Replies

There aren't any assumptions. These are points of history. Ehud murdering of the king was a message from God. It rallied the Israelites and restored the government, for a time.

My problem with MacArthur is that slavish obedience to unrighteous authority

And how would you define "slavish obedience" and "unrighteous authority". Is following the abortion laws of this country not "slavish obedience"? Wouldn't you say you are following unrighteous authority, unless you happen to believe in abortion.

And what is "unrighteous" authority? All authority is appointed by God. Our Lord Jesus told Pilate that he had no authority except that which is given to him by God. (John 19:10-11) What you are in fact saying is that you do NOT believe authority comes from God, that God appoints unrighteous governments, and reinterpret Romans 13 to suit your soteriology. (You've never explained about the taxing authority.) Fact is God raises up a number of "unrighteous" authorities to prove His people. (And yes, Ehud murder of the unrighteous king brought peace to Israel for eigthy years. Did murder make what he did right in the sight of God?)

I would say that MacArthur isn't the one who is preaching only half the Word.

"Slavish obedience" is seen in blanket pronouncements like "obey Hitler."

Obey Hitler if he hands a pistol to you and tells you to murder. If he tells you to lie, to commit adultery, to steal your neighbors property?
Obey Hitler if he tells you to stop preaching the gospel?
Obey Hitler if he tells you to bow down to a false God?

Failing to recognize those occasions where rulers become imposter to their offices by objectively standing outside the definition of a righteous Romans 13 ruler is, indeed, preaching half the gospel.

You make assumptions, HarleyD, when you write things like "What you are proposing is similar to the Korah rebellion," or "..you're the one who's going to determine what is right and wrong." Moses never asked the people to do something objectively evil, something that was beyond question, outside the revealed will of the Lord, and you have no basis for saying I would propose any such thing at all, or that I would be the one to determine what is right or wrong. We have an objective discourse on what is right and wrong and that is scripture itself.

Earlier you seemed to admit that there are occasions when higher laws are obeyed over lower ones. Don't let your defense of a mere man--John MacArthur--cloud your defense of scripture.

I wanted to respond to your abortion reference as well.

First of all, when Christians fail to use their sovereign voting rights to help end the abortion scourge, they are committing a huge sin; when they fail to call other members of their congregation to repentence for voting for pro-aborts, they are in sin. If you were a doctor, and a magistrate ordered you to perform an abortion, as they do in China, (sometimes forced abortions), and you obeyed the ruler, you would be in sin.

So, yes, there are many occasions where a Christian might have the opportunity to obey a higher law.

Regarding Ehud:

Did murder make what he did right in the sight of God?

Ehud wasn't committing murder; he was executing God's just wrath on a wicked imposter-king. Big Diff. When our Christian boys gun down Al Queda, are you saying they're committing murder?