Last time I checked I hadn’t confused Ron Paul with God, but I’ll keep your warnings/exhortations in mind.

Andrew: Thx for the link about Godwin’s law! I have noted the law at work in debate rounds as well. The term “9/11″ may run a close second!

“The US is not nor ever can be a theocracy.”

Exactly. The U.S. Constitution rules that out, except for the “dissolve the govt” clause. By “theocracy” I would not mean the “rule of priests” - that’s a “hierarchy”: rule of the “holy”. God’s government is not a hierarchy. The priests in Israel did not rule Israel. A theocracy is simply any social organization that obeys God and his laws and submits to his rule. It is the kingdom of God.

“The church Christ set up is a theocracy. Augustine–The City of God and The City of Man, etc.”

Right, the church is simply citizens who give their total allegiance to a particular govt, that of Christ. I wouldn’t rely too heavily on Augustine, however, for guidance on this, though he does get some of it right. Augustine was too much influenced by the Apostate Church that he was a part of, and he didn’t see the papacy for what it was. In a time when the papacy was becoming significant in political power, this is not a mistake to make.

“We are to pray to have peace so that the gospel can go out in an orderly way, as well as that we can live lives of peace–so kids can be taught, etc. Only God can bring that peace, but like just about everything else, he uses means. He even used means for the Incarnation!”

Yes. Note that when Paul calls upon Christians to pray for rulers, as you noted, he does NOT say we should pray that God support them in whatever they have in mind to do, but instead that social conditions allow the advance of the gospel, the revolution that ultimately will overturn all these worldly nation-states.

“The liberties that you would like to have are the ones we are quickly losing in the US. This is what RP would like to work toward again. The Founders weren’t Christians–no doubt about (though we can look to some like Sam Adams and Jonathan Witherspoon).”

The true federalists (who are otherwise known as the anti-federalists; the “federalists” were actually the centrists) such as Patrick Henry, were Christians, but they were also not at all clear on this point of God and govt. The Articles of Confederation allowed for the Christ-based constitutions of the colonies. The U.S. Constitution swept them away. The early colonists were much clearer on it, but they were dead for a few generations when the Freemasons (and maybe Jesuits) took over.

“Ron Paul says that the “natural rights” we have were God-given. In that sense and that sense only are the “natural”. People who do not give God the thanks and glory for those rights will be rightly and justly judged by Him.”

God does not really give us much in the way of rights. The word appears only once in the Bible, in the OT, and in passing. The Bible gives us God’s law, then tells us how wonderful life can be when society submits to God and his law. (See the Psalms, for instance.) “Rights” is a largely humanistic Enlightenment concept centered in human will. It is a set of guarantees for the operation of human will. That puts the emphasis on man and man’s empowerment, not God and his grace as given through the many benefits and blessings of his law.

“Time flies or I’d write more. For once in US history a candidate seems to have all his ducks in a row. His humility is amazing. He gives God the glory.”

I too like Ron Paul, but don’t rely on him. I don’t think he can deliver because of his enemies. Christ is also a political leader and I admire him more. And he can deliver. Remember that Hitler had a lot of appealing qualities to German Christians (though I wouldn’t equate Paul to Hitler!), and he disappointed the hopes of many German Christians. So put not your trust in (a) man, but in The Man.

You’re getting quickly to the heart of the matter for evangelical Christians: how to take Romans 13 & 1 Peter 2. TGD ia quoted:

“The first issue that arises is one of identifying the authorities the Christian is to submit to.”

Your response:

“But isn’t that explained already? They, like Caesar are our human rulers. God is sovereign and sets every ruler in place. He has given him authority just he has given the evil rulers of this world power. Rome was not a wonderful government but yet, nowhere are there calls to throw off the yoke of Roman rule in order to bring in a more perfect Christian government. The kingdom of God is bigger than Rome or any human government.”

“You would say that Rome was not a legitimate authority but then what was Titus reminding his readers of when he said, “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient…”. If there were no authorities that qualified, then why did he need to remind them?”

The first question is who these _hyperecho exousia_ are that Paul says are “ordained” of God. Both Peter and Paul give nearly identical wording. It is as though there was some conference and meeting of the minds about this in the early church, maybe even on wording. Both describe them as “ordained” (not necessarily approved) of God. This simply means that in God’s plans, these people play some role. Tamerlane wiped out the largest church that existed in the ancient world, yet God allowed that church to be taken out by him. I doubt if too many Church of the East Christians were wondering how they could better subject themselves to Tamerlane. The same is true of some of the Roman Caesars. So the first point is that ordination does not mean approval. Saul was ordained of God. He ended up rather unapproved for disobeying God.

