Enjoying this video? Check out, "Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos: A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants" canonpress.com/products/vindiciae-contra-tyrannos-a-defense-of-liberty-against-tyrants/
Not sure why Doug did not mention this but Matt Trewhella's book The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates comprehensively covers this subject by examining scripture, church history and American history. 10/10. Matt also has many interviews on this subject that can be found on RUclips. Cannot recommend him highly enough
@Jennifer Mugrage it is great stuff. He is the pastor of Mercy Seat in Milwaukee. I’ve listened to his sermons going back 20 years, and he was sounding the alarm back then.
It could be because Trewelha, despite being correct about the lesser magistrates, is fundamentally wrong about the Union. Trewelha describes the States as lesser magistrates, when, in reality, they are the higher magistrates. The States ratified the Constitution and gave it legal authority. The States and the States alone have the authority to amend the Constitution (Article V). All powers not delegated to the general government are reserved to the States (Amendment 10). The States cannot act as lesser magistrates because they are the ones rightfully in charge of the whole shebang, all Federal usurpations notwithstanding. The lesser magistrate doctrine could be usefully and righteously acted out by individual officials in all levels of government or by counties and cities, but it definitely doesn't apply to the States.
What a great topic to cover. It is something to think about the huge overreaches of our own government now that directly interfere with our lives, God-given liberty and property.
I always admire how well-read is Mr. Wilson. He has read _and_ understands what people were arguing at that time. Though he didn't cite it, Wilson is stating precisely what Theodore Draper proves in, "A Struggle for Power."
Great job on setting the context for understanding governmental authority and its limits. While there are apparent reasons for such authorities to have control over the the citizenry, there ought to be rational guidelines on how such magistrates in power may or may not impose certain laws over the people. This should be known by Christians all over the world, especially those in regions with such overreaching control by certain governments. It is always a treat listening to Pastor Doug. May the Lord bless your ministry all the more for the good of His church and the glory of God. Soli Deo gloria!
The only thing that makes it worse is the sheer idiocy and weakness of our pastors nowadays. The pastors in America back then had the theological work of the protestant reformation as pretty recent history to them.
Check out Matt Trewhella - on youtube or sermon audio. he is the leading authority on this. his book comprehensively addresses the topic using scripture, church and american history
Owen, here are some lectures about many of the Christian resistance doctrines of the Protestant reformation: ruclips.net/p/PLxFGL5AekijpNX04stICiHeZCHZrhRBGO
I was confused & shocked when reading Norman Geisler's Christian ethics book. He claims that the war for American independence does NOT meet the criteria of just war. Glad to hear Doug support the founding fathers & seperation from England.
I saw a shirt one time that had an image of George Washington with the modern caption “Me and my homies would be stacking bodies by now.” While I wouldn’t wear the shirt, myself, as Doug puts it, we are enduring well beyond what the Founders put up with.
@Kenny Bugh One of the things we’re enduring is increasing hostility to gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Some candidates for high office have already started suggesting firearm confiscation. You may have a different opinion on the matter, but I contend that “shall not be infringed” is exactly what the Founders meant. The right for me to protect my family, my home, my land was established in the creation order when God made man the head of his household. If a government says I no longer can use my tools to defend my earthly dominion, then I must resist.
@Kenny Bugh Correct! I’m glad Rittenhouse was acquitted, as well. And yes, I do agree that self defense was upheld. However, many existing gun laws are restrictive. In fact, the very existence of any kind of gun law runs contrary to “shall not be infringed.” For example, in my state of Florida we’re not permitted to run binary triggers. Post-1986 Fully automatic weapons are still outlawed, nationally. Suppressors are regulated by the ATF. If you have an AR pistol with a barrel shorter that 16 inches you have to run a brace, rather than a stock otherwise you have to get a tax stamp with the ATF. All of these examples are restrictive and unconstitutional. Repeal all of them and abolish the ATF.
@Kenny Bugh I understand that. However, just because courts have backed a full-auto ban does not equate to it being a just law. Judges and justices are fallible with a proclivity to sin. The responsibility falls on godly citizens to ensure the laws of a nation, and most importantly, God’s law is joyously obeyed.
People who talk about the founding father stacking bodies obviously don’t know anything about the founding fathers. It was 11 years from the start of the intolerable acts to the declaration.
Could you do another video on what government overreach looks like today? I find this topic interesting but it would be helpful for me to have some modern day examples to better understand what you are talking about
That's a lot of words to say, "I disagree with what Jesus said about taxation. Even though he asked who printed the money and then said to give it back if required and give to God what belongs to him. It's also okay to take up violent revolution against established governments, even though Paul clearly forbade it and no example of this is to be found anywhere in New Testament writings.
That's such disingenuous nonsense. The principle articulated by Wilson is that governments are not entitled to tax without restraint. That's not a denial of lawful government taxation.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl And...if a government does tax without restraint, what response should followers of Christ have? He answered that question, and he's in biblical error. The Constitution of the United States may say that it is the responsibility of the people to overthrow such governments, but is that what the Bible says?
I always understood that the reason for the War for Independence was the quartering act. The taxation was an issue, but the kick off was the quartering act.
I’d like to see a debate/discussion about this between Doug and, like, John MacArthur or someone else who maintains that the American Revolution was wrong.
That wouldn't be much of a debate. MacArthur or whomever would bring holy scripture to back up their position and Wilson would bring human philosophies or out of context Old Testament passages..
John MacArthur is not very knowledgeable when it comes to the American revolution. He still thinks that the founding fathers were deists. Anybody who spent 5 minutes reading some of their correspondence from back then would understand that claim to be a lie.
@@ericthehalfmexican9187 There’s another pastor who I think would be good for this debate, B.E. Winship. Less known but seems very knowledgeable. He has a podcast (including here on RUclips) called “God & Country Biblical Exposition.”
@@1Whipperin What are you talking about? I didn't hear any justification of killing anyone over taxes. You're not being honest with yourself or anyone else if that's what you heard. You missed the point completely.
