Does Romans 6 Contradict Romans 7?

Before I get into Romans 6 and 7, I’d like to quote some Scriptures that compliment and supplement Romans 6.  These go to show why what Paul says in Romans 6 is true and are a good Segway into it. We all know the saying, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.” Philippians 4:13.  I Corinthians 10:13, says “God is faithful, and  he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”  If Christ gives you so much strength that you can “do all things”, then it only stands to reason that you can overcome any temptation that comes your way.  I Corinthians 3:16, 6:19, Romans 8:9, 1 John 4:13 and Galatians 2:20 teach us that “you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you”, “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God”, “You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you”, “By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” and “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”.  Since your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who dwells inside of you, it shouldn’t be surprising that you can “do all things” including resisting any temptations that come your way.  Of course, none of these things apply to unbelievers because the Spirit does not dwell in them.  And just because God provides a means of escaping temptation, that doesn’t mean that you always will.  But these things show that the content of Romans 6 is reasonable.

Romans 5:20-6:11 says,

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Romans 6:14 says, “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.”

 

Romans 6:13, 19, and 12:1 say,

 

Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness…For just as you once presented your members  as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification…present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

 

It makes sense that we can resist temptations.  Surely God would not give us these instructions if he didn’t give us the means of obeying them.  Notice that Romans 6 is addressed to “all of us who have been baptized into Christ” and its statements are intended to apply to that group. 

 

Now let us get into Romans 7.  Romans 7:14-23 says,

 

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

 

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For  I delight in the law of God,  in my inner being, but I see in my members  another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

That kind of upsets the applecart, doesn’t it?  Examine this chart:

Statement	Reference	Contrasting Statement	Reference
I (Paul) can do all things through him who strengthens me.	Phil 4:13	For I (Paul) have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.	Romans 7:18
God's Spirit lives in you.	1 Cor 3:16, 6:19, Romans 8:9, 1 John 4:13, Gal 2:20	For I (Paul) know that nothing good lives in me.	Romans 7:18
You are dead to sin.	Romans 6:11	Sin lives within me.	Romans 7:17, 20
Present your body parts to God as instruments for righteousness. present your bodies as a living sacrifice	Romans 6:13, 19, 12:1	A law of sin lives in my body parts. Who will deliver me from this body of death?	Romans 7:23, 24
Christ set you free from sin so that you are no longer enslaved to sin.	Romans 6: 7, 18, 22, 6:14, 6:6, 17, 20	I am of the flesh, sold under sin and captive to the law of sin.	Romans 7: 14, 23

You could resolve this by saying that what’s on the left side of the table is sort of true, sometimes, for some Christians depending on how you look at it…and what is on the right side of table is equally vague.  I don’t know about you, but this makes everything murky to me.  It’s not satisfying because it brings all these Scriptures down to have little or no meaning.  In John 8:36, Jesus leaves no room for such explanations, “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”

In general, whenever you find something in Scriptures that you don’t understand, follow these steps :

1.   Pray and ask God for wisdom and understanding.

2.   Take the passage in context.  This includes the immediate context, as well as the entire book that it is contained in.  Get an overview of what the book is all about and try to discern how it fits into its theme.

3.   Find other passages which speak of the same subject or that use the same key words (in English to start with).

4.   Use a Hebrew/Greek concordance and an interlinear to find the meanings of the key words in the original language and find how these words are used in other parts of the Bible.

5.   Research the usage of grammar rules, idioms, and other literary devices which might appear in the passage.

These measures are particularly prudent for understanding the epistles of Paul.  The apostle Peter warns:

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.  There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

II Peter 3:14-16 (ESV)

In the above passage, the reference to the “ignorant and unstable” and the “twist[ing]” of Paul’s epistles clearly indicates a deliberate misuse of the Scriptures.  But don’t miss that Peter also says that there are “things in them that are hard to understand”.  This implies that it is not to be unexpected for a sincere reader of the text to misunderstand it.

Looking back at the above analysis of Romans 6 and 7, notice that I jumped directly from 6:19 directly to 7:14.  Therefore, the most logical place to look for the answer to the perplexing question at hand is Romans 7:1-13.  But I am actually going to put that on the back burner for now and go on to what might be the second most logical place to look.

Romans 8:1 says, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”  First take note of two key words.  Paul frequently uses the word therefore in his epistles to say that what comes before it in the text goes to show what he is about to say.  In verses preceding 8:1, Paul just got done saying things like, “What a wretched man I am!” and “Who will deliver me from this body of death?”  How does it follow from these that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ?  Maybe, just maybe, it might make a whole lot more sense if you read those first 13 verses of chapter 7!  The other key word is now.  This word implies that there was condemnation for the recipients of this letter some time before, but something changed and it is no longer the case.  Putting the words therefore and now together, we should be able to see that what Paul said in some part before 8:1 proves that something happened in the recent past that caused the condemnation to go away.  Maybe, just maybe, you might find out what this is if you read those first 13 verses of chapter 7!

