No worries!
I think a lot of it is on the vBulletin side of things, and not so much TOL's side.
Fair enough
:thumb:
Alright, let's deal with the choosing of a king first.
I'll just quote the relevant portion of https://kgov.com/biblical-apologetic...ional-monarchy
* Lots avoid divisiveness: "Casting lots causes contentions to cease, and keeps the mighty apart" (Prov. 18:18) Thus selecting leadership by lottery avoids many of the terrible effects of democracies and republics.
* To replace Judas, "they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26).
* God led the prophet Samuel to select by lot kings Saul (1 Sam. 10:20‐24) and David (1 Sam. 16:7‐12).
* The Feast of Purim, meaning lots, celebrates the salvation of the Jews from destruction by their enemies (Esther 3:7).
* Lots could make hard governmental decisions, for they “cast lots to bring one out of ten to dwell in Jerusalem...” (Neh. 11:1).
* For 1,000 years, lots determined the order of the service of the 24 divisions of the Jewish priesthood (1 Chr. 24:5‐19).
* Zacharias served "according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell... when he went into the temple," (Luke 1:9).
* God commanded Israel to divide the Promised Land among their tribes by casting lots (Num. 26:52‐56; 33:54).
* In matters of absolute right and wrong, you find God's will in the outcome; otherwise, you find it in the manner of conduct. The selection of a specific leader is not a matter of absolute right and wrong, but of conduct. As justice is blind, and impartial, so is the best process for selecting a monarch, which helps fight the raw ambition of politics.
* The process of choosing a leader determines whether the selection is God's will or not; e.g. usurping a throne violates God's will. God authorized selection of leaders by lot, for "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD (Prov. 16:33).
* Casting lots for a king does not ensure the best selection but promotes national humility before God in the selection process. [C P]
Agreed, but let's not forget that we're talking about the principles involved here generally, not specifically how they relate to Israel.
I think the second to last point above addresses this...
What would you propose?
That's what Israel did with Saul, and God didn't like it one bit, but He went along with it. Could it have worked? It's possible, but Saul became so wicked, that God removed him because his wickedness would have gotten in the way of God's plan.
So God Himself picked a king, and I agree, not by lottery, but because David had the right qualities God was looking for.
And that ties in with the lottery, not that whoever is chosen has the right qualities, but that, in effect, they are being chosen by God because, as Proverbs 16 says (and as a figure of speech, of course, not as a woodenly literal explanation of how lotteries work):
The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:33 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3&version=NKJV
As for this:
Authority naturally flows downhill, from God through government to the people, from parents to children, from King to Prince.
God had a unique covenant relationship with national Israel, and occasionally explicitly intervened to select their kings.
Today God's covenant is with the international Body of Christ; and now He does not explicitly intervene in governments.
As a model, Jesus the Son of God, said, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Mat. 28:18).
Jesus, the King of Kings, is the Mary's "firstborn Son" (Mat. 1:2425; see also Mark 6:3; etc.).
A hereditary monarchy minimizes the instances in which a leader must be selected, and maximizes historical stability.
From above:
The process of choosing a leader determines whether the selection is God's will or not; e.g. usurping a throne violates God's will. God authorized selection of leaders by lot, for "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD (Prov. 16:33).
In other words, there is no way to do such without violating God's will. And because of that, Romans 3:8 also applies here, if I may paraphrase: Don't do evil that good may come of it.
In addition to that, allowing revolt (because that's what you're suggesting be allowed, though you probably don't think of it that way, but that's what it is, overthrowing the current government) inherently encourages it, making it far more likely that the people would undermine the government's authority, while prohibiting it would promote humility, so that they would not revolt, but instead plead with their king to "straighten up," so to speak, and not be evil, which ties in to what Bob pointed out, that a single point of accountability often rightly motivates, and while institutions virtually never repent, individuals often do, and even if they don't, a wicked king, barring his repentance, can die, whereas institutions can potentially carry on for multiple lifetimes. (Sorry for the run-on sentence, had train of thought pop up in my head and didn't want to lose it.)
I recommend (when/if you have the time) that you listen to this show from 2003 on a very similar topic, America's War for Independence.
https://kgov.com/bel/20030501
Not quite. I know what you're trying to say, but to clarify:
Such a mechanism inherently subverts the authority God gave to governments, even wicked ones.
Don't forget what Paul said:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. - Romans 13:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV
Of course, if the government is telling you to do evil, you obey God rather than man, which is where the civil disobedience comes in.
I wouldn't say that it would no longer be a monarchy, but it certainly would undermine the king's God-given authority.
