Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Clergy Loyal to the Crown? Interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2024
- We're exploring a side of the American Revolution that often gets overlooked. In this episode, we sit down with Dr. Gregg Frazer to discuss his book God against the Revolution: The Loyalist Clergy's Case against the American Revolution.
Romans 13:1 says, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." This biblical principle of obeying authority is at the heart of Frazer's book.
Frazer’s work offers the first comprehensive account of the political thought of the American Loyalists - the roughly one-third of the population who opposed independence. While we know much about the Patriots, what about those who loved their land but didn't support breaking away from Britain? Frazer digs into the biblical, philosophical, and legal arguments made by Loyalist ministers in their writings, pamphlets, and sermons. These clergymen were far from being mere apologists for British rule; they criticized its excesses while arguing for adherence to English law and authority.
In our interview, we'll explore how these Loyalist ministers' perspectives provide an interesting counterpoint to the Patriots' fight for liberty, equality, and representation. Frazer raises challenging questions about the rationality and legitimacy of the Patriots' actions and their impacts on freedom of religion, expression, and due process.
So how should we examine the Bible's command to submit to authority? This discussion is not only an interesting addition to our understanding of American political thought but also a timely reflection on the political dynamics of our own era.
Join us as we delve into this nuanced and often forgotten perspective on the American Revolution.
***
Gregg L. Frazer is Dean, John P. Stead School of Humanities, and Professor of History & Political Studies at The Master’s University in Santa Clarita, California. He’s the author of The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution (University Press of Kansas). Gregg is a deacon at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California.
Buy Book: a.co/d/7mW39jb
🌐📧 Visit our Website & Subscribe to our Newsletter: www.theremnant...
My ancestors came over on the Mayflower and as Quakers, were pacifists. They refused to participate in the Revolution and immigrated to Canada. That made me think a lot about this subject for years. I landed on the Loyalist view. Just as Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword in the Garden, our purpose here is to advance God's Kingdom and fight with His weapons. In terms of the Civil War, I could see disobedience to the government to help slaves gain their freedom, and be willing to be caught and punished for it if it came to that.
The importance today is all the loose talk around another Civil War over Trump and his stolen election rhetoric. Christians need to be focused on one agenda only, God's desire to win the lost and make disciples.
They are salivating for civil war. Rick Joyner is promoting it that is going to bring revival. Hey misreads history. Wars stop revival. He reads backwards. There was a Great Awakening before the revolution and that revolution stopped the revival. There was another Great Awakening before the civil war and that stopped revival. Jesus said get a sword. And then later he says put it away. He taught them the last lesson before he went to the cross. We're not to extend or protect the kingdom with the use of violence'.
While reaching the lost is a high priority, the Bible denies that Christian’s should be focused on one thing only. Loving God and loving neighbor encompasses many things that Christian’s should be fully engaged into. The restoring of the civil authority as We The People being one of them. Trump is just an instrument to that end. The Cristian abandonment of civil responsibility to preserve this republic has landed us here under judgement. Please do not perpetuate false theology.
@@JHRosales They said that to Galileo. Jesus took away our sins not our brains. It is possible to eat chicken and spit off the bones. Likewise confronting different streams of thought should not threaten or undermine anybody's faith if they're truly grounded.
Here is another issue. Our American government was not set up for them to be our “rulers” as your guest kept saying. They were set up to be the “servants” of the people. They are supposed to obey the people 🤓. Just another complexity to add to the convo
Some rulers might not let them worship God....
I would love to see you guys bring on David or Tim Barton as a counter position to this. Doug Wilson or John Moody would also be interesting to hear.
Yes, I think David Barton would be an interesting contrast to this
I think Barton’s view is the prevailing one most conservative Christians are familiar with. That’s the only view I’ve ever heard so this interview was intriguing and refreshing!
I recommend you all watch the movie called, "Monumental." Kirk Cameron and David Barton are in it including other historians. The bonus features on the DVD is worth watching as well.
@NancySarocco I certainly agree that Barton's position is the dominant view among conservative American churches. The reason I would like Remnant Radio to interview Barton is because they have great interviewing skills and tend to help the interviewed tease out a farther depth of thought and nuance that perhaps the guest or agreeing audience may have assumed to either be obvious or unimportant. Taking the time to flesh those things out A) makes you more understanding of the opposing side if you disagree with them. B) it helps you articulate your views better when you are trying to verbalize what is going through our minds.
But you are right. Barton's view already has the majority of the conservative American churches. I do wonder how much of the American church is still conservative leaning. It seems hard to estimate as the ratio seems different depending on what part of the country you are observing.
Agreed. @@NancySarocco
This is a very interesting and important topic (Political legitimacy). Having studied these ideas and history as a Christian lawyer, I appreciate Dr. Frazer's perspective, but have strong reservations about his representations of the alternative view. His treatment of the "rationalism" of the pastors who approved of the war for independence was very prejudicial. The fact that there were some among the elite who were unitarian in the late 1700 is very true (Jefferson and Adam for example), but these views were not as common as they would later become in the 1800s in New England. To use this theological liberalism to frame the common preacher's justification for the war is not historically careful or accurate.
He never actually names the view he opposes. It's called the interposition of the lower magistrate. It has a long history going back to Rutherford's Lex Rex (the law is King) in Scotland, and much further before John Locke. This was the Protestant view which resisted both the absolute authoritarianism which Dr. Frazer is promoting and the individualistic anarchism of other revolutionary views. The view being that one cannot just disobey and revolt from a tyrant, but one must submit and fall under the authority of an alternative and legitimate civil authority (P.s. he is wrong that Calvin supporting his view, see Calvin's sermon on 2 Sam. 2:8-32).
Dr. Frazer can claim that Romans 13 is just "explained away" by reading foreign limits of "legitimacy" into the text. But we can set aside the question of the legitimacy of the American Independence itself, and simply ask, "does the Bible teach unlimited civil authority or limited?" In fact, the OT and Romans 13 clearly teaches a limited civil authority, an authority from God to punish evil and do good. This is an explicitly limited purpose, it is not unlimited tyrannical authority supported by God. That is a terrible reading. It is not the "face value" reading at all!
This question of limited legitimate authority is very important in all sorts of abuse cases: Child abuse, spousal abuse, ecclesiastical abuse, and civil tyranny. The question of his justification for the Protestant reformation itself is not a small point. His answer was totally insufficient.
Dr. Frazer's distinction between "disobedience" and "rejecting authority" (subjection) is as much an invention by Dr. Frazer as is the notion of "legitimate authority." This is not a distinction of kind but simply of degree. It's true that the Apostles continued to recognize general authority, but they were not trying to engage in the replacement of the civil government, but were acting with only limited disobedience as necessary and practical in their circumstance. But this is not a bar to the principle of civil resistance under a lesser magistrate against a tyrant.
Much more could be said, but I would just note my strong objection to the simplistic accusations of rationalism and brash rejection of thoughtful limits to civil authority as "just obviously biblical."
There is a strong difference between how believers act under religious persecution (we don't rebel), versus what a people under general political tyranny might do, not as persecuted christians, but as citizens acting under the authority of a just lower magistrate who rises up (like a Moses) to obtain the freedom of the people. Dr. Frazer does not address these issues as well as he could. Much could be said in response to his claims, both biblical and historical.
100%
@@EssenceofPureFlavor, thanks. I hope people do listen and think these issues through.
There is a tendency to think that just because something is “patriotic” and therefore accepted for non-theological reasons, that that means there are no theological arguments to support it.
That is not at all the case. But our political theology is so poor here in the US because of the public education system (and a narrow definition of theology in seminary, I speak from experience) that we don’t do well on these issues.
Frequently, we have never thought about them, and that especially includes preachers.
@@jrhemmerich Right. Honestly, the bigger issue than him being "anti-patriotic" in my mind is his interpretation of Romans 13. Also that he seems to think God bringing about good from evil means something isn't evil. If governments do it, it must be good and must be of God.
Did he completely ignore the 1550 Magdeburg Confession? That is critical.
As a conservative, Christian, homeschool mom, I have been fed a steady diet of the patriots, nationalism, etc. Over the last few years, I have stepped outside of that particular echo chamber asking different questions about our role as believers. As I would share these questions or new ideas with family/friends, they would often point to the American Revolution as proof of their position. I never had a good response to that despite not agreeing with them. This, perhaps, is the missing piece of the puzzle and I can’t wait to read his book on the subject. Thank you @TheRemnantRadio for always helping us step outside of our echo chambers and think biblically about all things!
Did she tell you that the Patriots were not Christians but deist sons of the enlightenment and freemasons?
As a Brit Ive made this point to many of my American friends. As you can imagine, they rarely agree, but never have a good Biblical response. The most common answer I get is that American turned out good and prosperous, therefore God must have been behind it.
I wonder if God prospered America for the sake of Britain, to have a powerful and geographically protected ally during WWII. The Revolution/Insurrection may have been sinful but God used it for blessing to both nations for His purposes.
I have a feeling America would have turned out probably just as prosperous if it stayed under British rule as well. Honestly maybe more prosperous. So I'm not a big fan of that logic from my fellow Americans.
God having mercy on a disobedient people does sound like something he would do
I know several couples who got married when one was a Christian and the other was not. Because the non-Christian eventually became saved they look at their action as God ordained, although Scripture commands against it. Just because God uses something for His purposes, does not mean He approves of this. @rebeccamatteson9643
Just talking about that argument. A country turning out to be good and prosperous doesn't mean that they are righteous. Because in the scriptures it says God sends the rain on both the just and unjust.
I recommend watching the movie called, "Monumental." 🎥 Kirk Cameron is in it.
In America, We, the People, are the Boss, and the government is our employees, according to the U.S.Constitution. The U.S. government MUST obey the American Citizens and do what We, the People, say.
I agreed with a lot of what this guy was saying but I do think he made an error when talking about the civil war. At that time the understanding was that there was a compact theory of the Union meaning that the states had delegated their own powers to the federal government for the sake of convenience or efficacy. That implied their right to withdraw from that union at will in the same way that the United States of America could withdraw from the United Nations. At the time the federal government was not the higher power but very literally a federation of sovereign nation states.
WOW!!!! @41:23 - @43:57 That is a bold assertion. Antinomian?!?!?! that isn't even the correct definition.... but to also say that all of them determined now that they were rewriting scripture based on their interpretations....... That is the same argument they use against continuationists.
I agreed in general principle with a lot of what he said , but this is too far. Are we not supposed to look at the other side in the best possible light? Apparently not, Heretic for you! and you and you..... This went off the rails..... the assertion that the "ruler or those in power" is equal to the "institution of goverment" is a false equivalent. We can both affirm that a ruler is evil and seek to overthrow while also affirming that the institution of government is ordained and good. The patriots were not seeking to rebel in order to dissolve the institution of government, they were seeking relief from the thumb of a Tyrant and the installation of a more just ruler. Is he saying that Bonhoefferr and his cohorts were sinful and wrong to oppose the Nazi's??? Surely not!?!?
I thought he was extremely uncharitable in a lot of his claims about early Americans. Kind of acted like they were all the same and had the same motivations when they didn't at all. There's a vast difference between someone like Samuel Adams and John Adams despite being related. The idea there were no committed Christians looking to scripture and they were all "rationalistic theists" is absurd and extremely unfair.
@@EssenceofPureFlavorand Patrick Henry
Interesting. If YOUR ruler tells YOU to fight another ruler in another country then dethroning a rules is biblically ok?
Yes this makes no sense. What about Hitler, Stalin, mao, North Korea?
There needs to be a counter position to this man’s belief.
While I would love to hear a good argument for the other side, Frazer’s exposition of the Scriptures rings true. Adding to my Amazon list.
Same!
Oh no! He has two books related to the subject. They both look like must reads.
Awesome episode. Would love to see an episode about Christians participating in the military, particularly in the strange times we're in.
This is something I have struggled with. While It can certainly seem to be more cut and dry in most circumstances throughout history, the issue with America is that the constitution is actually the governing authority. If the people in government step outside of their authority that is given them through the founding and governing documents then they are stepping outside of the authority granted them by it. Dictatorial or tyrannical rule is not permissible in America and anyone who crosses that line is stepping outside of the very governing authority that gives them power. Therefore no longer being granted that power or authority.