Hi Doug, have you seen the statue donated to the UN by Mexico? "A guardian for international peace and security sits on the Visitor's Plaza outside @/un Headquarters. The guardian is a fusion of jaguar and eagle and donated by the Government of Oaxaca, Mexico." It seems eerily similar to the beast mentioned in Daniel and Revelations. What do you think about it? I know you're a Post-Millennial, but could this be a signal to the end times? I was thinking that it could be people wanting to "fulfill" prophecy by creating and doing these things, maybe they want the enjoyment out of "bring on the end times" or stirring up Christians. Some people say that the UN could be one of the Kingdoms mentioned in the prophecies. It was reported on CBN News here on youtube recently.
This almost reminds me of how I'm still expected to pay tax to Canada. Not income tax, but they still expect me to file my income(probably pay some other taxes too, but I've been putting it off lol) I live in Vietnam, I moved out of Canada at the end 2018! I went back once in 2019 and havent been back since, why do i even need to file my income? lol
On the topic of the American colonists not rebelling against but preserving the British Constitution, I'd like to add that the same was true in the 1860s: The Confederate States were not rebelling against but preserving the American Constitution, while the Northern States were subverting and violating the United States Constitution just as the British Empire was subverting and violating the British Constitution in the 1770s and 1780s.
The constitution is merely a piece of paper, not a divine authority. If the constitution upheld the evil of slavery, then the document can be ignored. It is perfectly acceptable for the government to impose morality upon people. Read Romans 13:1-15
@@mosesking2923 The constitution is a written memorial of an agreement... much more than just a piece of paper. Divine authority is within every man to enter into various types of covenants. Some of this God-given authority is given to the State to covenant for the people, so divine authority is in play. There are different types of slavery. The Bible is clear that kidnapping into slavery is punishable by death, but you can Biblically and legally enslave yourself which is what most people do today. The constitution upholds liberty and restricts the union of States. Each sovereign State has its own penal laws which are outside the venue of the union government. The constitution does not uphold the evil you think it does, and no, you cannot ignore the constitution for the reason you think without risk of penalty of some kind. The role of government is to provide a remedy for harms against somebody or their property. You can legislate morality about as well as you can herd cats... you're not getting far with that one.
The Civil War was to preserve the institution of slavery. Yes it's nuanced, yes not all Confederates owned slaves, but on the whole, the basic principle behind which the Confederacy stood was the institution of slavery.
@@firingallcylinders2949 slavery was part of the dynamic that made up States right to govern themselves. Slavery was already on the way out. Lincoln was willing to let the South keep the slaves, so the slavery narrative is propaganda to obscure the more sinister plans of the north to steal sovereignty from all the states
@@1Whipperin Read the succession documents of the southern states and you would get a very different perspective on what the Civil War was fought over. There are two sides to every disagreement. You are stating things from the Union perspective. Even then slavery was a big part of why the Union was dissolving and needed to be preserved.
i appreciate learning more about this. It is interesting to me that America is so great because it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles yetwas also founded on rebellion. i have difficulty reconciling this.
You meant it for evil, God meant it for good. God uses wrong circumstances for His purposes all the time. God has blessed the United States with wealth and prosperity (granted it is waning), even if it technically probably was a Romans 13 violation.
@nosegrind The American war for independence was in the backdrop of all the theological work from the Protestant reformation, as it was within a few hundred years of it. Most of the garbage taught in American churches today about unconditional obedience to government was theologically dismantled with the divine right of kings in the books that Doug mentioned. The weak men that inhabit the pulpit of American churches today have replaced it with “the divine right of the administrative state”. Check out this series of lectures about much of the works of Christian resistance theory from that time period: ruclips.net/p/PLxFGL5AekijpNX04stICiHeZCHZrhRBGO
@@ericthehalfmexican9187 hmm, i think the bible speaks for itself on the issue of subjection to authority. it doesnt need interpretation, the verses are clear and understandable as they are.
@@nosegrindv4951 The verses are what they will be when taken in isolation from the whole Bible. Does Hebrews 13:17 command you to absolute obedience to an evil pastor or elder? No, it is a limited obedience to the extend that a they have a biblical responsibility to watch over the souls of those God has entrusted to them. In the context of the whole Bible, in judges 4 and 5-8, God calls for people to fight their governing authorities. In 2 Kings 11, we have the basis for the doctrine of the lesser magistrate where the high priest interposed for the people of Israel to depose a tyrant and install the rightful heir to the throne. Watch the video series I linked to, because it mentions these things that were theologically examined 400 years ago during the Protestant reformation. It’s a series of lectures from a Christian Law school.
The Townsend Acts (taxation without representation) were hardly as significant as the Acts of Proclamation, which gave the West to the Indians and freedom to French Catholics in Canada. This was considered an outrage to Protestantism (and the "Glorious Revolution" of William and Mary) and bad news to land speculators in attractive real estate (such as the Ohio River Valley) like Washington, whose greatest dream was to connect the Colonies to the West through the Appalachians via a canal! He had to give up this amazing feat of infrastructure engineering as frankly impossible.
When are pastors going to start unveiling the truth about a lot of these Presidents; specifically Freemasonry? I'm curious from a Christian standpoint if George Washington being a known Freemason is relevant to how we view him and why is it not mentioned at all in this video?
