Posted on 04/09/2023 9:10:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Technically, it’s not formally illegal until tried in a court and “proven,” as we’ve belatedly found out.
Government makes all kinds of laws that are illegal, and some get thrown out by courts, over time.
When you can’t open courts to try/argue against an illegal law—now, THAT’S bad.
1Cor.14:37
... unless Paul specifically says otherwise. 1Cor.7 for example.
Well, in the case of submission to authorities, Neither Paul nor Peter ( who both addressed the same thing ) said otherwise.
I feel that I too learned much (and still do) from John MacArthur, but I’ve not found any pastor nor teacher that has not shown they too are fallen, error prone. None that I can agree with 100% of the time, and I too must allow for my own erroneous thinking. But we discern the good from the bad and wrestle with their teaching which leads to the best of all things...
Wrestling with God’s word!
Plus in retrospect - would we be better off if you remove either the USA or good teachers and preachers. All those seeking perfection down here need to spend more time looking up!
“A progressive fop?”
____________________
Not really. He has been a consistent conservative, but he does have a rather significant weakness, that he too often wishes to be startling and different, saying the thing nobody else says, seeing what the others didn’t see. This is how he got into a trouble saying that the blood of christ was not instrumental in salvation but his death?! Then he tried to back track saying he meant that when the soldiers beating the Lord were splashed by His blood they were not sanctified by it. Anyway long story short the IFCA called him in and he was very humble and gracious about being corrected and you never hear about that again. I respect that really. But his desire to surprise is still there and it works, he has been very successsful at this as revealed by his supporters who repeat and emphasize that he is the “greatest teacher” “never heard anyone like him” and so on, sometimes giving him praise that should be reserved for God alone. That is not his fault. His followers should rein themselves in. His doctrine of Lordship Salvation is repugnant in my humble opinion however and if anyone would like to know more I can provide a link through PM.
Yeah, well...better to overthrow tyrants, establish free republics, and then ask Jesus for forgiveness.
The orders of lawful superiors, within their sphere of competence, ought to be obeyed, unless they command one to sin.
So one might consider whether Hitler was a lawful superior. His claim to power was actually very tenuous and based on forcibly intimidating an elected legislature into making him dictator. He never won a free and fair election.
One might similarly consider whether a law requiring one to turn in specific weapons or parts (e.g., "large capacity" magazines) is within the government's competence, since it strikes directly at the right of self-defense, which is a natural right of man.
"Modern society"????
ROFL!!!
"Modern society" holds that abortion is a sacred right, that buggery is commendable, that two men can marry each other, that cutting a man's manhood off turns him into a woman, that White men are evil, that private property is theft, that children are property of the almighty State ...
I think I'll judge "modern society" by the standards of those supposedly "ignorant and backward" people ... and condemn "modern society" to hell where it came from.
I really get tired of this use of abbr with next to no context or idea.
progressive fop = progressive who fears of progress.
There are over 170 FOP abbr so which one?
bkmk
The Continental Congress formed in 1774.
Colonial self government looking for recognition from Parliament, not necessarily independence at that point.
It was the Continental Congress that voted for independence on July 2nd 1776 with Lee’s Resolution. The Declaration was actually just the announcement of what they had already done.
RE: Colonial self government looking for recognition from Parliament, not necessarily independence at that point.
OK, peoople who know their American History know all these. The question then become, was their declaration of independence ( which England’s King and Parliament did not approve of ), a violation of Scripture?
This question is really only for Christians who take the Bible seriously and submit to it as the highest authority for faith and practice.
The question is not relevant to those who don’t take what the Bible teaches as inspired by God.
Point taken, it was late.
should have said “Christian Society” or some such. One of those “can’t think of the right words” moments.
True
“This question is really only for Christians who take the Bible seriously and submit to it as the highest authority for faith and practice.”
Sounds like the classic “I’m the one taking the Bible seriously and therefore you aren’t” claim. The Black Robe Regiment begged to differ.
The “Black Robe Regiment” was a label given by Loyalists to the Colonial pastors in favor of liberty and the right to equal treatment as Englishmen.
Lutheran minister Peter Muhlenberg being perhaps the most famous but he was just one of many. They were so influental that the Tories blamed them for winning American independence.
RE: Sounds like the classic “I’m the one taking the Bible seriously and therefore you aren’t” claim
Ok, forget the ad hominem attack for the meantime, how do you interpret the following verse from the Apostle Paul in light of the American Revolution :
ROMANS 13: 1-7
“ Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Keep in mind that the Roman Emperor at the time of St. Paul was Nero ( the man who burned Rome, fiddled as it happened, and used Christians as the scapegoat).
“how do you interpret the following verse from the Apostle Paul in light of the American Revolution”
That’s easy enough.
Parliament was acting in an outlaw manner and the Colonials were no longer obligated to regard them as the legitimate government.
Parliament was violating the Colonial’s rights as Englishmen as embedded in the 1689 Declaration of Rights, which Parliament was obligated to honor.
These included the right to representation in Parliament before taxes could be imposed. The right to be armed. The right not to have troops quartered in their homes. These weren’t inventions of the American Bill of Rights. They were rights already guaranteed to the Colonials as Englishmen. And the Royal government was violating them.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
Paul never met Jesus before he was crucified. It’s basically a heresy to hold the words of Paul as carrying all the weight of the words of Jesus. It’s silly to give him more weight than any of the other gospels. Even the other Apostles had some serious disagreements with him that were never fully resolved.
It is proper and wise to prayerfully judge Paul’s writings for yourself, and as a Baptist, I have the right to read the Bible, and speak to god in prayer about it. I do not have to go through an intermediary.
Anyway, the risk is less that Paul was incorrect, than that his words have been incorrectly recorded, translated through the ages, manipulated by Rome, and now applied poorly by people who decide the Founding Fathers may have sinned by rebelling against the British crown. That is the actual risk.
Paul never met Jesus before he was crucified. It’s basically a heresy to hold the words of Paul as carrying all the weight of the words of Jesus. It’s silly to give him more weight than any of the other gospels. Even the other Apostles had some serious disagreements with him that were never fully resolved.
It is proper and wise to prayerfully judge Paul’s writings for yourself, and as a Baptist, I have the right to read the Bible, and speak to god in prayer about it. I do not have to go through an intermediary.
Anyway, the risk is less that Paul was incorrect, than that his words have been incorrectly recorded, translated through the ages, manipulated by Rome, and now applied poorly by people who decide the Founding Fathers may have sinned by rebelling against the British crown. That is the actual risk.
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.