Romans 13 and the role of the State
I have received lots of private correspondence about Romans 13, so here is a brief answer to some of those concerns.
Gavin Beers has said that public worship "is the holy convocation of saints with the peculiar promise of His presence and blessing." He then added that that holy convocation "is issued by a divine call through the Church not the State."
So what ought to be the State's attitude toward the Church? They are in the words of Beers to "promote and encourage the fulfillment of that call." They are as Samuel Slater (Puritan Sermons, vol. 4) explained, to "contribute what in them is to the promoting of the true religion, the power of godliness, and a scriptural reformation, together with a hearty and vigorous suppression of profaneness!"
Note carefully the words of the WCF: "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that the unity and peace be preserved in the Church... and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed (italics mine)." All this means that they are supposed to be the Church's nursing mother (Isaiah 49:23). It is their duty to protect the Church and to ensure that all the ordinances of God are duly settled, administered and observed. In other words, ensure that the worship of God continues pure and uninterrupted (as per the first table of the law).
In his appeal to the parliament Alexander Henderson said, "This King commands not that his will be done, but what God has commanded. Neither King nor Parliament can command otherwise. Civil powers have great authority, not only in things civil, but in matters of religion, and they sin against God, if they use not the authority which God has put in their hands for the good of religion." So, the magistrate cannot lawfully command other than what God has commanded. When they do, their laws can (and must) be rejected as unlawful.
Henderson added that if "King or Parliament... could really in their hearts apprehend this uncreated and infinite greatness, and could look upon God... They would choose rather to offend all the world, than to offend him in the smallest matter of his house." Simply put, if magistrates realized who God is they would rather offend the world than offend Him in the smallest particular related to the Church! Later Henderson said - again to the parliament - "It is a damnable and cursed policy by dispensing with anything which God has commanded to be done for his house to seek after peace and deliverance." In this, he said, you walk contrary to God and therefore God will walk contrary to you.
Similarly Robert Baillie in his address to the parliament told them, "it is preposterous to begin with the state, and end with the church; that order pleases not God, it is not suitable to his honor, and will not be blessed by Him." In other words, there is a priority that ought to be recognized both by the State and the Church. God first, man second. First table of the law and then second table of the law. If, as the WCF says, the providence of God "after a most special manner take care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof" than so ought the State (and the Church) to give particular attention to the interests and welfare of Church. Would anyone argue that that is happening today? Is there any attempt on the part of our government to take care of Christ's Church and to "dispose all things to the good thereof?" Is priority being given by Trudeau or Ford to the first table of the law? Not at all. Actually, that's precisely the problem. They don't recognize the first table, so no wonder if the churches remain closed while golf course are open.
If the State were operating as it should, if it took to heart what these men preached it would recognize that worship is essential, and therefore everything should be done to see that the ordinances of God are duly settled, administered and observed.
Look at Romans 13. "For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God (NKJV)." Simply put, they are under His rule. They answer to Him. Further they are "the ordinance of God." The office is one He instituted. Again God is telling us that they are under His authority. This is explained further when Paul says, "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil." Again, he says "Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same." Why? "For he is God's minister to you for good." Which raises a critical question. What is good? What is evil? How do we know the difference? The Biblical answer is simple. God's law! God is saying here that rulers are not a terror to good works - they are not a terror to those who keep the 10 commandments. Rather they are a terror to those who break them. If that is true they cannot be a terror to those who keep the Sabbath and worship God as He has commanded. In fact, he is saying that if you do what is good, if you keep God's law you have "praise from the same" because these men are God's ministers "to you for good." Again, they are a terror not to to those who observe God's law but to those, rather, who violate it. Does that sound like the Canadian government? Are they are a terror to abortionists? Are they are a terror to idolaters and blasphemers and sabbath breakers? Actually its quite the opposite isn't it? At the moment they are a terror to those who taking up God's law would seek to do good!
