PDA

View Full Version : Chuck Baldwin Revisits Romans 13




tonesforjonesbones
02-27-2009, 02:49 PM
Romans 13 Revisited
By Chuck Baldwin
February 27, 2009


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090227.html


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 any political leader really believe that civil magistrates have
unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt
that 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? I wouldn't.

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.

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 law 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 that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In
fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Virtually every apostle of Christ (except John, who survived being boiled in
oil, according to historians) experienced martyrdom from hostile civil
authorities. In addition, 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--including
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.

Remember, too, that we are all subject to Natural Law. No human authority
has the right to demand that men surrender their submission to God's law
"written in their hearts." When any human authority attempts to do this, it
becomes tyrannical, because, again, it challenges the Lordship and
Sovereignty of man's Creator.

As William Blackstone (as studied and devoted a Christian scholar as there
ever was) wrote, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and
dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.
It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no
human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are
valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or
immediately, from this original." (Source: William Blackstone, "Of The
Nature of Laws in General")

Therefore, there are times when civil authority must 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 Christians in America:

"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, per 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
governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this
column, Biblical principles 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 )

In addition, if Christians (and others) had been properly obedient to the
Constitution (and Romans 13), they would also have submitted to the Tenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes the authority of the
States in matters not specifically ceded to the federal government. In other
words, the Constitution intended that the authority of the federal
government be small and limited, with most authority residing within the
States and among the people themselves.

As submission to the Constitution and Natural Law have provided a haven of
peace and prosperity in these United States, Christians (for the most part)
have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and
defy their civil authorities. However, as it is obvious that a majority of
our government leaders currently have almost no fidelity to their oaths to
defend the U.S. Constitution, it is becoming more and more likely that
we--like our forefathers--will need to rediscover Benjamin Franklin's
declaration that "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (Of course,
this effort, too, must be accomplished within the scope of law, both divine
and civil.)

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?

P.S. I invite readers to listen to my interview with Dr. Greg Dixon
regarding Romans Chapter 13 at:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Dixon.html

Truth Warrior
02-27-2009, 03:02 PM
Where's Jesus?

torchbearer
02-27-2009, 03:26 PM
Where's Jesus?

At the right hand of the father in his Kingdom.
Are you ready for benevolent monarchy?

Truth Warrior
02-27-2009, 03:28 PM
At the right hand of the father in his Kingdom.
Are you ready for benevolent monarchy? In the article. :rolleyes:

NO.

CaptainAmerica
07-24-2014, 05:17 PM
Romans 13 Revisited
By Chuck Baldwin
February 27, 2009


This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090227.html


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 any political leader really believe that civil magistrates have
unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt
that 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? I wouldn't.

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.

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 law 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 that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In
fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Virtually every apostle of Christ (except John, who survived being boiled in
oil, according to historians) experienced martyrdom from hostile civil
authorities. In addition, 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--including
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.

Remember, too, that we are all subject to Natural Law. No human authority
has the right to demand that men surrender their submission to God's law
"written in their hearts." When any human authority attempts to do this, it
becomes tyrannical, because, again, it challenges the Lordship and
Sovereignty of man's Creator.

As William Blackstone (as studied and devoted a Christian scholar as there
ever was) wrote, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and
dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.
It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no
human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are
valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or
immediately, from this original." (Source: William Blackstone, "Of The
Nature of Laws in General")

Therefore, there are times when civil authority must 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 Christians in America:

"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, per 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
governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this
column, Biblical principles 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 )

In addition, if Christians (and others) had been properly obedient to the
Constitution (and Romans 13), they would also have submitted to the Tenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes the authority of the
States in matters not specifically ceded to the federal government. In other
words, the Constitution intended that the authority of the federal
government be small and limited, with most authority residing within the
States and among the people themselves.

As submission to the Constitution and Natural Law have provided a haven of
peace and prosperity in these United States, Christians (for the most part)
have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and
defy their civil authorities. However, as it is obvious that a majority of
our government leaders currently have almost no fidelity to their oaths to
defend the U.S. Constitution, it is becoming more and more likely that
we--like our forefathers--will need to rediscover Benjamin Franklin's
declaration that "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (Of course,
this effort, too, must be accomplished within the scope of law, both divine
and civil.)

