As a Christian I have wrestled with this for a while. I think I have come to the conclusion that a Christian has no obligation to obey "laws" that are color of law, but I may very well be wrong. So I wondered if anyone would be interested in debating (informally obviously) for and or against or both positions?

What I don't want is a lot of agreement just because it's what many of us would like to hear.

I would recommend you check out "On Civil Government" by David Lipscomb.  It will likely prove helpful in fleshing out some aspects of this topic and a Christian's involvement in government in general.

Sandbox boundaries:  Nobody may command us to do what God forbids, Nobody may command us to not do what God says do.

Government only has the right to enforce against those who are doing wrongs.
Government does NOT have the right to enforce against all wrongs.

Government has ZERO right to enforce against wrong belief. Government does not have the right to enforce against worldview/thinking.

The fight against wrong thinking/beliefs belongs to society and the church.

The church has NO access to the "power of the sword."

There is no biblical right of individual or corporate use of the sword against government when it exceeds it's boundaries. We can make ourselves scarce, we can avoid the law/enforcement, we can seek redress in other ways. If another part of that Government is (within it's appropriate jurisdiction) pushing back with means that are not in themselves wrong, we can support that, with our lives as necessary. Otherwise, as long as government is not seeking to do something it has no authority to do, we submit.

Individuals absolutely have the right (perhaps even a sort of duty) of private defense of self and others.

-----

This is about the furthest that could be from anarchy. Effectively, if you have done no wrong, government has no authority to touch you. If you have done something wrong - they *might.*

In biblical terms, power of the sword goes to the government and only the government. Power of the keys goes to the church and only the church. Church speaks to the government as its conscience. State sees to it that the evils they have the right to enforce against are suppressed, with equal application of justice for all where it applies.

Check out this thread from last year.

@M16A4

https://web.archive.org/web/20161024081355/http://www.cbtseminary.org/free-church-and-state-lectures/

Probably best to save those while you can.

VERY worth the time and effort.

EDIT:

Direct links to the MP3s of the lectures:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/class.media/HT13/audio/HT13Lecture4.mp3
https://s3.amazonaws.com/class.media/HT13/audio/HT13Lecture5.mp3
https://s3.amazonaws.com/class.media/HT13/audio/HT13Lecture6.mp3
https://s3.amazonaws.com/class.media/HT13/audio/HT13Lecture7.mp3
https://s3.amazonaws.com/class.media/HT13/audio/HT13Lecture8.mp3
https://s3.amazonaws.com/class.media/HT13/audio/HT13Lecture9.mp3

What does “color of law” mean?  How are you defining it OP?

I understand “laws” are of two types;  One because they are universally morally wrong-murder, kidnapping, rape, theft, for example.
The second type of law is because someone says they are wrong-illegally parking on a red painted curb....or leaving your home under “stay at home orders”.

My general response to Romans 13:1 (and 2Peter) is spelled out in that thread that ABNK referenced from last year above.

Galatians 5:22-23 is how I try to live my life and the standard I apply. 5:18 is probably the answer you seek.

Well if a "law" is passed, but repugnant to the constitution which is the law of the land, it is null and void. That goes back to a ruling back in the early 1800s if I recall correctly. Well if it's null, then it's not a real law, regardless of if state representatives enforce it or not. So it's a "law" under the color of law.

That's how I understand it, and that's why I had come to the conclusion I had. Not following said laws is not the same as taking up arms against the government though.

That is not correct. There are several examples in the Old Testament of evil rulers being killed and God not condemning the person or the act.
For a more recent example, just look at our revolution from the British.
God does permit and God does condone using force as needed to stop evil, even when the evil is your own government.

The examples in the O.T. tended to then have judgement come on them afterwards. Also how do you support the recent claim with scripture? The revolution against the British isn't in the Bible and aside from the feet of a statue (iron and clay) it's not clear if America is even mentioned in scripture.

But...

A law is only repugnant to the Constitution once the Judiciary rules that it is. Our system admits but a single arbiter of the Constitution, and that is the judiciary.

I'm not convinced that the justification by the colonists for the American Revolution was condoned by God.  Yes, I'm glad we won and are the USA, but what was the biblical justification for war?  Taxation without representation?  Being to far for the King to manage?

I don't see a biblical justification for the revolutionary war myself. It's really irrelevant at this point, what was done was done.

First: we have no revelation from God regarding how we split from the british ... I mean beyond romans 13.  If we had a legitimate government here that did it, than it was biblically ok. If not, than it wasn't.

Romans 13 is blunt and clear: no private resistance by means of the sword. We americans hate that and so we just flat out ignore it and look for every excuse we can to get around it.

Regarding the OT: Can you cite, so this can be a meaningful discussion, and not ping-pong?

Where does the OT text itself have the meaning that it's always good (or always good under certain conditions) for people to kill evil rulers?

No.