Some would answer the question by saying "well no, that doesn't sound like the Canadian government, but neither does it sound like Nero; and Paul was writing during Nero's reign." Pay attention to Samuel Rutherford's answer to the notion that Romans 13 has Nero in view: "but that Paul commandeth subjection to Nero, and that principally and solely, as he was such a man, de facto, I shall then believe, when antichristian prelates turn Paul's bishops, (1 Timothy 2), which is a miracle." He said, "If Paul had intended that they should have given obedience to Nero, as the only essential judge, he would have designed him by the noun in the singular number." In other words, Paul is not writing about Nero anymore than he is writing about our prime minister. Rather, he is describing what ought to be. These words are prescriptive rather than descriptive.
Consider, then, where Romans 13 leaves us. We must conclude, first, that if we obey God's law (first and second tables) we have nothing to fear from a magistrate like that described in this chapter. Second, if the magistrate (the government) is a terror to the good it is they who are the problem not those who disobey them. Third, when Paul urges the reader "to be subject" he cannot mean subject to those who are a terror to the good because he has made it perfectly clear that the opposite is true. Rather we should go on doing good whether lawful or not recognizing that if the government were functioning as it should it would behave as the ordinance of God and become a terror rather to those who practice evil.
So what ought to be the State's attitude toward the Church? They are in the words of Beers to "promote and encourage the fulfillment of that call." They are as Samuel Slater (Puritan Sermons, vol. 4) explained, to "contribute what in them is to the promoting of the true religion, the power of godliness, and a scriptural reformation, together with a hearty and vigorous suppression of profaneness!"
Note carefully the words of the WCF: "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that the unity and peace be preserved in the Church... and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed (italics mine)." All this means that they are supposed to be the Church's nursing mother (Isaiah 49:23). It is their duty to protect the Church and to ensure that all the ordinances of God are duly settled, administered and observed. In other words, ensure that the worship of God continues pure and uninterrupted (as per the first table of the law).
In his appeal to the parliament Alexander Henderson said, "This King commands not that his will be done, but what God has commanded. Neither King nor Parliament can command otherwise. Civil powers have great authority, not only in things civil, but in matters of religion, and they sin against God, if they use not the authority which God has put in their hands for the good of religion." So, the magistrate cannot lawfully command other than what God has commanded. When they do, their laws can (and must) be rejected as unlawful.
Henderson added that if "King or Parliament... could really in their hearts apprehend this uncreated and infinite greatness, and could look upon God... They would choose rather to offend all the world, than to offend him in the smallest matter of his house." Simply put, if magistrates realized who God is they would rather offend the world than offend Him in the smallest particular related to the Church! Later Henderson said - again to the parliament - "It is a damnable and cursed policy by dispensing with anything which God has commanded to be done for his house to seek after peace and deliverance." In this, he said, you walk contrary to God and therefore God will walk contrary to you.
Similarly Robert Baillie in his address to the parliament told them, "it is preposterous to begin with the state, and end with the church; that order pleases not God, it is not suitable to his honor, and will not be blessed by Him." In other words, there is a priority that ought to be recognized both by the State and the Church. God first, man second. First table of the law and then second table of the law. If, as the WCF says, the providence of God "after a most special manner take care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof" than so ought the State (and the Church) to give particular attention to the interests and welfare of Church. Would anyone argue that that is happening today? Is there any attempt on the part of our government to take care of Christ's Church and to "dispose all things to the good thereof?" Is priority being given by Trudeau or Ford to the first table of the law? Not at all. Actually, that's precisely the problem. They don't recognize the first table, so no wonder if the churches remain closed while golf course are open.
If the State were operating as it should, if it took to heart what these men preached it would recognize that worship is essential, and therefore everything should be done to see that the ordinances of God are duly settled, administered and observed.
