Biblical grounds for
resistance against evil political leadersby Jack Kettler
Many times
in history the Church, Christians have faced
persecution. Books have been written on the
bravery of Christians facing all manner of
persecution and martyrdom. Is it possible to
biblically to resist those with evil
intentions against you? Alternatively, is
passive submission the only option? In this
study, it will be explored to see what other
kinds of actions are possible. This study will
take into account the eschatological
development in redemptive history.
Introductory
Scriptures:
“Deliver
me, O Lord, from the evil man: preserve me
from the violent man;” (Psalm 140:1)
“Discretion
shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep
thee: To deliver thee from the way of the evil
man, from the man that speaketh froward
things;” (Proverbs 2:11-12)
The main thrust of
this study will be how do we know when
resistance against the ungodly is justified?
Historically, there
are steps as a rule that are required before
resistance:
1.Fleeing, Joseph and
Mary fleeing to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–23).
2.Suffering persecution,
as in (Matthew 5:11) and Christian martyrdom,
Stephen’s speech (Acts 7).
3.Submission to civil
authorities, as seen in Paul (Romans 13:1-7)
and (1Peter 2:13-17).
Notable examples of
the biblical precedent to resist unjust
laws:
Exodus 1:15-18 Midwives
disobeyed
Daniel 6: 7-9 Daniel
disobeys
Chapters Acts 5:29 the
apostles disobeyed the Jewish rulers
Revelation 13:13
believers told to resist the mark of the
beast
As seen in the numbered and bullet list,
there are tensions in Scripture.
Eschatological development in redemptive
history may provide a solution to these
tensions.
Enter an
eschatological dynamic:
The terms
eschatological dynamic, advancement or
development are used to explain the gradual
submission of the nations to Christ’s rule in
history. See Isaiah 9:7; Psalm 110:1-2;
1Corinthians 15:24-26; Colossians 2:15; and
Daniel 2:44.
As to be
seen, in this study and the unfolding of
history there has been the emergence of
Christendom or the nations that embraced
biblical law into their legal systems, which
recognized Christ as the King and Saviour.
This embracing of biblical law by many nations
adds an eschatological dynamic to the concept
of resistance that is sanctioned by Holy
Scripture.
In light of this
eschatological dynamic, for example in
America, the political rulers are
restrained:
“Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.” -
(First Amendment)
Amendment XIV Section
1:
“All
persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.”
These
amendments and others like it placed a
limiting factor on governments in light of the
idea that rights come from God and not from a
King or politician.
In England for
example:
The Magna
Carta, which means “The Great Charter,”
is one of the most important documents in
history as it established the principle that everyone
is subject to the law, even the king,
and guarantees the rights of individuals, the
right to justice and the right to a fair
trial. Surely, this is what the Bible teaches.
What is the
source of these restrictions placed upon
governments? Was it a man’s law or God’s law
that restricted rulers? The law of a man is
fleeting, whereas God’s law stands eternal.
Greg Bahnsen explains
why restrictions are placed upon Kings and
governments:
“The civil
magistrate cannot function without some
ethical guidance, without some standard of
good and evil. If that standard is not to be,
the revealed law of God, if not, then what
will it be? In some form or expression, it
will have to be the law of man (or men) - the
standard of self-law or autonomy. And when
autonomous laws come to govern a commonwealth,
the sword is certainly wielded in vain, for it
represents simply the brute force of some
men’s will against the will of other men.” -
Greg L. Bahnsen
Principally, we must
remember, God is sovereign. God is in
control. We see this in the next passage:
“And he
changeth the times and the seasons: he
removeth kings, and setteth up kings...”
(Daniel 2:21)
God sets up
kings and removes them by His sovereign power.
God will even raise up an evil king to bring
judgment upon, and ultimately bringing
repentance to His people. We should pray; “O
Lord, help us to acknowledge our evil as a
nation. Help us to bring forth fruits worthy
of repentance.”
What has God required
His people to do?
“If my
people, which are called by my name, shall
humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face,
and turn from their wicked ways; then will I
hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin,
and will heal their land.” (2Chronicles 7:14)
National
repentance and true reformation are required
for God to hear our collective prayers. God's
people must humble themselves, pray earnestly
for the removal of God's judgment, and seek
him for deliverance.