Both Paul and Peter also tell us who these hyperecho exousia are by describing their properties. They are rulers who promote what is good and punish what is evil. The assumption - a safe one, I think - is that good and evil to both Paul and Peter are what God, not the State, says it is. So basically these higher powers are people who rule by God’s laws. Many people who controlled the guns (or swords) in the past would not meet these qualifications. Most today would not. Where they did, or do, we are instructed to “submit” to them. Submission entails either direct obedience to their commands or else deferring our actions that their might be accomplished - but only when they are ruling by God’s laws.

Why were the higher powers that were to be obeyed described this way? My conjecture is that it was known that these letters to the churches (especially to Rome) would almost certainly become known by those in govt. The wording is clever in that Christians (the early ones, at least) would not have any difficulty understanding the conditions placed upon who these higher powers were and draw the right conclusions. Roman govt officials would also not have any problem with them because they would understand them, in their worldly way, the way American Christians often understand them. This veiled kind of communication is not unique in scripture. John uses it much more (Revelation, for example) than Paul or Peter. For Jesus, it was business as usual, though he spoke clearly to his inner circle. This “secretiveness” is almost completely foreign to our open American way of thinking and communicating and we’re likely to miss it. (But now there’s PGP …) But my point here does not depend on this - the point being that the higher powers to be submitted to are those enforcing God’s laws.

What might make the TGD discussion harder to understand is that in some ways, even Hitler obeyed God’s laws and when he enforced them, German Christians were to obey them. But not just any jerk who holds a gun to your head should be obeyed - unless they are upholding God’s laws. An aside: Hitler was attractive to German Christians as he would be to American evangelicals. Here was a man who had a strong moral sensibility about injustice done to Germany after WW I, who did not drink any alcohol, did not smoke, and did not allow others to smoke in his presence. Bush doesn’t come close to Hitler in the personal traits that evangelicals (but maybe not the Bentham Club) would admire!

So what, in effect, are Peter and Paul (and maybe even Mary, if she had written more letters!) telling us? Obey God’s laws and cooperate with others who do and who enforce them. They are the rulers to submit to, when they are ruling by God’s laws. In the earlier, Christian-dominated days of America, the laws made by the people’s representatives were nearly always a reflection of biblical teaching and as such could (though they weren’t) be interpreted as _judicial_ in nature (declarative judgements) rather than _legislative_ in that they were, like the Mishna, interpretations of how to apply God’s laws in certain cases. The 2 millions laws on the books in America today can hardly be said to be that, however. Many of them are rather explicitly a denial of God’s laws, including the First Commandment. TGD discusses this with some illustrations.

“Another point is that you refer above to the United States being “apostate”. Apostasy has nothing to do with governments. To say that a worldly institution is beyond reform seems to indicate that some tasks are too big for God. If it’s a simple practical statement that you don’t think the United States can be salvaged, then maybe you’re right. But it’s not a cut-and-dry truth, it’s an opinion of what you think will happen.”

It is an opinion. Apostate governments are organizations of people who are apostate. Institutions reflect the character of the people who run them. (That’s why you’re PCA, not UPC, for instance.) And civilizations do run their course and come under God’s judgement. Think of this as a set of laws, like the physical laws, except that they apply socially. Human nature, both individual and collective, has some form or structure to it; it isn’t just anything and everything. Phychology and sociology in this sense are valid areas of study. Therefore, it should be possible to have some semi-accurate model of human nature that informs one about what to expect in certain situations. Historically, I know of no civilization that has slipped as far as America (or the Western world) and recovered.

God seems to uphold this sense of validity about the evolution of civilizations. he contrasts his own as a kingdom without end, implying that the others run their course. He considered the Cities of the Plain (Sodom, etc.) to be goners. He would have saved them if just two righteous people could be found in them (other than Lot’s family), but it was a lost cause.

My issue with the “run and hide” mentality of the Amish/Anabaptists/etc. is that they are not furthering the kingdom.

I do not know about this “run and hide” mentality of the Anabaptists. Historically, if they had run and hid, they wouldn’t have been available to be tortured. The true church throughout the Middle Ages was driven “into the wilderness” (Revelation’s language). Literally, they were driven into the moutain valleys of the Piedmont in northern Italy and southern France. Yet reformation was always threatening the Apostate Church to break out because these people were also evangelical. The papacy persecuted them. They were about the only people furthering the kingdom during the 1260 year rule of the Man of Sin. Similarly, most of the early Christians in Rome headed for the wilderness and converted the barbarians to Christ. The story of Ulfilas, apostle of the Goths, is an example.