Verse 2 of chapter 8 says, “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.” Note that the KJV has this in the first person.  If that rendering is correct, then it is an apparent direct word-for-word contradiction of 7:23.  If 8:2 is really in the second person, then Paul would seem to be saying, “I am captive to the law of sin and death, but you (the recipients of this letter) are not.”  Either way we need more information to make any sense of it.

In verses 3-5 of chapter 8, when Paul speaks of those who “walk according to the Spirit”, it sounds a whole lot like chapter 6.  But when he talks about those who “walk according to the flesh”, it sounds a whole lot like chapter 7 (or at least the second half of it).

Up until this point, I have been focusing on the stark differences between the “Romans Chapter 6 Man” and the “Romans Chapter 7 Man”.  However, it is prudent to point out that there are also many similarities.   The “Romans Chapter 7 man” says “I agree with the law, that it is good”, “I have the desire to do what is right”, “evil I do not want” and “I delight in the law of God”. Similarly, the “Romans Chapter 6 man” also wants to do what is right by presenting the parts of his body to God as instruments of righteousness.  The main difference is in the ability to carry it out, which has to do with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  When we think of those who live according to the flesh, we generally think of those who want to live that way--and certainly the earth abounds with such as these to say the least.  But in chapter 7, Paul is saying that there are also those who live according to flesh, but do not want to.  But who are these people? Why do they turn out differently than the “Romans 6” people?

OK, I admit that I’m kind of leading you, the reader, down somewhat of a dead end just to further prove the point that, without some further explanation, 7:14-23 just doesn’t fit in its context.  But before we get into those first thirteen verses in chapter 7, I’d like to go back to 6:14.

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Earlier, I put all the emphasis on the fact that God’s grace is the reason baptized believers are freed from the bondage of sin.  Certainly that is true, but there is another reason given in this verse which is that the baptized believer is “not under the law”.  I note here that the word law appears once here in verse 14 and once in verse 15, but nowhere else in chapter 6.  But in chapter 7, “law” appears a whopping 23 times!  That’s almost an average of one time per verse!  Maybe, just maybe, being under the law (and not grace) is really what chapter 7 is really all about!  Let’s find out now. Verse 1 says,

Or do you not know, brothers —for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?

Recall that at the beginning of chapter 6, Paul is addressing baptized believers, but here he addresses “those who know the law” and provides them with an intriguing rhetorical question.  He is here obviously beginning an argument that the law is no longer binding.  The “law” the he is talking about here and for the rest of chapter is the Law of Moses and, as we shall see, its consequences.  Picking it up from the middle of verse 1 he writes,

…the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Paul is using marriage as an analogy to explain his point.  A marriage covenant between a woman and her husband corresponds to the Old Covenant of the Law of Moses between God and his people.  If the woman’s husband dies, she is free to marry another man because the covenant is no longer in effect.  The New Covenant in Christ’s blood is symbolized by a marriage of the woman to a new husband.  The death of the first husband must occur before there can be another covenant.  You might expect Paul to make the death of this husband the symbolic representation of Christ’s death on the cross.  We ordinarily think of Christ’s death on the cross as being the fulfillment of the law—sufficient so that we don’t have to fulfill its requirements ourselves as the Israelites did in Old Testament times.  But Paul says that it is the “death to the law” of “you my brothers” that is symbolized by the death of the husband in the analogy. Of course, this “dying to law” is “through the body of Christ” clearly indicating that it is also absolutely necessary for the covenant change to take place.  But the main point Paul is making is that, for each Old Covenant Jew, there must be a conscious choice to let go of the Old Covenant in order for the New Covenant to go into effect in his life, and by implication, all the promises found in chapter 6.  This “dying to the law” language and its consequence (i.e. “in order that we may bear fruit for God”) are similar to those of “dying to sin” found in the first eleven verses of chapter 6. Paul transitions from using the second person “you” to the first person plural pronouns “we” and “us” from verse 3 to verse 4.

Picking it back up at 7:5, Paul continues,

For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

Continuing with the second person plural, Paul is clearly establishing an inextricable link between being “under the law” and enslavement to sin, here expressed with the phrases “living in flesh”, “our sinful passions aroused”, “bear fruit for death”, and “held us captive”.

Paul continues in 7:7-13,

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness.  Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

It is important to note that verse 7 marks the beginning of Paul’s use of the first person singular “I”.  Paul here starts to use his own experiences as evidence for what he is saying. 