Scriptural prayers
for deliverance and the judgment against
evildoers are sanctioned:
“Hear this,
you leaders of Jacob, you rulers of Israel,
who despise justice and distort all that is
right; who build Zion with bloodshed, and
Jerusalem with wickedness. Her leaders, judge
for a bribe, her priests teach for a price,
and her prophets tell fortunes for money.
Therefore because of you, Zion will be plowed
like a field; Jerusalem will become a heap of
rubble, the temple hill a mound overgrown with
thickets.” (Micah 3:9-12)
“Pronounce
them guilty, O God! Let them fall by their own
counsels; cast them out in the multitude of
their transgressions, for they have rebelled
against you.” (Psalms 5:10)
“Deliver
me, O Lord, from the evil man...” (Psalm
140:1)
“When he is
judged, let him be found guilty, and let his
prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and
let another take his office.” (Psalms 109:7-8)
“Let all my
enemies be ashamed and greatly troubled; let
them turn back and be ashamed suddenly.”
(Psalms 6:10)
“His
trouble shall return upon his own head, and
his violent dealing shall come down on his own
crown.” (Psalms 7:16)
“Break the
arm of the wicked and evildoer; call his
wickedness to account till you find none.”
(Psalms 10:15)
“O God,
break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the
fangs of the young lions, O Lord! Let them
vanish like water that runs away, when he aims
his arrows, let them be blunted. Let them be
like the snail that dissolves into slime, like
the stillborn child who never sees the sun.”
(Psalms 58:6-8)
“Let
sinners be consumed from the earth, and let
the wicked be no more! Bless the Lord, O my
soul! Praise the Lord!” (Psalms 104:35)
“And lead
us not into temptation, but deliver us from
the evil.” (Matthew 6:13)
From the above
Scriptures, we can conclude as Christians;
we have to right to pray privately and
publically for the removal of ungodly
leaders.
The doctrine of
resistance at one level is justified in
Scripture when a ruler demands the outright
denial of God’s people to worship or follow
God’s commandments:
“But Peter
and John replied, Judge for yourselves whether
it is right in God's sight to listen to you
rather than God.” (Acts 4:19)
Later in
Church history with significant doctrinal
development and the advancement of Christ’s
Kingdom among the nations whose law systems
have been formulated upon biblical principles.
In light of this, the option of resistance
become a viable option. Christian influence
has been so strong; many nations have national
churches such and the Church of England.
Today, the Russian Orthodox Church is the
official Church of Russia.
King
Alfred, 871 to 886 for example enacted a law
code that had a translation of the Ten
Commandments into English. God's law was to be
the basis of the law for Alfred's Christian
nation if it wished to have God’s blessings.
After the Ten Commandments, Alfred
incorporated the fuller Law of Moses Exodus
21:1-23:19, and the Golden Rule of Matthew
7:12.
Other
nations to one degree or another also
incorporated biblical law into the law codes
of their nations. Laws against murder,
stealing, adultery, bearing false witness,
etc., all are rooted in the Ten Commandments;
they did not just spring out of nowhere.
Within a
nation that had biblical law at the core, this
created an entirely different situation than
people had under the emperors of the old Roman
Empire. The legal systems of Christendom and
ancient Rome were entirely different. In a
Christian nation, the Church and individual
Christians can call a politician to repentance
for committing the act of adultery. In ancient
Rome and its legal system, calling Nero to
repentance for fornication would have been
unintelligible.
The thesis
in this article is that a nation that has
biblical law incorporated into its legal
system opens up the option of various forms of
resistance and appeal. If a King or ruler
curses God, the Church of God can call the
ruler to repent. In the infancy of the church,
believers submitted to the ungodly to win them
to Christ, the true King. Today, in the gospel
era, unbelieving rulers are called to submit
to Christ and His Word. The call for rulers to
submit to Christ is a resurrection truth.
There has been an eschatological advancement
in history.
Thomas Aquinas notes
this advance God’s law over man’s law in
history:
“An unjust
law is no law at all” - Thomas Aquinas (Rome’s
leading theologian of the 2nd
Millennium) in short, Aquinas said unbiblical
law was not law.
Political leaders are
not immune to the following command:
“Thou shalt
not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;
for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that
taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7)
It would be
informative to consider public oaths in the
Christian era:
Oaths made
before God using His name involve His divine
honor. To swear falsely is to misuse God's
name and in essence, call God a liar.
