The gist of Baldwin’s argument in the expunged link was that the Constitution is the lawful authority, not the official, in our country. He was saying that citing Romans 13 as an excuse to do nothing but submit, is lame. I don’t think he was advocating violence. Although if someone were to bomb Pearl Harbor tomorrow, I believe he might.
More than two thousand died at Pearl Harbor. Some 50 million Americans have been slaughtered by abortionists. I would call any violence against that an act of national defense, but...
(Mod, can you tell me why the post was removed so I won’t make that mistake again? Thanks.)
During the Reformation, Abraham Kuyper taught a view summarized by the phrase "spheres of sovereignty" (last summer, Darrell posted a thread that touched on it briefly). Basically stated, God instituted three equally legitimate governments (civil, ecclesial, and family). All three spheres of government are themselves ruled over by God, and their laws (family, church, and state) should commonly have at their foundation His revealed Word and Law. No sphere of government can be legitimately encroached upon, except by joint declaration/action of the other two (with an appeal to that joint foundation) that the first has (previously) encroached into their sphere(s) and must be pushed back.
In this current case, we have a church deacon (ecclesial sphere) striking out against a business (family sphere) which is operating lawfully under the federal government (civil sphere). The issue is was the deacon acting as a deacon, with the authority of his office behind him? The answer back from his church leadership is no, he did not have our permission to behave in this manner (the destruction of property). Both his church AND his family would need to have authorized him to act, in order to legitimize his act of property damage.
The website you linked to in the removed reply is not welcome at Free Republic.