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?

P.S. I invite readers to listen to my interview with Dr. Greg Dixon
regarding Romans Chapter 13 at:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Dixon.html
Good post to read, I was troubled by this verse recently when someone told me that I was "of satan" to speak against the violence between israeli military and hamas. I neither favor israeli military or hamas and deeply have concern for the people torn between the conflict of war as a christian.

jjdoyle
07-24-2014, 07:39 PM
I appreciated Chuck's articles in 2007/2008 a great deal, and I still like a lot of his pieces now.
I haven't followed him as closely though here recently, and I should probably try to make more of an effort and follow his stuff.

Anti Federalist
07-28-2014, 06:50 PM
So, there are limits to authority...

An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
the private lives of his employees?

No.

Anti Federalist
07-28-2014, 06:50 PM
So, there are limits to authority...

An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
the private lives of his employees?

No.

Anti Federalist
07-28-2014, 06:52 PM
Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused
to obey those authorities that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In
fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Anti Federalist
07-28-2014, 06:53 PM
Sad, looking at the names of the fallen...

Christian Liberty
07-28-2014, 08:10 PM
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 law 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 that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In
fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

You know, I always remember being taught that Moses murdered the Egyptian taskmaster, that it was a flawed aspect of an otherwise godly man. But I think Chuck is right, that was a defensive action that was morally acceptable.

Danke
07-28-2014, 08:15 PM
So, there are limits to authority...

An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control
the private lives of his employees?

No.

Drug testing started in the 80's with pilots. Good idea, no one want their pilots using drugs...

Haven't you ever watched a "Cops" show on TV?

Whenever they raid a crack house, etc. ...it is a bunch of pilots!!

edit: Have you ever heard of an accident in commercial aviation where one of the pilots had drugs impairing their critical decision(s) that led to the accident? I'm not sure one could even find an alcohol impairment that led to an accident.

My aim is not good, it seems I always pee all over the cup before handing it over to the tester.

Christian Liberty
07-28-2014, 08:42 PM
Drug testing started in the 80's with pilots. Good idea, no one want their pilots using drugs...

Haven't you ever watched a "Cops" show on TV?

Whenever they raid a crack house, etc. ...it is a bunch of pilots!!

If there's a clause in the contract that says "You can't use drugs as a part of this job and we will check you", that's acceptable as long as its a private company that isn't getting money from taxpayers.

It would be a different matter if somebody signed a contract and then the employer was like "oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that I'm a rabid atheist, and if I'm going to spy on you to make sure you don't go to church."

Partly its a basic human decency issue as well. Should an employer who makes a "no smoking on or off the job" policy be legally sanctioned? No. Is he out of line for doing that? Well, I personally think he is, even though legally he'd have the right.

Danke
07-28-2014, 08:49 PM
If there's a clause in the contract that says "You can't use drugs as a part of this job and we will check you", that's acceptable as long as its a private company that isn't getting money from taxpayers.

It would be a different matter if somebody signed a contract and then the employer was like "oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that I'm a rabid atheist, and if I'm going to spy on you to make sure you don't go to church."

Partly its a basic human decency issue as well. Should an employer who makes a "no smoking on or off the job" policy be legally sanctioned? No. Is he out of line for doing that? Well, I personally think he is, even though legally he'd have the right.

It is a federal government requirement that employers bow down to. Probably written somewhere that you will be subject to all federal regulations, etc.

When you buy a ticket, are you agreeing to be anally probed by a TSA agent?

You want to get to that business meeting (or else lose your job), see your family over the holidays, etc?

Even I won't submit to that. The flight will just have to be cancelled.

Christian Liberty
07-28-2014, 09:24 PM
It is a federal government requirement that employers bow down to. Probably written somewhere that you will be subject to all federal regulations, etc.

When you buy a ticket, are you agreeing to be anally probed by a TSA agent?

You want to get to that business meeting (or else lose your job), see your family over the holidays, etc?

Even I won't submit to that. The flight will just have to be cancelled.

No, I don't think buying a ticket is consent, because the Federal government is illegitimate and its agents are violent criminals.