An oath of
office is an affirmation or covenant that a
person takes before assuming the duties of the
office. Ordinarily, this is a position in
government for legislators and civil servants
or a church office holder. An oath that is
made by calling God as a witness is a
religious oath. The only effective way to
certify that a candidate's affirmation is
truthful was to put his words before God by
way of an oath with his hand upon God's Word,
the Bible.
By calling
God as a witness, an oath is a solemn promise
made in God's presence. Significantly when
making an oath, the political candidate elect
places his left hand on the Bible and raises
his right hand toward heaven, and promises to
uphold and carry out the duties required in
the Constitution of the United States. It
should be clear; God is the witness in this
covenant! If a man does not believe in God or
has no intention of keeping the oath, then he
is committing sacrilege.
There are
oaths, which call for God's intervention, such
as; “I swear to tell the truth, so help me
God.” It should be noted, to swear to tell the
truth with God as a witness is a religious
oath even if made in a civil setting. To
perjure oneself, or go against God, would
place the violator of the oath before God,
awaiting His judgment.
In America, all
members of Congress are required to take the
following oath before assuming elected or
appointed office. Five U.S.C. 3331:
“An
individual, except the President, elected or
appointed to an office of honor or profit in
the civil service or uniformed services shall
take the following oath: ‘I, AB, do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I
am about to enter. So
help me God.’” (Emphasis mine)
Again, it
should be noted that this oath references in
context (hand on the Bible) the God who is
revealed in the Bible as a witness to the
oath.
What are the
implications of this?
“From the
day of the Declaration . . . they (the
American people) were bound by the laws
of God, which they all, and by the laws of
The Gospel, which they nearly all,
acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.” -
John Quincy Adams (July 4, 1821)
“If the
judge does not represent God’s Law order, he
is ultimately a political hack and hatchet man
whose job it is to keep the people in line,
protect the establishment, and, in the
process, to feather his own nest. Ungodly
judges are to be feared and hated: they
represent a particularly fearful and ugly form
of evil, and their abuse of office is a deadly
cancer to any society.”- R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes
of Biblical Law, vol. 1, p. 613.
“The more a
power departs from God’s Law, the more
impotent it becomes in coping with real
offenses, and the more severe it becomes with
trifling offenses or with meaningless
infractions of empty statutes which seek to
govern without moral authority and with
reason.”- R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes
of Biblical Law, vol. 1, p. 620.
“While man
has never seen, heard, touched, smelled, nor
tasted God's invisible laws, he has observed
their effects through the blessings resulting
from man's obedience and the curses from
disobedience. At the heart of the common law
was a Biblical definition of law. One of its
great expositors, Sir William Blackstone,
noted that God, as the Creator of the heavens
and the earth, created the rules of action
that all creation was bound to obey.” -
Herbert W. Titus, from Biblical
Principles of Law
Against
this background of public oaths, the
resistance of Church leaders when dealing with
political tyranny can be justified.
At an
earlier time in history, this thinking was in
kernel form and developing.
“Although I
never lack the presence and plain image of my
own wretched infirmity, yet seeing sin so
manifestly abounds in all estates, I am
compelled to thunder out the threatenings of
God against the obstinate rebels.” - John Knox
In Lex Rex,
(the law is king) Samuel Rutherford another
Presbyterian argued that the law is above the
king because it is founded on the Law of God.
If the king disobeyed God’s law then the king
was to be disobeyed. Rutherford argued that
the civil authorities are fiduciary figures,
meaning that they hold authority in trust for
the people. If they violate that trust, the
people have a legitimate recourse to
resistance.
Rutherford
recommended increasing the levels of
resistance as a remedy for individuals:
1.by self-defense by
protest or legal action;
2.by a flight where
possible; then only
3.By use of force in
self-defense.
Because
God's law is above civil rulers, we have the
right to say, “The emperor has no clothes.”
John Knox
said, “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to
God.”
Consider The First
Blast of the Trumpet against the
Monstrous Regiment of Women by John Knox. The
First Blast published in 1558 was prompted by
the murderous activities of Mary Tudor, a
Roman Catholic who succeeded to the throne of
England.
Mary Queen
of Scots told him that God expected subjects
to obey their ruler. Knox replied that
subjects did not have to obey a ruler who was
‘ungodly.’
Knox was building on
biblical law:
Knox was
undoubtedly right that we do not have to obey
an ungodly ruler. Today, would he have
thundered out the threatenings of God today
against our obstinate covenant lawbreakers?