> They’re keeping it under a basket and desperately trying to maintain their purity and righteousness. A candidate like Ron Paul (who I’m obviously excited about) is such a breath of fresh air because he honestly wants reform. He wants to see a return to Christian ideals for everyone — not just an isolated community.

I would say the ACCA would fit this description. Yes, too many Amish have become obscurantists at heart. But many are evangelical. Their very lifestyle speaks to the prevailing culture. The State of Pennsylvania built a freeway extension in Lancaster County just so that more tourists could go gawk at the Amish. Imagine that. People bothering to travel some distance at their inconvenience to find out about their different lifestyle. (Do they do that for the PCA? Maybe a few, but not as many as the Amish visitors.) Some of those tourists are likely to be impacted by the different ambience they experience among the Amish. You can see that’s true by the attention the mainstream culture gives them. See the movies “Witness” (Harrison Ford) and “For Richer or Poorer” as examples.

“I can totally understand if you think it’s a waste of time to bother with the United States government system but I find it unsupported scripturally to condemn those who choose to try.”

But God condemns any System that is built on the model of Babylon, as an apoState. Look at the U.S. Constitution. Who is the ultimate authority, God or man? This is not hard to figure out rationally, but we have all been conditioned our entire lives to miss the obvious.

“If it’s true that a Christian is right in submitting himself to a worldly government (as Titus for example certainly seems to be saying) then many of the arguments later in TGD about enumeration, etc. don’t have as much validity.”

But this just isn’t true. We are not to submit ourselves to anything that compromises Jesus as our Lord. In Rome, the pinch of incense to the genius (godhood) of Caesar was an obvious case. Today, the compromises are more subtle. Angles of Light work better that Roaring Lions until the Devil clearly has the upper hand. Then the roaring lion approach (as in Rome) is used to finish of the dissidents, if possible.

Keep in mind the actual biblical criteria: we submit when the ruler is submitting to God - that is, is following God’s laws in ruling. If not, we follow God instead of man. Where governments are “worldly” - opposing God’s laws - we do not submit to them. This is the clear example of the early church. How else do you think Peter and Paul ended up being executed by the Roman govt? For submitting to them? And then there’s that fellow who was charged with sedition and tax evasion, but sedition was sufficient to have him crucified under Roman authority. These historic facts alone should make any thinking Christian wonder about the simplistic obey-worldly-government viewpoint that is common among American Christians today (but not always - how about the American Revolution?).

“The rulers are sinning (just as the Roman Caesars did) but that’s no reason to not comply.”

Again, look at the biblical criteria: is the ruler promoting righteousness and punishing evil? If so, then Hitler would qualify. If not, then we do not go along with it.

“Jesus was struck and mocked but although he possessed the power to stop it from happening, he didn’t. The Judean Zealot movement at the time of Christ was not supported by Christ himself or by his followers.”

This is not clearly the case at all. Jesus even picked a Zealot or two for his inner circle. And look at him! If he were a “good American Christian” he would have read Romans 13 and submitted his kingdom to Caesar. Think through the logic of it and the simplistic obey-the-govt view doesn’t hold biblically. The scriptures do not support militant revolution but they certainly support revolution. Christ was, and continues to be, the most successful revolutionary who ever lived!

“What glory did that bring to God? Was the current church that exists today due to their efforts? Were hearts won for Christ?”

Apply this to the early church. They werea minority group, a dissident minority group, in the Roman empire. All these questions could be asked of them. Or the Vaudois, or Christians in Communist Eastern Europe, or any Christians remaining true to Christ in a world of fence-walkers.

> Paul chose to comply with Roman law (even “playing their game” by demanding a Roman trial). This doesn’t seem to be in line with the actions he should have taken in accordance with TGD.

I think this is discussed in TGD. The position we’re taking is so different from the usual thinking of American Christians that many misconceptions can arise. I have a U.S. passport. Paul had Roman citizenship. He did not consider it anything just as I do not consider worldly nation-state citizenship anything relative to citizenship in Christ’s kingdom. There is nothing that says we can’t use the geopolitical circumstances to our advantage as long as we are obeying God’s laws. The early Christians certainly did. (See the TGD discussion of natural law.) The main point is that neither Paul nor I took on responsibility for the consequences of the wicked, who are not a part of our people in Christ. Too many American Christians (David, in above comments) clearly do. That’s an implicit betrayal of Christ.

