tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post7041102801828347347..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: My thoughts about Congregational Worship, Social Distancing, Submission to Caesar, and Obedience to GodPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59795556917987608522020-07-14T13:30:31.255-07:002020-07-14T13:30:31.255-07:00Unknown....
That is a very well thought out and a...Unknown....<br /><br />That is a very well thought out and articulate post.<br /><br />I have a question for you. <br /><br />We have a three tiered system of government, where the courts determine if an order was made outside ones scope, whether it be state congress or the governor etc. I will note the governor says big things but if you read the state website it always says "guidelines". So it's actually each individual county that adopts the "guidance" and makes it law.<br /><br />Based on this checks and balances form of government are we to follow the rules/laws laid before us until they are deemed beyond the scope of power of the one that made them. Or, are we too let each individual citizen decide for themselves which laws are outside the scope and thus decide not to follow them?<br /><br />Here we have a stay at home order. It is arguable both ways wether or not it is valid based on the authority of the person who put the order in effect. In Los Angeles county (where GCC is) that would be Muntu Davis, M.D. who actually signed the Health Order (Not Gavin Newsom).<br /><br />If we say yes we can violate the order because we believe it to be beyond the authority of Dr. Davis then why do we have the court system? We can each decide for ourselves what laws are outside the authority of the person who made the rule/law and the person who enforces those rules/laws.<br /><br />Let's say for example I believe the gun laws in California are against the constitution. I get and own guns deemed illegal in California. I carry them and a police officer stops me. I refuse to comply because they are trying to enforce a law created outside the authority of the one who created it. This probably will not go well.<br /><br />Sovereign Citizens make their claims based on just this. They believe they do not need driver's license because a loop hole in verbiage says "travelers" do not come under the California Vehicle Code. The courts have ruled against them but they still hold the belief that the laws were created outside the governing bodies authority. <br /><br />The constitution says all laws not specifically granted the Federal Government, nor denied the State, shall be given to the State. Based on this most Federal laws would be invalid. However, the courts, have made rulings (that all do not agree with) about what is and is not valid.<br /><br />All this to say we need to be very careful if we decide to not follow laws because we believe they are created outside ones authority. We have so many complex laws and very few of us have actually read them for ourselves. We rely so much on word of mouth about who can do what. <br /><br />If we violate these laws because we believe they were created outside the authority of those who made them and the courts ultimately rule against us then what? Do we just say, "Sorry, I thought it was an invalid law"<br /><br />If so one could question any law on the books and if the courts rule against you then with a clean conscience we could say, "Sorry, I thought it was an invalid law".<br /><br />Now if you are saying the laws cause us to violate scripture, then yes violate them. But you would need to make a clear biblical argument why they violate scripture. <br /><br />Many have spent a lifetime understanding Constitutional law. There is so much case law on the subject I would be worried about making a claim that a law is made outside one's authority unless I had an exceptional working knowledge of Constitutional Law. A understanding that would have me be comfortable walking into a court room and making my argument intelligently. <br /><br />You may very well be a Constitutional scholar and have an excellent working knowledge of the subject matter. If so Please lay out why the laws may have been made outside the authority of the writer.Just saying the Governor can't make that law is not enough without clear, irrefutable, arguements. An argument as clear as the one above that shows how IF the law is outside the authority then violating it might be alright.<br /><br />Again thank you for such a good post bathed in scripture.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11139854064165052331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80689583141671369112020-07-14T09:29:32.473-07:002020-07-14T09:29:32.473-07:00Phil:
If the principles of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Pe...Phil:<br /><br />If the principles of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17, which contain no exceptions, are nonetheless limited by the principle of Acts 5:29, then perhaps they are meant to be general and not absolute. In other words, there may be other exceptions.<br /><br />For example, Matthew 23:2-3 teaches that the “scribes and Pharisees” should be obeyed. Nonetheless, Jesus and His disciples disobeyed these leaders even when it would have been possible to obey their man-made traditions without violating God’s Word (Matt. 15:2; Mark 2:23-24; Luke 13:14; John 5:8-10).<br /><br />This refusal to obey these religious leaders was not just a refusal to obey the “religious authority;” as MacArthur and others have pointed out, these leaders also possessed “political authority.”[1]<br /><br />Austin T. Duncan explained in The Master’s Seminary Blog that religious authority (1) cannot contradict Scripture (Acts 5:29), and (2) it cannot go “outside of the Word of God” (Heb. 13:7).[2] Consequently, an elder does not have to be obeyed when he contradicts or when he exceeds his God-given authority, the Word of God.<br /><br />Likewise, a government leader’s authority would be limited by its capacity to contradict or exceed the “king, as supreme” (1 Pet. 2:13). In the case of the United States, it would seem that a lower institution of the government (i.e., governor, mayor, police officer) could not contradict or exceed its authority under the U.S. Constitution or related constitutional laws.<br /><br />An illustration: A police officer or mayor tells a Christian to wash his or her car. This command does not violate God’s Word; it does not violate the principle of Acts 5:29, and the Christian’s obedience would not result in sin. Nonetheless, the officer or mayor would have exceeded his or her authority; consequently, disobedience would not be a sin (i.e., the Christian does not have to wash the mayor’s car).<br /><br />It seems that two things limit obedience to religious or political leaders. First, Christians should obey God if the order contradicts His Word. Second, Christians are not automatically guilty of sin if the command exceeds the leader’s authority. It may not always be clear when a leader’s command violates Scripture (i.e., Heb. 10:25) or exceeds his or her authority; therefore, Christians should not be too eager to judge those that disagree (Romans 14).<br /><br />Furthermore, God ordained governments “for the punishment of evildoers” (1 Pet. 2:14). These “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil” (Rom. 13:4). However, rulers sometimes exceed their God-given authority and punish those that are doing good (Dan. 6:7-11). These leaders have surpassed the limits placed on them by God. In these cases, Christians have some “liberty, ” and they must ultimately let their “conscience” guide them without using this “liberty” as a “cloak of maliciousness” (i.e., Mordaica and Esther in Est. 4:11,16; 2 Pet. 2:16,19; Rom. 13:5).<br /><br />[1] John MacArthur, Bible Questions and Answers, Part 34,” John MacArthur Sermon Archive, January 4, 1987: Mal Couch, “The Literary Value of the Book of Matthew,” Conservative Theological Journal Volume 3, no. 10 (1999): 347.<br />[2] Austin T. Duncan, “How Much Authority Does A Pastor Have?” The Master’s Seminary Blog, Feb. 14, 2020.<br /><br /><br />Michael F.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03004407294444348026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13912072909255334452020-07-13T22:34:24.116-07:002020-07-13T22:34:24.116-07:00No, it's the sanctity of life, ironically, tha...No, it's the sanctity of life, ironically, that trumps submission to "authority" that would seek to destroy it. Ask the Ten Booms about that, Aaron B. COVID is not destroying life anymore than influenza does annually. Closing down the domestic and global economies in the name of a virus like COVID (with its real stats) destroys much more life than it saves. Therefore, submission to a lie, for the Christian is not the modus being put forth by Rom 13 etc; Christians, in principle, submit to the truth--that is our witness, ultimately. The catacombs, the confessing church in Germany, the underground church in China and other things come to mind right now. Apparently you need to expand your horizons when attempting to understand passages like Rom 13 etc. Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16260159164649130612020-07-13T06:24:30.342-07:002020-07-13T06:24:30.342-07:00Love this post Phil. Thanks so much for writing it...Love this post Phil. Thanks so much for writing it!Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13325110133957216983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76754889600886747232020-07-13T06:09:41.701-07:002020-07-13T06:09:41.701-07:00So Romans 13 teaches that we submit to authority w...So Romans 13 teaches that we submit to authority when their rules and consistent and we think it's fair. I've been misreading it all these years! ... and 1 Pet 2:12-17 teaches that "honor" is optional. If they're on the "wrong" side politically, and their rules are inconsistent, deny them the respect of assuming they have good motives? Somehow I've missed that nuance.Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14643119144692680632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14852603486868484522020-07-12T22:56:26.569-07:002020-07-12T22:56:26.569-07:00@Dennis, you wrote:
You simply need to understand...@Dennis, you wrote:<br /><br /><em>You simply need to understand, there are no principles involved in your decision not to wear a mask (apparently because you are offended at being told what to do). No, there is no principle involved here; biblical, philosophical, or religious. There are no interpretive options here at stake. And this is vitally important for you and the other anti-mask people to completely understand: there is no principle involved here, you are just being jerks. Pure and simple.</em><br /><br />Wow, when you fell from JMac's grace you fell hard! But beyond that, the science doesn't support wearing masks, nor do the real numbers for CDC mortality exist. IOW, you seem to be unaware of how this virus is spread, and what in fact masks cannot and can do in regard to its mitigation (particularly when we consider the types of material being used for masks, how people are handling them, and then, again, simply how the mask was never intended to stop the spread of coronaviruses). Further, you apparently missed Dr Birx's bemoaning of CDC guidelines for determining COVID deaths, and then how the test for determining COVID results in 50% false positives. COVID has clearly been politicized and thus weaponized in an attempt to defeat the Donald for another term of being POTUS. Indeed, COVID has multiple modalities in the hands of its engineers. When the bigger picture is in view, which you are clearly ignorant of, the passages Phil refers to are clearly relevant and indeed prescriptive when it comes to "civil disobedience." So, I'd say you're triumphalistic comment is based on mis-information, and thus has led you to an erroneous conclusion in regard to the application of said biblical texts. You ought to educate yourself on these things, and then maybe comment again after that. Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2394714482497414312020-07-12T12:11:00.524-07:002020-07-12T12:11:00.524-07:00JB, there is no problem with going to church, so l...JB, there is no problem with going to church, so long as you do it in accordance with the current LAW OF THE LAND. In Los Angeles County that currently equates to no more than 100 people or 25 percent capacity whichever is less. Clearly for Grace Church that is 100 people as the sanctuary is large. So now it is not a mater of just masks its a matter of number of people gathering in one room. While the church as many rooms and chapel as well as outdoor seating well over 1000 could be on campus for service. However, instead they are all gathered together in the sanctuary with some outside. The elders have not made any statement to the body as to why they are violating the LAW. How are they leading the body by obvious disobedience without explanation? <br /><br />Anonymous said it well above, they are the leaders so they need to lead. You can't just be the leadership and lead the people to violate the law without any biblical reason why. <br /><br />Perhaps, many people would not have a problem violating the law if they were given a reason. And saying the law isn't legal does not fly. California Health and Safety code 101040 allows the health officer to "take any preventative measure to protect the people during a state of emergency" so until the courts overrule the orders they are the law. If persecution, fine but articulate it.<br /><br />Joanne, I too would like to see the comparison to the May 25 post.<br /><br /><br />Can someone explain to me how if people are offended when others do not wear masks in compliance with the LAW, how it's not an eating meat issue. If not wearing a mask causes my brother to stumble, should I wear a mask? Or do I tell them the law is wrong so stop being offended.Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14888447406995364240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9133078240664517232020-07-12T11:55:14.913-07:002020-07-12T11:55:14.913-07:00Regarding this comment: "Do Unto Others As Yo...Regarding this comment: "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You"....Don't infect others as you don't want them to infect you. Phil, this has nothing to do with fearing the virus. It is about mutual respect.<br /><br />This is a poor application of Do Unto Others. First, it's illogical and unsustainable for all of us to agree to pretend we are pre-/asymptomatic at all times. What are the criteria for ending that charade?<br /><br />If you are sick, stay home.<br /><br />If you are vulnerable, take precautions and responsibility for your own health.<br /><br />Regarding family, friends, and fellow believers, love and mutual respect means we will have to navigate complex situations with grace & humility. But it's inevitable that Christians with different perspectives and equally passionate convictions around the risks of COVID and government's handling thereof will clash. JESSICAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612287461316620102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58883684291791919542020-07-12T11:54:55.569-07:002020-07-12T11:54:55.569-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.JESSICAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13612287461316620102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64780838599569116852020-07-12T11:41:39.840-07:002020-07-12T11:41:39.840-07:00The doctrine of the lesser magistrate applies here...The doctrine of the lesser magistrate applies here, just like it does in the Bible. People under the authority of a magistrates are morally able, and I would actually say obligated, to disobey the magistrate if it is in direct contrast with God’s law, or in this case, the constitution, or both. Governor Newsome’s executive orders aren’t even laws, they are an abuse of power; moreover, they are in start contrast to the 1st, 14th, and 5th amendments of the constitution. It’s time for the church to stand up and say, “No!” JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06768438231472767539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62953739634065570012020-07-12T11:38:36.933-07:002020-07-12T11:38:36.933-07:00I’m confused. How is someone else going to church...I’m confused. How is someone else going to church affecting you? Why shouldn’t people have the freedom to decide for themselves? If you want to lock yourself in your home because you don’t want to get infected, so be it. But why would that infringe upon anyone else? You afraid of missing out?JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06768438231472767539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37177758043591296962020-07-12T11:06:41.325-07:002020-07-12T11:06:41.325-07:00There are plenty of this type of false equivalency...There are plenty of this type of false equivalency arguments going on. I’m going to be pointed here: to equate or even draw parallels between wearing a mask and the civil disobedience of civil rights leaders is absurd. The Southern Soldiers disobeyed the government (or better they decided which government they would obey). The Germans...well that statement is offensive and wicked.<br /><br />Those who partake of civil disobedience -know- that they pay the price in terms of punishment and many did. <br /><br />There is no “greater good” to be appealed to by those who won’t wear masks, and not-picking around the relevant NT passages on obedience to the civil authorities demonstrates not a low view of scripture as much as an ego-centric view. You neither want to obey scripture or the governing authorities, you only want to obey yourself. For this, Satan and the funeral industry are shouting amen and so be it.<br /><br />You simply need to understand, there are no principles involved in your decision not to wear a mask (apparently because you are offended at being told what to do). No, there is no principle involved here; biblical, philosophical, or religious. There are no interpretive options here at stake. And this is vitally important for you and the other anti-mask people to completely understand: there is no principle involved here, you are just being jerks. Pure and simple.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15421240262497010112020-07-11T17:18:05.492-07:002020-07-11T17:18:05.492-07:00Approaching it as a matter of conscience and givin...Approaching it as a matter of conscience and giving grace to fellow saints in the body who think differently has been my church's (Christ Church, Moscow) tack from the beginning. Aaron Snellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04711483486603774496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30256852728805134392020-07-11T14:43:13.394-07:002020-07-11T14:43:13.394-07:00Hello...Please compare your two responses to the C...Hello...Please compare your two responses to the California State Government's handling of closing churches. 25 May 2020 "What is a Christian's duty to unjust government"and 10 July 2020 "My thoughts about congregational worship, social distancing, submission to Caesar and obedience to God".<br /><br />Thank you...joannesf46https://www.blogger.com/profile/15847137811135494853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57184651857496302192020-07-11T11:32:31.066-07:002020-07-11T11:32:31.066-07:00Two questions....
1) The Grace Connection says &q...Two questions....<br /><br />1) The Grace Connection says "class sizes will be limited to no more than 100 attendees" in reference to the Sundays in July classes. Is this a true statement? Please do not respond that people are free to come as their conscience allows, the statement says limited, not limited if you wish to....<br /><br />2) If the leadership at GCC is violating the laws have they clearly, and biblically, explained why to the body? Saying "follow your conscience is not enough, you are the leaders of the church. People will follow your example, and they should. If people see the leadership violating the law, they will follow and violate the law. would it not be proper to tell people why the leadership is violating the law? <br /><br />I am not saying it is wrong to violate this law, I may completely agree with you. I am just saying, the elders are leaders of 1,000's on campus and arguably millions around the world. Would it not be prudent to explain to people who are not "Bereans" and just follow your leadership, why you are violating the law. <br /><br />I agree with you many times, I remember years ago at ShepCon you were asked what would you do if preaching was illegal. You answered you would have a vibrant prison ministry. I would be there right next to you brother. But I am sure in that situation you, and I, would give clear biblical examples and clearly explain to our flocks why we are violating the law. <br /><br />A lady was on CBS news last week and asked about social distancing and not wearing a mask. She replied, "my pastor, John MacArthur, says it's just the flu". This should make you pause, and I would hope realize many will do and say whatever you as the leadership do. This lady is violating the law, not because she has examined the scriptures to see what is right. Not because she searched her conscience and felt it was right, but because her leadership said, "it's just the flu". <br /><br />I would not fault you for saying I'm obeying the law, or I am not and here is why, biblically, I am not. Just have your leadership take a stance and clearly articulate it. If the elders do not agree and the proper response and you cannot make an agreed upon statement, would it not be prudent to take the weakest brother view and obey the law.? <br /><br />If you do respond please take a few seconds and answer question 1.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11139854064165052331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-146345551100535432020-07-11T09:11:31.850-07:002020-07-11T09:11:31.850-07:00Phil, I do not wear a mask. I believe if other w...Phil, I do not wear a mask. I believe if other want to, that's their business. I'm a born again again believer in the death and resurrection of my Savior. My concern is all the "us and them" mentality masks seem to be producing. The mask is being equated with being the "loving thing" if you are a Christian, and with caring about and respecting others in the secular world. You can Google "Should Christians wear masks" and see all the pastors and other saying it's the loving thing to do. I see the "I'm better, smarter, and more loving than you" crowd looking down the nose at those who dont wear the mask. Non mask wearers are caring and loving people too!! I'm afraid the time will come when non-mask wearers may be persecuted and/or murdered for the greater good by a "caring" person who thought he was doing the right thing by ridding society of the evil non-mask wearer. In the climate we are in, this is not a crazy thought.<br /><br />That said, I almost see the mandates put forth by our very hypocritical leaders around the country as demonic. I'm trying to understand, would the Apostle Paul have worn a mask today? I kind of feel like he wouldn't. There just seems to be something dark and sinister in this, and I have a feeling it's going to end up mandated around the globe. Seeing masked people everywhere reminds me of Islam, as well. Is it a clue that we're in the last days (which I believe)? Will masks be required in the tribulation? Is the world being groomed for that? Am I thinking too much into this? I'm not so sure.<br /><br />In closing, I am trying to figure out biblically, should I just do it? And, if not, how can I figure this out scripturally? I mean, when I read about or hear other Christians say "Its the most loving thing we can do"... I feel great uneasiness. The Bible does not teach that this is love. Love is truth and the proclamation of truth. It is the declaration of the Gospel even in the face of persecution. It is a willingness to lay our life down for the brethren. It is in being a living sacrifice. It is to be full of faith, joy, peace, and self control. It is to be kind, tender hearted, and forgiving of one another as Ephesians 4 teaches. I feel that mask wearing and standing 6 feet apart not only makes all of this difficult to do, but is also "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men". Is mask wearing becoming the new Christlikeness? It sure feels like it. And it makes me want to resist it even more. Do you have any thoughts on this? Thanks so much!<br /> SouthernBellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548116947467369658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71387037783360575122020-07-11T06:43:55.411-07:002020-07-11T06:43:55.411-07:00Phil ended by saying that he's willing to suff...Phil ended by saying that he's willing to suffer the consequences if he chooses actions that the governement doesn't like. I'd add that it would also be consistent with Rom 13 and 1 Pet 2 for individual Christians or groups that represented them to take legal action against the government. Doing so is not violating submission to the government, since the government set up the laws for citizens to do so. It is *part of* our government's structure that the citizens can challenge their leaders in legals ways like courts. I probably wouldn't bother, since in super-left CA it would probably be a waste of time. I'm just saying it wouldn't be unbiblical to do so.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00334741763171654737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34039350581721374742020-07-11T06:39:24.089-07:002020-07-11T06:39:24.089-07:00Rom 14:10-13 Don’t judge there is a whole lot of j...Rom 14:10-13 Don’t judge there is a whole lot of judging going on. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05797846598675055453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81711009882972487912020-07-10T22:17:12.723-07:002020-07-10T22:17:12.723-07:00I fully agree with you, Phil. I fully agree with you, Phil. Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51734935668583952672020-07-10T20:06:45.497-07:002020-07-10T20:06:45.497-07:00OSO: Your scenario is something that could happen ...<b>OSO:</b> Your scenario is something that could happen in any church on any Sunday--or an a city bus, for that matter--pandemic or no. Indeed, it HAS happened many times (possibly every week) in every era of church history. And it will surely happen again even if this virus is totally eradicated and church life returns to some semblance or normalcy. Communicable diseases are a real and ongoing risk all the time in everyday life. We tend to think of the risk more during flu season and in times of pandemic. Indeed, churchgoers have always rightly tended to take precautions when they know the risk is high. The small number of COVID cases linked to churches illustrates that. It also gives statistical weight to the argument that the extreme measures being imposed on churches during the current pandemic have been excessive (see the article linked above).<br /><br />Nevertheless, we charitably accommodate people's fears and dutifully follow the government's orders as much as reasonably possible. My argument here is that we also have a duty to consider and provide for the consciences of those who cannot wholeheartedly support the draconian quarantine policies that target worshipers because they feel the weight of Hebrews 10:25 and the rest of Scripture's emphasis on the importance of corporate worship, singing, and person-to-person ministry.