I know I’m opining quite late, but I just wanted to make sure people did not get a bad idea about natural law.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/r_albert_mohler_jr/2008/09/a_tale_of_two_offices.html

The context for 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is by who and addressed to who? It by Paul and addressed to Timothy. Paul is giving Timothy instruction regarding the Church and who is qualified to lead. Paul is not defining who is eligible to be the next Caesar. This whole of this text, taken in context prevents women from being Pastors / elders, not from holding elected office. If you want to take this context and stretch it as far as you can go with it, then you can argue that mothers should never tell their sons what do do, only their fathers should. Paul certainly is not saying that or anything like it! How about women police officers? Would you cite this verse to a female cop after pulling you over?

Thanks for the explanation, it sounds like we are on the same page there.

The church as an entity is in the world but not of the world, and by that I understand that we are as aliens in a foreign land. How do foreigners act in a strange land, particularly when they are to have a greater love for their home country? Should they be intimately involved in and immersed in the needs of that society? And how would that affect the love for their homeland. We all probably know many foreign students who come to the US in order to gain a better education with plans of returning back to their homeland for its betterment (if I may use that term) only to become entangled in the affairs of and glories of a life in the land of freedom, never to return “home” again.

Now for us, certainly those of us who truly know the Lord, we shall persevere so as to go home in the end. However how much are we side tracked and prevented from bearing more fruit for the coming kingdom by being enraptured by the present kingdom in which we live…fighting its causes, pleading for its residents?

There are many ailments in this society. And many are noble pursuits. But all still aimed at the betterment of this society which is of itself evil. It is not “for” God. It does not promote the God of the Bible. It in fact seeks to cease the God of the Bible. It does not want His morality or justice. It may covet His protection in prayer and on document, but it does not love His appearing. It is essentially evil through and through.

Though we may live in it and apply salt to its wounds, it will never remain salty. Though we may shed blood for its benefit, a million times over, it will never stain. It is evil. It will remain so until that Kingdom comes in which righteousness “dwells.” It will never dwell here and so I say that they are fundamentally opposed. One is fundamentally righteous. The other is fundamentally and at its root, evil.

Participating in the needs and causes of the society is reformation. The Gospel is transformation. I trust that you understand the way in which I am using these terms.

My assertion is not so much that the Revolution was Biblically justified, but that it was legally justified. In fact I would almost go as far as a History Professor of mine did, and say that the American Revolution was not a revolution at all, but more of a civil war that solidified what was already a reality. I believe that if the American Revolution was legally justified then it was de facto Biblically justified. This is based somewhat on my belief in natural law. While I see a certain amount of justification for natural law theory in the Bible I do not go as far as most, and squeeze it out of every other verse I see (one of the criticisms of the natural law proponents in the article you recommend).

I agree with the author and do have a serious problem with some of the hermeneutical leaps that people go to in order to read things into Scripture, particularly those from Dominion Theology camp.

I have to disagree with the fourth paragraph of the article, because I do believe that government’s powers are at some point derived from the consent of the people. Granted that this does not exist among a conquered people, or when a republic such as Rome changes its governmental form. The point is that at some point somewhere the people must consent to being governed, consent does come in different forms . . . if you catch my drift

Also, I think that the context of 1 Samuel 15:23 is Saul’s spiritual rebellion, not a rebellion against a government.

Reading through the article you suggested a few times, I think that I will e-mail the author and see if I can get hold of his dissertation.

Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it. I have heard to many people speak as though they are more godly because they ignore politics altogether (I am exaggerating slightly of course) which is why I said what I did.

I completely agree with you that our first allegiance is to God not our country. However I am not sure that I agree with you that – “Participation in the needs of the society and participation in the gospel are often opposed and at their foundation are promoting two distinctly different Kingdoms.” Can you explain what you mean by that?

I’m glad I live in the USA and I pray that it remains a free nation so that we can worship God and bring Him glory. I also vote and keep myself informed. I’ve also made my voice known in various ways on some important political/social issues and I am thankful for the committed Christians who have run for office.

That being said, those who assert that the American Revolution was Biblically justified cannot make their case by sound exegesis of the relevant passages like Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-17. Those commands were given to believers who lived under an often cruel and capricious emperor.

There is only one biblically justified reason for believers to take up arms against their government and that is for self-defense (in the broadest sense of defending self, family or neighbors against physical violence from a corrupt government). In light of the historical facts, that’s a pretty difficult case to make for the colonials.

As to your assumption that few clergy stood against the revolution, I beg to differ. There were some clergy who did not support the revolution and spoke out against taking up arms against the King.

May I suggest a good article to you that was recently written regarding this issue by Dr. Gregg L. Frazer, Professor of History at the Master’s College. In the artical (Pastors: Get on the spiritual battlefield!), Frazer defends MacArthur’s statement that the American Revolution was not biblically justified. You can find the article here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71614.

That article will refer you to other sources.

By the way, God has providentially blessed America not because the colonists were Biblically justified, but because He is a gracious God who often overrules human error and sin for His own divine purposes and mercy. For that I am grateful.

Respectfully,
Steve Lamm

What I would stress, if anything, is that many people (Christians) put so much more effort into reforming this society than they do into pursuing the heart of an individual with the Gospel. I pay attention to politics. I vote. I know what many of the issues are. I am incredibly thankful that we live in a free country. But I am also painfully aware that the great freedom in this country has allowed for and encouraged great corruption, licentiousness and an even greater propensity to disdain even the notion of God.

Should we forget the freedoms that we enjoy in this society? No. Should we ignore our role as citizens in this nation? No. But should our participation in these things outshine our participation in what God is doing in and through His church through the gospel? The answer to that is as obvious. Do I think that they are incompatible? To a large degree, yes. My personal opinion is that they are largely incompatible. Participation in the needs of the society and participation in the gospel are often incompatible because they are often opposed and at their foundation are promoting two distinctly different Kingdoms.

Thank the Lord for the freedom that we enjoy. Fulfill your duty as a citizen of this nation. But more than that, and even to the point of disdaining it of itself, fulfill your duty as a herald of the gospel and the coming Kingdom. Promote righteousness. But more than that, promote the coming righteous Kingdom.