As best I can tell this makes America a unique situation at the very least.
I would like to hear a rebuttal if anyone has one so I can continue to process and work through this.
1st Timothy 2:1-8 say that we should pray for our leaders who ever they are that we may live in peace
It was only after becoming Lutheran that I ever heard pastors discuss whether or not the Revolution was biblically allowable. After hearing this, it makes sense that Lutherans would question this, since they are the only Protestants I’ve ever heard talk about the ministerial vs magisterial use of reason. It seems like the Loyalists, like Luther, only sided with reason to a point, while the Patriots, like Calvin and other radical reformers, had tendencies to trust reason over scripture.
Extremely convoluted logic from your guest who seems to use a "rules for thee, not for me" approach where *he's* allowed to use reason when interpreting scripture, but not anybody else who comes to different conclusions than the ones he's already made, despite reason being an unavoidable part of even reading scripture.
“My son, fear the Lord, as well as the king, and don’t associate with rebels, for destruction will come suddenly from them; who knows what distress these two can bring?”
Proverbs 24:21-22 CSB
Reading Psalm 18 I guess we must ask “can the state be my enemy?” David speaks frankly about his enemies and the Psalm title says it is about when the LORD “delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul.” David in many ways did not rebel against Saul. David was called and anointed to be king. But somehow God did not want David to “suffer unto death.” This is a great topic thanks for having this guest!
According to the historian David Barton, Jefferson cut out the red letters of what Jesus said to put in a book to give to missionaries to the indians. So the Indians could read and know about Jesus. Jefferson wasn't trying to cut out what he didn't like but to get the essence of what Jesus said to the indians.
I was just watching the History Channel series called The Revolution. Watched the first 3 hours so far, but have watched the entire series in the past. After 150 years of having their own assemblies, the colonists did not want to be controlled by a monarchy.
I think the fact the 13 colonies hung in there and defeated the most powerful empire on earth against all odds tends to support the idea that the Lord was on their side--and wanted the U.S.A. established. There were so many junctures at which they should have been defeated but were not because of a what seemed to be a miracle. Pretty much how Israel has survived since 1948--with the miraculous help of God. I don't think American patriots could have won it if it were not God's will. And I frankly just think the U.S.A. would not exist were it not God's will. Doesn't mean it will still exist until Jesus comes back.
I would be careful not to attribute things too quickly to God. Demons may be able to give supernatural aid in battle and strategy as well. I’m sure there are a lot of very evil men, like Hitler or Stalin, who at one time seemed to be facing very long odds in becoming such powerful dictators, that doesn’t mean God willed it. Of course he is sovereign in these things, however, and can use America for good even if he did not see its formation as a righteous cause.
I have been wrestling with this question for some time, so I obviously don't have the answers, and you should take this with a grain of salt. Having said that, if we followed this logic for other regimes, would we then have to conclude that the bloody communist takeovers were morally defensible because they were successful? Couldn't it be true that 1) God intended to judge England for their wrongs, and the American war for independence was part of that and 2) It was not honoring to God that the colonies rebelled? God used other nations taking Israel captive to judge Israel, but also condemned those foreign nations for taking Israel captive.
@@TJ_Loves2fish Could be. I argued for the loyalist side in a formal debate many years ago. I am just thinking about the number of miraculous interventions that appeared to be from the Lord on behalf of the patriots who probably would not have won otherwise. Plus considering the number of people in this nation at the time who were Christians--or at least God-honoring. Also, I would think the Lord was on the side of defeating Hitler given Hitler's hatred of Jews. Without the U.S., that probably would not have happened. Thinking mostly of the type of divine intervention that I have observed in my own life that are too amazing to be anything else.
