At 6:30 , y'all and Mr. Weaver should avoid the expression "positive law". I know what you mean because it's also a term that skews the terms of debate in philosophy, but the usage should be either "posited" or (better) "asserted".
Because , sorry, any term like "positive" or "active" has a positive mass psychology connotation in public discourse .
Positive law is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as: "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society." Pastor Weaver did not intend to convey the idea of "posited or asserted", but rather "positive law" as defined. The term "positive law" is used here in the legal sense not in a metaphysical one.
I am convinced JonWRowe is a satanist masquerading as a Christian. Write to me. And I will copy & paste what he wrote to me. And you can judge for yourself.
You are probably referring to my desire to spend some time at the Bohemian Grove at watch their wonderful occult ritual wild sipping fine scotch and listening to Black Sabbath perform "Heaven & Hell." Heh.
Dr. Frazer has been blogging and interacting with other bloggers and commenters via my blogs. I already submitted a taste. You are free to check out Positive Liberty and American Creation and chime in if you disagree.
I emailed Pastor John Weaver a few times, I plan on visiting his church one day. I thought it was interesting he has over 10,000 books that he has read and is in his personal library. He told me, that its very important for a pastor to have good books.
Absolutely. He and R.J. Rushdoony were good friends and preached at each others' churches before Rush's death in 2001. Rush felt the same way about books - he even read them after getting them out of the package from the mailbox, walking back to the house. Enjoy your visit to Pastor's church too! Have a good day. :D
What about a speech on Christ whipping merchants in the temple,the answer of Christ to the 3rd temptation in the desert (and stop pretending gov authority comes from God while it is only tolerated by Him), or a speech on Peter striking Malkus with a sword? There are numerous questions to be answered with the latter.Why Christ does not condemn his action,why no one is surprized ? etc.
Paul said that the gospel was made known to all nations (Romans 16:25-26) Was it literally true ? Pretty clear that some writing from Paul express his own opinion and are not dictated by the Holy Spirit. PEOPLE that have chosen these writing to be part of the Bible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm not a Christian so I'm not going to argue that with you. Rather I'm according according to orthodox Christian premises, XY or Z follows.
Bt the way, all: Check out today's WorldNetDaily for Dr. Gregg Frazer's article on these matters. Great stuff there that parallels what I've shared here.
Here is John Calvin. Again, my point isn't to show that we can't reasonably differ on Romans 13, but rather to demonstrate the position which I articulate WAS the dominant one in biblical orthodoxy:
"Those, indeed, who rule for the public good, are true examples and specimens of his beneficence, while those who domineer unjustly and tyrannically are raised up by him to punish the people for their iniquity. Still all alike possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power."
Pastor Weaver is righteous and courageous, unlike the silver tongued devils who inhabit so many churches these days, blabbing about the building program or some new silly activity. I often wonder how so many of my fellow Christians are able to condone torture and wars of aggression in the name of God and country, following demons to the slaughter. The pastor speaks the truth; we need to live the life Christ modeled and not just talk the talk.
"Basing a revolutionary teaching on...Romans [13] must rank as one of the greatest ironies in the history of political thought. This passage...served as the touchstone for passive obedience and unconditional submission from Augustine and Gregory to Luther and Calvin....The medieval church fathers as well as the reformers and counter-reformers of the sixteenth century all invoked this doctrine in denouncing disobedience and resistance to civil authorities."
in reply to JonWRowe i would like to say, "that is nice that you interpret the bible that way, but understand when you submit to ungodly authority and evil government you are taking the side of Satan and are just as guilty as those who commit the terrible atrocities. in terms of a criminal case; if you knew about a crime and failed to report it you could be held liable along with the defendant for the crimes committed. something for you to think about.
I have thought about it and reject this as an ahistorical understanding of biblical orthodoxy. Paul and Jesus Himself submitted to the tyrannical pagan Roman government.
yeah, Jesus loved corruption so much he took a whip after the corrupt people ripping other people off in the temple. Jesus submitted in ways because that was his purpose, to pay for our sins. in other ways he did not submit, he called the Pharisees "vipers," he called Nero a "dog," and he majorly disturbed the corrupt dealings in the temple for 3 examples. so if you believe in following authority no matter what, then you believe if they command you to sin, then you must sin.
You've totally misunderstood and misrepresented my position which is exactly the position of Luther & Calvin, the reformers and counter-reformers. But I see you are one of those 9-11 deniers so debating with you any further would be pointless.
9/11 denier huh.. sir, you need to look at building 7. i have researched 9/11 for two plus years and it was an inside job. do the research. google wtc7. it was a controlled demolition as well as were the twin towers. you sir, are in denial and need to wake up from your slumber. google operation northwoods and read it. it is fine if you don't believe me about 9/11, but at least you were given the truth. my job is over. i don't hate you, but you need to do some research and wake up.
C'mon now, just because the only skyscrapers (3) ever to collapse due to fire in the history of the world went down all in the same day doesn't mean anything. Just because building 7 wasn't hit by a plane, nor was it covered in the official 9-11 report that's all just conspiracy.
He was incarcerated because he submitted to government exactly as he dictated in Romans 13. When the Bible and the civil laws conflict, obey "God" not "men," the Good Book says. But recognize the authority/legitimacy of government and so submit to it -- event tyrannical government and so submit even if it means getting thrown into prison, thrown to the lions, or crucified. THAT'S the clearest message of Romans 13. THAT'S what Calvin taught.
In my version it doesn't say government, it says higher powers which could merely be church leaders or perhaps God himself. Calvin was off the mark on some of his teachings.
As far as the government: authority (power) perhaps, legitimacy - not when they go against the highest laws of the nation.
Not for nothing are they called the prison epistles. If Paul had the view of Romans 13 that most preachers and folks like Rowe have today, the apostle would have had one cushy ministry and the west would have never been evangelized.
If Paul had strictly followed the "modern" interpretation of the passage he would not have been in prison at all. He was there because they arrested him and he had no choice (force).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nope. The Bible says submit to government but preach the Word. IF government wants to put you in jail for obeying you, you still submit to its legitimacy. That's exactly what Paul did.
Follow the links and check out my latest blog post on the matter. I provide links to Calvin's original writings on the matter. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, you see the following headers:
Chuck Baldwin is not yet the distinguished biblical authority that Calvin is. And indeed, I've read with my own two eyes Romans 13 and it says nothing about obeying only Godly government but that the powers that be, whoever they are (even pagan tyrants like Nero the leader Paul told believers to submit to), are ordained by God and thus to be submitted to. THAT'S what Romans 13 says.
If Paul was talking about Nero he wouldn't have wound up in a Roman prison. Romans 13 says that the civil magistrate is a terror to those who do evil. That's not what Nero was at all! Nero was a terror to the good! John Weaver's been studying this stuff for 30 plus years, plus he's a Christian with discernment from the Holy Spirit regarding God's Word. I think he knows the bible better than you, sir.
So we're accountable to our leaders but they aren't accountable to us? If you really believe that, then you believe government is God walking on earth.
I'll concede alternate interpretations of Romans 13. I simply want you folks to understand the interpretation for which I have argued has deep roots in traditional biblical orthodoxy and hermeneutics. Indeed, it was Calvin's! Calvin held men shouldn't revolt against tyrants because God may have put the tyrant in charge to punish you!
Today, this interpretation is what none other than John MacArthur preaches. Yours is arguably the more historically novel and theologically liberal.
Hello all. I thought I'd tip you off to John MacArthur on the topic. He is a Protestant fundamentalist of impeccable orthodoxy and one of the most prominent biblical scholars of that genre. Google his name with Barry Lynn's. See them debate on Larry King. MacArthur notes Paul told believers pagan Rome's power was ordained by God. Barry Lynn disagrees with the liberal cafeteria notion. Pastor Weaver's notion is liberal cafeteria Christianity.
Weaver would not deny that Rome's power was ordained by God. God ordains everything. It was ordained, but not as legitimate. Tyranny is never legitimate. Men in power are not to make their own laws, but they are to uphold God's. There's a difference between power and authority. Rome had power, but no authority. I'm not trying to be rude, but why do you care about Rom 13 anyway if you're not a Christian?
Because I am a published scholar on American religious history, specifically as it relates to the Founding and issues of revolt.
I'll grant alternate interpretations just as long as you realize that Weaver's is the historically novel one. Traditional biblical Christianity ala Calvin held you submit to the rulers no matter who they are. You have no more choice over who your rulers are than who you parents are.
I agree that we should obey the Constitution because it is the final law of the land. And Romans 13 is compatible with this. This has nothing to do with not submitting to "un-Godly" leaders. The Constitution permits "the people" to elect "un-Godly" leaders who WILL enact laws that contradict the Bible.
Heh. I was going to respond to a reply but I see it has been deleted. Probably because the poster cited unawares Abraham Lincoln on a neo-Confederate site. Don't think I don't notice these things.
"If govt isn't commanding you to sin you should OBEY govt." We should have left Hitler in power, he didn't tell me to sin. When one studies the origin of the different bible translations, one would discover that most of today's versions are "neo-biblical" to coin a phrase, and have been purposely corrupted. I don't care about some website, it is the constitution.
Actually there were some very devout Christians who believed Hitler should be left in power precisely based on that reading of Romans 13. Like it or not it was the traditional, dominant reading in Christendom before the "age of Revolution."
The Constitution is not the Bible or the Declaration and in fact has little to do with it. Confusing them is just poor theology.
I didn't confuse the two, the constitution is our rule of law - our politicians swear to defend it from ALL enemies foriegn and domestic. If they then break that vow what then? Should they be held accountable based upon law or because they hold the power we should just obey them? Where would justice come in?
Well the Constitution doesn't say "of the people, for the people, and by the people," Abe Lincoln did. And what if the Constitution conflicts with your understanding of the Bible? According to the Rev.'s understanding you can disobey the Constitution.
Complete misunderstanding of Romans 13. Romans 13 demands that you SUBMIT to whatever government is in power. Paul told believers to submit to the unelected tyrant Nero. If govt commands you to sin, you should follow your conscience but be prepared to face the legal penalties of such civil disobedience, whether it's being thrown to the lions or in Christ's case, crucified. That's what the Bible teaches.
If govt isn't commanding you to sin you should OBEY govt.
Pastor Weaver understands Romans 13 better than practically any other teacher out there. It's preachers who hold to the view you just espoused who don't understand Romans 13.
Put the corrupt new-age bible you are using on the shelf and get a KJV. Here are some FACTS: Our constitution is our rule of law. According to that we are to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Our government is legally of the people, for the people, by the people. So if in fact we are to obey the government, we are the government -- legally. But we are to follow God's laws and if the governments laws line up, we will already be obeying those laws. If not, you can figure it out.
Amen. That's another thing I like about Pastor Weaver. He uses the KJV - he's not a radical about it like Gail Ripplinger - he just grew up with it and sees no reason to use anything else. Good for him. And good for those who let his teaching soak into their bones.
That man lies. Herman fountain went to jail for abusing and neglecting children. Look it up. I'm certain Johny knows the truth.
Sorianbell 5 months ago
Comment removed
RodneyAHampton 2 years ago
At 6:30 , y'all and Mr. Weaver should avoid the expression "positive law". I know what you mean because it's also a term that skews the terms of debate in philosophy, but the usage should be either "posited" or (better) "asserted".
Because , sorry, any term like "positive" or "active" has a positive mass psychology connotation in public discourse .
Weaver sounds cool and effective.
ProNorden 2 years ago
Positive law is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as: "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society." Pastor Weaver did not intend to convey the idea of "posited or asserted", but rather "positive law" as defined. The term "positive law" is used here in the legal sense not in a metaphysical one.
unrealius 2 years ago
@unrealius True
confederategray 1 year ago
I am convinced JonWRowe is a satanist masquerading as a Christian. Write to me. And I will copy & paste what he wrote to me. And you can judge for yourself.
JustAboutMyPolitics 2 years ago 5
I am not a Christian. However, what I recite is from Christian sources like Drs. Gregg Frazer, John MacArthur and John Calvin himself.
JonWRowe 2 years ago
You are probably referring to my desire to spend some time at the Bohemian Grove at watch their wonderful occult ritual wild sipping fine scotch and listening to Black Sabbath perform "Heaven & Hell." Heh.
JonWRowe 2 years ago
Amen.
thornwellhead 2 years ago
Friends,
Dr. Frazer has been blogging and interacting with other bloggers and commenters via my blogs. I already submitted a taste. You are free to check out Positive Liberty and American Creation and chime in if you disagree.
Happy New Year,
Jon Rowe
JonWRowe 3 years ago
I emailed Pastor John Weaver a few times, I plan on visiting his church one day. I thought it was interesting he has over 10,000 books that he has read and is in his personal library. He told me, that its very important for a pastor to have good books.
extremeconspiracycom 3 years ago 5
Absolutely. He and R.J. Rushdoony were good friends and preached at each others' churches before Rush's death in 2001. Rush felt the same way about books - he even read them after getting them out of the package from the mailbox, walking back to the house. Enjoy your visit to Pastor's church too! Have a good day. :D
thornwellhead 3 years ago
He's out of the country is he not? He's an excellent preacher.
ChristianArmorOfGod 2 years ago
What about a speech on Christ whipping merchants in the temple,the answer of Christ to the 3rd temptation in the desert (and stop pretending gov authority comes from God while it is only tolerated by Him), or a speech on Peter striking Malkus with a sword? There are numerous questions to be answered with the latter.Why Christ does not condemn his action,why no one is surprized ? etc.
alinor777 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You call Paul a liar. Paul says government authority comes from God not is merely "tolerated" by Him.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
Paul said that the gospel was made known to all nations (Romans 16:25-26) Was it literally true ? Pretty clear that some writing from Paul express his own opinion and are not dictated by the Holy Spirit. PEOPLE that have chosen these writing to be part of the Bible.
alinor777 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm not a Christian so I'm not going to argue that with you. Rather I'm according according to orthodox Christian premises, XY or Z follows.
Bt the way, all: Check out today's WorldNetDaily for Dr. Gregg Frazer's article on these matters. Great stuff there that parallels what I've shared here.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
I think what this is really about is Rowe's just jealous because Weaver's more handsome than he is. Gotta love that beard.
thornwellhead 3 years ago
Here is John Calvin. Again, my point isn't to show that we can't reasonably differ on Romans 13, but rather to demonstrate the position which I articulate WAS the dominant one in biblical orthodoxy:
"Those, indeed, who rule for the public good, are true examples and specimens of his beneficence, while those who domineer unjustly and tyrannically are raised up by him to punish the people for their iniquity. Still all alike possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power."
JonWRowe 3 years ago
Pastor Weaver is righteous and courageous, unlike the silver tongued devils who inhabit so many churches these days, blabbing about the building program or some new silly activity. I often wonder how so many of my fellow Christians are able to condone torture and wars of aggression in the name of God and country, following demons to the slaughter. The pastor speaks the truth; we need to live the life Christ modeled and not just talk the talk.
frank222k 3 years ago 2
Amen!!!
thornwellhead 3 years ago
"Basing a revolutionary teaching on...Romans [13] must rank as one of the greatest ironies in the history of political thought. This passage...served as the touchstone for passive obedience and unconditional submission from Augustine and Gregory to Luther and Calvin....The medieval church fathers as well as the reformers and counter-reformers of the sixteenth century all invoked this doctrine in denouncing disobedience and resistance to civil authorities."
Steven M. Dworetz, Wheaton University
JonWRowe 3 years ago
in reply to JonWRowe i would like to say, "that is nice that you interpret the bible that way, but understand when you submit to ungodly authority and evil government you are taking the side of Satan and are just as guilty as those who commit the terrible atrocities. in terms of a criminal case; if you knew about a crime and failed to report it you could be held liable along with the defendant for the crimes committed. something for you to think about.
infowarrior88 3 years ago 3
I have thought about it and reject this as an ahistorical understanding of biblical orthodoxy. Paul and Jesus Himself submitted to the tyrannical pagan Roman government.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
yeah, Jesus loved corruption so much he took a whip after the corrupt people ripping other people off in the temple. Jesus submitted in ways because that was his purpose, to pay for our sins. in other ways he did not submit, he called the Pharisees "vipers," he called Nero a "dog," and he majorly disturbed the corrupt dealings in the temple for 3 examples. so if you believe in following authority no matter what, then you believe if they command you to sin, then you must sin.
infowarrior88 3 years ago 3
You've totally misunderstood and misrepresented my position which is exactly the position of Luther & Calvin, the reformers and counter-reformers. But I see you are one of those 9-11 deniers so debating with you any further would be pointless.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
9/11 denier huh.. sir, you need to look at building 7. i have researched 9/11 for two plus years and it was an inside job. do the research. google wtc7. it was a controlled demolition as well as were the twin towers. you sir, are in denial and need to wake up from your slumber. google operation northwoods and read it. it is fine if you don't believe me about 9/11, but at least you were given the truth. my job is over. i don't hate you, but you need to do some research and wake up.