He begins by making a side note, digressing from his main point, to be sure that his readers do not reach a false conclusion about the Law of Moses being sinful.  After all, it did serve the purpose of showing him his own sinfulness (v. 7, 13) so that he would see the need, not only to repent, but also the need for God’s grace.  (See also Galatians 3:24-25.)  But this in no way nullifies his main argument that the law cannot do what only God’s grace can do.  Being under the Law is (or can be) but a stepping stone into God’s grace.  It’s like taking one step back in order to take many steps forward. 

He seems to recall a time when he did not know the Law (“I was once alive apart from the law”).  From what we know about Paul he was taught the Law from the time he was a boy. (Philippians 3:4-6) One could conclude that he is talking about before he knew right from wrong. (Isaiah 7:15-16, Romans 4:15, 5:13)  Whatever the case may be, it doesn’t detract from the main point, which is that when he came under the law “sin came alive and I died…. [It] promised life [but] proved to be death to me.”  Being under the law does not solve the problem of sin, but makes it worse indirectly through sin (v. 8-11). In other words, the Law of Moses is good, but by itself brings more bondage in sin.  It makes sense that he uses past tense with the first person here because we know that Paul was very zealous for the Law before becoming a Christian.

When we come again to v. 14 and following, we see that Paul continues to speak negatively about himself and the futility of trying to obey the Law.  If anything, he here gives an even bleaker picture.  But notice that Paul changes from using past tense to present tense.  It is natural to then assume that v.14-23 are now about his life as a Christian, and not about his former life as Old Covenant Jew under the Law.  But this makes no sense! The problem of sin, even under grace, seems to be no better solved than it was under the law!  The assumption totally contradicts not only Romans 6, but chapter 8 and many other passages.  It totally undercuts the point he starts out to prove at the beginning of 7.

The final piece of the puzzle is the following.  In Koine Greek there is a literary device called “historical present”.  This is used on some occasions in which the author is telling a story about something that happened in the past.  The author starts out using past tense, but switches to present tense even though he is still talking about past events.  Scholars believe that the purpose of this literary device is to make the story come alive to the readers.  In most translations, most of the time, historical presents are translated into English as past tense.  See the NASB forward.  

God’s grace is the key to freedom from the bondage of sin.  There are two things that get in the way of God’s grace.  In Romans 6, Paul tells us how taking grace as a license to sin defeats its purpose. In Romans 7, Paul tells us how trying to be under the Law of Moses at the same time as being under grace also defeats the purpose.  Romans 7 does not contradict Romans 6 or any other part of the Bible.  You don’t need to water down any Scriptures to get it to fit.  Once you read its immediate context and understand the Greek use of historical presents, all of the apparent contradictions go away and you can see that 7:14-23 supports, rather than detracts from the main point. If you are a baptized believer, you will face many difficult trials, persecution and temptations.  But you are not weak, helpless and pathetic in the face of these because you have the power of the Holy Spirit living on the inside of you who is your source of strength to overcome the world.

A Critique of “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers”

 I recently watched a documentary entitled “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers” by Christian J. Pinto.  I will start my critique with a summary of the work.  The bulk of Pinto’s thesis is that the Founding Fathers (of the United States of America) were not genuine Bible-believing Christians.  He tries to prove this by citing quotes (mainly from private letters or conversations) and various records which, in his mind, prove that they were deists, Freemasons, Illuminati, Catholics, Enlightenment thinkers, and/or idol worshippers.  He focuses almost entirely on five targets for such claims: Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington.  He repeatedly clarifies that the original settlers (the Pilgrims), who were genuine Bible-believing Christians are to be distinguished from the “Enlightened” Founding Fathers because they are not the same group of people, they don’t have the same beliefs, and that there was 100-150 years of time in between them.  He also frequently remarks that the public statements of the Founders were lies and that their true beliefs were only heard by a close-knit circle of like-minded patriots.  He repeatedly refutes David Barton’s works which claim that the Founders were real Christians and the United States was founded to be a “Christian nation”.  Throughout the movie, you might have a tendency to ask, “Where is all this leading?  What is the relevance of this information for us today?”  He hints at this here and there, but doesn’t really make it plain until about the last 10 minutes of the movie.  His aim is prove that whole concept of freedom of religion is wrong.   The reason why the Founders wanted freedom of religion is that this “right to worship as one sees fit” would legalize their pagan beliefs and practices, which had been, up until that time, illegal.  He reasons that since God hates all false religions, there should be no right worship in any way except the one true religion.  Modern Christians have fallen into error, he argues, by embracing this aspect of Enlightenment philosophy.

Before I address what is really the main point, let us briefly critique at what he says about America not being “Christian Nation” and the true religion of the Founding Fathers. 

Pinto is correct in saying the United States is not, and never has been (legally), a Christian nation.  Religious tests as prerequisite for holding federal offices are prohibited in the Constitution.  The Treaty of Tripoli states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."  The Establishment clause of the first Amendment prohibits Congress making any religion, including Christianity, the official religion of the United States or from prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. 

