[PresbyRev]

That's a good question and one which the fathers of our nation answered in 1775 (as one example).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer's complicity in the attempt to assassinate Hitler might be another example.

My quick and dirty answer would be that once a ruler or government has ceased fulfilling the requirements of a civil magistrate in Romans 13 then, de facto, the ruler or government becomes illegitimate and in fact not a civil magistrate at all. If the functions aren't fulfilled and are in fact violated (the innocent are punished, the evil and wicked are rewarded), then we can deduce that the people, citizens or subjects, are bound to replace the tyrannical civil authority with godly or just civil authority.

[Taliesan]

once a ruler or government has ceased fulfilling the requirements of a civil magistrate in Romans 13 then, de facto, the ruler or government becomes illegitimate and in fact not a civil magistrate at all. If the functions aren't fulfilled and are in fact violated (the innocent are punished, the evil and wicked are rewarded), then we can deduce that the people, citizens or subjects, are bound to replace the tyrannical civil authority with godly or just civil authority.

And yet this very government Paul was talking about in Romans 13 rewarded evil and wickedness on a massive scale, had killed Jesus and would shortly kill Paul himself. This was the government he repeatedly told believers to "submit" themselves to. It is just amazing St. Paul missed the very "deduction" he himself supposedly induced.

The truth is, there is no support in the New Testament for an armed revolt against any government. None. Later generations of Christians made it up because, well, they wanted it. And have since been busy piecing it together with fanciful exegesis which makes absurdities out of actual New Testament history.