Posted on 03/04/2010 2:46:35 PM PST by stand_your_ground
MacArthur is a pastor, not a professor. He wasn’t trying to teach deep theology, but to preach about what the passage means to a general congregation. His point - that there are limits, but they are limits set by God and not by my personal convenience - is accurate.
Jn. 19:10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
What you see in Scripture is that government itself is ordained of God, from that of the family to tribes to nations, which basically punishes evil and rewards good, even though the authority themselves sometimes committed wrongs. Or worse, as in Rome, in which most of the Emperors were open homosexuals (Nero castrated a boy and married him), they can be manifestly immoral men. However, they officially upheld basic morality such as against stealing, murder, etc., and in such souls were to be obedient. Just because one’s father is a drunkard does not allow disobedience when he says to take out the trash, or not to talk back to mom, or swear etc., nor can you disobey speed laws because the police chief is immoral. Moreover, the person is to be given honor due to his position.
Peter 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
This is all to be done in obedience to God, but is conditional, as no man is guaranteed to be infallible and can claim to be worthy of implicit trust, even if some do claim such for themselves. Thus the same obedience to God by which we are to render obedience to man also constrains disobedience to men when they require us to act contrary to God. The authority can also lose its power in areas beyond its bounds.
This can include positive a moral constraint. You car has an invalid inspection sticker due to bad windshield wipers. A dirty bomb just exploded in the vicinity and you need to get the family away fast (you lack faith to breathe it!) and the car is all you have. The intent of the law is to save lies, not destroy them, thus off you go.
I think an allowance also may be made as to reasonableness, as in such laws that outlaw throwing away cardboard. I recycle lots, but not every bit, as the burden is counterproductive. Its not nuclear waste.
There is a dangerous sect of conservative which are really rebellious of any authority, and their actions will work to justify the very use of governmental force which they protest. The Founders were neither anarchists nor libertarians in the modern sense, but were given power by God to replace a tyrannical government which extended beyond their “house.”
There is a dangerous sect of conservative which are really rebellious of any authority, and their actions will work to justify the very use of governmental force which they protest. The Founders were neither anarchists nor libertarians in the modern sense, but were given power by God to replace a tyrannical government which extended beyond their “house.”
This is reflects the theological bankruptcy of the age.
Received an email from Steve Klein, (steve@kleinus.com) in response to my reproof, evidencing that he misrepresented MacArthur, but Klein’s response again selectively quotes MacArthur, providing a response from an unnamed “Bible scholar” who contends that MacArthur teaches that “Military guys have an absolute obligation to obey orders”, rather than such being conditioned upon whether the command is from a lawful authority and if it is a Lawful Order.
Klein even includes a photo copy of MacArthurs teaching on Rm. 13:1, but which only incriminate himself.
My response (edited to leave out personal words),
Your response is ANOTHER example of selectively choosing words in falsely accusing the just, misrepresenting MacArthur. Contrary to what your “scholar” states, in the very attachment MacArthur clearly says that Rm. 13:1 uses a Greek work that
“was used of a soldiers absolute obedience to his commanding officer. Scripture makes one exception to this command: when obedience would require disobedience to God’s word.”
I actually have a MacArthur study Bible and have confirmed this! MacArthur reiterates this exception clause in Acts 4:19, and confirms it in 1Pet. 2:14, citing Acts 5:28,29 in support, and notes in Exo_1:17 that the midwives disobeyed man out of reverence for God.
Thus the accuser’s own evidence refutes him, as MacArthur did not mandate a soldiers obedience to just anyone, as the accuser implies , nor unconditional obedience to anyone under heaven!
Moreover, the basis for obedience to even corrupt men is based upon the fact “human government’s authority is derived from and defined by God”, as Dan 4:17 states, “the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will”, and even if they are “the basest of men”, and as MacArthur again states, they “still act as as a deterrent for crime.” While Christian conscience would require disobeying Saddam Hussein in many things, things from stealing to speed limits were to be observed, even if they themselves break them. You cannot disobey police in a lawful order even if he is an adulterer.
It is the work of the church to bring souls to be God controlled, so they need not be gun (which is the real instrument of the State) controlled. And to work to bring the government to be governed by God as well, without using its corruption as a pretext for anarchy. And God knows how to depose evil governments when people cry to Him, and i pray N. Korea is next.
Pro 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD
As you have done the later, now you must seek to unde the damage you have done in evil affecting minds against the brethren. (Acts 14:2). Forward this email to them and make just as public an announcement as you did in false accusing him.
Again, this is not the same as some of the conclusions of Calvinism or the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, about which i have some disagreements, but outright misrepresentation, which may be by a faction of souls who are use conservatism as a means to rebel against authority in general.
“who are use conservatism as a means to rebel against authority in general”
I can’t follow the post. But the “authority” in this country is the Constitution, which, as written, is fully consistent with God’s law. The people who are systematically in rebellion against that authority today are perjured oath takers in the government and liberals. Someone acting unconstitutionally has no legitimate right or authority over others, especially when pursuing policy contrary to God’s law (e.g. abortion). We may obey or not resist their wrongful, illegitimate demands because we want to live peaceably with others to the extent that we can, but it doesn’t convert those with power into legitimate rulers any more than handing your wallet to a thug with a gun makes the thug “an authority” that we are biblically bound to obey.
If MacArthur understands this, good. If not he should get out of the pulpit.
Interesting, as unlike rulers, thus are are not sanctioned, an while a thug may be a ruler, in the Bible governmental authority seems to be determined by function as rulers, whether they acted in accord with the law themselves or not. As long as they remained in power, with power, they were to be conditionally obeyed. “The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. “ (Dan. 4:17) Higher requirements are for pastors of God’s flick.
Pilate’s power to crucify Christ was affirmed by Him, (Jn. 19:11) as coming from God, even though Pilate was acting unjustly. Likewise the actual authority of the rulers who wrongly imprisoned Paul was not rejected, though he exposed their injustice. (Acts 16:22-37) Likewise corrupt Felix and Festus, while Paul appealed to Caesar, immoral emperors they all. (Acts 24,25)
No example is given of the authority of rulers being rejected except in instances when it would be clearly be unjust. What the Bible shows us is that we can protest and use the legal process to challenge violations of the law by authorities, and it follows that use of political means to change rulers would be sanctioned also, with the priority being on the preaching of the gospel. But until that time they are to be conditionally obeyed.
This “exception clause” MacArthur affirms,
“There comes a point in time when the state turns against the church and tells the church not to do what God has mandated to do, then we have to obey God and suffer the consequence...be it prison or death. The only time we disobey is when we have been mandated by Scripture to do something we are forbidden to do or not to do something we are being compelled to do.”
That can be broader than one thinks, but as Jesus shows in paying taxes for testimony sake which he did not owe, a goal of furthering the kingdom of Christ is to be the motive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.