@ReLair88 I understand what you're saying, but that's an opinion based on hindsight, I think. If you were living in the colonies, could you Biblically justify armed revolution against what Paul calls your God-ordained government? That's the real question to me. I don't see how you can - all through the Bible, God talks about submission to the authorities over us, whoever they are - parents, pastor, governor, whatever. The only times off the top of my head where God condoned overthrowing a government that was in place was when God literally told Moses and Joshua to wipe out the Canaanites as judgement upon them. Since God doesn't talk to us like that anymore, I think in the moment it's a bit of a streatch to say that God is using me as a tool to judge England, so I need to go get my musket. Joseph, David, Paul, Jesus, all of them showed by word and deed submission to the authorities over them at the time, no matter how oppressive or wrong those authorities were. I suppose I should listen to the the video, now
🤣 That's just looking at what I see, my two cents.. 😁
We shouldn't decide what is right based on who won militarily. Islam walon many victories through its history. Also while Babylon conquered Israel which was Gods will, God says he will judge Babylon for their crimes. God can use sinful people and nations while not approving of their actions. If America had not had a Revolution then it may have been able to leave later without bloodshed. It may have also ended slavery sooner and without a civil war. That does not mean that God did not deliver the Patriots from the hands of their enemy. His ways are not our ways.
This is why the battle at lexington was so important. The congregation there was explicitly told not to fire first.
But isn't FLEEING what the patriots, explorers, Christians, pilgrims and homesteaders were actually doing? They LEFT the area of authority of the Crown to a new unclaimed land to begin their own government. The Brits didn't have authority unless you believe the people born in Europe were the property of those governments. The Brits were hostile invaders to the newly established government, even if it was not as tight and organized as it was going to be. Are we in any-country-of the-world commanded to subject ourselves and our country and our current government to hostile invading other countries? ____Admittedly I am not an historian and do not know if the settlers had already conceded themselves to be subject to the authority of the Brits and their support and "protection" and then changed their minds when it became oppressive.
Well said exactly what I was thinking!
Here's a few verses I'd have to chew on also.
They made kings, but not through me. They set up princes, but I knew it not. With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction.
Hosea 8:4 ESV
•Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame injustice by statute?
Psalm 94:20 ESV
Yes, good point. The revolution was the beginning of the USA, but not the beginning of America. You have to go back another 150 years or so to get there, and that was absolutely peaceful fleeing. The revolution was a last resort.
In the Summer of 2019, I visited Lexington MA and listened to the history interpreters talking about the Militia and the shot heard around the world. They off-handedly commented that the commanding officer of the militia was also the town’s pastor… that is when I first got to thinking about what it might have been like to attend a colonial church in the early 1770’s. I wondered what the pastors would’ve been asserting regarding revolution (or not). I need to order this book. Thanks for this interview.
Were not the Revolutionists thinking of the Maga Carta and English Common Law stating how the ruling authorities should treat its citizens?? If the Lord put in place the authorities that signed the Magna Carta, then He would recognize that document. Did the LORD not raise up judges to deliver the Israelites from tyrant pagan kings whom He had given the Israelites into their hands at one time to discipline them?? The Patriots went up against the world's super power of their day, and yet defeated the most powerful military on earth. That can only be explained as the LORD'S deliverance. While this man may be well intentioned, I do not believe he is considering the full counsel of the word of God. The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are our founding documents that declare the people are the government. Does God not honor our founding documents?? If God raises up and takes down governments then I do believe He raised the U.S. up and established our documents. We are to hold our elected officials accountable, because We the People are the government.
Yeah our Godly freemason founders were totally ordained by the Lord Lol
@mogrowneyiv7306 Would you consider Samson, godly?? Yet the LORD used his attraction to a Philistine woman as an occasion against the Philistines. So, YES, the Lord used freemason men as an occasion against Britain and birthed the greatest nation since ancient Israel, which gave us our beloved Messiah. .... Study your Bible... the LORD uses the godly and the ungodly to work out His will and purposes on the earth.
@@TracyGrace555 Keep smoking the American crack pipe. See where it gets you.
I love the politics and history episodes. Interesting guest and good pod
Hmm. An absolutist reading of Rom 13, like this one, leaves one with a problem: you're reading Rom 13 the same way the State Church did in 1930s Germany to oppress the nation, including other Christians. By this logic as well, John MacArthur was wrong to keep Grace CC open. Especially since Rom 13 and "love your neighbor" was invoked to enforce this.
So we all agree Rom 13 has a boundary. And not just for personal civil disobedience.
I think it would be a mistake to look at abuses, like you mentioned Germany, and conclude that they disprove a specific meaning of a text. Another example would be that of abusive husbands, which is wrong, but at the same time doesnt negate the reality that the scripture teaches wives to submit to their husbands.
And I think MacArthur made the choice to not obey the government because it went against God's command to gather as a church. It wasn't an attempt to remove the yoke of the governments authority, the difference was talked about early in the podcast
@Benjamin-rp4hq I also think he's oversimplifying the causes of the Revolution to say it was "just" overtaxation. Even Norman Davies admits it was mass misadminstration. And you have British politicians like Edmund Burke, who did feel it justified, because of the level of neglect and abuse in colonial administration.
It wasn't just a tax revolt.
@shawngillogly6873 Bad administration still isn't a Biblical justification. If that were the case Christians in California could overthrow Gavin Newspme
I disagree, God tells the church not to forsake the assembly. To not go to church is to disobey God. Choosing to obey God and disobey government is Frasers whole argument.
I agree, under this understanding one could posit that the Abolitionist movement would have never happened. Those participating in the Under Ground Railroad were breaking the law.
Let's also not pretend as if the colonials did not seek out peaceful means to resolution. They did for years. All that was asked was for the rightful representation in parliament, that was denied and then they were unjustly punished.
Was David wrong for running from Saul instead of subjecting himself to the kings authority? I don't believe the scriptural "absolutes" are as rock solid as he presents them.
In general I agree that we should be subject to the authority of the government, but that also presupposes that the Government is acting within the bounds of their authority as dictated by God. For instances 1st Peter 2:13-14 presupposes that the governing authority is "punishing wrong and honoring those who do right"..... Under that rubric, which I know is broad, one could rightfully suppose that any government that grossly violates this would have forfeited any claim to God given authority. And other than, God miraculously dissolving and entity, how else would an unjust authority be brought to account except through the means of some other men? Humans are God's agents for change on the earth.
As a foreign born, it is inevitable to any called to Christ, to draw towards the USA as our natural earthly home nation. Things that nationals don’t understand. The virtue of this nation and its people is the shining city on the hill. The exception to the rule that has provoked so many like myself to seek an explanation for her, only to find Christ. Blessings are not the fruits of disobedience nor is conspicuous providence on the side of the unjust. Contrary to what most of the pulpits preach today, every American Cristian is indebted to be fully engaged in public debate of moral issues including those conveniently labeled political. The depravity and decay in our country today is the fruit of not doing so.
Perhaps two parts of Scripture to consider regarding the last question, are Daniel who served faithfully under two evil regimes. The other would be the judges who militarily overthrew the Philistines
How would he know the rationality of Jefferson’s thought? That’s not to be argue-mental but would like to know how the guest arrived at this. I think he has great points for his viewpoint but I disagree on his conclusions.
You guys should really get an anabaptist like Dean Taylor to come on and explain their view on all of this
Yes please.
How do we relate this in regard to God leading the Hebrew people to leave their Earthly authorities (the Egyptians) and go to the promised land? Many of the early leaders of America believed they had the call of God to leave Britain and exist on their own. Not a perfect comparison for sure, but definitely relevant to the conversation I believe. Not only that but scripture clearly states that God raises up nations and leaders and takes them down, so to say this was not God ordained would remove His Sovereignty over history.
In fact to go further, with the odds being stacked highy against the Colonists, the fact that we won would "seem" to indicate that God moved on our behalf. Was all of this His permissive will, and we won this unforeseeable victory in sin?? Maybe, but I tend to think not.
So what area I think is worth bringing up. Is that the authority was The English Constitution by this point in the 1700s and thus British common law. The King was ruling beyond his own authority. So were the revolutionaries rebelling against the authority or a usurper? I don't see Romans 13 as saying I must subject myself to a foreign ruler who is invading. Correct me if I'm wrong.
How was he invading? Parliament was still subject to the king at that Point. William Pitt disagreed with George's handling of the colonies, but did not have the power to stop him.