From https://kgov.com/the-us-constitution...onstitutional:
Right to Revolution: Thomas Jefferson, by his left-wing ideology, claimed a right to revolution which biblical principles disallow. Jefferson incorrectly claimed a "Right of the People to alter or to abolish" the government, whereas God does not authorize private individuals or groups to use force against governing authorities, which is fundamentally criminal and unavoidably destabilizing. Incorrectly referring to America's War of Independence as The Revolutionary War gives dangerous precedence to violent revolutionaries. King David's non-violent disobedience against his own murderous king (2 Sam. 24:1-22) gives a biblical example of a just response to a criminal government. Back ¡
Removing the ruling king to put in a new one, or to abolish the monarchy completely, amounts to revolt, which is criminal, and the government would have every right to punish those who revolt.
I don't think there's any way other than by lottery that does not in some way violate Biblical principles.
But I'm certainly not against hearing any ideas you might have...
From Bob's Political Apologetic for the Proposed Constitution (which has not been posted yet on Kgov.com but that Bob sent me a couple of years ago):
King Prevails: Political Argument [Constitution Biblical]
· Man cannot devise a system of checks and balances likely to produce just leadership.
· That one man may rule justly is far more probable than that a committee of men will do so.
· Impeachment committees will be corrupted by bad leaders, or eventually usurp authority from the good.
· Giving “the people” charge over an impeachment committee guarantees nothing but growing corruption.
· A human government cannot prevent tyranny; such a government would be an illusion, denying reality.
· No practical authority can exist above the leader, or else that authority would be the leader.
· Authority flows downhill, not uphill, and certainly not in a circle. There must be an ultimate ruler somewhere.
· No constitution can devise a separation of powers that actually produces good government.
· Thus as the supreme human authority in the land the king must have final say over all other men.
· Good eventually wins. So America will see vengeance against a wicked king at least by Judgment Day. [C B]
-------------------
Let me know if I missed something.
Most of this begs the question.
You state that any mechanism for removing an unjust king would be rebellion. Well, that's only true if it were not part of the legal framework of the nation's constitution (i.e. part of the governmental system - i.e. the authority structure of the nation). In other words, your argument presupposes that your side of the debate is correct. It presupposes that the only right form of government permitted by God is a monarchy with a monarch who is effectively above the law. I reject that premise and so reject your argument. If governmental authority is delegated by God, which is seems clear that it is per Jesus' words to Pilate (John 19:11) then where is there a prohibition against having an authority structure in place that permits for the lawful removal of an unjust king? There is no such prohibition.
First of all this is an unsupported presupposition.
Even if it were true, which I doubt, so what? You're advocating a system that has a king who would effectively be above the law.
Another unsupported presupposition
I very much doubt that this is true because you propose to pick someone to be king by random lottery which is going to pick someone right out of the middle of the bell curve (i.e. an average person). If 90% of the righteousness is found in best 10% of the population and 90% of the crime is committed by the worst 10% of the population then why would you want to grab someone out of the middle 80% rather than the best 10%? Is there no one who can think things through clearly enough to figure out a way to, at the very least, increase the odds of the selection coming from that top 10%? Is the whole world so lost in confusion and foolishness that we can't discern between someone of good character vs. the average Joe Smuck who may or may not even know right from wrong?
Who said anything about an impeachment committee?
Not all people gathered together count as a committee, by the way. Committees almost always make decisions based on a simple majority vote that is based on each member's personal opinion. No one would agree that such a system would make for a viable way of removing a king from power. It would have to be some sort of legal proceeding where there was clear abuse of power as defined by the law, not some political party or popular opinion or the like.
Once again, this is an unsupported presupposition.
Even if I granted it's validity, the response would be, "Okay fine. Don't give it to the people." (I assume that "giving it to the people" is a way of saying, "put it to a popular vote".)
Well, not only does this sentiment apply equally well to a constitutional monarchy as it does any other form of government, The form of government that has come the closest to preventing tyranny is the one we live under right now. Of course, whether you agree with that or not depends on how you define the word "tyranny" but my point is merely that this point does not advance the case in favor of an above the law monarch. Indeed, the whole idea of an above the the monarch seems synonymous with tyranny to me.
This is the argument I referred to in my last post that I just do not buy. I get the point it's making but it just isn't correct from a practical perspective. This is the equivalent of saying that the United States Congress is the real Chief Executive because they are able to impeach the President. That just isn't true at all.
Another unsupported presupposition.
Why must there be an ultimate ruler somewhere? Where is it written the there must be someone somewhere who sits above the law?
Why not? (i.e. yet another unsupported presupposition.)
In other words, the king is above the law.
Sure, the tyrannical king will answer to God on judgment day but so will everyone else, including all the people the tyrannical king murdered in response to their civil disobedience.
In other words, this does not advance the argument in favor of a monarch who sits above the law.
My problem with this proposed system might be summed up by the following question....
If the king does not have the authority to make new laws, by what authority is he permitted to break the very laws that put him into power? Or put another way, how does it make sense to have a constitutional monarchy where the monarch can ignore the constitution?
Clete
