The brevity of this response should not be taken as my having blown off any of what you said. Since we are mostly in agreement, I'm just trying to be efficient and focus on the point of disagreement....Alright, let's see if I can jump back into this...
I agree, but I was mostly referring to humanity in general, not the Body of Christ.
I think you're forgetting one crucial detail regarding the proposed constitution.
That it seeks to codify the moral laws ("do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not covet") while enforcing Biblical principles.
From the "Political Defence of The Constitution of America" document I have:
Christianity is true and other religions are false. So a government should be founded on biblical truths. Correct principles of governance do not change.
In other words, violating the law (such as the proposed constitution, were it implemented) IS violating God's law, because as stated by Paul in Romans 13, we are to obey the government, because they are God's ministers. And while that's immediately applicable to Christians, it also applies to the rest of humanity, no?
He will be citing "Do not murder."
And if our laws state "Do not murder," it's not "our" law, per se, but God's.
Agreed on all of this.
The crime of disobeying the law is a sin.
It's both a sin and a crime for a king to break the law, regardless of whether he faces any earthly judgement.
Correction: A king who ACTS above of the law of the land which he governs...
Just because he acts without regard to the law doesn't mean he is actually above the law.
And what if that court is corrupt? Are you going to have a check or balance for that too?
Likely, but as the supreme ruler of the land, the king would have final say over his own trial. And "what about a human court to oversee such a trial" is answered above.
He's not. He's held in a place under the law, regardless of his actions.
From the "Political Defence" document again:
· 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.
The flaw in your position is the contradictory nature of conceding the following two points....
- "...as the supreme ruler of the land, the king would have final say over his own trial."
- "He's not [above the law]. He's held in a place under the law, regardless of his actions."
And so whether or not the law expressly places the king above the law is irrelevant because in reality he is in a position that is legally untouchable while at the same time has the authority to make legal judgments, even if such a judgment has an inherent conflict of interest. The king can literally do whatever he wants and the closest the law can get to it is for the king to declare himself not guilty. That is the very definition of being above the law.
This is not a problem for a nation that has the Judge of all creation directly participating in the county's affairs. The United States of America, however, is not that country.