Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Liberal Bullying’

Romans 13, Christian Resistance, and the Coming Tyranny

waving flagPosted on May 13, 2015 by




If the Wicked


If a nation is not guided by God





Good people who don't standIn a previous article I discussed the biblical principle of Christian resistance as it relates to the upcoming Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. As was pointed out in that article, there are examples in the Bible of God’s people resisting direct commands by civil officials based on a very specific set of higher law principles.

Christian apologist Francis A. Schaeffer wrote, “Let us not forget why the Christians were killed. They were not killed because they worshipped Jesus… Nobody cared who worshipped whom as long as the worshipper did not disrupt the unity of the state, centered in the formal worship of Caesar. The reason Christians were killed was because they were rebels”1 and placed the God of the Bible over the claim that the State and its Caesars were gods. The proof?: “they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7).burke

This is an old story that has a modern history. King James of the King James Bible wanted a translation that countered the notes in the 1559 Geneva Bible, the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. “For example, the margin notes for Daniel 6:22 imply that the commands of kings are to be disobeyed if they conflict with the law of God: ‘For he [Daniel] disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonored.’”2


“Embarkation of the Pilgrims.”

Alister McGrath comments:

“Notice also how the Genevan notes  regularly use the word ‘tyrant’ to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word—a fact noted with approval as much as relief by many royalists at this point.”3

It’s no wonder that King James “authorized a fresh translation of the Bible to undermine the republican implications of the Geneva Bible.”4

Because of its no exception tone, Romans 13 is seen as prohibiting all resistance to the law of the State: “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. . . (v. 1). The apostle lists no exceptions. Peter makes a similar statement: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14). Again, no exceptions. This is the same Peter who declared, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19-20). How do we reconcile the apparent contradiction?Picture1

Jonathan Mayhew (1720-1766) states the following in his 1750 sermon “Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers”:

“Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle.”There are a number of places in Scripture where one verse speaks in absolute terms and other verses offer exceptions. This is not unusual. If I tell my grandchildren to go outside and play until dinner is ready, I have spoken in absolute terms. They are not to come into the house until they are called. No exceptions are given. What if it rains? What if a large dog enters the yard? Can they enter the house without violating my absolute and no exception command?

They would not be violating my “no exception” command because there are unspoken exceptions. They are assumed to be operating without them having to be repeated each time a new command is given. They have been told on previous occasions to “come in when it’s raining” and “do not get near stray dogs that wander into the yard.”

The Bible operates in the same manner. In one place Jesus says, “All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). Does this include the civil magistrate? What about the person who strikes an assailant in self-defense? Is this not an exception to Jesus’ “no exception” statement? Since the Bible already discusses self-defense (Ex. 22:2-3; Deut. 19:21) and the role of the civil magistrate (e.g., Gen. 9:6), there is no need to repeat the exceptions since Jesus’ hearers knew He has anarchy and revolution in mind (e.g., Lev. 19:18), not the just use of the sword. Romans 13:4 explains that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to use the sword in certain specified cases. Is this a contradiction? No.Tree of Liberty 03

So then, when we read passages like Romans 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14, we must not neglect the rest of the Bible that is equally authoritative and more fully explains and qualifies these passages.

“Many general statements of Scripture must be open to admitting exceptions even those qualifications are not immediately spelled out. Why are so many generalizations stated without qualification? Because the exact conditions restricting their applicability are not known, or because the “accidental” or providential circumstances that render them inapplicable occur so seldom as to be practically negligible, or because such qualification has already been stipulated in another inscripturated context.”5The Persecution has Begun

In summary, we must recognize that as the State becomes more tyrannical and non-Christian in its social and political policies, conflicts between church and State will multiply. That conflict may make it necessary for Christians to say no to statist laws that will force them to violate the laws of God.freedom

There is an additional reason why Christians must understand the limits of civil jurisdiction and the limits of resistance. Because of a desire to see the current corruption in our own nation reversed, some Christians may take it upon themselves to bring about change by revolutionary means. This is an unbiblical agenda to pursue. There is no warrant in Scripture for a revolutionary spirit.

How Christians go about resisting is a question that needs to be answered in exacting detail. The fact that we have lesser magistrates – state governments, governors, and state constitutions – that can serve as legitimate governing authorities as a means to rebuff civil and judicial tyranny is a viable governing avenue for Christians to take.

