[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Cronos]

God says submit to them as in obey their laws, but does not say we should not rebel if they threaten the faith. The example of Judas Maccabeus is a good one.