God and Government Response to Rebuttal from Aaron M. Fugate
So now, contributing politics and sports editor Aaron M. Fugate has rebutted to my FIRST TWO installments of God and Government. That is where his mistakes begin! But let me first mention where he is right, according to Scripture!
Right:
1. Aaron M. Fugate advocates self-government as God's plan for now. He is partially correct here. Romans 13:8-14 and I Peter 2:11-17 teaches the believers to practice self-government because obeying the local authorities is not enough to please the God who has redeemed them. Believers must go further then mere obedience to government by loving the brethren, the unbelievers, and God most of all. Here is I Peter 2:11-17.
"Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king." (Emphasis original to NKJV).
Aaron also explains this correct tenet in his second-to-last paragraph. He is right that Christians are much more than just law-abiding men and women. If and when Christians govern themselves according to God's Word, each nation will be (is) a lot better off and has less worries concerning crime.
2. Aaron is correct that government governs by fear. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil." (Romans 13:3). This is the God's expectation of government and should not be avoided by the nations who fear God.
3. Aaron Fugate is also correct when he says "I would contend that there are no better types of government, just better people who make up the government." However, what does he mean by "government" in this quote? Man-made government? or Self-government (the government that he claims is God-ordained)? Either would make his statement correct, but the first would threaten his premise and the second would strengthen his principles, so I will assume the latter.
4. Finally, Aaron is correct that "evangelism and discipleship" is the expectation of the church in the church age. Certainly if the church was doing a better job of fulfilling her responsibilities and if God would have elected more people to salvation then the world would be a much better place in which to live. However, although God is "not willing that any should perish" (2 Peter 3:9), not everyone will be saved (John 3:36). The church should be much more active in evangelism and discipleship, instead of her current desire to cater to the world.
Wrong: Aaron M. Fugate seems to be wrong in each place where he is right, in addition to a couple of other spots. I will be careful, since Aaron is my brother and since he has brought an interesting angle.
1A. Although Aaron M. Fugate has a good point concerning self-government, he checks his dispensationalism at the door. He forgets that "the beginning" was a different stewardship than the current age of grace or church era. In the beginning, God gave one command to the first human family. Why? We DO NOT know. There is no apparent reason in Scripture and anytime we speculate, we just put ourselves in one of the unnecessary camps of Arminianism or Calvinism. Adam was the federal head of man. He represented man and sinned, plunging the human race into sin (Romans 5:12-21). Although Jesus Christ was/is perfect, He still had to deal with the curse of sin, every day.
We are in the dispensation of grace, God expects a whole lot more of his children (and of the world) than avoiding a forbidden fruit. God gives more than 300 commands in the New Testament. Most are commands that Adam and Eve never read or taught. God has not changed His character but he has changed the way that He deals with man. In the stewardship of HUMAN GOVERNMENT, God gave Noah the rule of capital punishment. Noah NEVER asked for that rule and God never asked Noah what government he wanted. The expectations of capital punishment in the third dispensation are still intact. I have already made that very clear in my first post.
1B. The choice that Adam made in Genesis 3 does not prove human freewill but rather deprived his offspring of freewill altogether. The idea of human freewill is not biblical. It is the incorrect basis of Arminianism and makes that theology unsafe for Christians. Paul teaches us that human freewill always leads to more sin in Romans 3:10-20. The best definition of human freewill is this: humans will always do the worst sin possible, unless there is an outside force. When it comes to the angry boyfriend who just lost his girlfriend to another man, the man who lost his woman will kill the woman unless there is an outside force stopping him, like his conscience, or the law, or his parents' love, etc. Human freewill always tends to more sin unless the man/woman involved is stopped by someone or something.
2. Aaron claims that being governed by fear is a bad idea, but he provides no reason for this. Aaron fails to define fear and he also fails to differentiate between good fear and bad fear. When a believer fears God by showing respect and reverence to his Creator and Lord, that believer is being obedient to God. Five times in I Peter alone (1:17; 2:17, 18; 3:2, 15), the believer is expected to have "fear" towards God, his/her employer, and the believing wife's unsaved husband, and two other undefined fears. I could give many more examples, but space does not allow such. Although "perfect love casts out fear" (I John 4:18), that fear is not reverence and respect of God. That fear is the fear of the loss of salvation and/or sanctification (see I John 5:13). A healthy fear of God and God-ordained human authorities is part of obeying God.
3. On the one hand, Aaron is correct about the need for better people in government and within the the fabric of each nation. That will certainly be achieved by following Aaron's prescription of evangelism and discipleship. On the other hand, what about the bad people? What about the criminals? What about those who sin against God's law and consequently against their neighbors? If my neighbor breaks in to my house, am I expected to just give him the gospel and never call the police? What if a Christian husband loses his wife to another man (or to another woman)? Should he just pray for her and ask her to go to counseling with the local pastor? What about the Christian who has a property dispute with a man holding him at gunpoint? Should he just quote some verses at him or should he yell for help?
Right:
1. Aaron M. Fugate advocates self-government as God's plan for now. He is partially correct here. Romans 13:8-14 and I Peter 2:11-17 teaches the believers to practice self-government because obeying the local authorities is not enough to please the God who has redeemed them. Believers must go further then mere obedience to government by loving the brethren, the unbelievers, and God most of all. Here is I Peter 2:11-17.
"Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king." (Emphasis original to NKJV).
Aaron also explains this correct tenet in his second-to-last paragraph. He is right that Christians are much more than just law-abiding men and women. If and when Christians govern themselves according to God's Word, each nation will be (is) a lot better off and has less worries concerning crime.
2. Aaron is correct that government governs by fear. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil." (Romans 13:3). This is the God's expectation of government and should not be avoided by the nations who fear God.
3. Aaron Fugate is also correct when he says "I would contend that there are no better types of government, just better people who make up the government." However, what does he mean by "government" in this quote? Man-made government? or Self-government (the government that he claims is God-ordained)? Either would make his statement correct, but the first would threaten his premise and the second would strengthen his principles, so I will assume the latter.
4. Finally, Aaron is correct that "evangelism and discipleship" is the expectation of the church in the church age. Certainly if the church was doing a better job of fulfilling her responsibilities and if God would have elected more people to salvation then the world would be a much better place in which to live. However, although God is "not willing that any should perish" (2 Peter 3:9), not everyone will be saved (John 3:36). The church should be much more active in evangelism and discipleship, instead of her current desire to cater to the world.
Wrong: Aaron M. Fugate seems to be wrong in each place where he is right, in addition to a couple of other spots. I will be careful, since Aaron is my brother and since he has brought an interesting angle.
1A. Although Aaron M. Fugate has a good point concerning self-government, he checks his dispensationalism at the door. He forgets that "the beginning" was a different stewardship than the current age of grace or church era. In the beginning, God gave one command to the first human family. Why? We DO NOT know. There is no apparent reason in Scripture and anytime we speculate, we just put ourselves in one of the unnecessary camps of Arminianism or Calvinism. Adam was the federal head of man. He represented man and sinned, plunging the human race into sin (Romans 5:12-21). Although Jesus Christ was/is perfect, He still had to deal with the curse of sin, every day.
We are in the dispensation of grace, God expects a whole lot more of his children (and of the world) than avoiding a forbidden fruit. God gives more than 300 commands in the New Testament. Most are commands that Adam and Eve never read or taught. God has not changed His character but he has changed the way that He deals with man. In the stewardship of HUMAN GOVERNMENT, God gave Noah the rule of capital punishment. Noah NEVER asked for that rule and God never asked Noah what government he wanted. The expectations of capital punishment in the third dispensation are still intact. I have already made that very clear in my first post.
1B. The choice that Adam made in Genesis 3 does not prove human freewill but rather deprived his offspring of freewill altogether. The idea of human freewill is not biblical. It is the incorrect basis of Arminianism and makes that theology unsafe for Christians. Paul teaches us that human freewill always leads to more sin in Romans 3:10-20. The best definition of human freewill is this: humans will always do the worst sin possible, unless there is an outside force. When it comes to the angry boyfriend who just lost his girlfriend to another man, the man who lost his woman will kill the woman unless there is an outside force stopping him, like his conscience, or the law, or his parents' love, etc. Human freewill always tends to more sin unless the man/woman involved is stopped by someone or something.
2. Aaron claims that being governed by fear is a bad idea, but he provides no reason for this. Aaron fails to define fear and he also fails to differentiate between good fear and bad fear. When a believer fears God by showing respect and reverence to his Creator and Lord, that believer is being obedient to God. Five times in I Peter alone (1:17; 2:17, 18; 3:2, 15), the believer is expected to have "fear" towards God, his/her employer, and the believing wife's unsaved husband, and two other undefined fears. I could give many more examples, but space does not allow such. Although "perfect love casts out fear" (I John 4:18), that fear is not reverence and respect of God. That fear is the fear of the loss of salvation and/or sanctification (see I John 5:13). A healthy fear of God and God-ordained human authorities is part of obeying God.