OARLogo Picture6

Why the 3 Percent is Beating the 30 Percent and Will Target Churches Next


Posted 10 hours ago by Gary DeMar

URL of the Original Posting Site:

As I pointed out in a “When Gays Fire-Bombed a Church: ‘Gay Rights or Gay Riots,’” Christians have been the target in the homosexual debate going back more than 30 years. Homosexuals learned that by attacking one church or one person at a time, they could get pro-homosexual precedents established. They also learned that there was never much of a groundswell of support for the victims who opposed same-sex sexuality. Churches didn’t want to get involved, so many of those who were attacked were left defenseless. Because of the lack of broad Christian support, groups like Alliance Defending Freedom and Liberty Counsel were founded, as well as other legal advocacy groups, to defend the victims of same-sex bullying.

These groups had a lot of catching up to do. The ACLU, founded in 1920, has had a 60-year head start. It has more than 500,000 members and an annual budget of over $100 million. Local affiliates of the ACLU are active in all 50 states and Puerto Rico and have their own budgets.

How did we get in the situation where those who identify as LGBTQQA* make up around three percent of the population and are setting the agenda when Christians make up around 35 percent? Homosexuals have been successful in redefining everything, so much so that using Husband/Wife; girlfriend/boyfriend; mom/dad is now considered a form of “heterosexism.”L01 L02 L03

A tiny minority of woman are claiming that it’s “sexist” to refer to Hillary Clinton as just “Hillary” even though there is a “Ready for Hillary” super PAC and posters with her image with only “Hillary” identifying her. Double standards and hypocrisy are rampant among liberals. But that’s another story.

In addition, homosexuals have taken over the courts by getting their lawyers in places of legal power to impose a radical sexual agenda on America.

So where have tens of millions of Christians been? They’ve developed their own self-defeating narrative that keeps them out of the fight. Here is some of their warped theology:

  • Jesus never got mixed up in politics (so why should we?)

  • There’s a separation between church and state (even though there isn’t any such constitutional claim)

  • The Christian’s citizenship is in heaven (it didn’t stop the Apostle Paul from using his Roman citizenship: Acts 22:25-29)

  • We can’t impose our morality on other people (all law is the imposition of somebody’s view of morality/immorality)

  • We’re not to judge (what’s forbidden is inconsistency: Matt. 7:1-2)

  • Politics is dirty (and so is everything else)

  • Religion and politics don’t mix (then why are murder, stealing, and rape morally wrong?)

  • Jesus wasn’t a social reformer (He didn’t get married, have children, or own a home either)

  • Christians should remain neutral (neutrality is impossible and leads to being neutralized)

  • God’s kingdom is not of this world (God’s kingdom is in, over, and through this world)

  • It’s never right to resist authority (“We must obey God rather than men”: Acts 5:29)

  • The church should only preach the gospel. (preaching the gospel is the first step followed by teaching the “whole purpose of God”: Acts 20:27)

  • We’re living in the last days (How long have we been hearing this claim?)

  • And the most often used excuse?: “We’re afraid we might lose our tax-exempt status.”

ShovingThe way things are going, churches may lose their tax-exempt status anyway if homosexuals continue to press their agenda and a majority of Christians try to stay “neutral.”Picture2

“This is the only logical end for militant gay activism. Now a gay/LGBT group in Wyoming is demanding that the government shut down any church that has the temerity to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Jeran Artery, the chairman of the gay group Wyoming Equality, posted the stunning statement to his Facebook page … but like all liberals quickly removed it hoping that it would go down the Internet memory hole.”

Jeran Artery, Chairman of the Homosexual Group Wyoming Equality


Artery said: “Churches that lobby to have freedoms and rights taken away from ANYONE should absolutely have their 501(c)3 status revoked!!”

He’s not the only one. New York Times columnist Frank Bruni and furniture tycoon Mitchell Gold “have agreed that Christian churches ‘must’ be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an ‘ossified’ doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.”

In the comment section of Facebook people claimed, “It will never happen.” I asked, “Ten years ago, who could have imaged that refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding would lead to fines and the loss of a business?”



Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: