The Bible & Ron Paul, pt. 2: The Role of Civil Government

[TheGoat1954]

Very well done cut , This will be a great resourse . My Church consists of 3 colors of people , all with opposing political views . I'm a staunch rp supporter, this video may change there minds, hopefully. As for scripture , i like micah 6:8 , He has told you o man what is good, and what does the LORD require of you , but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your GOD . RP 2012

[seekerofconsistency]

The government's role in Romans 13 is what a fist can do. Protect liberty and punish evil doers. The open hand of creativity is to remain unhindered and unregulated by free people. Romans 13:1 in the ONLY Bible commissioned by Congress in the 1782 Robert Aitken's Bible (King James Bible) does not demand blind obedience to ANY government. Good video.

[Twichard]

Further, Romans 13 is _not_ an outline of what a good government should look like. It's an instructions to Christians to submit to whatever government exists, and a statement that their authority IS approved by God. It is simply not instructions to Christians on how to govern in a manner approved by God.

[cutwithouthands]

@Twichard, Yes, all governments are approved by God, in a providential way. That doesn't mean God approves of everything they do, nor should we! Romans 13 *is* an outline of what a good government should like. Paul starts out explaining that govt is to be a terror to evil works, and then admonishes us to live a certain way in order to avoid the sword (v. 8-14). This is what is in view when Paul contrasts good works and evil works. Proper civil govt protects the good, defends the evil.

[Twichard]

@cutwithouthands

Paul never, ever says govt is "to be" a terror to evil works--he says that govt IS a terror to good works. It's completely descriptive and not prescriptive. It makes no sense whatsoever for Paul to be telling the Christians of that day how to run a government--especially not the Christians in Rome. Christians weren't exactly in positions of high authority at that time... He's telling them how to OBEY government, not how to run it.

[cutwithouthands]

@Twichard,I agree that obedience to authorities is in view.What you're missing is the necessary implications of such a command.Is everything any govt does a "terror to evil"Must we morally accept every law passed by any government?With your logic,Paul would have to be saying that the Roman empire was being a terror to evil when they persecuted the Church.That's absurd!When a govt becomes a terror to good works,they are in disobedience&must be protested&called to repentance.

[Twichard]

All the NT scriptures for your "restitution" are not instructions for _men_ to give other men what they deserve--necessary if you want to interpret this as model for Earthly government--but _God_ giving men what they deserve. Very different. In fact, Jesus specifically instructs his followers to _refrain_ from giving men what they deserve: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[cutwithouthands]

@Twichard, If God still reserves the authority to execute restitution, so does man. He never repeals that authority from man. Your understanding of the adulterous woman is flawed. Please see my article at scribd.com/doc/60926160/Why-An­archo-Pacifism-Is-Incompatible­-With-Christianity-A-Response-­to-Josh-Dies-of-Showbread.

[Twichard]

@cutwithouthands I'm not sure how you get God giving man the authority for restitution in the first place. You do the same thing in Genesis too, expanding from descriptive to prescriptive without warrant. The verse "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," is not "It's ok to shed the blood of whosoever sheds blood." It's not an instruction. That meaning is just not in the text, I'm sorry.

[cutwithouthands]

@Twichard,If God doesn't instruct man to execute justice,how do you explain the commands to have murderers killed all throughout Lev, Num, Deut? Did God reveal these laws into empty space for no one to actually facilitate?That wouldn't make much sense.There's no way to deny that God gives men in authority the power to execute justice upon criminals.You'll have to elaborate more for me to grasp your position.

[Twichard]

@cutwithouthands You do the same thing in your link with the adulterous woman--make claims that are just not founded in the text. The whole "there was no victim and no witnesses there" is completely extraneous. The Pharisees claim that the woman was caught in the very act of adultery, so presumably there are witnesses. Pharisees weren't exactly idiots who didn't understand the letter of the law.

[Twichard]

@Twichard To me it just seems like you are really stretching the text to get the meaning you want out of it. I'm with your position all the way -- I support Ron Paul and libertarianism to an extent... But I do not support erroneous argumentation.

My position is that the Bible just flat out doesn't say much about these matters. Jesus was far more interested in telling people how to live than how to run a government. So unless you are arguing we should implement the mosaic law in full...

[cutwithouthands]

@Twichard,Under OT law,victims were the only ones who could prosecute criminals. I explain this in my scribd link.The victims choose to have mercy or prosecute.Just like God does, and just like we do today.The act of adultery is a crime against the husband and only he can bring her to a judge for sentencing. The text says the "Pharisees" brought her to Jesus the Judge, not the husband.They were in clear violation of protocol and Jesus caught them in their own trap.

[Twichard]

@cutwithouthands The pharisees are not bringing the woman to Jesus for him to act as a judge for "sentencing." That cannot have been, Jesus was not a legally recognized priest. Likely it was an existing case--which had been (properly) brought to the pharisees--who bring it to Jesus under the pretense of asking for his legal advice, really seeking to trap him.

Or at least that interpretation isn't contradicted by the text. There's no reason to prefer your interpretation over that one.

[cutwithouthands]

@Twichard,(1of2) This is getting slightly off-topic, but Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man (the Messiah, per Daniel's prophecy),so the hypocritical Pharisees were always looking for ways to trap Jesus in his faithfulness to God's law.If Jesus violated God's law at any point,they could accuse him of blasphemy.They come to him to see how he would respond *as if he truly was the son of man!* And so Jesus responds by fully obeying God's law while pointing out the sins of the Pharisees....

[cutwithouthands]

@Twichard,(2of2) I'm the one going by the strict record of Scripture,you are the one adding a context that is void from the text.It's strange that you choose to take the side of the Pharisees in this story,when pointing out the flaws of the Pharisees is one of the primary themes of the four gospels! If your issue is that Jesus' reaction to the situation seems incompatible to God's law,then you do not understand the details of God's law.PM me if you wish to continue this discussion...

[Ipostle]

@Twichard Would you consider Genesis 9:6 no longer binding? Are all murders to go unpunished in this life?

[CloverfieldMonster95]

@cutwithouthands If you reread Rothbard's passages on that and what modern day Voluntaryists say I'm sure you would understand how justice would still be done. And havind evidence of persons crime and being able to prove it in a court of law could most likely put a huge amount of social pressure on that person. The tactic is called tension. But I'm sure certain forms of what you labeled "coercion" do not break the Non Aggression Principle.

[cutwithouthands]

@ginger3rd, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 distinct persons with one nature. This is the orthodox position throughout church history, and its the only worldview that accounts for experience and reality (e.g. the one and the many). The laws you reference were not enforced by the civil govt. If no punishment is given, its only a moral law.

[ginger3rd]

First of all your definition of the Trinity as an association of 3 persons is not Biblical. God is ONE but the Bible reveals Him in 3 ways.

Second: the Old Testament Law does teach social responsibility for the poor and there were laws that provided for the poor. For example, farmers were to leave the outer edges of there crops for the poor to glean. The Kings job was to defend the people and to uphold justice. His decisions were based on the LAW. Please look into this and let me know.

[85puppydog]

@ginger3rd Sorry Ginger, but that view is not the historical Christian view, and Adam is comparing Paul to Christian views, not heretical views.

[RPTwoThousandTwelve]

I would like to discuss putting some production behind your efforts & helping get this info on a packaged DVD to pass out to churches & christians. How would I get a hold of you? If you cannot put that info here, go to this website Ron Paul Bar dot com & get my email from there to get a hold of me. i would like to do this soon if you are interested. I think what you are doing is a good service to help cause fellow Christians to think critically & seriously about these issues. thanks

[RPTwoThousandTwelve]

It wont let me post links but if you dont already know google Pastor Chuck Baldwin Romans 13. have you done a video about Rons views on decriminalizing prostitution & the biblical reasons: example, should we be putting these women & men in jail for this? Jesus stood in front of a prostitute to protect her from those who would stone (punish) her & said "you who have not sinned, cast the first stone". Christians are mixed up on this as well.

[RPTwoThousandTwelve]

Great video series. Just curios, have you ever made one about Romans 13 in response to those that say we should obey ALL governing authorities, but who also disregard the Constitution as Americas governing authority? A lot of Christians are mixed up about the meaning of this passage, & they use it to say that the Bible doesnt want us to be involved in politics. See links

[CloverfieldMonster95]

@cutwithouthands If the enforcement of justice were privatized and involuntary servitude was not allowed (like it should be) and we only followed natural law relative to each other and personal moral law relative to God, why is the State needed to have a monopoly on enforcing justice? We would be fools not to want protection but when does it become okay to be a slave? or coerce somebody else into being a slave in the name of Democracy?

[cutwithouthands]

@CloverfieldMonster95, First, I don't accept that all force is inherently immoral. The Bible clearly shows otherwise when God gives humanity the authorization to enforce punishments/death against crime. If you can't use coercion EVER, under any circumstances, how do you expect to have any justice at all? Under privatized justice, we have to wait for a murderer to *volunteer* himself for punishment/death! I don't believe in "The State" per se, but localized jurisdictions.

[CloverfieldMonster95]

What do you have to say about Anarchism?

[cutwithouthands]

@CloverfieldMonster95, It would depend on your exact definition of anarchism. As a general rule, though, I believe the anarchist view of multiple "private" justice firms ultimately leads to relative justice. It was Rothbard (I believe) who admitted that even a private firm could not compel a suspected murderer to appear in court. Thus, there could never be a basis for executing justice against crime. There is supposed to be one law for all citizens of a city (Lev. 24:22).

[venomwoner]

THANK YOU

 RON PAUL; 2012

[charles43110]

Thank you. Preach it! Teach it!

[PointSpecial09]

I haven't watched the whole video series yet... but I caution you not to make an argument from silence. The Bible doesn't say anything about healthcare, or airport security, or the like, either positively or negatively, because those things hadn't been invented yet.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with your position... but I'm not sure that a valid argument can be made using this logic.

I look forward to watching the rest, but that's my initial impression.

[cutwithouthands]

@PointSpecial09, Thanks for the healthy warning. However, I do believe my arguments are more legitimate than simple "arguments from silence." While you are correct that the Bible doesn't mention those things specifically, equivalents to those services would have existed in the ancient world. If God wanted his people to provide those services he would have specifically said so. This same hermeneutic is called the Regulative Principle in terms of worship and sacraments.

[PatHenry4RonPaul]

FIVE STARS! 

[1MatildaChestersen]

Very good. I will share this with my local tea party groups.

Thank you

[jesseakers]

dude you are the bomb and thank you much! you are spreading the seeds of liberty AND of the gospel!

[gw197234]

WELL SAID!