Is It Unbiblical to Protest Against Unrighteous Governments?

American Vision ^ | February 22, 2011 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

"Here is where I have a disagreement with MacArthur. The article reports the following about his views: “But from a biblical perspective, MacArthur maintained that the protesters are in violation of the biblical command to ‘submit to the powers that be because they’re ordained of God.’” I don’t see how protesting the actions of a civil government is a violation of the biblical command to submit to civil authority. When a civil ruler operates outside his jurisdictional limitations, it is not wrong for the people to call him to account. A civil ruler only operates legitimately in those things over which he has jurisdictional authority. He can’t claim that because he’s a king that whatever he does is the result of his office. An elected official that lies, cheats, steals, and murders is not doing God’s will in his civil capacity. He can and should be called to account. Samuel Rutherford’s comments in Lex, Rex, or, The Law and the Prince are helpful on this point:

It is true, so long as kings remain kings, subjection is due to them because [they are] kings; but that is not the question. The question is, if subjection be due to them, when they use their power unlawfully and tyrannically. The question is, if subjection be due them when they use their power unlawfully and tyrannically. Whatever David did, though he was a king, he did it not as a king; he deflowered not Bathsheba as king, and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have resisted king David, though kingly power remained in him, while he should thus attempt to commit adultery; else David might have said to Bathsheba, “Because I am the Lord’s anointed, it is rebellion in thee, a subject, to oppose any bodily violence to my act of forcing of thee; it is unlawful to thee to cry for help, for if any shall offer violently to rescue thee from me, he resisteth the ordinance of God.[1]

"What if Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband had learned of his wife’s infidelity and the sinful and criminal action of King David? Was he obligated to remain silent and be subject to the king’s actions based on MacArthur’s reading of Romans 13:1–2?:"

[topcat54]

Ping to a few.

[US Navy Vet]

Check out what the Greneva Bible 1599 says about Romans 13:1–2. The KJV was written by King Jim’s boys so it has a “devine right of kings” slant to it.

[Persevero]

Interesting discussion. My gut reaction is Bathsheba could have and perhaps, depending on the situation, should have resisted. Maybe she did resist, I don’t know.

Scripture is clear to me on the point that we are to resist the civil magistrate if commanded to sin. Even to the point of death.

But what if we are just being sinned against? That is a tough one.

For example, if the government decided that they want 80% of my income in tax off the top, should I pay it? They aren’t forcing me to sin, although they are sinning against me.

[MNDude]

I’ve been so annoyed by a lot of Christians who reference Romans 13 and say “Well, God appoints our leaders, so I don’t need to vote”.

The irony is that the more you accept that we have no position to resist evil government, the less and less it appears as a God-appointed government.

[DannyTN]

"An elected official that lies, cheats, steals, and murders is not doing God’s will in his civil capacity. He can and should be called to account."

Agreed.

However, what happens when it's a democratic society that is choosing wrong in free elections? Whether it's electing socialists or electing those who continue to allow abortion, etc. If the people have means of redress through free elections but won't use it. What then?

[righttackle44]

I have a second minor in New Testament Greek. By no means does that make me a Greek scholar, but I have taken your words back to the original language. Romans 13:1-2 says exactly what this poster disagrees with: That God expects Christians to abide by the tenant of being obedient to the civil authorities, even keeping in mind that this was written at a time when a Christian could be beheaded.

I respect this brother's right to disagree with Dr. MacArthur, but when Dr. MacArthur bases his counsel on Scripture, I have to stand with Dr. MacArthur

Some always pull out the thoughts of Acts 4:19-20 to justify civil disobedience. The riots which are discussed here are not about keeping silent rather than preach and teach the Gospel. The riots are about civil disobedience. The Bible always notes that God is not happy with rebellion. Rebellion is in the domain of Satan.

I'm not saying that obedience to an ungodly authority is easy or without suffering, but the Scriptures make it clear that it is God who will handle and judge those matters. Those exercising ungodly authority will answer to Him.

[RushingWater]

America's Providential History

This should be required for every US citizen. An aside here - Recently my son told me all the founding fathers were atheist - they've gone from deist to atheist now. I took about 5 minutes and read him some quotes from here and he hasn't brought it up again.