The constitution does not give anyone sole jurisdiction to determine what is and is not constitutional.  That our courts have tried to take that for themselves only means ... they want it. Not that it is theirs alone. If you're going to say that it's constitutional that X institution has the right to determine what is and is not constitutional ... you have to actually be able to find that in the document. That also means you don't have a constitution by text, you have constitution by that institution - we've seen where that has gotten us, where our constitutions is whatever a judge says, not what the text means.

A law is unconstitutional if its not passed according the meaning of the constitutional text (by the definition of the words and grammar at the time it was written), or if the text of the constitution means that it is not. And that just covers the federal level. Everything the general/federa constitution doesn't cover is covered by the state constitutions, and frankly the state constitutions shouldn't cover everything (if they did, we'd have a name for that - totalitarianism).

Article III, Section 2:


So, yes, the power to adjudicate questions of Constitutional compliance does, in fact, fall to the Supreme Court.

Hey, interaction. Cool.

Please note what I said. The judiciary is not given the legal power to determine what the constitution means.

They are given the job of judicially ruling what is and is not in accord with the constitution.

Two different things.  

World of difference between "the constitution means XYZ" and "this is what the constitution is."

If the judiciary had the right to define what the constitution is, than penumbras eminating from the right to privacy really IS a part of the constitution, and the 2nd amendment really is limited in whatever way they so decide.

This is why we are told to study ourselves.....and not trust what we are “taught”.
Romans 13 does not support civil governance-Paul is NOT writing to or about the Roman civil government. He is writing to and about Christians about Church doctrine and the word that is translated as “government” simply means “those who are above”. That is a clear reference to the Apostles and Romans 13 is about ecclesiastical leadership.    In the whole context of NT scripture (including 1 Cor 6:1-where Paul calls civil governments “unrighteous”) Paul writes only about how the Church is to operate-including Romans 12:21.

Not following that one.  It sounds like you're suggesting that we're taught to not trust what we're taught, which is a self-defeating statement.  What I am missing?

In our country, we are supposed to be under the rule of law, not the rule of man. The ultimate "rule of law" is the Constitution. When I see a man violating those rules, I do not feel constrained by them.

Paul said to work out your own (personal) salvation with fear and trembling. He also said that if anyone else teaches/preaches a different gospel let them be accursed. I  am saying DO NOT believe what you have been taught just because.....study/examine everything carefully-cling to that which is good.  
When “the church” looks and acts exactly like the rest of the world——something has gone terribly wrong. My belief is we’ve been led astray.

Got it.  Thanks.

You're assuming for no good reason that I haven't studied it myself, and if I were to accept what you say here is true, I would have to not trust you, and my study says you're wrong.

This is ping-pong. Maybe can we discuss the meanings of the text in the passage?




Ok, well, you've stated your position. But where does the text teach it? Can you take the passage as one coherent whole on the topic, follow the line of thought, and show how the passage contains this?

Of course I can.  Maybe it’s own thread?  
The short version after struggling with this passage for 40 years is; flip your question around and ask yourself what makes you think that within the entire writing of the NT (ALL of which was written in and during the time of Military occupation by Rome where “Caesar was Lord”) that Paul (who wrote 13-14 of the books of the NT) would suddenly Reverse his position both as a Jew-A Pharisee no less-and then as an Christian Apostle (someone who had a face to face encounter with the true Lord Jesus Christ Himself) and say that it’s now okay to obey everything a “unrighteous/godless” civil government tells you to do?  

My belief is he wouldn’t (that would be the ultimate hypocrisy) so....I believe that what Paul is talking about in this passage- and Peter is talking about as well-is Church leadership. Those who are preaching, teaching, and serving in the new baby church where God raises up leaders and we are to submit to them. In 1Cor 6 Paul says how DARE you go before unrighteous/evil/ungodly civil governance with your disputes. He SHAMES them for doing so.
This is a completely consistent position for a converted former Pharisee and now leader in the church to take.

The original Greek is available for you to read and for me this  has helped me to understand alternate meanings that completely change the direction of the discussion and my understanding into something that fits better and more consistently with what Paul-and Jesus says elsewhere.
Good discussion.
ETA: You are right not to trust what I say.....study for yourself.

Ah, there it is.

Romans 13 doesn't say you have to do what God says don't do because someone brings coercion to bear on you - nor did I say it does.

If you're a cause of fear for good behavior and not one for evil, you're not acting as a ruler and don't have the authority of the ruler paul's talking about here.  That's how you can tell the difference between, say the mafia in an area and the government (when there IS a functional government). This is why politics is so important and christians should be engaging in that area wisely in whatever way they are best equipped to.

Governments devolve into criminal organizations (end goal of the organization is not to bring coercion in order to establish a just and morally upright society). I do not think ours has gotten there yet.