infowarrior88 3 years ago 3
C'mon now, just because the only skyscrapers (3) ever to collapse due to fire in the history of the world went down all in the same day doesn't mean anything. Just because building 7 wasn't hit by a plane, nor was it covered in the official 9-11 report that's all just conspiracy.
character654 3 years ago
LOL. i think you are a conspiracy theorist. you must be dangerous because you search for the truth. lol... God Bless.
infowarrior88 3 years ago
Amen.
thornwellhead 3 years ago
Paul did a good deal of his writing from prison, why do you suppose he was incarcerated?
character654 3 years ago 2
He was incarcerated because he submitted to government exactly as he dictated in Romans 13. When the Bible and the civil laws conflict, obey "God" not "men," the Good Book says. But recognize the authority/legitimacy of government and so submit to it -- event tyrannical government and so submit even if it means getting thrown into prison, thrown to the lions, or crucified. THAT'S the clearest message of Romans 13. THAT'S what Calvin taught.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
In my version it doesn't say government, it says higher powers which could merely be church leaders or perhaps God himself. Calvin was off the mark on some of his teachings.
As far as the government: authority (power) perhaps, legitimacy - not when they go against the highest laws of the nation.
character654 3 years ago 3
Not for nothing are they called the prison epistles. If Paul had the view of Romans 13 that most preachers and folks like Rowe have today, the apostle would have had one cushy ministry and the west would have never been evangelized.
thornwellhead 3 years ago 2
I said YEAH-SUH!!
If Paul had strictly followed the "modern" interpretation of the passage he would not have been in prison at all. He was there because they arrested him and he had no choice (force).
character654 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bull. He submitted exactly as he told believers to do in Romans 13.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nope. The Bible says submit to government but preach the Word. IF government wants to put you in jail for obeying you, you still submit to its legitimacy. That's exactly what Paul did.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
Follow the links and check out my latest blog post on the matter. I provide links to Calvin's original writings on the matter. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, you see the following headers:
24. Obedience is also due the unjust magistrate
25. The wicked ruler a judgment of God
26. Obedience to bad kings required in Scripture
JonWRowe 3 years ago
Calvin's writings do not concern me, a proper translation of the Bible does. You should check out Pastor Chuck Baldwin's writings on the subject.
character654 3 years ago
Chuck Baldwin is not yet the distinguished biblical authority that Calvin is. And indeed, I've read with my own two eyes Romans 13 and it says nothing about obeying only Godly government but that the powers that be, whoever they are (even pagan tyrants like Nero the leader Paul told believers to submit to), are ordained by God and thus to be submitted to. THAT'S what Romans 13 says.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
Distinguished in whose eyes? Probably the same people that call catholics Christian. Did you read the original text or some tainted version?
character654 3 years ago
If Paul was talking about Nero he wouldn't have wound up in a Roman prison. Romans 13 says that the civil magistrate is a terror to those who do evil. That's not what Nero was at all! Nero was a terror to the good! John Weaver's been studying this stuff for 30 plus years, plus he's a Christian with discernment from the Holy Spirit regarding God's Word. I think he knows the bible better than you, sir.
thornwellhead 3 years ago
He doesn't know the Bible better than Calvin or John MacArthur and a whole slew of notable traditional theologians who agree with me not you.
Nero might not have been a good leader. But according to Romans 13 he is accountable to God not man for his poor leadership!
JonWRowe 3 years ago
So we're accountable to our leaders but they aren't accountable to us? If you really believe that, then you believe government is God walking on earth.
thornwellhead 3 years ago 2
I'll concede alternate interpretations of Romans 13. I simply want you folks to understand the interpretation for which I have argued has deep roots in traditional biblical orthodoxy and hermeneutics. Indeed, it was Calvin's! Calvin held men shouldn't revolt against tyrants because God may have put the tyrant in charge to punish you!