The “game” to be avoided is that which compromises the lordship of Jesus. States compete for the loyalties of people and are jealous of the loyalties of those within their jurisdictions. They do not want intermediate authorities (such as the family) to compete with them. They issue marriage licenses that require, in effect, that those who get them acknowledge the State over their families where according to God’s law, no State should be. These points are lost on Christians today because they don’t know God’s law. They don’t see the conflict. What Mark and I are saying is that Christians have been altogether too undiscerning of these compromises in 20th and 21st century America.

Update: I fixed the spacing of this comment because it was hard to read…

Also, I think it’s pretty horrible how a lot of Christians involve themselves in politics, especially when they wrap their identity in it - we have to remember that Christ didn’t identify with a political party or a social class, an ethnic group or a group of people who at least didn’t sin THAT way (THAT being whatever is the socially taboo sin) - he identified with broken humans who needed help. Individual people.

I suppose this is probably also something you don’t want to get me going on, it could take a while

We are to pray to have peace so that the gospel can go out in an orderly way, as well as that we can live lives of peace–so kids can be taught, etc. Only God can bring that peace, but like just about everything else, he uses means. He even used means for the Incarnation!

The liberties that you would like to have are the ones we are quickly losing in the US. This is what RP would like to work toward again. The Founders weren’t Christians–no doubt about (though we can look to some like Sam Adams and Jonathan Witherspoon). Ron Paul says that the “natural rights” we have were God-given. In that sense and that sense only are the “natural”. People who do not give God the thanks and glory for those rights will be rightly and justly judged by Him.

Time flies or I’d write more. For once in US history a candidate seems to have all his ducks in a row. His humility is amazing. He gives God the glory.

As we seek to honor God, we will seek to promote the RP candidacy.
–Godith

“Human authority established by God is under the fall, an no legitimate human authority is completely consistent. However, clear bounds exist in that unambiguous disobedience by an earthly power of God’s law discredits it as an authority to be obeyed.”

You come to this conclusion from some rather difficult to follow interpretations of scripture. This part is not clear. After quoting some scripture you say

“The first issue that arises is one of identifying the authorities the Christian is to submit to.”

But isn’t that explained already? They, like Caesar are our human rulers. God is sovereign and sets every ruler in place. He has given him authority just he has given the evil rulers of this world power. Rome was not a wonderful government but yet, nowhere are there calls to throw off the yoke of Roman rule in order to bring in a more perfect Christian government. The kingdom of God is bigger than Rome or any human government.

You would say that Rome was not a legitimate authority but then what was Titus reminding his readers of when he said, “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient…”. If there were no authorities that qualified, then why did he need to remind them?

I don’t follow the reasoning here at all.

Another point is that you refer above to the United States being “apostate”. Apostasy has nothing to do with governments. To say that a worldly institution is beyond reform seems to indicate that some tasks are too big for God. If it’s a simple practical statement that you don’t think the United States can be salvaged, then maybe you’re right. But it’s not a cut-and-dry truth, it’s an opinion of what you think will happen.

My issue with the “run and hide” mentality of the Amish/Anabaptists/etc. is that they are not furthering the kingdom. They’re keeping it under a basket and desperately trying to maintain their purity and righteousness. A candidate like Ron Paul (who I’m obviously excited about) is such a breath of fresh air because he honestly wants reform. He wants to see a return to Christian ideals for everyone — not just an isolated community.

I can totally understand if you think it’s a waste of time to bother with the United States government system but I find it unsupported scripturally to condemn those who choose to try.

If it’s true that a Christian is right in submitting himself to a worldly government (as Titus for example certainly seems to be saying) then many of the arguments later in TGD about enumeration, etc. don’t have as much validity. The rulers are sinning (just as the Roman Caesars did) but that’s no reason to not comply. Jesus was struck and mocked but although he possessed the power to stop it from happening, he didn’t. The Judean Zealot movement at the time of Christ was not supported by Christ himself or by his followers. It seems a perfect description of the “remnant” group that you describe in the United States. They chose to disobey rather than comply and ended up being crucified for their trouble. What glory did that bring to God? Was the current church that exists today due to their efforts? Were hearts won for Christ?

Paul chose to comply with Roman law (even “playing their game” by demanding a Roman trial). This doesn’t seem to be in line with the actions he should have taken in accordance with TGD.

“It’s tainted with evil like everything else in the world. It’s definitely not perfect. I don’t even like the idea of democracies let alone the particularly unhelpful form that the U.S. has. But it’s what we have.”

