A more baseless assumption, one more in direct conflict with God’s teaching, was never made by man, than the idea that when the civil authority commands the Christian to do something contrary to the law of God, and he does it, the responsibility rest upon the civil authority, and not on the individual who violates the laws of God at the behest of the civil ruler.
“There is not a word of intimation in the Sacred Scriptures that indicate that it is the duty of any Christians to support, maintain, or defend any institution or organization of man, farther than a quiet, passive, but conscientious and faithful submission to its requirements, may have a tendency to sustain it. That submission he must render, not as a duty he owes to government on account of any virtue or merit it possesses, but as a solemn duty he owes to his Maker. This sense of duty to God connects him with all the governments and powers of the earth just alike. It permits him to become the partisan of none.”
This article continues a series of weekly posts originally authored by David Lipscomb, an important figure in the Churches of …
In this entry, Lipscomb continues his thesis that ordinances of God are not all intended to be carried out by his set-apart people, the Church, using the examples of heaven and hell.
A common objection to the idea that the state is founded in rebellion against God is the language of the Bible describing various kings and leaders as “God’s servants” or “ministers”. Romans 13 can be included as one of these texts. But do such verses justify their actions?
Lipscomb approaches the issue with a new tact this time around, and brings up Romans 13 in the process. He suggests that if Romans 13 is the justifying scripture for allowing Christians to participate in bloodshed, then “Nimrod and Abraham, Pharaoh and Moses, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, Paul and Nero, stand precisely upon the same footing as approved and accepted subjects [of God].” Of course, he says this is illogical, and we must reject the former premise.
This article continues a series of weekly posts originally authored by David Lipscomb, an important figure in the Churches of …
Notable in this piece is the way in which Lipscomb and his co-authors argue for their firm non-violent stance. They are to “submit quietly” to the government save where submission would require violation of God’s law. Their view, of course, is that joining an army to kill would be a violation of God’s law. Would only Christians today see the wisdom in such a firm belief?
Having stridently argued for the position that the kingdoms of the world are not of God through both Old and New Testaments, Lipscomb now seeks to differentiate the particular spirit of the Church versus the world-powers.
We wish to call attention to the biblical use of the term Babylon. It is given in Scripture as the name of the first, and in many respects, the head of the world-governments. It is derived from Babel, and means confusion. In the early days of the human family, and even to the present time, among the ruder nations of the world, all names are significant. This is especially so of the Bible names. Adam, means of earth, hence, he that was made of earth was called Adam. So of Babylon, it means confusion, strife; therefore, that which especially introduced confusion and strife into the world, was termed Babylon.
Lipscomb now addresses the symbols in Revelation in greater detail, ultimately to level a scathing indictment of the 19th-century church. Some protestants interpret the “mother of harlots” as the medieval era Roman Catholic Church (Constantine and beyond). Fine, Lipscomb says, but who are the daughters of this harlot? Are they not the protestant churches?
This article continues a series of weekly posts originally authored by David Lipscomb, an important figure in the Churches of …
This article continues a series of weekly posts originally authored by David Lipscomb, an important figure in the Churches of …
This article continues a series of weekly posts originally authored by David Lipscomb, an important figure in the Churches of …
In our investigations we have found that God, at all times, kept a wide gulf of separation between his Jewish kingdom and subjects, and the world-institutions by which they were surrounded. No alliances—no affiliations—no courtesies as equals with the man-governments or their subjects, were never engaged in without receiving a signal mark of God’s displeasure.
This article continues a series of weekly posts originally authored by David Lipscomb, an important figure in the Churches of …
This article continues a series of weekly posts originally authored by David Lipscomb, an important figure in the Churches of …
This article begins a new series of weekly posts authored by David Lipscomb, an important figure in the Churches of …
We equip followers of Jesus Christ to make the Christian case for a free society.
St. Louis MO 63146
United States