@@tpw7250I didn't mean George was invading. I was going off a similar line of reasoning they use later in the video about which extent you ethically go in subjection to authority. Somewhere between George and an invasion is no longer the proper ruler it seems.
@@aNeighbour The constitution is not an authority. The word of God is.
Dear Remnant Radio is there a debate that exists beteween Eric Metaxas and Greg Frazer on this issue?
Very interesting conversation. One thing I'd like to add - Jesus' parents took Jesus out of the country, when His life was in danger. So they didn't rebel, but did escape under another ruler's authority...
His life was in danger. Not the same as paying taxes that you don't want to pay. In fact, when Jesus was asked about taxes He said one of His most famous lines.
i’ve seen this mentioned a couple times in the comments as well as in the podcast. I think there is a distinction concerning Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt because they were commanded to by God not because they reasoned it was the right thing to do. This makes this example a bit more complex.
@@IFOTIFOT Fleeing something isn't the same as overthrowing something
To be more accurate noone in these examples overthrew. But it was rebellion against certain authorities at pivotal times. Also If God told them to Escape then there's something to learn from it.
Can we see the situation as our forefathers escaped and then rebelled but not overthrew🤔 to be honest I don't agree with the guest entirely.
I also don't know the history of England but I wonder how that Kingdom got it's authority. Did they rebel?
@@tpw7250And the revolution was about more than taxes and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.
I've been telling people about this for over a decade and it's interesting that the response I get now is much more interested in considering that this view might be correct than it was 12 years ago.
I wonder what he thinks of the book called, The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall
I love how you randomly hear the Star Wars theme play twice during this super serious interview
So how would you explain Hitler, Mao, Stalin, North Korea? These rulers were all put in place by God?
I was going to post a question about 1 Kings 18 and most of the book of Judges, but the last few minutes of the video, mostly addressed the spirit of my question. It seems that default answer is to submit to the authority, however not every situation is back and white, therefore prayer and acting on what THE HOLY SPIRIT leads you to do.
Surprisingly edifying
The idea that "revolutionary" thinking grows out of the desire to avoid suffering does seem like a legitmate observation and concern, considering the goal of avoiding suffering (in this life) goes against much of what the example of christ teaches us. If the motive of rebeling against a government is to avoid suffering, i think we would find it very difficult to use a scriputal basis to support the cause without twisting it.
Inherentence taxes, property taxes, and income taxes are unbiblical.
Was Patrick Henry a rationalist preacher?
Interesting hearing that America is the greatest country in the world😮! Or is it was once.
Personally, wanted to hear about the freemasonry
That would be a good discussion. I read that 9 of the 56 signers of the Declaration were Freemasons. Just 1/7.
Same. Checkout One Nation Under Baal by NYSTV
Sorry! It’s called “The True Identity of Baal.”
Jesus lives ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Did he fully give the logic for why the Reformation was ok?
Fair point! One way of testing any line of reasoning or any biblical interpretation would be to take it to its ultimate end. Dr. Fraser‘s view of submission to authority as described in this podcast would imply that Luther was a villain for rebelling and that we should all be Roman Catholics.
I imagine he'd try to make some distinction between civil and religious authority. Of course without the scriptural basis for distinction that he claims to be important. It seems like he only believes certain things when it suits him.
@47:00 -47:36 Really!?!?!? no pushback on that Determinist nonsense....... Really Guys?
That caught me too. Obviously Dr. Frazer is a very strict Calvinist.
Saul was brilliant but not perfect. We have very limited details from most situations from Scripture. And their time only knew monarchy/dictatorship. God told His peeps they should not desire a king. And warmed them why. It's almost like with Yeshua, man got a 2nd choice with Israel's bad choice.
Now, we obey authorities until it's immoral, and then must sacrifice to remedy and correct the evil path. What's a sin is apathy...doing nothing bold in the midst of evil.
Yikes, yikes, yikes. There are SO many theological issues with this, I can't even begin to point them all out, so I'll just say, uh, I'm sorry, did he seriously just insinuate that cancer is for our good because God ordains it so? Yeah, no. God does not rely on evil to bring about His purposes. Just because something happens on earth does NOT mean God ordains it, wow. 1 John 5:19, anyone?