If there were no Federal regulations at all and a private airline decided to have its own security system and you signed a contract saying you'd comply with security procedures and those procedures were spelled out, that would be legitimate.

I guess its the same with drugs. A company has a right to tell you you can't use drugs if that's the contract you agreed on. But when Federal regulations FORCE companies to put that into the contract, I would say that makes the contract signed under duress, IMO.

Danke
07-28-2014, 09:49 PM
.

I guess its the same with drugs. A company has a right to tell you you can't use drugs if that's the contract you agreed on. But when Federal regulations FORCE companies to put that into the contract, I would say that makes the contract signed under duress, IMO.




Partly its a basic human decency issue as well. Should an employer who makes a "no smoking on or off the job" policy be legally sanctioned? No. Is he out of line for doing that? Well, I personally think he is, even though legally he'd have the right.


Do you even read what you have wrote? So his legally vs. his right? WTH?

Christian Liberty
07-28-2014, 09:56 PM
Do you even read what you have wrote? So his legally vs. his right? WTH?

I guess I should be clearer. What I'm saying is that according to libertarian law (which I support) there ought to be nothing saying an employer can't make a "no smoking pot at home" rule for his customers and fire anyone who doesn't comply. But I think such a rule, barring some specific good reason for it, would be something that I think employers should not do.

Danke
07-28-2014, 10:15 PM
I guess I should be clearer. What I'm saying is that according to libertarian law (which I support) there ought to be nothing saying an employer can't make a "no smoking pot at home" rule for his customers and fire anyone who doesn't comply. But I think such a rule, barring some specific good reason for it, would be something that I think employers should not do.

How about no missionary style humping?

robert68
07-28-2014, 10:24 PM
A long explanation of the meaning of a short message is a rationalization for what one wants it to mean.

Christian Liberty
07-28-2014, 10:44 PM
How about no missionary style humping?

I would say the same thing.

Mind you, in both cases I don't see why an employer would do that, or how he could possibly enforce it, and any who tried would almost certainly go out of business. But if one really wanted to do that, they could.

Christian Liberty
07-28-2014, 10:45 PM
A long explanation of the meaning of a short message is a rationalization for what one wants it to mean.

I can sum it up in one sentence:

"Government was given the power by God to punish evildoers, but government's authority is limited in that it has no authority to punish those who do good."

Danke
07-28-2014, 10:50 PM
I would say the same thing.

Mind you, in both cases I don't see why an employer would do that, or how he could possibly enforce it, and any who tried would almost certainly go out of business. But if one really wanted to do that, they could.

So it is what the employer can get away with that makes it ok. Slave labor of Jews, no problem.

Christian Liberty
07-28-2014, 10:59 PM
So it is what the employer can get away with that makes it ok. Slave labor of Jews, no problem.

You need to learn basic libertarian theory. If it weren't this forum I'd give teaching it to you a shot, but on this forum I really, really shouldn't have to.

No, it has nothing to do with what they can get away with. It has nothing to do with the NAP. If you and your employer agree that your employer will pay you X amount of dollars on condition that you not only do your job but also do not use drugs during your spare time, there is nobody being aggressed against, thus morally no crime has been committed.

Whether you can sell yourself into slavery is a matter that libertarians disagree on. Walter Block takes the position that you can, and that such a contract would be binding, while most other libertarians say that self-ownership is inalienable and that its impossible to make a binding contract where you sell yourself into slavery. I tend toward the latter view, but it is debated.

By contrast, I assume you were talking about enslaving people without their consent, which every libertarian would consider an aggressive action that should be illegal. Although, incidentally, neocons are fine with slavery so long as it is called "the draft."

Christian Liberty
07-28-2014, 11:02 PM
If an employer tells you that he will only hire you if you agree not to use any drugs while you are employed by him, assuming you are able to quit at any time, there is no way this arrangement violates libertarian principles. That is not an aggressive relationship. The businessowner is unlikely to get away with it economically, but that's a different issue.

If an employer enslaves Jews, he may get away with it and not get caught, but it doesn't matter. That's an aggressive act that should be punished, even though sometimes someone might get away from it.