Today, this interpretation is what none other than John MacArthur preaches. Yours is arguably the more historically novel and theologically liberal.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
Hello all. I thought I'd tip you off to John MacArthur on the topic. He is a Protestant fundamentalist of impeccable orthodoxy and one of the most prominent biblical scholars of that genre. Google his name with Barry Lynn's. See them debate on Larry King. MacArthur notes Paul told believers pagan Rome's power was ordained by God. Barry Lynn disagrees with the liberal cafeteria notion. Pastor Weaver's notion is liberal cafeteria Christianity.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
Weaver would not deny that Rome's power was ordained by God. God ordains everything. It was ordained, but not as legitimate. Tyranny is never legitimate. Men in power are not to make their own laws, but they are to uphold God's. There's a difference between power and authority. Rome had power, but no authority. I'm not trying to be rude, but why do you care about Rom 13 anyway if you're not a Christian?
thornwellhead 3 years ago
Because I am a published scholar on American religious history, specifically as it relates to the Founding and issues of revolt.
I'll grant alternate interpretations just as long as you realize that Weaver's is the historically novel one. Traditional biblical Christianity ala Calvin held you submit to the rulers no matter who they are. You have no more choice over who your rulers are than who you parents are.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
I agree that we should obey the Constitution because it is the final law of the land. And Romans 13 is compatible with this. This has nothing to do with not submitting to "un-Godly" leaders. The Constitution permits "the people" to elect "un-Godly" leaders who WILL enact laws that contradict the Bible.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
Heh. I was going to respond to a reply but I see it has been deleted. Probably because the poster cited unawares Abraham Lincoln on a neo-Confederate site. Don't think I don't notice these things.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
"If govt isn't commanding you to sin you should OBEY govt." We should have left Hitler in power, he didn't tell me to sin. When one studies the origin of the different bible translations, one would discover that most of today's versions are "neo-biblical" to coin a phrase, and have been purposely corrupted. I don't care about some website, it is the constitution.
character654 3 years ago
Actually there were some very devout Christians who believed Hitler should be left in power precisely based on that reading of Romans 13. Like it or not it was the traditional, dominant reading in Christendom before the "age of Revolution."
The Constitution is not the Bible or the Declaration and in fact has little to do with it. Confusing them is just poor theology.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
I didn't confuse the two, the constitution is our rule of law - our politicians swear to defend it from ALL enemies foriegn and domestic. If they then break that vow what then? Should they be held accountable based upon law or because they hold the power we should just obey them? Where would justice come in?
character654 3 years ago
Well the Constitution doesn't say "of the people, for the people, and by the people," Abe Lincoln did. And what if the Constitution conflicts with your understanding of the Bible? According to the Rev.'s understanding you can disobey the Constitution.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
Complete misunderstanding of Romans 13. Romans 13 demands that you SUBMIT to whatever government is in power. Paul told believers to submit to the unelected tyrant Nero. If govt commands you to sin, you should follow your conscience but be prepared to face the legal penalties of such civil disobedience, whether it's being thrown to the lions or in Christ's case, crucified. That's what the Bible teaches.
If govt isn't commanding you to sin you should OBEY govt.
JonWRowe 4 years ago
Pastor Weaver understands Romans 13 better than practically any other teacher out there. It's preachers who hold to the view you just espoused who don't understand Romans 13.
thornwellhead 4 years ago
Put the corrupt new-age bible you are using on the shelf and get a KJV. Here are some FACTS: Our constitution is our rule of law. According to that we are to be a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Our government is legally of the people, for the people, by the people. So if in fact we are to obey the government, we are the government -- legally. But we are to follow God's laws and if the governments laws line up, we will already be obeying those laws. If not, you can figure it out.
character654 3 years ago
It's back. Must have been a YouTube glitch.
I like how you quote Lincoln on a neo-Confederate website.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
It's back. Must have been a YouTube glitch.
I like how you quote Lincoln on a neo-Confederate website.
JonWRowe 3 years ago
AMEN!!!
thornwellhead 3 years ago
Amen. That's another thing I like about Pastor Weaver. He uses the KJV - he's not a radical about it like Gail Ripplinger - he just grew up with it and sees no reason to use anything else. Good for him. And good for those who let his teaching soak into their bones.
thornwellhead 3 years ago
Well done Pastor Weaver, the truth shall set us free.
evyandmark 4 years ago 2
Cool! Thanks for posting.
thornwellhead 4 years ago
Hear more of Pastor Weaver at sermonaudio(dot)com/weaver
unrealius 4 years ago