• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Romans

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Romans Chapter 13 - revisited
by Chuck Baldwin

It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America's political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).

The apostle clearly states that civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's command to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that, in America, the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html)

As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore--and blatantly disobey--the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Mostly I agree.

Here is where I disagree. In Paul's scenario, the king owned all the land. In America we supposedly own the land. In reality, we pay taxes on it so you have to ask to you really own it? The land is yours indeed if you pay your taxes and you have freedoms over that land to plant crops if you choose.

Consider places like Cuba. If you plant a garden, the government owns it and all the fruits of your labor. The fish in the ocean belong to the government to. This scenario would more fit the position you are arguing.

We are free to attend any religious ceremonies in America. People can argue that but we have that freedom and the right to own a Bible etc.

Times are different and our scenario is different than what Paul is referring to. I am not disputing you or the word. What I am attempting to do is add some clarity.

Secondly, what is good for me may not be good for you. There are some cases where a decision must be made for the good of the majority. I can support that decision when it goes against me (if it truly is good for the majority).

Politically, people of faith, no matter what faith, are going to make decisions based on their convictions. Religion and politics will always go hand and hand because of this. People with no faith is no different and they will make their choices according to their belief.

Romans 13 does not apply to my life whole heartedly because of the country I live in. Submitting to a government for what is good for the majority does apply. I pay my taxes and try to improve life for future generations.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Secondly, what is good for me may not be good for you. There are some cases where a decision must be made for the good of the majority. I can support that decision when it goes against me (if it truly is good for the majority).

Politically, people of faith, no matter what faith, are going to make decisions based on their convictions. Religion and politics will always go hand and hand because of this. People with no faith is no different and they will make their choices according to their belief.

Romans 13 does not apply to my life whole heartedly because of the country I live in. Submitting to a government for what is good for the majority does apply. I pay my taxes and try to improve life for future generations.


very thought provoking Backhoe -- great job!!

"what is good for me may not be good for you. There are some cases where a decision must be made for the good of the majority. I can support that decision when it goes against me (if it truly is good for the majority). "
The first thing that came to my mind was Emminent Domaine-
followed Constitutionally I agree -- we need roads etc. for the good of all.
But what we see happening now is an abuse of powers, the taking of property from one private individual and giving to another private entity.
Sure a new shopping mall might be nice for the majority, but should it happen at the cost of an indivduals rights do do with his property as he is Constitutionally protected??
What I believe this article is saying is when this abuse of powers takes place is when we need to stand up to authority. When the US Constitution is violated is when we have to stand up.

If I have a piece of land, pay my taxes, and choose to grow a crop of vegetables on it, should it be taken from me just because the majority would get "more good" out of the shopping mall than they would from the vegetables I raise?

This is happening in our country, so I think this article and Romans 13 very much applies.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Absolutely.

The biggest issues I have with the shopping malls and housing sub divisions is the the land they use. There is huge variations in the quality of land in this part of Texas. You have rocky cedar infested hill tops that are not suitable for farming. Then you have upper and lower river flood plains containing some of the mose fertile loam you'd ever find.

When they put in a huge shopping center on good farm land, it is gone forever. Several thousand acres is now either housing roof lines, shopping centers, or parking lots. 1 mile away they could have done the same thing on land that will never be farmed.

Consider how many thousands of acres places like Dallas have in concrete. You have thousands of acres of paved road, parking lots and roof lines. It is no wonder they have all the flooding with a minor thunderstorm. That water cannot get to the ground.

2 inches of rain one just one acre is something like 54 thousand gallons.

Isn't amazing that they never invoke domain laws on trashy land?
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
In Paul's scenario, the king owned all the land. In America we supposedly own the land. In reality, we pay taxes on it so you have to ask to you really own it? The land is yours indeed if you pay your taxes and you have freedoms over that land to plant crops if you choose.

Consider places like Cuba. If you plant a garden, the government owns it and all the fruits of your labor. The fish in the ocean belong to the government to. This scenario would more fit the position you are arguing.


I've been thinking about this Backhoe,
I think it ties in nicely to the article posted.