Eh, there is no reason from the text of that itself to say that paul is talking about church leadership, and if you go that route, than you have the church being given the power of the sword. Unh-uh, not gonna go there, not only unbiblical, also hideous in practice. Sacralism deserved to die, and I'm glad william rogers was used of God to murder that wretched idea. EDIT: not presuming you want sacralism and it's attendant horrors, btw.

How about assassination of the king?
Judges 3:14 The Israelites were subject to Eglon king of Moab for eighteen years. 15 Again the Israelites cried out to the LORD, and he gave them a deliverer—Ehud, a left-handed man, the son of Gera the Benjamite. The Israelites sent him with tribute to Eglon king of Moab. 16 Now Ehud had made a double-edged sword about a cubit long, which he strapped to his right thigh under his clothing. 17 He presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab, who was a very fat man. 18 After Ehud had presented the tribute, he sent on their way those who had carried it. 19 But on reaching the stone images near Gilgal he himself went back to Eglon and said, “Your Majesty, I have a secret message for you.” The king said to his attendants, “Leave us!” And they all left. 20 Ehud then approached him while he was sitting alone in the upper room of his palace and said, “I have a message from God for you.” As the king rose from his seat, 21 Ehud reached with his left hand, drew the sword from his right thigh and plunged it into the king’s belly. 22 Even the handle sank in after the blade, and his bowels discharged. Ehud did not pull the sword out, and the fat closed in over it. 23 Then Ehud went out to the porch ; he shut the doors of the upper room behind him and locked them. 24 After he had gone, the servants came and found the doors of the upper room locked. They said, “He must be relieving himself in the inner room of the palace.” 25 They waited to the point of embarrassment, but when he did not open the doors of the room, they took a key and unlocked them. There they saw their lord fallen to the floor, dead.

See Judges 3

As far as the USA being mentioned in the Bible, it is not. That is why it was in a separate paragraph in my post. It was not my intention to try to include it in the statement that there is Biblical evidence of God condoning the killing/ assassination of evil rulers. Another false teaching today is that God hates war. There are dozens of wars condoned by God and even directed by God against evil rulers and evil nations. Moses was commanded to wipe out entire nations; including women, children and cattle.
Saul was also commanded to completely wipe out entire nations; men, women, children, cattle....This does not sit well with the current false teaching of love everyone, fight no one, sit around the camp fire singing Kum ba yah.

If our revolution was not condoned by God, as apparently 3 posters imply, then our revolution would have failed and our country would have been a failure as is the case in many other countries. No one can honestly say that God has not blessed America. Our founding fathers gave all credit to Him and prayed many times before making the decision to revolt. While the media loves to play sound bites that it was about taxes and tea, the reality was those were only minor issues and they were just the final straw that broke the camel's back. Ben Franklin sailed to England to try to diplomatically solve the issues of basic human rights and freedoms, but the King would not listen.

The first settlers came here for freedom of religion. They were persecuted in England for not adhering to the teachings/ beliefs of the Church of England. That has been erased from our history books. It was taught in our schools from the beginning of public schooling until the 1970's. Since then, the left has quietly removed all positive stories involving Christianity from our schools.

Completely false. There are no examples of Godly people being judged harshly by God after killing an evil ruler.  See Judges 3 for an great example of an assassination of an evil King.  
See my previous post.

You are misreading the context of my original post.

A legitimate government has nothing to do with the matter. Prior to Saul being appointed King, the Israelites had no "legitimate" government. They were led by God, but they wanted a King and government just like everyone else. Read that part of your Bible for context. It will shed some light on the topic for you.

You are skipping the verse that the rulers are a threat to the evil persons, not the good person. The context is that a good ruler is ordained by God.
Your interpretation means that Chairman Moa and Hilter and Stalin should have been given free reign to terrorize the world.


Judges 3 is a clear one.

Ezekiel 33 is relative to this discussion. God says that He would prefer the evil turn from their wicked ways after being warned. But the context is that if the evil do not turn from their wicked ways then God will bring the sword against them in their land.

Who then is it that carries out the actual killing of the evil rulers and evil citizens? Except in one example of an Angel, it is always by people.
Our forefathers understood this concept very well. It is clear in their writings.

We the People are responsible for maintaining a holy and just country; by force if necessary. The tree of Liberty is watered with the blood of tyrants.

I'm aware of the puritans, not in depth but in general there breaking off from the church of England and I  seem to recall they had an awful lot to do with having King James commissioning the "King James" translation. I can't remember where but they left to another country before America but they were a bit too free and didn't like the influence on their children so they left there for America.

I didn't say godly people. I said there's examples of God using one group to snuff out another and then that group coming under judgement themselves.

Only after they themselves did not repent. There is almost always an opportunity given to each of those groups to repent before they themselves were judged; almost always, not every one of them.

We should not focus on what happened to the bad guys after they did something good or bad. Rather we should always look for the right thing to do.
If the law is wrong in God's eyes, then we, as followers of God, have duty to change that law; either peacefully or by other means as necessary.