This is libertarian 101. Simpler than that actually. Its libertarian Pre-K. I think I could get a statist to understand that concept in like two seconds. Why this is even an issue I don't know.

Danke
07-28-2014, 11:06 PM
An open boarders are ok even though we don't have a free market and I am taxed to support aliens, etc...it is not just a philosophical argument...NAP ya know.

euphemia
07-28-2014, 11:08 PM
If one is looking at this passage as it was written to the actual Romans, this passage makes some sense. In that day the ruler was the law. He believed he was invested with a divine right to do what he wanted and make people honor him.

In the United States, *the people* are the law. The Consitution enumerates limited powers to elected representatives and no elected judged. The rest if the power belongs to us. That would mean we have a biblical and Constitutional responsibioity to do something about it, We also have a responsibility to understand that freedom is not doing what we want, but to have liberty to do what we ought to do. We have the right and responsibility to live, be free, and to prosper.

robert68
07-29-2014, 11:10 AM
I can sum it up in one sentence:

"Government was given the power by God to punish evildoers, but government's authority is limited in that it has no authority to punish those who do good."

That's not the message in Romans 13 1-7. I only see libertarianish Christians trying to change its message.

LogCabinGOProud
07-29-2014, 12:52 PM
An open boarders are ok even though we don't have a free market and I am taxed to support aliens, etc...it is not just a philosophical argument...NAP ya know.What is NAP?

pcosmar
07-29-2014, 03:01 PM
I can sum it up in one sentence:

"Government was given the power by God to punish evildoers, but government's authority is limited in that it has no authority to punish those who do good."

No.. It was not.
Governments were not created by God. Governments were installed by men,, and the stated purpose is to punish evil.

It was not instituted by God..

The first recorded instance of "government" in the Bible was Nimrod.
Nimrod was the offspring of Evil. and resulted in the confusion of languages.

The people of Israel called for a king,, to be like all the pagan nations. God eventually gave them one against his wish,,and warned them of the trouble it would cause.

This is Satan's realm,, and it is he that gives power to whoever he wishes.

FindLiberty
07-29-2014, 04:51 PM
NAP - Non-Aggression Principle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwrsKGzcZLM

The Story of Your Enslavement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A Stefan Molyneux

Bible is used as another tool to control the population.

Christian Liberty
07-29-2014, 08:50 PM
That's not the message in Romans 13 1-7. I only see libertarianish Christians trying to change its message.

Just wondering, are you coming at this as a Christian who is against libertarianism, or a libertarian who is against Christianity (at least on this point)? I need to know where you are coming from before I give a response to this.

No.. It was not.
Governments were not created by God. Governments were installed by men,, and the stated purpose is to punish evil.

It was not instituted by God..

The first recorded instance of "government" in the Bible was Nimrod.
Nimrod was the offspring of Evil. and resulted in the confusion of languages.

The people of Israel called for a king,, to be like all the pagan nations. God eventually gave them one against his wish,,and warned them of the trouble it would cause.

This is Satan's realm,, and it is he that gives power to whoever he wishes.
Take it up with Chuck, not with me. I was just proving that his point wasn't actually complicated and didn't require tons of explanation.

For what its worth, I am OK with the idea that "government" was ordained by God for the punishment of evildoers. But it seems clear to me that the State was ordained only in the sense that God ordains everything that occurs, whether good or evil. I suspect this is where I would part with Chuck, I think Chuck would say that God prescribes a limited State, while I would say God does not prescribe any State (and many of the reasons you use in your post would be my reasons as well.)

And... for those who think people like pastor Chuck are twisting an "obviously" pro-government text to their own ends, keep in mind that Paul wrote that text as a man who repeatedly broke the law himself and ultimately died for it. And it was a government that every Jew and Christian knew was evil and anti-Biblical. It was also a time in which Paul could not directly criticize the Roman government (which does NOT live up to Romans 13:4.) Paul needed a subtle way to get his point across, and I think putting the passage right after a passage telling us how to treat our enemies, and putting "if you owe taxes, pay taxes" right before a verse saying not to owe anybody anything, was a way of getting that point across without losing his focus.