But who, again, is “we”? If you think the way the world has taught us all to think, that “we” is us cooperating with the Power Elite in Washington, then how can such a person rationally consider himself to be set apart from the world-system? Such a person is thinking like he has a stake in the apostate social structure. Christians instead have distanced themselves from it and have joined together as God’s people to promote a different political system under Jesus. Again, most Christians do not consider this real any more than the Easter bunny and consequently they do not put their time and effort into supporting it. Instead, they participate in the world, and play the world’s game by the world’s rules.

Ron Paul is doing that, it appears. I suspect Paul is smart enough (and he’s smart) and clear-headed enough to be doing this, not because he thinks he has any chance to become President in Washington but to rally the remnant of Constitutionalists to roll back the present pervading evil. But on what basis is he doing this? On the humanistic basis that you agree we must reject as Christians. Then if that is the case, why not reject it in deed as well as word? You know what James writes about the connection between the two.

I see God’s judgement upon America, not because it is cold toward God but lukewarm. The church wants God and the things of God on the world’s terms. It wants to straddle the fence. This does not bring glory to God.

What would? The unimaginable: 2000 Christians tearing up their membership cards in the System and living set apart from it. I detail this in TGD. Who is doing it? Few if any “good Christians” within organized religion. Do you know any PCAs or OPCs or RPCs who have discontinued use of their SSN? Who no longer feed the Beast, or go to it for permission to marry, or to be a church? 501(c)3 “churches” make my case. They are neither churches in a biblical or U.S. legal sense. They are fence-walkers. If Faith Presby. Church were to revoke and rescind what it gave the humanistic powers their word that they would do - obey any future laws the legislature makes up regulating them - then I will begin to really believe that FPC Christians recognize the lordship of Christ over the lordship of Olympia and Washington. But will they do that? It is most likely that their comfort zone is too wide to follow Christ where the rubber meets the road. They would likely instead fabricate some theological rationalization for how the kingdom of Christ is not in the same category as Rome and therefore honoring Caesar in this way is not denying the lordship of Christ. It’s so easy to do this in America where the god of comfort is worshipped. The early Christians died for it instead.

Your argument appears to be one such rationalization and it contradicts the facts of history. The argument goes: all humans are fallen, therefore all govts are fallen, therefore it is okay for Christians to put their efforts into fallen govts. The fallacy in this argument is that there has been historically, and is presently, a distinction between govts who are apostate and those who seek to do the will of God and recognize the lordship of Christ, albeit imperfectly. Imperfection is NOT the same as apostasy! This is a critical error. The govt of early colonial CT was a government under Christ. The U.S. is clearly not. The distinction is critical, fundamental, and unavoidable.

Israel under Yahweh was such a govt. What were its laws? The laws that only God has the authority to give man to live by. These were the laws of Israel, a set-apart people of God. What are the laws of democracies? What those who participate in the democracy want them to be. They, not God, ultimately determine what is right and wrong. The laws simply express these determinations.

In working to support the U.S. Constitutional govt, what are you doing in light of the above? See my point? Christians of today have been deceived into fence-walkng, which satisfies the Apostates in Power, and they do not persecute such people. Such “people of God” are effectively within their control. These kind of Christians even vote them into office as some Silent Majority.

To get real about being a Christian means making a clean break with this fence-sitting and being willing to go to prison or leave Their jurisdiction for it, if it comes to that. The way you know you are really willing to accept these consequences is when you you start getting out of Their System. That’s the acid test for who is a real Christian and who fence-walks instead, like all those deeply religious people of Malachi’s time.

I agree that it IS hard to believe that Christians of the kind we are discussing will ever change the world. They cannot because they are part of the world. The Amish are about the closest to people who have made a real break with the world. They are more careful about allowing wickedness to infuence them. And they have a substantial identity as a set-apart people of God. The mainline evangelicals laugh at them for their quaintness, but what is more important is that they are not as entangled in the world-system. They don’t use SSNs. They don’t watch TV. They don’t go to the govt for marriage licenses and their churches so not seek the approval of the govt by becoming 26USC501(c)3 religious organizations, willingly under the authority of the apoStates. Neither did the early or wilderness Christians of the past. Only the apostate church approves these entanglements, and the 14th-century Reformers sadly did not (except for the Anabaptists) break from the world. Luther’s hide was being protected by Fred 3 of Germany, who had the largest army in Europe at the time and could challenge the Pope. Luther was caught in the middle of worldly geopolitics and could not (or did not) make the break that the Anabaptists did and the Wilderness church (the Vaudois) had been doing all along.

How could people who decide to become total Christians do it in America? I answer this in TGD. That’s why I wrote it. Did you read it? The answers (not all details, but some) are there. The Amish set ONE kind of example of how to do this, to an extent. Very few - a remnant - are doing it in other ways in America today.