Fascinating discussion. I do think that we all need to tie things a bit more to our Scripture moorings. Thanks for the book references. Hope you expand on this topic. I agree with an earlier comment as it seems an important lesson for us in our increasingly postmodern society. I do think looking at the mesh of faiths and cultures we are faced with on a daily basis and one of the reasonable objections which surfaced by a brother calling for a biblical foundation for our resistance were warranted. Israel in our LORD Jesus's day was under Roman law and oppression and yet He did say not only to carry their military's bag one mile, which was by law, but to carry it further, another mile or so. Wasn't that the Spirit of winning over one's enemies? Yes we have rights, but even our LORD laid aside His rights, to become a servant. I'm not saying that we submit to laws which come against His divine laws and commandments, e.g., Do not shed innocent blood--(abortion, etc)., And I also believe that there are Biblical non negotiables that we should never surrender as our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, we should not be subjects of human experimentation (Nuremberg Code). That should be resisted to death. Polycarp would not submit to the governing authorities who demanded that he deny Christ, but instead choose to die as a martyr. Everyday, we refuse the increasing unlawful bondage of government even in the smallest ways, refusing mask and experimental untested gene therapy we remain salt that seasons and preserves this encroaching corruption of our person and family and society and at least today a battle is won. (We live in California and in a City 98% vaxxed) We don't flee the frontlines of this battle, but choose to fight on the frontlines of this culture war even though at this time it appears unwise and unfruitful, except the light be removed, or the salt becomes useless the darkness has no retardent. Thank God for Dr. MacArthur's stand even though he was accused for supposedly breaching Romans 13. As the old saint John Owen proscribed, "Keep thy station, perform thy duty, comply not with the children of backsliding, if they return, embrace them freely, if not do thy duty constantly." My challenge with the church today is that it has succumbed and yoked itself to the government through Senator LBJ's bill which crept in and put the Church legally under the government's control in 1954. If you are yoked to the government then you must subject yourself to its laws, because of your legal agreement. It seems to be an example of modern Erastian heresy. From my experience as one until several years ago was yoked to that system, that I was partially blinded and dancing on the edge of church and state. One can not serve two masters right? You are either in or out. Not out of the world lest we could not reach those who are lost. We are also no doubt still affected by the Doctrine of Discovery and Manifest Destiny. When another wrote that we are no longer affected by Rome, I must differ. Any Protestants or Evangelicals on the US Supreme Court? Not a one. We are indeed a pilgrim church traveling through an unstable world. One which we can affect it seems only a little at times. We serve a greater kingdom transcending time and space. I do believe much of the blindness of the church has been brought on by our own compromise. The enemy it so happens to be--us. How to live at peace with ourselves and family and neighbors and speak the truth in love seems to be the biggest battle we have at present. One thing the pandemic has taught well is we as humans are subject to the fear of man, which is a snare. We still have not grasped the fear of God which is truly the beginning of wisdom.
Romans 13 spends more words describing the role of civil government and what it has to do to be an obedient servant of God, than it does talking about our obedience to it. The modern hermeneutic does not reflect the historical one from the time of the Protestant reformation. Hebrews 13:17 commands you to be obedient to your pastors and elders. Taken in isolation of the rest of the Bible, you might misconstrue this to mean absolute obedience, but in light of the whole bible, you would know they are exceeding their authority. If they are doing evil, most would justifiably defy them.
But in many regards we are enduring less than what Roman Christians were enduring, yet Paul still wrote Romans 13 while Nero was ruling. So I believe the burden of evidence is on the person proving that revolution is not only permissible, but good. Romans13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. We would have to prove that the American Revolution does not count as resisting authorities. I know what the doctrine of lesser magistrates is, but it really seems as though it is a finicky evidence. I am interested in reading more on the subject, and glad he gave book suggestions. By the way, I must make this clear; I love the United States of America. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else apart from God calling me away. I love the freedom that it provides, but I still hold God's word higher than man's love of political freedom.
The book of Romans was written in the late 50s, during a time of peace and prosperity in the empire for the first few years of Nero’s reign. Persecution of Christian did not start until after the Great fire of Rome was in 64, for which Nero blamed the Christians as the scapegoat.
This idea that Romans 13 commands us to submission of evil government’s is man’s law, not God’s. Hebrews 13:17 does not command us to unconditionally submit to an evil pastor or elder that is exceeding their authority, we run call them out and run them out of the church. Please read the two books Doug mentioned because the cover the proper biblical hermeneutic of submission in great detail. Those were some of the resources the founding fathers had as a backdrop to the American war for independence.
@@ericthehalfmexican9187 eh. One man’s Pax Romana is another man’s effective but brutally harsh rule. Just because there wasn’t open war doesn’t mean the discontent that led to Jewish revolts from 66, on wasn’t present.
Would it really be that difficult to Google "British Constitution" before posting a comment? Theirs is not wholly written and organized nearly as well as ours, but they certainly have one.
@@pr073u569 I understand that they now describe their compiled legal traditions as “constitutional”. But... 1. Ask one of the people jailed for speech crimes up to this very year if a lack of enumerated rights matters. 2. Whatever slow transition between crown rule and stable parliamentary rule happened over 400 years, with civil wars and Lord Protectors (dictatorship), regicide, and other power fluctuations, the notion that parliament was constitutionally restricted from levying taxes on its colonies because of a Lockean principle not in any real way codified at the time is pretty dubious. Imagine Christians disobeying Caesar because of an outdated commitment to the Roman Republic’s ideals, wholly ignorant of a century of real politik. This argument just does that in historical reverse.
@@grocefamilyfarm3062 I understand your point, but there is a difference between stating "there is no such thing as a British Constitution" and something along the lines of "the British regularly violate their own Constitution at times throughout history." There certainly may be more debate than was let on here regarding the exact authority of the British parliament levying taxes, etc. I think his argument is consistent with the founder's arguments prior to the revolution.
@@pr073u569 fair enough. I’ll revise it to say that a discussion by an American pastor about the British constitution should acknowledge what it is and isn’t, and especially what it wasn’t at the time... but also he should acknowledge that the New Testament’s vision for detachment and obedience with respect to governmental authority has nothing to do with revolution and belligerent assertion of lockean rights; regardless of whether a subset of the prevailing philosophical narrative has asserted as much. Said another way, despite Doug’s backflips, I don’t see any convincing reason why Jesus wouldn’t just ask him who’s face is on the currency, just like he did the last time.
@@grocefamilyfarm3062 That is a far more defensible statement. I agree with much of what you are saying. Jesus called for rendering taxes due to proper authorities that have been placed over them. What happens when faithful Christians are doing so and another external authority demands to interject itself in a violation of previous agreements? I would argue the founders laid out their case in the Declaration of Independance among other documents.
Wait a moment, didn’t England help the Colonists fight a war? The French and Indian War, specifically?? Couldn’t this be seen in a similar way as the Federal government providing a military to protect and fight for all Americans no matter what State they are from? And, therefore, taxing us??
I picked up "Justifying Revolution" based off of Doug's recommendation a couple months ago. Great read. It's worth the price tag for all the research that went into it. The #1 point that stood out to me in the book was England's intention of usurping the colonies churches by placing bishops over the churches which in effect would have given England authority not only over the churches but the court systems as well. The colonies would have lost all authority over their churches and would have been subject to England's strong arming without any representation in higher clerical authorities. This was a tipping point not only in increased preaching against England's tyranny but also the colonies move toward independence.
Romans 13 says otherwise. 1 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. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 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: 4 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. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. keep in mind Paul wrote this while he was in prison waiting to be executed by the power that was over him and he wrote this to the Roman church instructing them how to behave. the Christians were being fed to lions as entertainment, crucified, among other things as well. if you honestly think the founders had it worse then the early church under Rome you are gravely mistaken and it makes them seem petty and selfish in comparison
@@1Whipperin oh wow i'm not alone on this. thank you so much for the information. its very encouraging to see someone else share this view point. thank you so much and God bless :D and it really is telling that Doug uses only pagan reasoning and never sights the bible to why the Revolution was a good thing i swear the constitution is the 67th book of the bible and the founders are new prophets for the likes of Doug as it says in when warning of false teachers 2 Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
@@firingallcylinders2949 thanks for your response...Legal and Lawful are different matters in the world of Nature and Common law, so where does that put us in the matter of Jurisdiction. Does anyone really have the right to the fruit of his or her labour? Or is that an open and shut case for the powers that are? And the people they govern have no say in the limit of taxation. Does Caesar get to tax whatever Caesar wants to tax without limitation? I have been troubled by this for many years and many reasons.
Doug is right, however the colonies were perfectly willing to accept the British fighting on their behalf to defend them during the 7-years war without their representation. Just sayin.
@@firingallcylinders2949 Yes, another good observation, brother FC. I think you're right. Probably "bipolar disorder," that diagnosis of most geniuses.
Sorry, Doug. North Carolina isn't sending troops to Idaho to protect you from the locals, and if it did, I don't expect that you would start shooting them.
@Jennifer Mugrage Yes, but because of his Postmill he handles that text like an Arminian addresses Romans 9. (Let me say, however, I greatly enjoy listening to Wilson. He has much theological wisdom and I do wish that his political crusade goes well. My only concern is that he too closely combines the Kingdom work with politics.)
@@ctvtmo If you engaging the world to advance the Gospel, you will be engaging in the political realm. John the Baptist was killed because calling out Herod’s sin crossed into the political world. Jesus was crucified for calling out the corruption of the Pharisees cross into the political realm. Stephen sharing the gospel got him stoned to death by the establishment.
If God owns everything, what does Caesar own? Render unto God's.... If the queen of England sends you a bill, then pay it if you think you owe it. Know your agreements and know your jurisdictions.
Caesar’s jurisdiction is limited to bearing the sword to punish evil. When Caesar begins to punish those who do good, he has exceeded his authority and is no longer acting in obedience to God as His servant.
north carolina didn't establish your town as a colony and fight a war against the french twenty years prior to establish its sovereignty in the region.
If North Carolina was to establish it, there would be a charter governing it’s operation. If NC then proceeded to violate it, then you are correct to seek redress to put NC back into compliance.
Enjoying this video? Check out, "Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos: A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants"
canonpress.com/products/vindiciae-contra-tyrannos-a-defense-of-liberty-against-tyrants/
Doug if I achieve a tenth of your knowledge I'd be happy
Not sure why Doug did not mention this but Matt Trewhella's book The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates comprehensively covers this subject by examining scripture, church history and American history. 10/10. Matt also has many interviews on this subject that can be found on RUclips. Cannot recommend him highly enough
@Jennifer Mugrage it is great stuff. He is the pastor of Mercy Seat in Milwaukee. I’ve listened to his sermons going back 20 years, and he was sounding the alarm back then.
Same thoughts crossed my mind as I listened.
It's a great book.
Probably because he was mostly thinking of Canon Press books.
It could be because Trewelha, despite being correct about the lesser magistrates, is fundamentally wrong about the Union. Trewelha describes the States as lesser magistrates, when, in reality, they are the higher magistrates. The States ratified the Constitution and gave it legal authority. The States and the States alone have the authority to amend the Constitution (Article V). All powers not delegated to the general government are reserved to the States (Amendment 10). The States cannot act as lesser magistrates because they are the ones rightfully in charge of the whole shebang, all Federal usurpations notwithstanding.
The lesser magistrate doctrine could be usefully and righteously acted out by individual officials in all levels of government or by counties and cities, but it definitely doesn't apply to the States.
What a great topic to cover. It is something to think about the huge overreaches of our own government now that directly interfere with our lives, God-given liberty and property.
Audio Wade and Doug Wilson in the same room is 👌🏻.
It was a treat!
@@WadeStotts I thought he looked familiar! I was literally wondering if it was audio wade LOL this is GREAT
I always admire how well-read is Mr. Wilson. He has read _and_ understands what people were arguing at that time. Though he didn't cite it, Wilson is stating precisely what Theodore Draper proves in, "A Struggle for Power."
Great job on setting the context for understanding governmental authority and its limits. While there are apparent reasons for such authorities to have control over the the citizenry, there ought to be rational guidelines on how such magistrates in power may or may not impose certain laws over the people.
This should be known by Christians all over the world, especially those in regions with such overreaching control by certain governments.
It is always a treat listening to Pastor Doug. May the Lord bless your ministry all the more for the good of His church and the glory of God.
Soli Deo gloria!
Seems like we’re facing something much worse than what they faced 300+ years ago.
@@1Whipperin Not yet, but the bloodiest century in human history was the 20th. We are not beyond mass murder by the state.
@@1Whipperin No.
@@1Whipperin Well, the taxes are higher.
The only thing that makes it worse is the sheer idiocy and weakness of our pastors nowadays. The pastors in America back then had the theological work of the protestant reformation as pretty recent history to them.
@@1Whipperin irrelevant. We are not in Rome.
Thanks Brother Doug. Didn't know that.
More on this stuff please.
Check out Matt Trewhella - on youtube or sermon audio. he is the leading authority on this. his book comprehensively addresses the topic using scripture, church and american history
Owen, here are some lectures about many of the Christian resistance doctrines of the Protestant reformation:
ruclips.net/p/PLxFGL5AekijpNX04stICiHeZCHZrhRBGO
I was confused & shocked when reading Norman Geisler's Christian ethics book. He claims that the war for American independence does NOT meet the criteria of just war.
Glad to hear Doug support the founding fathers & seperation from England.
I saw a shirt one time that had an image of George Washington with the modern caption “Me and my homies would be stacking bodies by now.” While I wouldn’t wear the shirt, myself, as Doug puts it, we are enduring well beyond what the Founders put up with.
@Kenny Bugh One of the things we’re enduring is increasing hostility to gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Some candidates for high office have already started suggesting firearm confiscation.
You may have a different opinion on the matter, but I contend that “shall not be infringed” is exactly what the Founders meant.
The right for me to protect my family, my home, my land was established in the creation order when God made man the head of his household. If a government says I no longer can use my tools to defend my earthly dominion, then I must resist.
@Kenny Bugh Correct! I’m glad Rittenhouse was acquitted, as well. And yes, I do agree that self defense was upheld.
However, many existing gun laws are restrictive. In fact, the very existence of any kind of gun law runs contrary to “shall not be infringed.” For example, in my state of Florida we’re not permitted to run binary triggers. Post-1986 Fully automatic weapons are still outlawed, nationally. Suppressors are regulated by the ATF. If you have an AR pistol with a barrel shorter that 16 inches you have to run a brace, rather than a stock otherwise you have to get a tax stamp with the ATF.
All of these examples are restrictive and unconstitutional. Repeal all of them and abolish the ATF.
@Kenny Bugh Once again, my conviction is that “shall not be infringed” means any gun law is unconstitutional.
@Kenny Bugh I understand that. However, just because courts have backed a full-auto ban does not equate to it being a just law. Judges and justices are fallible with a proclivity to sin.
The responsibility falls on godly citizens to ensure the laws of a nation, and most importantly, God’s law is joyously obeyed.
People who talk about the founding father stacking bodies obviously don’t know anything about the founding fathers. It was 11 years from the start of the intolerable acts to the declaration.
Who's gonna be a real hero and write down a list of all those books?! 😅🤲🏾
Can someone give me the scripture that justifies taking lives to resist the government? I can't find it.
Love the subtle meme energy in the thumbnail
Could you do another video on what government overreach looks like today? I find this topic interesting but it would be helpful for me to have some modern day examples to better understand what you are talking about
That would be a 10 season weekly show to document all that. Is there anything you’re looking for specifically?
That's a lot of words to say, "I disagree with what Jesus said about taxation. Even though he asked who printed the money and then said to give it back if required and give to God what belongs to him. It's also okay to take up violent revolution against established governments, even though Paul clearly forbade it and no example of this is to be found anywhere in New Testament writings.
That's such disingenuous nonsense. The principle articulated by Wilson is that governments are not entitled to tax without restraint. That's not a denial of lawful government taxation.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl And...if a government does tax without restraint, what response should followers of Christ have? He answered that question, and he's in biblical error. The Constitution of the United States may say that it is the responsibility of the people to overthrow such governments, but is that what the Bible says?
I always understood that the reason for the War for Independence was the quartering act. The taxation was an issue, but the kick off was the quartering act.
I’d like to see a debate/discussion about this between Doug and, like, John MacArthur or someone else who maintains that the American Revolution was wrong.
That wouldn't be much of a debate. MacArthur or whomever would bring holy scripture to back up their position and Wilson would bring human philosophies or out of context Old Testament passages..
John MacArthur is not very knowledgeable when it comes to the American revolution. He still thinks that the founding fathers were deists. Anybody who spent 5 minutes reading some of their correspondence from back then would understand that claim to be a lie.
@@ericthehalfmexican9187 There’s another pastor who I think would be good for this debate, B.E. Winship. Less known but seems very knowledgeable. He has a podcast (including here on RUclips) called “God & Country Biblical Exposition.”
No Sane Takers
Audio Wade from LwC? Is that you?
I think I'll need that book.
Very good explanation.....( I'm English!)
@@1Whipperin It's not. Your point?
@@1Whipperin Or common sense. That works too.
@@1Whipperin The Bible doesn't tell us to pledge allegiance to our Glorious MAGA Leader, but that's still every Christian's duty.
@@1Whipperin What are you talking about? I didn't hear any justification of killing anyone over taxes. You're not being honest with yourself or anyone else if that's what you heard. You missed the point completely.
@@1Whipperin Violent assertion of false jurisdiction in contravention of a lawful covenant/constitution ... effectively a hostile invasion
Vindiciae contra tyrannos
Lex Rex
Doctrine of lesser magistrates
Slaying Leviathan
Justifying revolution
Audio Wade??
High time to SLAY the Leviathan 🐉
It was way more than a 1% tax, there's a long chain of events that caused the American Revolution.
Many grievances. Should we wait until it’s too late?
Hi Doug, have you seen the statue donated to the UN by Mexico? "A guardian for international peace and security sits on the Visitor's Plaza outside @/un Headquarters. The guardian is a fusion of jaguar and eagle and donated by the Government of Oaxaca, Mexico." It seems eerily similar to the beast mentioned in Daniel and Revelations.
What do you think about it? I know you're a Post-Millennial, but could this be a signal to the end times? I was thinking that it could be people wanting to "fulfill" prophecy by creating and doing these things, maybe they want the enjoyment out of "bring on the end times" or stirring up Christians. Some people say that the UN could be one of the Kingdoms mentioned in the prophecies.
It was reported on CBN News here on youtube recently.
This almost reminds me of how I'm still expected to pay tax to Canada. Not income tax, but they still expect me to file my income(probably pay some other taxes too, but I've been putting it off lol)
I live in Vietnam, I moved out of Canada at the end 2018! I went back once in 2019 and havent been back since, why do i even need to file my income? lol
On the topic of the American colonists not rebelling against but preserving the British Constitution, I'd like to add that the same was true in the 1860s: The Confederate States were not rebelling against but preserving the American Constitution, while the Northern States were subverting and violating the United States Constitution just as the British Empire was subverting and violating the British Constitution in the 1770s and 1780s.
The constitution is merely a piece of paper, not a divine authority. If the constitution upheld the evil of slavery, then the document can be ignored. It is perfectly acceptable for the government to impose morality upon people. Read Romans 13:1-15
@@mosesking2923 The constitution is a written memorial of an agreement... much more than just a piece of paper. Divine authority is within every man to enter into various types of covenants. Some of this God-given authority is given to the State to covenant for the people, so divine authority is in play. There are different types of slavery. The Bible is clear that kidnapping into slavery is punishable by death, but you can Biblically and legally enslave yourself which is what most people do today. The constitution upholds liberty and restricts the union of States. Each sovereign State has its own penal laws which are outside the venue of the union government. The constitution does not uphold the evil you think it does, and no, you cannot ignore the constitution for the reason you think without risk of penalty of some kind. The role of government is to provide a remedy for harms against somebody or their property. You can legislate morality about as well as you can herd cats... you're not getting far with that one.
The Civil War was to preserve the institution of slavery. Yes it's nuanced, yes not all Confederates owned slaves, but on the whole, the basic principle behind which the Confederacy stood was the institution of slavery.
@@firingallcylinders2949 slavery was part of the dynamic that made up States right to govern themselves. Slavery was already on the way out. Lincoln was willing to let the South keep the slaves, so the slavery narrative is propaganda to obscure the more sinister plans of the north to steal sovereignty from all the states
@@1Whipperin Read the succession documents of the southern states and you would get a very different perspective on what the Civil War was fought over. There are two sides to every disagreement. You are stating things from the Union perspective. Even then slavery was a big part of why the Union was dissolving and needed to be preserved.
i appreciate learning more about this. It is interesting to me that America is so great because it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles yetwas also founded on rebellion. i have difficulty reconciling this.
You meant it for evil, God meant it for good. God uses wrong circumstances for His purposes all the time. God has blessed the United States with wealth and prosperity (granted it is waning), even if it technically probably was a Romans 13 violation.
@nosegrind The American war for independence was in the backdrop of all the theological work from the Protestant reformation, as it was within a few hundred years of it. Most of the garbage taught in American churches today about unconditional obedience to government was theologically dismantled with the divine right of kings in the books that Doug mentioned. The weak men that inhabit the pulpit of American churches today have replaced it with “the divine right of the administrative state”.
Check out this series of lectures about much of the works of Christian resistance theory from that time period:
ruclips.net/p/PLxFGL5AekijpNX04stICiHeZCHZrhRBGO
@@ericthehalfmexican9187 hmm, i think the bible speaks for itself on the issue of subjection to authority. it doesnt need interpretation, the verses are clear and understandable as they are.
@@nosegrindv4951 The verses are what they will be when taken in isolation from the whole Bible. Does Hebrews 13:17 command you to absolute obedience to an evil pastor or elder? No, it is a limited obedience to the extend that a they have a biblical responsibility to watch over the souls of those God has entrusted to them.
In the context of the whole Bible, in judges 4 and 5-8, God calls for people to fight their governing authorities. In 2 Kings 11, we have the basis for the doctrine of the lesser magistrate where the high priest interposed for the people of Israel to depose a tyrant and install the rightful heir to the throne.
Watch the video series I linked to, because it mentions these things that were theologically examined 400 years ago during the Protestant reformation. It’s a series of lectures from a Christian Law school.
@@ericthehalfmexican9187 Jesus died for his enemies , so will I.
I will also check out the link. thanks.
The Townsend Acts (taxation without representation) were hardly as significant as the Acts of Proclamation, which gave the West to the Indians and freedom to French Catholics in Canada. This was considered an outrage to Protestantism (and the "Glorious Revolution" of William and Mary) and bad news to land speculators in attractive real estate (such as the Ohio River Valley) like Washington, whose greatest dream was to connect the Colonies to the West through the Appalachians via a canal! He had to give up this amazing feat of infrastructure engineering as frankly impossible.
I don't think we could even pull that off today lol
Ohio is pretty great.
@@nathanjames7030 Thank you brother, that's good. Gave me a good belly laugh. Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Evil needs to be put down and sent to God for judgment.
When are pastors going to start unveiling the truth about a lot of these Presidents; specifically Freemasonry? I'm curious from a Christian standpoint if George Washington being a known Freemason is relevant to how we view him and why is it not mentioned at all in this video?
Fascinating discussion. I do think that we all need to tie things a bit more to our Scripture moorings. Thanks for the book references. Hope you expand on this topic. I agree with an earlier comment as it seems an important lesson for us in our increasingly postmodern society. I do think looking at the mesh of faiths and cultures we are faced with on a daily basis and one of the reasonable objections which surfaced by a brother calling for a biblical foundation for our resistance were warranted. Israel in our LORD Jesus's day was under Roman law and oppression and yet He did say not only to carry their military's bag one mile, which was by law, but to carry it further, another mile or so. Wasn't that the Spirit of winning over one's enemies? Yes we have rights, but even our LORD laid aside His rights, to become a servant. I'm not saying that we submit to laws which come against His divine laws and commandments, e.g., Do not shed innocent blood--(abortion, etc)., And I also believe that there are Biblical non negotiables that we should never surrender as our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, we should not be subjects of human experimentation (Nuremberg Code). That should be resisted to death. Polycarp would not submit to the governing authorities who demanded that he deny Christ, but instead choose to die as a martyr. Everyday, we refuse the increasing unlawful bondage of government even in the smallest ways, refusing mask and experimental untested gene therapy we remain salt that seasons and preserves this encroaching corruption of our person and family and society and at least today a battle is won. (We live in California and in a City 98% vaxxed) We don't flee the frontlines of this battle, but choose to fight on the frontlines of this culture war even though at this time it appears unwise and unfruitful, except the light be removed, or the salt becomes useless the darkness has no retardent. Thank God for Dr. MacArthur's stand even though he was accused for supposedly breaching Romans 13. As the old saint John Owen proscribed, "Keep thy station, perform thy duty, comply not with the children of backsliding, if they return, embrace them freely, if not do thy duty constantly." My challenge with the church today is that it has succumbed and yoked itself to the government through Senator LBJ's bill which crept in and put the Church legally under the government's control in 1954. If you are yoked to the government then you must subject yourself to its laws, because of your legal agreement. It seems to be an example of modern Erastian heresy. From my experience as one until several years ago was yoked to that system, that I was partially blinded and dancing on the edge of church and state. One can not serve two masters right? You are either in or out. Not out of the world lest we could not reach those who are lost. We are also no doubt still affected by the Doctrine of Discovery and Manifest Destiny. When another wrote that we are no longer affected by Rome, I must differ. Any Protestants or Evangelicals on the US Supreme Court? Not a one. We are indeed a pilgrim church traveling through an unstable world. One which we can affect it seems only a little at times. We serve a greater kingdom transcending time and space. I do believe much of the blindness of the church has been brought on by our own compromise. The enemy it so happens to be--us. How to live at peace with ourselves and family and neighbors and speak the truth in love seems to be the biggest battle we have at present. One thing the pandemic has taught well is we as humans are subject to the fear of man, which is a snare. We still have not grasped the fear of God which is truly the beginning of wisdom.
So this must mean the founding fathers were righteous to disobey Romans 13.
Romans 13 spends more words describing the role of civil government and what it has to do to be an obedient servant of God, than it does talking about our obedience to it. The modern hermeneutic does not reflect the historical one from the time of the Protestant reformation.
Hebrews 13:17 commands you to be obedient to your pastors and elders. Taken in isolation of the rest of the Bible, you might misconstrue this to mean absolute obedience, but in light of the whole bible, you would know they are exceeding their authority. If they are doing evil, most would justifiably defy them.
But in many regards we are enduring less than what Roman Christians were enduring, yet Paul still wrote Romans 13 while Nero was ruling. So I believe the burden of evidence is on the person proving that revolution is not only permissible, but good. Romans13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. We would have to prove that the American Revolution does not count as resisting authorities. I know what the doctrine of lesser magistrates is, but it really seems as though it is a finicky evidence. I am interested in reading more on the subject, and glad he gave book suggestions. By the way, I must make this clear; I love the United States of America. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else apart from God calling me away. I love the freedom that it provides, but I still hold God's word higher than man's love of political freedom.
Well put. I’m not at all convinced by the argument here.
The book of Romans was written in the late 50s, during a time of peace and prosperity in the empire for the first few years of Nero’s reign. Persecution of Christian did not start until after the Great fire of Rome was in 64, for which Nero blamed the Christians as the scapegoat.
This idea that Romans 13 commands us to submission of evil government’s is man’s law, not God’s. Hebrews 13:17 does not command us to unconditionally submit to an evil pastor or elder that is exceeding their authority, we run call them out and run them out of the church.
Please read the two books Doug mentioned because the cover the proper biblical hermeneutic of submission in great detail. Those were some of the resources the founding fathers had as a backdrop to the American war for independence.
@@ericthehalfmexican9187 eh. One man’s Pax Romana is another man’s effective but brutally harsh rule. Just because there wasn’t open war doesn’t mean the discontent that led to Jewish revolts from 66, on wasn’t present.
@@grocefamilyfarm3062 What does that have to do with anything I said?
The guy refers to the British constitution so many times, you’d almost be tempted to assume it’s a thing that exists!
Would it really be that difficult to Google "British Constitution" before posting a comment? Theirs is not wholly written and organized nearly as well as ours, but they certainly have one.
@@pr073u569 I understand that they now describe their compiled legal traditions as “constitutional”. But...
1. Ask one of the people jailed for speech crimes up to this very year if a lack of enumerated rights matters.
2. Whatever slow transition between crown rule and stable parliamentary rule happened over 400 years, with civil wars and Lord Protectors (dictatorship), regicide, and other power fluctuations, the notion that parliament was constitutionally restricted from levying taxes on its colonies because of a Lockean principle not in any real way codified at the time is pretty dubious.
Imagine Christians disobeying Caesar because of an outdated commitment to the Roman Republic’s ideals, wholly ignorant of a century of real politik. This argument just does that in historical reverse.
@@grocefamilyfarm3062 I understand your point, but there is a difference between stating "there is no such thing as a British Constitution" and something along the lines of "the British regularly violate their own Constitution at times throughout history." There certainly may be more debate than was let on here regarding the exact authority of the British parliament levying taxes, etc. I think his argument is consistent with the founder's arguments prior to the revolution.