The answer would be yes! Is there a place for
a Jeremiah like figure in modern history? Are
Christians called to be Jeremiahs when it
comes to public wickedness?
Does
submission to the governing authorities mean
that believers and the church must keep silent
in the face of public evil by these same
governing authorities? Was John Knox in
violation of what Paul is teaching in Romans
13:1-7 and 1Peter 2:13-17?
If so, this
contradicts the centuries of redemptive
history wherein the nations are brought
progressively under the submission of the
Lord Jesus Christ as seen in Psalm 2 and
following:
“Of the
increase of his government and peace there
shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and
upon his kingdom, to order it, and to
establish it with judgment and with justice
from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the
LORD of hosts will perform this.” (Isaiah 9:7)
“The LORD
said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand
until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The
LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of
Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine
enemies.” (Psalm 110:1-2)
“And he
shall reign over the house of Jacob forever,
and of his kingdom, there shall be no end.”
(Luke 1:33)
“Then comes
the end, when he shall have delivered up the
kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall
have put down all rule and all authority and
power. For he must reign until he has put all
enemies under his feet. The last enemy that
shall be destroyed is death.” (1Corinthians
15:24-26)
“And having
spoiled principalities and powers, he made a
show of them openly, triumphing over them in
it.” (Colossians 2:15)
“And in the
days of these kings shall the God of heaven
set up a kingdom, which shall never be
destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left
to other people, but it shall break in pieces
and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall
stand forever.” (Daniel 2:44)
There is an
eschatological advancement in history:
Now, the
rulers of nations must submit to the Lord
Jesus Christ and His law. Citizens must hold
their rulers faithful to God’s law. The
lawbreaking politician has no basis for his
resistance to God’s law. The Christian citizen
has every right to challenge and resist
ungodly laws. Romans 13:1-7 and 1Peter 2:13-17
still command God’s people. Christians are to
be model citizens and pray for civil rulers.
However, with the law of God law built into
the legal system of modern nations numerous
options have opened up the rights of
resistance and appeal, which are enshrined
into modern law codes. Christians are not in
violation of Peter or Paul’s instructions when
forming legal associations to resist and fight
public wickedness.
Can an ungodly ruler
forfeit their power by an unrepentant
violation of God’s Law?
What saith, the
prince of exegetes?
“For
earthly princes lay aside their power when
they rise up against God and are unworthy to
be reckoned among the number of mankind. We
ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than
to obey them.” - John Calvin (Commentary
on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22)
“If they
(government authorities) command anything
against Him (God), let it go un-esteemed. And
here let us not be concerned about all the
dignity which the magistrates possess.” - John
Calvin, The
Institutes of the Christian Religion
What is
interposition?
Interposition
denotes to the right of the states to
safeguard their liberties from fed gov
violation that are believed to be treacherous
or unconstitutional. This concept of
interposition is rooted in biblical law. It is
similar to nullification. The states created
the fed gov, not the other way around, so they
have the upper hand legally.
For example, the
doctrine of interposition is taught
throughout the book of Judges:
“For if
there are now any magistrates of the people,
appointed to restrain the willfulness of
kings…I am so far from forbidding them to
withstand, in accordance with their duty, the
fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they
wink at kings who violently fall upon and
assault the lowly common folk, I declare that
their dissimulation involves nefarious
perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the
freedom of the people, of which they have been
appointed protectors by God’s ordinance.” John
Calvin, Institutes
of the Christian Religion, Chapter XX,
par. 31, pp. 1518-1519.
Calvin here
denounces the failure of leaders to implement
interposition at the local level in the
strongest terms. He is calling for the
“magistrates of the people” to refuse
obedience to the lawless king and not to
“wink” at him as in the twentieth century
where many of the German people blindly
followed the orders of Hitler.
How this idea of
interposition became a factor in the War
for Independence:
“There is
ever, and in all places, a mutual and
reciprocal obligation between the people and
the prince...If the prince fails in his
promise, the people are exempt from obedience,
the contract is made void, the rights of an
obligation of no force.” -Vindiciae
Contra Tyrannos written in 1579, author
unknown
When
politicians break God’s laws, they break their
contract with the people, and the contract
becomes canceled.
For example, in
modern law, a contract can become voidable
under the following circumstances:
The terms of the contract
were breached
The contract is
fraudulent (omitting or falsifying facts or
information, or the intention to not carry
out the promise in the contract)
Misrepresentation occurs
(a false statement of fact)
A politician who promises to obey God and does
not invalidates his contract with the people
as an elected representative because of (a
false statement of fact). Modern legal
contracts are rooted in biblical law.