<br /><br />If you're suggesting no amount of risk is acceptable, or perhaps that we should embrace the proposal that henceforth our worship must forever be masked and socially distanced with zero or minimal congregational singing, that is precisely the idea that prompts me to conclude that 16 weeks of total quarantine has actually been worse for the church than the virus would likely have been.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32601944782130094642020-07-10T19:07:10.713-07:002020-07-10T19:07:10.713-07:00I remember when several Christians were criticizin...I remember when several Christians were criticizing Steve Hays on Triablogue and Twitter for having said much of the same things Phil is now saying (<a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/macarthur-bows-down-to-caesar.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/regulating-size-of-church-services.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>).Hawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01142879704651632453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23516097930257835912020-07-10T18:44:38.825-07:002020-07-10T18:44:38.825-07:00Okay Phil,
So let's say someone at GCC reads ...Okay Phil,<br /><br />So let's say someone at GCC reads this post of yours, knowing that it is your opinion and not an official statement from the church.<br /><br />And let's say this someone, person #1, thinks "Yes, I agree with Phil", and is also not fearful of catching the virus.<br /><br />And let's say that there's another person, person #2, who reads this blog post and who also thinks "yes I agree with Phil", and is also not fearful of catching the virus.<br /><br />So Sunday comes around, and person #1 and person #2 choose not to sit outside with those who are fearful. They don't want to be socially distant. They come into church not wearing masks.<br /><br />And then they sit next to each other.<br /><br />And what if person #1 actually has the coronavirus, but is asymptomatic. He has no fever, no aches and pains. But he has the virus.<br /><br />And what if, during congregational singing, person #1 unwittingly breathes the virus onto person #2.<br /><br />And what if, a few days later, person #2 accidentally spreads the virus to a family member?<br /><br />And what if person #2's family member dies as a result?<br /><br />You could say "Well, person #2 knew the risks before he came in. The death of that family member is on his own head".<br /><br />Or you could say "Person #1 and #2 were irresponsible and caused the death of person #2's family member".<br /><br />The above scenario is definitely not some sort of ethical problem that only exists in the minds of ivory tower philosophers. The above scenario is happening all the time. It is how the disease spreads.<br /><br />The decisions we make may unwittingly affect the lives of others.<br />Neil Cameron (One Salient Oversight)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03143948543305522865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37815401730535369672020-07-10T17:38:05.909-07:002020-07-10T17:38:05.909-07:00OSO: see my reply (above) to "Unknown."<b>OSO:</b> see my reply (above) to "Unknown."Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11810296558127418972020-07-10T17:35:19.336-07:002020-07-10T17:35:19.336-07:00Mark:
First Peter 2:13-14 pointedly looks beyond &...<b>Mark:</b><br />First Peter 2:13-14 pointedly looks beyond "the king" (or in your argument, the Constitution) and expressly commands us to submit not only to "the one in authority, [but also] to governors as sent by him." And the apostle applies the rule by extension also to anyone who has authority over us: "Servants be submissive to your masters with all respect, <i><b>not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.</b></i>" Notice also verse 15: "Such is the will of God."<br /><br /><b>Unknown:</b><br />As I said in the post, ample provision has been made at our church for anyone concerned about catching the virus to practice the most hard-line social distancing you can imagine and STILL be present for our corporate worship WITHOUT risking any exposure to those who don't share their qualms. No one here is contravening the Golden Rule. Shame on you for making that accusation.<br /><br /><b>B3AR_ARMS</b> Each of the examples you cite is explained by the principle of Acts 5:29. Stack up as many cases like that as you like, and they still don't utterly nullify the duty given to us in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.<br /><br />I get that some of the commenters here put themselves on one side or the other of the question my post deals with. What I don't get is the zeal some seem to have for going as far as possible to one extreme or the other. I especially don't understand the militancy on both sides--Christians who seem to have no compunctions about condemning brothers and sisters who hold a different opinion on a case of conscience like this. Some of my friends need to read, re-read, and meditate on Romans 14.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17841313563696722912020-07-10T17:18:50.021-07:002020-07-10T17:18:50.021-07:00A brilliant observation— “I think we are seeing th...A brilliant observation— “I think we are seeing the tidal change from "post-Christian society" to "Anti-evangelical society." And in that circumstance, I think we better start now to plan on what to do...”<br />Bill O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02171442755000659771noreply@blogger.com