Friday, February 27, 2009

From the Chuck Baldwin Newsletter

Romans 13 Revisited
By Chuck Baldwin
February 27, 2009


This column is archived at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090227.html


It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone," or words to that effect.

No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose any political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt that they truly believe that.

For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law? I wouldn't.

So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.

By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.

Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.

Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities that demanded he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.

Virtually every apostle of Christ (except John, who survived being boiled in oil, according to historians) experienced martyrdom from hostile civil authorities. In addition, Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?

So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--including civil authority--is limited.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.

Remember, too, that we are all subject to Natural Law. No human authority has the right to demand that men surrender their submission to God's law "written in their hearts." When any human authority attempts to do this, it becomes tyrannical, because, again, it challenges the Lordship and Sovereignty of man's Creator.

As William Blackstone (as studied and devoted a Christian scholar as there ever was) wrote, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original." (Source: William Blackstone, "Of The Nature of Laws in General")

Therefore, there are times when civil authority must be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.

Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.

This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Christians in America:

"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of
God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html )

In addition, if Christians (and others) had been properly obedient to the Constitution (and Romans 13), they would also have submitted to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes the authority of the States in matters not specifically ceded to the federal government. In other words, the Constitution intended that the authority of the federal government be small and limited, with most authority residing within the States and among the people themselves.

As submission to the Constitution and Natural Law have provided a haven of peace and prosperity in these United States, Christians (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities. However, as it is obvious that a majority of our government leaders currently have almost no fidelity to their oaths to defend the U.S. Constitution, it is becoming more and more likely that we--like our forefathers--will need to rediscover Benjamin Franklin's declaration that "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (Of course, this effort, too, must be accomplished within the scope of law, both divine and civil.)

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

P.S. I invite readers to listen to my interview with Dr. Greg Dixon regarding Romans Chapter 13 at: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Dixon.html

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Some Things I Didn't Know About the Apocrypha

1. The New Testament reflects the thought of the Apocrypha, and even refers to events contained in it (cf. Heb 11:35 with 2 Macc 7, 12).

2. The New Testament quotes mostly from the Septuagint, which contained the Apocrypha. This gives tacit approval of the whole text, including the Apocrypha, from which they quoted.

3. Some of the early church fathers quoted and used the Apocrypha as Scripture in public worship.

4. Some of the early church fathers - Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria - accepted all the books of the Apocrypha as canonical.

5. Early Christian catacomb scenes depict episodes from the Apocrypha, showing it was part of the early Christian's religious life. If not their inspiration, this at least reveals a great regard for the Apocrypha.

6. The early Greek manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) interpose the Apocrypha among the Old Testament books. This reveals that they were part of the Jewish-Greek translation of the Old Testament.

7. Several of the early church councils accepted the Apocrypha: the Council of Rome (AD 382), the Council of Hippo (AD 393), and the Council of Carthage (AD 397).

8. The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts the Apocrypha, revealing that it is not simply a Roman Catholic dogma.

9. The Roman Catholic Church proclaimed the Apocrypha canoical at the Council of Trent (AD 1546). This was in accord with the pronouncements at early councils (see point 7 above) and the Council of Florence not long before the Reformation (AD 1442).

10. The apocryphal books were included in the Protestant Bible as late as the nineteenth century. This indicates that even Protestants accepted the Apocrypha until very recently.

11. Some apocryphal books written in Hebrew have been found among other Old Testament canonical books in the Dead Sea community at Qumran. This shows that they wedre part of the Hebrew cannon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Taken from Roman Catholics and Evangelicals by Geisler and MacKenzie

Friday, February 13, 2009

Digital Television - Mandatory!

From what I’ve gathered the switch to digital broadcasting is mandated by law and is supposedly an effort to clear analog air waves for emergency transmission, because it’s “more efficient” (which, having to mandate it proves the opposite), and something about “protecting the children.”

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html
http://www.fcclawblog.com/2008/04/articles/articles/fcc-steps-up-dtv-enforcement/
http://www.slate.com/id/2095396/

Although, there does seem to be some controversy as far as where the law is even valid.

http://dtvfacts.com/latest/179/digital-tv-law-could-face-court-challenge/

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

A Note on Justification

It's interesting to note that the beginnings of my search on the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, I am finding that they teach the same thing I argued for in 8th grade when debating the doctrine of Eternal Security. Essentially, that salvation does not depend on faith alone (sola fide), but also upon your obedience to God (which they refer to as works of grace).

The only difference lies in perspective, where as I stressed that your obedience (which is a work, or action) flows naturally from faith, the Catholic perspective seems to stress that faith justifies initially and that good works (including obedience) perfect and complete that justification. Not necessarily that one flows from the other, but that we must make a conscious decision to do good (James 4:17). At least, this is what John Salza teaches on his website and in The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith.

... Actually, looking at what I've written I'm not sure there's much of a difference at all. The reason that we would consciously choose to do something which we may not really feel like doing at the time is because of what we believe. Aka, our faith.

But the demons believe and tremble. They have a belief in God, they have faith that he exists, but they have no desire to please him. Hmmm......

An Argument for Life

The first question I ask is, Should all humans have equal rights? of course they will answer, yes.

Next, I ask if the embryo is alive or dead. At first they try to argue that it's not alive, but then they have to admit that it's not dead, because dead embryos almost always result in spontaneous abortions, and besides the embryo is growing--obviously alive.

Then I ask what species the embryo belongs to. They'll look at you blankly at first. You'll have to prompt them a little, telling them that it has to be an embryonic something. Is it a fish? A pig? A frog? They'll finally have to admit, but not willingly, that it's a human embryo.

Then I ask if the embryo has DNA. They say that it must.

The last question is, Whose DNA is it? There's usually no answer to that question.

They agree that the embryo is alive not dead. They agree that it is a human embryo with DNA. They're stuck when they have to admit that the embryo's DNA isn't the woman's.

I ask, Who, then, does that DNA belong to?

Then we get to the pound of flesh-like situation. Since the embryo has unique human DNA, it is not an extension of the mother's body. People who support abortion, claim that it's the woman's right to get rid of any tissue that belongs to her. Well, the DNA proves that it is human tissue and that it is not her tissue.

Can the woman abort the tissue of another human ( The person already agree that it is a human embryo with DNA) when destroying that tissue results in the death of the other? (The person agree that the embryo is alive.)

They'll fall back on the abortion laws that say that a human embryo hasn't attained legal personhood.

I ask them the first question again.

"Should all humans have equal rights?"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Originally published by "Kalt" on Catholic Answers Forums, here.

Emails from John Salza and David McDonald

I sent the following email to John Salza (ScriptureCatholic.com) and David McDonald (CatholicBridge.com), who are THE two largest sources of information that I've used in my research and they actually replied!

I'm looking into Catholicism and coming from a protestant background. I'm having a hard time understanding the doctrine of purification (maybe purification and sanctification?). I was under the impression that Christ completely purified us, but in reading the Catechism it talks about purgatory for those who have been "imperfectly purified," and I think that we are purified through good works and penance as well…. But I'm not sure how to put it all together.

Coming from a protestant perspective, I was taught that we are purified by Christ's sacrifice…. But if we are to be purified by our works, penance, and purgatory, then I guess I'm at a loss regarding what Christ's sacrifice was for.

I'm having a hard time finding information on this. I keep trying to look up "purification" and finding information about water treatment (seriously). Do you have any resources you could suggest?


From
John Salza:

Christiane, I would recommend Robert Sungenis’ book Not By Faith Alone for a thorough treatment of this issue. I also have chapters on both Justification and Salvation in my book The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith which addresses the issue, as well as a book on purgatory coming out toward the end of this year.

In short, Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to atone for all the sins of the world, but God has willed that we participate in the purification process through our own free will response to His grace. If that weren’t true, then everyone would go to heaven. God has given us access to the grace of Christ through the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. Our purification commences at baptism when we are cleansed of original sin and the virtues of faith, hope and charity are infused into our souls. However, when we reach the age of reason and begin to live a life of sin, we are in constant need of purification.

Through the sacraments of the Catholic Church (particularly Confession and the Eucharist), our souls are cleansed of sin and we are restored to justice by the grace that Christ has won for us on Calvary. If we die in a state of grace but are not completely purified, our purification is completed in purgatory. This is why St. Paul says that he makes up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of His body, the Church (Col 1:24). Obviously, there is nothing lacking in Christ’s sufferings. Christ offered a superabundant satisfaction for sin. But while Christ atoned for the eternal penalty of sin, God wills us to atone for the temporal penalties of sin, through penance and the sacraments. In so doing, we are restored to the equality of justice, that is, we “make up” for what is still lacking in Christ’s sufferings for the sake of the Mystical Body, the Catholic Church.

Of course, our works and penances are products of God’s grace. God moves us by His grace to participate in Christ’s redemptive work. That is why salvation is the work of God, not man.

Note also that the terms purification, sanctification, and justification describe the same thing: being cleansed of sin and the consequences of sin. We are first justified (sanctified, purified) at baptism, and thereafter through the other sacraments.

I hope this helps. God bless.

John Salza, Esq.

www.ScriptureCatholic.com


From David McDonald:
I'm out of commsission because of surgery on my elbows that flared up... can't type much..
I have several articles that put's it together.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/purgatory.htm

And on the right hand side of that, there are "Related topics". I thinnk that if you read those, you'll understand it ...
  1. Indulgences
  2. The Role of Suffering
  3. Punishment
  4. Justification by faith alone?
  5. Flow Chart of Catholic Doctrine
  6. Sheol, Hell and Hades
  7. Early Church leaders speak about Purgatory.

    THis is hard stuff, go easy on yourself, it took me years
cheers
David MacDonald
www.CatholicBridge.com