The
passages in Romans 13:1-7 and 1Peter 2:13-17
must not be ignored, but there are
considerations in the face of public
wickedness considering that biblical law that
is the cornerstone of the legal systems of
many modern nations. This fact provides for
the right of appeal and resistance. Remember
the oath of Congressmen and government
employees as see above. These oaths are
contracts or covenants. Failure to keep the
contract invalidates it, and the people are
free from giving recognition and submission to
the political leader.
Conventional thinking
in the early American colonies:
“[W]e
conceive that as the magistrate hath his power
from God, so undoubtedly he is to improve it
for the honor of God.” - Nathaniel Morton,
Secretary of Plymouth Colony
Consider the thoughts
of one New England pastor from a time when
public office holders, seriously
acknowledged the God of the Bible:
“It is
blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors,
God's ministers. They are more properly the
messengers of Satan to buffet us. No rulers
are properly God's ministers, but such as are
just, ruling in the fear of God. When once
magistrates act contrary to their office, and
the end of their institution; when they rob
and ruin the public, instead of being
guardians of its peace and welfare; they
immediately cease to be the ordinance and
ministers of God, and no more deserve that
glorious character than common pirates and
highwaymen. So that whenever that argument for
submission, fails, which is grounded upon the
usefulness of magistracy to civil society, (as
it always does when magistrates do hurt to
society instead of good) the other argument,
which is taken from their being the ordinance
of God, must necessarily fail also; to person
of a civil character being God's minister, in
the sense of the apostle, any farther than he
performs God's will, by exercising a just and
reasonable authority; and ruling for the good
of the subject.…. When magistrates rob and
ruin the people, instead of being guardians of
its peace and welfare, they immediately cease
to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and
no more deserve that glorious character than
common pirates and highwaymen.” - Jonathan
Mayhew (1720 – 1766), Congregational minister
at West Church in Boston
Civil disobedience is
required when the government’s laws or
commands are in direct violation of God’s
laws and commands.
For
example, a Christian will still attend worship
services even in the face of direct commands
of lawless politicians not to do so. A
tyrannical decree for Christians not to meet
for worship may mean meeting in secret, in
houses, in the forest. God’s command outweighs
the command of a man.
Submission to
governing authorities cannot possibly mean
the Church and individual Christians must
remain silent in the face of public
wickedness.
For
instance, contemporary evangelical leader,
James Dobson, calls the president to repent
for his support of baby killing at the
national prayer event.
Some of Dobson’s
comments:
“I believe
in the rule of law,” he said, but “I will not
pay the surcharge for abortion services. … To
pay one cent for the killing of babies is
egregious to me, and I will do all I can to
correct a government that lies to me about its
intentions and then tries to coerce my
acquiescence with extortion.” So, he
concluded, “come and get me if you must, Mr.
President. I will not bow before your wicked
regulation.”
Dobson was
in the right with the Bible in his hand
figuratively speaking, called out public
wickedness. Dobson was acting in the same
biblical manner as John Knox and John Calvin.
As mentioned, what
about the passage in 1Peter where we are
instructed to submit to every authority. Are
there qualifications or limits in this
passage?
Some have argued yes.
For example:
The
American colonists read 1Peter 2:13, “Submit
yourselves for the Lord's sake to every
authority,” and saw the phrase “for the
Lord’s sake” as a condition for
obedience.
The reasoning ran
thus:
“If the
authority was unrighteous and passed
unrighteous laws, then following them could
not be a righteous thing. In other words, one
cannot obey a wicked law “for the Lord’s
sake.” The Duty
of Christian Subjects, TO EXECUTE JUDGEMENT,
Upon Criminal Magistrates; As Maintained
by the Presbyterian Reformer, John Knox, in a
debate with Secretary Lethington.
Consider another
recourse for citizens whose rulers who break
God's laws or go beyond their jurisdiction:
“A civil
ruler only operates legitimately in those
things over which he has jurisdictional
authority. He cannot claim that because he is
a king that whatever he does is the result of
his office. An elected official that lies,
cheats, steals, and murders are not doing
God’s will in his civil capacity. He can and
should be called to account.” Is It
Unbiblical to Protest Against Unrighteous
Governments? By Gary DeMar
To
understand this, who would think that the
governor of New York could levy a tax upon
citizens of another state? The point is that
there are obvious limits to the jurisdiction
of politicians. Likewise, in the American War
for Independence, the English parliament had
no jurisdiction to tax the colonies. Today it
is common knowledge that the English
parliament cannot tax Canada or Australia,
nations that are historically under the crown.