3. On the one hand, Aaron is correct about the need for better people in government and within the the fabric of each nation. That will certainly be achieved by following Aaron's prescription of evangelism and discipleship. On the other hand, what about the bad people? What about the criminals? What about those who sin against God's law and consequently against their neighbors? If my neighbor breaks in to my house, am I expected to just give him the gospel and never call the police? What if a Christian husband loses his wife to another man (or to another woman)? Should he just pray for her and ask her to go to counseling with the local pastor? What about the Christian who has a property dispute with a man holding him at gunpoint? Should he just quote some verses at him or should he yell for help?
These examples may seem extreme, but they are all possible and I am sure each has happened several times. These are examples of men and women who are practicing good self-government being violated by other men and women practicing terrible self-government. There has to be a human authority in each of these cases to punish those who attempted and/or carried out evil because they lack self-government (Rom. 13:1-7). This human authority should be a God-fearing monarch, governor, or employer, according to I Peter 2:11-17. Aaron's ideal government does not even seem to include this as a possibility. It sounds a lot like libertarianism, or worse yet, mild anarchy.
In my last installment of God and Government, I will advocate for small government which leaves its people and businesses alone unless they violate the laws of God as explained in His Word and in the constitution of that nation. Then the accused will face a fair trial before being brought to justice, if found guilty. If Aaron is advocating for this type of government, then more power to him! If not, then I encourage him to read even more Scripture.
4. Aaron advocates "evangelism and discipleship" as the church's best response to the terrible governments of this age. I wholeheartedly agree. His other response, gives me heartburn, though. He asks the Stateside believers to work on electing Christians into the government to make it change to a God-honoring government. That ship has sailed and has sunk like the Titanic to which he refers! The vast majority of politicians are corrupt socialists (redundant) who claim to be conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, etc. These men really just believe that govenrment is the answer to all problems and that morality should never mix with government. For the rest of politicians in parliamentary and republican governments, they are immediately vulnerable to lobbyists from the first they are elected. Representative government has failed Americans, Canadians, Brits, etc.
5. Speaking of representative government, Aaron makes this claim that "All government is representative government". What is he talking about? His examples are not true to life and do not cover all the possibilities of government situations. Let me provide three REAL examples of government that was NOT representative.
A. Gerald Ford 1974-77. Ford was the only man to be president who was not elected as president nor as vice president. The majority of Americans did not want him at the helm and voted him out in the 1976 election. Then those Americans learned the error of their ways and elected Ronald Reagan in 1980!
B. England in the mid 1600s: The Brits did not like Charles I and eventually had him be-headed in 1649. When Oliver Cromwell, the best modern idea of a God-fearing monarch, took over, the people did not like him either and forced him out of the Lord Protectorate in 1660. They brought back the monarchy and kept it until that was unpopular to their children who forced James II out and moved England into a totally different type of government. Did any of the 17th century British leaders represent the values and views of the English populace? Most likely NOT!
C. In the late 9th century B.C., Nadab, the king of Israel (northern kingdom) was assasinated by Baasha (I Kings 15:25-30). Baasha proceeded to kill all the descendants of Jeroboam (Nadab's father). Why? Because they did not represent the views of Baasha. Did the people like Baasha as king? We do not know. What we do know is that Baasha was not the king chosen by the people.
I have provided three examples of non-representative government. There are plenty more for more discussion.
6. The final issue with the rebuttal of Aaron Fugate is the most important. Throughout his arguments and responses to my study, Aaron fails to bring any cogent Scripture passages to defend his views. He never uses any verses to disprove my conclusions. Instead, he allludes to passages and make conclusions from those allusions. The problem is that WE need to know his exegetical process for using these vague passages to build or defend his view.
I have used Scriptural passages and principles to defend my views and establish my conclusions. I am still studying this subject. The truths are in Scripture not just in the mind of an uncle of a cute boy named Lucas!
I would encourage Aaron to deepen his study of Scripture concerning God and Government while also patiently waiting for me to post my third and final blog postS on the topic.
Comments