is what you do if you want to avoid trouble. however, there is no absolute view as to when it is proper or allowable to rebel against the government, it is left to the individual conscience. This is the second view which would allow uprisings such as the American Revolution. Theonomists who believe that at some point a authority has forfeited his right to obedience will then out of practicality abjure to the freedom of conscience view because it becomes up to the situation and personal belief when it is ok to rebel. This is where I stand right now. I personally am a theonomist, which operates currently under the freedom of conscience view. IE, I believe the current government is not at all what Romans 13 describes, thus the authorities are not ENTITLED to my allegience. Further, it is in violation of it's own legal documents and thus is an illegal government. When do I obey laws and when will I rebel? that is up to my conscience which has been taught by scripture and is in submission to the word of God. I will rebel in self defence and in defence of my family for one, and in defence of the ultimate legal authority of this nation (the constitution and founding documents) and in defense of my faith. Thank you for that neat and valuable contribution. I still don't understand the option you've chosen in relation to Romans 13. Romans 13 says that governing authorities have been put in place by God--not certain governing authorities. Your view discriminates against certain governing authorities you deem illegitimate. The text makes no such distinction as far as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted June 4, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted June 4, 2006 If we honestly believe that our government is illegal or not legitimate then we have an obligation to take up arms against that illegal entity. What we cannot do is sit and accept the largesse of this illegal government, that largesse being a legal system which protects us from criminals, a system of contracts which we can then go to for redress, a property system which lets us own and be secure in our homes, a military which protects us from invasion, a police and fire force which protects our life and property. God provides all of these things through the government. If they are not legitimate than as Bohneohofer did, we must be willing to fight and die struggling against them. Of course these people are not really against government and if they are they are simply cowards or worse. If you believe the government is illegal and yet are not willing to die fighting it, you are a traitor and a coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. Worm Posted June 4, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,447 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/26/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 4, 2006 Smalcald, if you are not familiar with the theonomy/reconstructionist movement it is comprised of an assortment of strange characters including conspiracy theorists and other anti-government types. Although small in number its adherents are rather forceful and have destroyed several churches, one that I am personally aware of, in the PCA. More could be said, but you should consider researching it on your own. sw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted June 4, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Smalcald, if you are not familiar with the theonomy/reconstructionist movement it is comprised of an assortment of strange characters including conspiracy theorists and other anti-government types. Although small in number its adherents are rather forceful and have destroyed several churches, one that I am personally aware of, in the PCA. More could be said, but you should consider researching it on your own. sw I will. But I just have zero respect for people who accept the largesse and benefits of our government (which is a very good government warts and all, when compared to the world at large), but yet are to cowardly to really resist this government to the death. There IS such a thing as a non-legitimate government, and many Christians through history have indeed died trying to overthrow those governments or died as martyrs for the faith from those governments. From what I can tell these guys are just total losers, soft whiners who are paranoid, I just don't have the time for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copper Scroll Posted June 4, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 682 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 4, 2006 But I just have zero respect for people who accept the largesse and benefits of our government (which is a very good government warts and all, when compared to the world at large), but yet are to cowardly to really resist this government to the death. There IS such a thing as a non-legitimate government, and many Christians through history have indeed died trying to overthrow those governments or died as martyrs for the faith from those governments. From what I can tell these guys are just total losers, soft whiners who are paranoid, I just don't have the time for them. How do you reconcile these ideas with Romans 13? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyRaven Posted June 4, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,981 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1964 Share Posted June 4, 2006 Thank you for that neat and valuable contribution. I still don't understand the option you've chosen in relation to Romans 13. Romans 13 says that governing authorities have been put in place by God--not certain governing authorities. Your view discriminates against certain governing authorities you deem illegitimate. The text makes no such distinction as far as I can tell. Being placed there by God yes, I am a calvinist and believe everything, even everything evil is placed there by God in this time for a given purpose. However when I said what I did about government placed there by God I meant in a more active fashion as in the OT when God ordained the king directly and the nation was in covenant with God. If I'm not going to be under such a government I want as little government as possible. I do see a problem with interpreting the verse in a rigid manner though. Ceasar Nero was the person being talked about in relation to the government there. Can you honestly say that literally speaking Nero fulfilled the role of Government as described in Romans 13 with a literal interpretation? Look and place the word Nero in the appropriate places and see what it ends up meaning.. 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities (Nero), for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities (Nero) that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority(Nero) is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers(Nero) hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the (Nero) one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For (Nero) he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for (Nero) he does not bear the sword for nothing. (Nero) He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the (Nero)authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for (Nero) the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Now...logically, can anyone say that Nero held no terror for those who did right? I doubt the Christians who were put on crosses and burnt to light Nero's roads would say this. It also meant that if you did right NERO would commend you. Doing right under Nero meant death not commendation. With this in mind it is obvious that a literal interpretation of this verse makes no sense. Nero was ordained by God, but he did not act in a manner consistent with what Romans 13 suggests he would/should. The only ways this verse can be taken as even remotely literally is if good and evil are not good and evil as defined by God, but good and evil as defined by the state. Submission therefore is what is expedient, to avoid punishment of the state. In NO theological system that I can think of, is submission and obedience ever considered absolute anyhow. If the government commanded you to kill your youngest child as a sacrifice to the president nobody on this board would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyRaven Posted June 4, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,981 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1964 Share Posted June 4, 2006 If we honestly believe that our government is illegal or not legitimate then we have an obligation to take up arms against that illegal entity. What we cannot do is sit and accept the largesse of this illegal government, that largesse being a legal system which protects us from criminals, a system of contracts which we can then go to for redress, a property system which lets us own and be secure in our homes, a military which protects us from invasion, a police and fire force which protects our life and property. God provides all of these things through the government. If they are not legitimate than as Bohneohofer did, we must be willing to fight and die struggling against them. Of course these people are not really against government and if they are they are simply cowards or worse. If you believe the government is illegal and yet are not willing to die fighting it, you are a traitor and a coward. Nobody takes up arms at the wrong time if they understand anything about warfare. The Irish waited before they rebelled against the British, the colonies waited before we left, the Confederacy waited...Only one of those was completely successful even with the planning that went into them. Nobody said I wouldn't be willing to take up arms when that right time comes. You cannot hold a rebellion on your own, you kinda have to have an army to do that and for that you have to have a concensus (sic?). In the mean time the thing to be doing is building that understanding. And trust me, I'm part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts