Privilege of ‘Arrest Without Incident’

[Nick M]

Most Christians learn not to quote scripture without context. The man who wrote Romans 13 was the same man who spent much of his life behind bars.

So what. That does not change that authority flows down hill. And government exist because God wants them to exist. And they still exist even when they profane God and do evil.

 

[Morpheus]

So what. That does not change that authority flows down hill. And government exist because God wants them to exist. And they still exist even when they profane God and do evil.

And in terms that even you might grasp, if you own a bar and hire a manager, then that supervisor tells the employees to load a case of scotch in his trunk every night; then an employee refuses to slip out that whiskey and the manager fires him; once that employee reports the theft to you, you will then fire that manager, rehire the employee and honor him with a raise for his honesty and honorable actions. The authority God grants to government does not override the responsibility he places on each of us to obey Him first.

.Acts 4:1-22

Peter and John Arrested
4 As they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, 2 being greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming [a]in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them and put them in jail until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 But many of those who had heard the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.

5 On the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; 6 and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent. 7 When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” 8 Then Peter, [c]filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “[d]Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are [e]on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, [f]as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that [g]by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—[h]by this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 [j]He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

Threat and Release
13 Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them [k]as having been with Jesus. 14 And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply. 15 But when they had ordered them to leave the [l]Council, they began to confer with one another, 16 saying, “What shall we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy [m]miracle has taken place through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 But so that it will not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name.” 18 And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all [n]in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; 20 for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” 21 When they had threatened them further, they let them go (finding no basis on which to punish them) on account of the people, because they were all glorifying God for what had happened; 22 for the man was more than forty years old on whom this [o]miracle of healing had been performed.

.
Like I said, you can't cherry-pick one passage without considering how it fits with all of the scriptures. Here the high priest and council were also given authority by God to rule. Any time the authorities conflict with God's commands then they actually are not representing God who granted them that authority in the first place. Our responsibility is to follow God no matter what the ruler says, and no matter what the consequences. Ultimately God rules and is the final judge. Paul, who wrote Romans 13, fully understood that and he spent much of his life in prison. Most of the apostles were executed for defying Roman law, as were a multitude of others in the Coliseum "games". But I know, you must be right and they were all wrong. Hey, Judas never broke the law; did he?

 

[Stripe]

Most Christians learn not to quote scripture without context.

Most evolutionists will poison the well.

The man who wrote Romans 13 was the same man who spent much of his life behind bars.

Therefore ... something. :idunno:

Then we must also consider John and Peter in Acts 4:1-22, when they faced the Council.

The non-government body?

Romans13 states that the government is appointed as God's minister, but that appointment does not grant God's minister the liberty to overturn His express commands.

When you find someone who says that it does, you will have a winning debate. Let us know if that happens. :thumb:

Meanwhile, God established the concept of government and He says we are subject to its authority.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Of course it does. I am not talking about Garner, but the principles of what government should be allowed to do. The whole reason to regulate commerce is to stop theft. When you are older, you will understand more. Or not.

I was talking about Garner. Nobody (true communists aside) objects to laws against theft. But "regulating the economy" usually means more than that. Perhaps not to you, but to most people. When a politician says "we need some regulations" he is rejecting laissez faire, not just saying theft should be criminal.

What did Garner do wrong?

 

[Morpheus]

Most evolutionists will poison the well.

Therefore ... something. :idunno:

The non-government body?

When you find someone who says that it does, you will have a winning debate. Let us know if that happens. :thumb:

Meanwhile, God established the concept of government and He says we are subject to its authority.

So if you were German in the 30s and early 40s you needed to realize that the Nazis were God's minister? Explain that to the Jews. If you are right than anyone who his Jews from the Nazis was in rebellion against God, and any Jew who didn't turn himself in was wrong. By isolating Romans 13 and not recognizing the limitations explained throughout the rest of scripture you are claiming that all governments are legitimized by God. That means Iran, Iraq under Saddam, Apartheid South Africa, North Korea, and on and on. Also, if governments are all legitimately ministers of God, then wars mean that both nation's governments are rebelling against God by attacking the other.

If a missionary is serving in an Islamic nation, and that government is a minister of God, then the missionary is rebelling against God if he violates the law and proselytizes. Now if you claim that an Islamic government can't be God's minister you run into the dilemma that, 1) Romans 13 was referring to the heathen Roman government so it similarly would not exclude an Islamist state and, 2) who gets to determine which governments are inherently included or excluded.

All I am saying is that we need to obey the local law until the government expects us to violate our Christian conscience guided by scripture and the Holy Spirit; then we must disobey in order to obey God. Nothing I have written elsewhere claims anything different. Remember, if your preacher (minister) preaches contrary to the word it is heresy and his ministry is illegitimate. The same holds true for a government.

[Edit] when you stated that the Jewish Council was not a government body you were mistaken. Even though Israel was conquered by the Romans, they gave local autonomy to the various states, including Israel. The Council, headed by the high priest, was the local governing authority in Israel; they could enforce their own laws, except that they were not allowed to perform executions without Roman authority. It wasn't Rome that imprisoned John and Peter; it was the Council. Also, if your defense against Acts 4 was that they could refuse to obey the Council on grounds that the Council wasn't a government body, then are you therefore saying that if Rome ordered them not to preach about Jesus then they would have to stopped?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Hmmm... this is interesting. There is no specific Biblical command that would have said the Jews cannot morally turn themselves in (in other words, to turn yourself in woudn't be to go against God.) So, everyone who takes the "traditional" view of Romans 13 should be telling all those Jews who hid in the houses of people like Corrie Ten Boom that they were sinning.

Or maybe the traditional view doesn't actually make sense, and that text isn't actually saying the most murderous organizations in history are legitimate

 

[Traditio]

What is the "State"?

I'll just go with Jacques Maritain's definition in Man and the State: The state is the administrative head of the body politic. "The body politic or the political society is the whole...Political society, required by nature and achieved by reason is the most perfect of temporal societies. It is a concretely and wholly human reality, tending to a concretely and wholly human good - the common good...The entire man - though not by reason of his entire self and of all that he is and has - is part of the political society; and thus all his community activities, as well as his personal activities, are of consequence to the political whole" (Jacques Maritain, Man and the State, p. 10).

As St. Thomas argues in ST I-II, q. 90, a. 3, it belongs to the reason and will of him to whom the end belongs to make decisions concerning that end. Thus, for a private good, it belongs to the private individual to make decisions about it. For a common good or common end (such as is the common good or common end of the political society as a whole), however, making decisions about it belongs to the one who has care of the common whole of which that common end or good is the common end or good: this will either be the entirety of that whole (all of the people acting in unison), or else, he who has the care of that whole (the lawful authorities who are set over that whole people).

These lawful authorities, with all of the "machinery" which belongs to them and to their exercise, I call "the State," although, by an extension of meaning, it can, perhaps, indicate that over which the State is properly set (namely, the whole political society governed by the State).

Its nothing more than a group of violent thugs who act like their victims are the violent ones.

That's your personal emotive outlook. Whether or not it's grounded in reality is another matter (and, in fact, it is not).

"regulate commerce" is a euphemism for the evil violence you support.

False. Since the lawful authorities are set over the common good and have care of the whole political society, they are able to make lawfully binding decisions (which, moreover, bind in conscience (Romans 13:5)) about how to secure the common good for that political society (thus, how to effect political justice and things of this nature). Since commerce is of direct significance to the political society and, in fact, can be brought under the general head of "political justice," then the State has the authority to make (and enforce) laws concerning it.

Romans 12:18.

Proof-texting of the basest variety. Keep reading:

"Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:19).

I am not here dealing with the private interaction of private citizen and private citizen. I'm talking about matters of political justice. If you call me a bad name and I punch you in the face, that's an act of private revenge. If I punch you in the face unprovoked and a police officer arrests me for battery, that's not an act of private revenge. That's an act of political justice which is ordered to the public good (especially political peace, order and justice). Whatever is per se ordered to another thing is not contrary to that thing. Thus, since the act of the policeman is per se ordered to public peace, it's not contrary to peace. It is, in fact, per se peaceful.

Its intrinsically wrong to violate that passage and the police officers were clearly violating it. The peaceful thing to do would have been to leave the peaceful man alone.

Insofar as Eric Garner was violating the laws (which are, in fact, genuine laws; there is nothing, in and of itself, morally repugnant about regulating commerce) of the political society, he was, in fact, not a peaceful man at all. He was doing injury to the political society by holding her laws in contempt and trampling them underfoot. Not to mention, of course, that he was already recognized as a public nuissance.

Wrong.

Can you name any "Christian libertarians" which professed such a doctrine prior to Hobbes?

 

[Traditio]

I will admit, however, Christian Liberty, that, not libertarianism, but utter anarchy, is probably the conclusion which must be drawn from enlightenment principles. All of those liberals (pace certain posters here on this site) who reject a genuine common good (which is inseparable from Natural Law and objective moral right and wrong) and appeal to a "social contract" are simply being inconsistent with their principles.

 

[Nick M]

And in terms that even you might grasp, if you own a bar and hire a manager, then that supervisor tells the employees to load a case AF scotch in his trunk every night

So what. That has nothing to do with the discussion. You are using the Chewbacca defense.

 

[Morpheus]

So what. That has nothing to do with the discussion. You are using the Chewbacca defense.

ADHD? Or did you just choose to ignore the rest of the post, and subsequent posts, which seems consistent with your practice of picking one segment out of the complete context?

Pretty much everyone can see how your simplistic argument falls short except for you.

 

[Stripe]

So if you were German in the 30s and early 40s you needed to realize that the Nazis were God's minister?

And this is called an argument from consequence.

First, you have ignored the clear explanation that the verse refers to the concept of proper authority. Second, you have leaped upon the chance to speak about a bad example as if it showed that the Bible does not say what it says.

Your challenge to "explain that to the Jews" would involve exactly what I explained to you: God directs that we are subject to authority.

If you don't like that, then reject the Bible as your guide to what God says.

By isolating Romans 13 and not recognizing the limitations explained throughout the rest of scripture you are claiming that all governments are legitimized by God.

Who has isolated anything? You're making things up now.

That means Iran, Iraq under Saddam, Apartheid South Africa, North Korea, and on and on.

Don't forget the US government, which turns a blind eye to millions murdered within its borders over each four-year term.

And don't forget the Roman government Jesus was subject to.

Also, if governments are all legitimately ministers of God, then wars mean that both nation's governments are rebelling against God by attacking the other.

The passage is instructions to individuals, not governments.

Try a rational discussion. :up:

If a missionary is serving in an Islamic nation, and that government is a minister of God, then the missionary is rebelling against God if he violates the law and proselytizes.

Nope.

The passage says he is subject to the government's ruling. Try reading what it says before making things up.

All I am saying is that we need to obey the local law until the government expects us to violate our Christian conscience guided by scripture and the Holy Spirit.

That you think this is relevant to the discussion shows how out of touch you are.

 

[Morpheus]

And this is called an argument from consequence.

First, you have ignored the clear explanation that the verse refers to the concept of proper authority. Second, you have leaped upon the chance to speak about a bad example as if it showed that the Bible does not say what it says.

Your challenge to "explain that to the Jews" would involve exactly what I explained to you: God directs that we are subject to authority.

If you don't like that, then reject the Bible as your guide to what God says.

Who has isolated anything? You're making things up now.

Don't forget the US government, which turns a blind eye to millions murdered within its borders over each four-year term.

The passage is instructions to individuals, not governments.

Try a rational discussion. :up:

Nope.

The passage says he is subject to the government's ruling. Try reading what it says before making things up.

Go read the text again. :up:

I read the text quite well, and you're still ignoring facts related to the context of that text, and how it relates to the scriptures as a whole. I will not expound on as he entirety of what has already been explained. I will reiterate that the specific legitimate government referred to in Romans 13 was Rome, a nation that worshipped several gods, and demanded worship of the emperor as the supreme god. To include Rome as a legitimate minister of God means that we can not exclude any government from that status no matter how heinous or vile. That is why we must look beyond Romans 13 to learn what else God says about obeying governments. Isolating Romans 13 would mean that the millions of martyrs died in vain as a result of their own sin of defying government. If you cannot see the connection then blindness may be your first concern.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I will admit, however, Christian Liberty, that, not libertarianism, but utter anarchy, is probably the conclusion which must be drawn from enlightenment principles. All of those liberals (pace certain posters here on this site) who reject a genuine common good (which is inseparable from Natural Law and objective moral right and wrong) and appeal to a "social contract" are simply being inconsistent with their principles.

I'm on an iPad now so not going to make a really long post,v I'll add more later.

ButvI agree that social contract theory is totally inconsistent.

Whether that means anarchy depends on definition, I am an anarchy capitalist (e y should be an o, this iPad is being stupid. That doesn't mean Nike or justice,but that the initiation of violence against nonaggressors is immoral. Aof course, when you make something generic like "society" a victim, you go off the rails, and make simple principle unnecessarily complex.

 

[Christian Liberty]

And this is called an argument from consequence.

First, you have ignored the clear explanation that the verse refers to the concept of proper authority. Second, you have leaped upon the chance to speak about a bad example as if it showed that the Bible does not say what it says.

Your challenge to "explain that to the Jews" would involve exactly what I explained to you: God directs that we are subject to authority.

If you don't like that, then reject the Bible as your guide to what God says.

Who has isolated anything? You're making things up now.

Don't forget the US government, which turns a blind eye to millions murdered within its borders over each four-year term.

And don't forget the Roman government Jesus was subject to.

The passage is instructions to individuals, not governments.

Try a rational discussion. :up:

Nope.
B
The passage says he is subject to the government's ruling. Try reading what it says before making things up.

That you think this is relevant tothe discussion shows how out of touch you are.

no, if ll governments are ordained by god, they do no magically become otherwise because thy are dealing with another government.

 

[journey]

Oh, "the law". The false god of pseudo-Christian state worshippers.

I am adding this video to my sig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5FNDRgPOLs

Another SILLY ANARCHIST until you become victimized by a criminal.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Another SILLY ANARCHIST until you become victimized by a criminal.

What if the criminal has a badge?

 

[journey]

What if the criminal has a badge?

You're out of luck in your way of thinking. Everyone does what they want to with no consequences, and there is nobody to call. You hate the police, so there wouldn't be any. I think your utopia would be a royal MESS.

 

[resodko]

What if the criminal has a badge?

go find yourself a rapist or a murderer to defend you :idunno:

 

[Christian Liberty]

You're out of luck in your way of thinking. Everyone does what they want to with no consequences, and there is nobody to call. You hate the police, so there wouldn't be any. I think your utopia would be a royal MESS.

Who polices the police in your world?

 

[Christian Liberty]

go find yourself a rapist or a murderer to defend you :idunno:

That's pretty much your position. Well, some cops aren't rapists and murderers, but they're all kidnappers and thieves.