@@pr073u569 fair enough. I’ll revise it to say that a discussion by an American pastor about the British constitution should acknowledge what it is and isn’t, and especially what it wasn’t at the time...
but also he should acknowledge that the New Testament’s vision for detachment and obedience with respect to governmental authority has nothing to do with revolution and belligerent assertion of lockean rights; regardless of whether a subset of the prevailing philosophical narrative has asserted as much.
Said another way, despite Doug’s backflips, I don’t see any convincing reason why Jesus wouldn’t just ask him who’s face is on the currency, just like he did the last time.
@@grocefamilyfarm3062 That is a far more defensible statement. I agree with much of what you are saying. Jesus called for rendering taxes due to proper authorities that have been placed over them. What happens when faithful Christians are doing so and another external authority demands to interject itself in a violation of previous agreements? I would argue the founders laid out their case in the Declaration of Independance among other documents.
Did the founding fathers overreact by overthrowing the Articles of Confederation?
I would say yes. They kind of forgot the lessons of the recent unpleasantness.
Wait a moment, didn’t England help the Colonists fight a war? The French and Indian War, specifically?? Couldn’t this be seen in a similar way as the Federal government providing a military to protect and fight for all Americans no matter what State they are from? And, therefore, taxing us??
I picked up "Justifying Revolution" based off of Doug's recommendation a couple months ago. Great read. It's worth the price tag for all the research that went into it. The #1 point that stood out to me in the book was England's intention of usurping the colonies churches by placing bishops over the churches which in effect would have given England authority not only over the churches but the court systems as well. The colonies would have lost all authority over their churches and would have been subject to England's strong arming without any representation in higher clerical authorities. This was a tipping point not only in increased preaching against England's tyranny but also the colonies move toward independence.
the author? I am interested. Thanx.
@@natebaumgartner9958 Gary L. Steward. His list of resources in the book is a gold mine in of itself.
@@aaronbruun Thank you thank you thank you!!! Christ's blessing on you!
@@natebaumgartner9958 You as well Nate! Blessings to you!
That would be the last straw... lol
Romans 13 says otherwise.
1 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.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 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:
4 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.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
keep in mind Paul wrote this while he was in prison waiting to be executed by the power that was over him and he wrote this to the Roman church instructing them how to behave. the Christians were being fed to lions as entertainment, crucified, among other things as well. if you honestly think the founders had it worse then the early church under Rome you are gravely mistaken and it makes them seem petty and selfish in comparison
@@1Whipperin oh wow i'm not alone on this. thank you so much for the information. its very encouraging to see someone else share this view point. thank you so much and God bless :D
and it really is telling that Doug uses only pagan reasoning and never sights the bible to why the Revolution was a good thing
i swear the constitution is the 67th book of the bible and the founders are new prophets for the likes of Doug
as it says in when warning of false teachers
2 Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
Didn't George Washington raise taxes once in office?
Do governments around the world have the right to tax the labour of its people?
Legally yes, morally no.
@@firingallcylinders2949 thanks for your response...Legal and Lawful are different matters in the world of Nature and Common law, so where does that put us in the matter of Jurisdiction. Does anyone really have the right to the fruit of his or her labour? Or is that an open and shut case for the powers that are? And the people they govern have no say in the limit of taxation. Does Caesar get to tax whatever Caesar wants to tax without limitation? I have been troubled by this for many years and many reasons.
Doug is right, however the colonies were perfectly willing to accept the British fighting on their behalf to defend them during the 7-years war without their representation. Just sayin.
George III was a decent man. Loving husband, amateur astronomer. Caught on the wrong side of history. Let it be a lesson to us today!
Probably suffered from mental illness had they had the knowledge of it that we do today.
@@firingallcylinders2949 Yes, another good observation, brother FC. I think you're right. Probably "bipolar disorder," that diagnosis of most geniuses.
Nullification/10 Amendment. Interdiction by the Lesser Magistrates.
The colonists were defending the British Constitution ... and the Confederates were defending the U.S. Constitution.
Sorry, Doug. North Carolina isn't sending troops to Idaho to protect you from the locals, and if it did, I don't expect that you would start shooting them.
No they were not
Once again Romans 13 and 1Peter 2 out the window.
God save good King George.
@Jennifer Mugrage Yes, but because of his Postmill he handles that text like an Arminian addresses Romans 9. (Let me say, however, I greatly enjoy listening to Wilson. He has much theological wisdom and I do wish that his political crusade goes well. My only concern is that he too closely combines the Kingdom work with politics.)
@@ctvtmo If you engaging the world to advance the Gospel, you will be engaging in the political realm. John the Baptist was killed because calling out Herod’s sin crossed into the political world. Jesus was crucified for calling out the corruption of the Pharisees cross into the political realm. Stephen sharing the gospel got him stoned to death by the establishment.
I wonder what Doug Wilson believes about Christians going to was.
Any true Christian who goes to was, will come back to be again.
Was... What is it good for?
Sorry "war"
The book of judges has God raising up people to go to war.
ruclips.net/video/WFpBXkpiAWw/видео.html
Render unto Caesar
If God owns everything, what does Caesar own? Render unto God's.... If the queen of England sends you a bill, then pay it if you think you owe it. Know your agreements and know your jurisdictions.
Caesar’s jurisdiction is limited to bearing the sword to punish evil. When Caesar begins to punish those who do good, he has exceeded his authority and is no longer acting in obedience to God as His servant.
north carolina didn't establish your town as a colony and fight a war against the french twenty years prior to establish its sovereignty in the region.
If North Carolina was to establish it, there would be a charter governing it’s operation. If NC then proceeded to violate it, then you are correct to seek redress to put NC back into compliance.
US history 😂
300 years of bs😂
THIS IS MAGA COUNTRY!!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Calm down
All authority in heaven and in earth has been given to whom? (Hint He doesn't need a spray tan)
@@mkshffr4936 HAIL TRUMP!!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
@@rockycomet4587 LOL
@@mkshffr4936 MAGA 2024 LANDSLIDE!!!