[the_conscience]

Well done. Keep up the good work.

[circlecity]

I would suggest anyone interested in this issue read Francis Schaeffer’s “A Christian Manifesto”. The book analyzes this issue extensively.

[ArrogantBustard]

However, what happens when it's a democratic society that is choosing wrong in free elections?

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ...

In a democratic or republican form of government, "We, the People" are Caesar.

Our responsibility is twofold:

1) To reprimand our elected representatives when they work ungodliness in our name

2) To persuade our fellow citizens that they must use their authority (in the voting booth, in the jury box, etc) in a Godly manner.

We citizens of a Republic would have no authority if it were not granted us by God.

[ArrogantBustard]

The Bible always notes that God is not happy with rebellion.

Amen.

To Hell with that ungodly rebel George Washington, and all his demonic followers!

Um ....

Right?

[righttackle44]

Your argument is not with me. Your argument is with what God says in Scripture. Regardless of your apparent immaturity.

[topcat54]

While Schaeffer was helpful, he had his issues as well. Because he was not fully engaged with biblical law as the basis for a just society, he bounced between the extreme views of capitulation and resistance.

Unfortunately, Schaeffer left behind an unfinished legacy. He knew where the answer was, but he was unable, within the confines of his own methodology and his premillennial eschatology, to see it through. It’s a shame that Schaeffer will best be remembered for his advocation of Christian resistance and not Christian reconstruction.

See Not Willing to Go Far Enough.

[ArrogantBustard]

Your argument is not with me. Your argument is with what God says in Scripture.

Really?

So what do you think?

Was George Washington a Godly Hero of Liberty or a damned godless rebel against God's ordained ruler?

[righttackle44]

He is an American hero.

He and the American Fathers will
have to answer to God for fomenting
rebellion, against the counsel of Scripture.

Now, you tell me: what do YOU say on the
authority of Scripture? And what do you say
about the statements of Scripture that you
will answer for yourself before God one day?

[ArrogantBustard]

He is an American hero.

That's nice. Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre was a Hero of "Liberte, Egalite, et Fraternite.

Both of them were rebels.

Somebody on this thread asserted "The Bible always notes that God is not happy with rebellion. Rebellion is in the domain of Satan."

He and the American Fathers will have to answer to God for fomenting rebellion, against the counsel of Scripture.

OK ... so what do you say? Were they wrong to foment rebellion? Would a hypothetical "we", in the present day, be wrong to "foment rebellion" against a government which behaved similarly to the government of King George III?

Your final paragraph is a colossal irrelevancy.

[circlecity]

Well, I very much part ways with Demar on his analysis of Schaeffer on this point and after reading his article I find it hard to believe he actually read the Schaeffer works he references. My bet is he just read a wikipedia type article about Schaeffer. In any event, his biggest gripe seems to be that Schaeffer doesn't agree with Gary Demar. I found this quote amusing:

"Schaeffer rightly decried a de facto sociological law—“law based only on what the majority of society thinks is in its best interests at a given moment”—but offered no worked-out worldview to counter and replace it."

This is laughable in that virtually all of Schaeffer's work was an extensive polemic against a humanist worldview contrasted with a detailed, "worked-out", comprehensive Christian worldview Schaeffer saw as the biblical alternitive. This is particularly true of "The God who is There" and "Escape from Reason". Schaeffer was the father of the modern "Christian worldview" movement and his entire legacy is a testament to the worldview Demar claims he failed to offer. Stick to eschatology Gary.

[righttackle44]

You didn't answer my question: What do YOU think about
Scripture saying you will answer for your actions. I don't
accept your proposition that it is irrelevant. It is
the most important question you will ever answer. Trying
to avoid it simply shows where you are. Trying to avoid it
now does not mean you will will never have to answer it.

[topcat54]

This is laughable in that virtually all of Schaeffer's work was an extensive polemic against a humanist worldview contrasted with a detailed, "worked-out", comprehensive Christian worldview Schaeffer saw as the biblical alternitive.

In your opinion, what exactly was Schaeffer’s worldview in terms of the civil magistrate?