"You have freedoms over that land"

Yes we do - but do we have as many freedoms over that land as the Founding Father's had over theirs?
Will our children have as many freedoms as we have?
I don't believe so.
Where have those freedoms gone?
How many were/are taken unconstitutionally as we do nothing?
Why aren't We the People standing up in outrage every time our Constitution is violated?
We blame it on others, we blame it on politicians, we blame it on republicans, we blame it on democrats, we blame it on the media, we blame and blame and blame,and we do nothing but point fingers, forgetting to look at the three fingers pointing back at us.

While the people that will take our freedoms march onward!!
They organize, they rally, they plan and they succeed!!
When will we the people do the same.
United we stand, divided we fall!
As opposed to divide and conquer- we are a nation divided, look at the polls, look at the posts here.
When will we quit being democrats and republicans and just be Americans!
It starts with us, it starts with you and I.
If we continue to sit idle, America will become like Cuba.
In all actuality are we that far from being serfs to the king right now?

I see Americans starting to rally to the cause, I see the sleeping giant awakening from his nap.
I have read the Constitution of the United States of America more in the last 3 years than ever before.
I have heard it quoted and misquoted more than ever before.
40 states had state soverinty issues before them this year.
Today Alaska's was signed into law!
40 out of 50 states had the same basic idea at the same time-
a coincidence, I don't think so.
Tyranny and oppression can only go so far till the subjects rebel.
Opressors only have as much power over you as you will give them or they can physically take.

Now I must go, I must go work the land, to earn enough to pay the taxes. So I can call it mine, and pass it on to my children. So they can pay an inheritance tax on it.
And after checking with the FSA, EPA, NRCS, IRS, after getting permission from the whole alphabet, maybe they can then go and work it too!

May God Bless America!
 

Tex

Well-known member
The Price of Liberty Is Eternal Vigilance: Thomas Jefferson


So is the price of Christianity but in the guarding against self interest.


We are to submit to the government to not have anarchy. It is still our job to make sure our government is not a tyrannical government and in the U.S. we all are responsible because we all have the power to change it.

Those in power from time to time will be convinced to do outrageous things. It is our job to keep them in check through finding out about it and then voting them out next time or writing letters, joining a group of similar people, etc. Ignoring evil only lets it spread but we can do something about it in a peaceful but effective way and I believe we are called to do that as Christians.

Tex
 

DustDevil

Well-known member
Tex, you said:
The Price of Liberty Is Eternal Vigilance: Thomas Jefferson


So is the price of Christianity but in the guarding against self interest.

-----
I've got to give Rush Limbaugh credit for pointing out the difference between self-interest and greed. The following are examples I can come up with:
Self interest makes you eat when you're hungry, greed makes you eat someone else's supper if they're late to the table.
Self interest makes you take a shower when your dirty, greed makes you hog up all the hot water.
Self interest motivates you to get a good job to provide for your family, greed makes you tell lies about someone else who's seeking that same job.
etc, etc.
 

Tex

Well-known member
DustDevil said:
Tex, you said:
The Price of Liberty Is Eternal Vigilance: Thomas Jefferson


So is the price of Christianity but in the guarding against self interest.

-----
I've got to give Rush Limbaugh credit for pointing out the difference between self-interest and greed. The following are examples I can come up with:
Self interest makes you eat when you're hungry, greed makes you eat someone else's supper if they're late to the table.
Self interest makes you take a shower when your dirty, greed makes you hog up all the hot water.
Self interest motivates you to get a good job to provide for your family, greed makes you tell lies about someone else who's seeking that same job.
etc, etc.

Good points, dustdevil. I guess we could just put in the deadly sins instead. We are made in such a way that we have to take care of our self interests you describe to live.

It is when we go way beyond those needs and start stealing other's needs for our own greed. An example would be a CEO who cuts a health care plan for employees while he has his own "special" plan and because he saved the company money in cost cutting, the shareholders represented by the board he controls giving him a raise.

Good points.

To me it is funny how CEOs have advisory boards who give advice on his salary skewed to the high side and when it comes to employees, they are compared and skewed on the low side if they can get away with it.

Tex
 
Top