Look at Romans 13. "For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God (NKJV)." Simply put, they are under His rule. They answer to Him. Further they are "the ordinance of God." The office is one He instituted. Again God is telling us that they are under His authority. This is explained further when Paul says, "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil." Again, he says "Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same." Why? "For he is God's minister to you for good." Which raises a critical question. What is good? What is evil? How do we know the difference? The Biblical answer is simple. God's law! God is saying here that rulers are not a terror to good works - they are not a terror to those who keep the 10 commandments. Rather they are a terror to those who break them. If that is true they cannot be a terror to those who keep the Sabbath and worship God as He has commanded. In fact, he is saying that if you do what is good, if you keep God's law you have "praise from the same" because these men are God's ministers "to you for good." Again, they are a terror not to to those who observe God's law but to those, rather, who violate it. Does that sound like the Canadian government? Are they are a terror to abortionists? Are they are a terror to idolaters and blasphemers and sabbath breakers? Actually its quite the opposite isn't it? At the moment they are a terror to those who taking up God's law would seek to do good!
Some would answer the question by saying "well no, that doesn't sound like the Canadian government, but neither does it sound like Nero; and Paul was writing during Nero's reign." Pay attention to Samuel Rutherford's answer to the notion that Romans 13 has Nero in view: "but that Paul commandeth subjection to Nero, and that principally and solely, as he was such a man, de facto, I shall then believe, when antichristian prelates turn Paul's bishops, (1 Timothy 2), which is a miracle." He said, "If Paul had intended that they should have given obedience to Nero, as the only essential judge, he would have designed him by the noun in the singular number." In other words, Paul is not writing about Nero anymore than he is writing about our prime minister. Rather, he is describing what ought to be. These words are prescriptive rather than descriptive.
Consider, then, where Romans 13 leaves us. We must conclude, first, that if we obey God's law (first and second tables) we have nothing to fear from a magistrate like that described in this chapter. Second, if the magistrate (the government) is a terror to the good it is they who are the problem not those who disobey them. Third, when Paul urges the reader "to be subject" he cannot mean subject to those who are a terror to the good because he has made it perfectly clear that the opposite is true. Rather we should go on doing good whether lawful or not recognizing that if the government were functioning as it should it would behave as the ordinance of God and become a terror rather to those who practice evil.
A final thought: J.H. Thornwell made this observation: "If Caesar is your master, then pay tribute to him; but whether the if holds, whether Caesar is your master or not, whether he ever had any just authority, whether he now retains it, or has forfeited it - these are points which the Church has no commission to adjudicate." I may be muddying the waters at this point, but it seems to me that Caesar (or in our case the government of Canada) has forfeited its authority. Why do I say that? This government murders almost 100, 000 unborn babies every year. They deny the crown rights of King Jesus, they encourage profaneness, they have legalized assisted suicide and they consistently call evil good and good evil. Whatever else we may call them we certainly cannot call them "ministers for good." If Romans 13 is prescriptive then our government doesn't even come close to what God requires.
Now I recognize that some will disagree with my conclusions even the face of obvious evil and even tyranny. But what is clear is that no Church court can adjudicate on such a matter. No Church can decide whether or not the Canadian government has forfeited its authority. It is my conviction that this godless government has lost its right to exercise authority over me and my house. And as Thornwell put it, no church court can tell my family (or your family) otherwise. As he said, "Among a Christian people, there is little difference of opinion as to the radical distinctions of right and wrong. The only serious danger is where moral duty is conditioned upon a political question."
Now I recognize that some will disagree with my conclusions even the face of obvious evil and even tyranny. But what is clear is that no Church court can adjudicate on such a matter. No Church can decide whether or not the Canadian government has forfeited its authority. It is my conviction that this godless government has lost its right to exercise authority over me and my house. And as Thornwell put it, no church court can tell my family (or your family) otherwise. As he said, "Among a Christian people, there is little difference of opinion as to the radical distinctions of right and wrong. The only serious danger is where moral duty is conditioned upon a political question."
Comments
Post a Comment