Thoughts to provoke
deeper thinking:
“So long as
we consider finance, industry, trade,
agriculture merely as competing interests to
be reconciled from time to time as best they
may, so long as we consider ‘education’ as a
good in itself of which everyone has a right
to the utmost, without any idea of the good
life for society or for the individual, we
shall move from one uneasy compromise to
another. To the quick and simple organization
of society for ends which, being only material
and worldly, must be as ephemeral as a worldly
success, there is only one alternative. As
political philosophy derives its sanction from
ethics and ethics from the truth of religion,
it is only by returning to the eternal source
of truth that we can hope for any social
organization, which will not, to its ultimate
destruction, ignore some essential aspect of
reality. The term ‘democracy,’ as I have said,
again and again, does not contain enough
positive content to stand alone against the
forces that you dislike––it can easily be
transformed by them. If you will not have God
(and He is a jealous God) you should pay your
respects to Hitler or Stalin.” - T.S. Eliot
“If no
divine law is recognized above the law of the
State, then the law of man has become absolute
in men's eyes--there is then no logical
barrier to totalitarianism.” - Greg L.
Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of
God's Law Today
“We must
realize that the Reformation world view leads
in the direction of government freedom. But
the humanist world view with inevitable
certainty leads in the direction of statism.
This is so because humanists, having no god,
must put something at the center, and it is
inevitably society, government, or the state.”
- Francis Schaeffer
“No
totalitarian authority nor authoritarian state
can tolerate those who have an absolute by
which to judge that state and its actions. The
Christians had that absolute in God's
revelation.” - Francis Schaeffer
In closing,
resistance to Tyrants against the backdrop
of biblical law:
“Silence in
the face of evil is itself evil: God will not
hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak.
Not to act is to act.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
“It must be
recognized that in any culture the source of
law is the god of that society.” - R. J.Rushdoony
“If no
divine law is recognized above the law of the
State, then the law of man has become absolute
in men's eyes--there is then no logical
barrier to totalitarianism.” - Greg L. Bahnsen
“When the
government engages in the involuntary transfer
of wealth, that's nothing more than legalized
plunder. There is nothing noble or laudatory
about it. It is contemptible, evil and
profoundly wrong.” - Frederic Bastiat
“If there
is no final place for civil disobedience, then
the government has been made autonomous, and
as such, it has been put in the place of the
living God.” - Francis A. Schaeffer, A
Christian Manifesto
“Be not
intimidated… nor suffer yourselves to be
wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense
of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as
they are often used, are but three different
names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.”
- John Adams
“Study to shew
thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth.” (2Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler
has previously published articles in the Chalcedon
Report and Contra
Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the
Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church.He
is the author of the book defending the
Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The
Religion That Started in a Hat.
Available at:
www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For more study,
contrarian books on unlimited submission to
unrighteous rulers:
* Is It
Unbiblical to Protest Against Unrighteous
Governments? By Gary DeMar
https://americanvision.org/4079/is-it-unbiblical-to-protest-against-unrighteous-governments/
Matthew J.
Trewhella, The Doctrine of the Lesser
Magistrates: A Proper Resistance to Tyranny
and a Repudiation of Unlimited Obedience to
Civil Government
Gordan E.
Runyan, Resistance
to
Tyrants: Romans 13 and the Christian Duty to
Oppose Wicked Rulers
Timothy
Baldwin, Romans
13: The True Meaning of Submission, 2nd
Ed.
By the
Pastors of Magdeburg, The
Magdeburg Confession: 13th of April 1550
AD. The Magdeburg Confession is the first
known document in the history of man to
formally set forth the Doctrine of the Lesser
Magistrates. The Lesser Magistrate Doctrine
teaches that when a superior authority makes
unjust laws or decrees, the lesser authority
has a God-given right and duty to resist those
unjust laws or decrees.
Mr.
Kettler has previously published articles in
the Chalcedon Report and Contra
Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend
the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr.
Kettler is the author of the book defending
the Reformed Faith against attacks,
titled: The
Religion That Started in a
Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com