I believe the example of Jesus healing on the Sabbath is obsolete. For one thing, He compared His healing to the people’s right and necessity to feed and water their livestock on the Sabbath. It is true that those animals could most likely have survived that one day with nothing, but still the people were exempt from ‘resting’ when it came to feeding and providing water for these animals.

I think the issue that comes up is the ‘legalism’ of trying to follow all of these laws. If it becomes a sin to not follow the law of the state– a sin that could send one to hell– does that not imply that man must uphold and keep every law of their country for fear of losing their salvation? Is that not why Paul wrote about “being free from the Law” and all of the restrictions therein? Was not the ritul-filled law of Moses replaced the more spirit-driven law of Christ?

The new law in Christ was set up, not to “free” man from the need to uphold law, but to uphold law in such a way that transformed him from within. Man was not told “do not murder” which was the ‘letter of the law’ but rather told ‘do not hate, as hate LEADS to murder’. Therefore an internal change (our feelings towards others) affected our actions towards them.

Paul wrote that it was improper to observe God’s law as a means of seeking perfection with God– rather it should be an act that comes from trusting in God, rather than a ‘legalistic’ observance of “Do’s and Don’ts”. How then can we hope to observe all Civil Laws as a means of not losing our Salvation? Doesn’t this bring us back around to the beginning? Rather, shouldn’t we focus on general lawkeeping but not get caught up in just how many laws we have broken. If you go a few miles over the speed limit or a child (maybe 16 or 17) drinks a little wine on New Year’s with their parents permission (although both go against the civil law) would that comdemn them to hell if they do not repent?

This is an issue that I’ve been struggling with, so I would really appreciate everyone’s opinions! I do believe that Christian’s should obey the law, but I also don’t think it is right for them to fear the law to the extent that they panic at the idea of speeding a little or drinking a little wine before they are twenty-one.

“So, if I understand you right, it’s more holy to disobey the law on principle (after all, God didn’t make a speed limit) than it is to obey the law?”

I don’t think you understand me, as in your analysis the second great commandment, “thou shalt love thy neigbor as thyself” (as a reason I might not obey the speed limit) is reduced to a mere “principle” while the whimsical dictates of a detached, uninformed, non-omniscient group of politicians are elevated to “the law.”

Yes, God didn’t make a speed limit because He knew that for such things a one-size fits all law is inappropriate. Salvation by law is always inappropriate. It’s also why He forbids adding to His law – which by the way the state has no problem doing and too many Christians gleefully accept. God intended for communities to govern themselves. Solomon makes this evident in Proverbs 6: “go to the ant, O sluggard, observe her ways and be wise, which, having NO CHIEF, OFFICER OR RULER, prepares her food in the summer, and gathers her provision in the harvest.” The sluggard needs some kind of one-size fits all law instead of using the wisdom and judgment God gives us to discern the best action for a given situation. And as Bruce said above when he introduced the speed limit to this discussion, the artifically low speed limit imposed by the state is actually more dangerous. Putting people in greater danger for the sake of obeying the state is a Christian virtue? (Psalm 94:20)

Would it have been a sin for Jesus to refrain from healing on the Sabbath in accordance with the dictates of the legitimate authority of the synagogue officials? After all, He had six other days to heal.

Is Romans 13 written to believers or to the governing authorities? It seems that you believe it is a prescription for how governments ought to be limited, not for how believers ought to behave.

Also, you insist that the text is dealing only with submitting to punishment by governments. This completely ignores the passage itself. Verse 2 states that punishment is the outcome of resisting authorities. Resisting the authority is the problem, not resisting the judgment.
Verse 3 says that “doing good” will result in praise from these same, and verse 4 says that doing evil will result in punishment. The warning is against doing evil (“be afraid”), not against failing to submit to the punishment which results.
Verse 5 states that you should be subject because of both wrath and conscience, indicating that the wrath follows non-submission. We are to be subject before the wrath happens. The point is to avoid wrath, not submitting to wrath when it comes.
You’re putting the cart before the horse here. It is a warning regarding wrath/judgment that follows non-submission, not a warning about submitting to that judgment.

In short, you said:
“I believe the context is quite clear that the only subjection required is in submitting to criminal punishment for doing evil.”
This statement completely ignores the text itself which clearly states that punishment for doing evil is a result of not submitting.

Just my two cents,

Keith

And seriously, isn’t that what sin is?? Whether it is speeding, pre-marital sex, or just about anything that serves self, we say in our heart… God I know this is wrong but I am going to do it anyway. So can you really judge his heart? He was verbalizing what all of us do privately in our minds… The only time I can think of when sin is not this deliberate is when we fool ourselves by justifying it or by just being in denial.

“I don’t care what the bible says, I like to speed.”

It is an issue of the heart

How would that be different? There would be more laws that would need to be disobeyed because they require a person to sin, but otherwise, same situation. No?

So, if I understand you right, it’s more holy to disobey the law on principle (after all, God didn’t make a speed limit) than it is to obey the law?

You’re not thinking clearly I don’t think,

“I think your comment about ‘an excuse to speed’ is simply that – an excuse. The speed limit is posted for a reason and regardless if we agree with it we must follow it. This is one topic most christians like to debate which to me seems to be an issue of the heart.”

Excuse? Hardly. Yes, it is an issue of the heart. I prefer not to have my conscience lorded over by politicians in Washington and Sacramento. It’s owned by Christ.

Your thoughts on speeding peeked my curiousity. I was down in CA for the Shepherd’s Conference and funny enough, found myself driving the speed limit without any cause for concern for either myself or my neigbours “whom I love.”

I think your comment about “an excuse to speed” is simply that – an excuse. The speed limit is posted for a reason and regardless if we agree with it we must follow it. This is one topic most christians like to debate which to me seems to be an issue of the heart. It’s posted – why debate it. Just follow it. I once read somewhere, “you can’t be a good christian and a bad citizen at the same time.”

It’s these types of issue that remind me of a verse in 1 Samuel 15:23 which reads, “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” (NJKV).

Keep the faith gentlemen . . . and the speedlimit