However most of the original 13 colonies were founded on the Christian religion, remained Christian when they became states, and continued to be Christian after the ratification of the 1^st Amendment.  This is because the Establishment clause only prohibits Congress from making any laws that respect (for or against) the establishment of religion. Contrary to what Pinto says in the movie, the U.S. Constitution does not contain any statement that freedom of religion is an absolute or God-given right.  The foundational Scriptures concerning God’s will for civil government are Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-16 and 1 Timothy 2:1-2. If compare these passages to preamble to the Constitution, which is the mission statement of the United States (i.e. the Federal Government), you will see that they are in agreement.

Pinto’s approach to proving that the Founders were not Christians heavily relies on proving that they had embraced religions and doctrines that are contrary to the central claims of the Christian faith. These religions include freemasonry, deism, and Catholicism.  Suffering from just as bad of a case of confirmation bias as Barton, he is uses every shred of evidence he can find in this regard even though some of it doesn’t make any sense.  For example, on the one hand, he claims that Founders were secretly deists and Enlightenment adherents and therefore rejected the miracles of the Bible and specifically the virgin birth, the trinity, the redemptive nature of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus.  But on the other hand, he accuses them being closet Catholics.  That is an obvious contradiction. I would also point out the Anglican Church, one that Pinto criticizes Washington for not participating in its communion observance, is very similar to the Catholic Church.  (It broke away from the Catholic Church only because the Pope wouldn’t grant Henry VIII a divorce.  It is not a Reformation or restoration church as the true Protestant and evangelical churches are.)  During the Pilgrim/Puritan era which Pinto speaks of as being different than the era of the Founding Fathers, the Maryland colony was founded to be a safe haven for Catholics.  Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia had the Anglican Church as their official religion long before the American Revolution. 

Like a one-sided, modern day, mudslinging political commercial, Pinto threw everything against the wall, hoping that something would stick.  Pinto even tries to associate them Mormonism, a religion started by Joseph Smith, Jr. who allegedly had his first vision in 1820 and didn’t write the Book of Mormon until 1830, four years after the last of "the five" (Jefferson) was dead.  He shows pictures of various paintings and sculptures of gods and goddess, most of which were made long after their deaths as well.  He digs up all kinds of quotes to try to prove that none of the Founders repented and accepted Christ even in their dying breath, as if that were possible to actually know for sure. (Why is this important?) 

However, Pinto is correct to criticize Barton, who does the same sort of things and cites quotes out of context in his efforts to prove the opposite side of the issue.  I actually already believed, before watching this movie, that Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were not true Christians (at least not at the time of the Revolution).  John Adams may have started out as a mainstream Christian before converting to Unitarianism.  But I think that the majority of the Founders were real Christians.  But why does this issue really even matter?  Does your spiritual well-being hinge on whether or not you can identify which historical figures were Christians and which ones were not?  If you really wanted hold up a couple of the Founders as being non-Christians, wouldn’t it be much easier to pick the two who had a duel?  (I am talking about Hamilton and Burr, of course.) Wouldn’t that take much less digging into historical documents and wouldn’t it be better to avoid all of these less-convincing “separation of fact from fiction” arguments? 

Enough of that.  Let’s get onto Pinto’s main point. (Pinto actually spends very little time talking about it!)

In Acts 5:38-39, Luke records the words of Gamaliel, “So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men [the Apostles] and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them.”  I recognize that Gamaliel probably wasn’t a Christian.  However he was “held in honor by all the people”.  The fact that his words, which express the idea of religious freedom, persuaded the Sadducees to let the Apostles go free is something that shouldn’t be taken lightly.  But Pinto apparently thinks that Gamaliel’s outlook was wrong.

The reason why not only the Founders, but many ordinary Bible-believing citizens, supported religious freedom was because some of the Christian denominations were persecuting Christians of other denominations.  The Puritans had put some Quakers to death just because they were Quakers.  The Danbury Baptists were persecuted by the Connecticut Congregationalist church.  People also knew that, in times past, the King of England persecuted anybody who did not agree with the specific doctrines of the Church of England.  I suppose it’s possible that some of the Founders may have wanted to have religious freedom in order to practice evil religion (I don’t claim to be able read minds!), but what they did gave us freedom to worship as God wills of us.  Regardless of motives, we should honor our authorities (Romans 13:7) when they do what is right.

The crux of the issue is that Pinto fails to make a distinction between what is a right and what is right.  In other words, just because you believe something is sinful according to God’s Word, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you must believe it should be against the civil law.  Pinto states (I am paraphrasing) that there is nowhere in the Bible where God gives governments the responsibility of ensuring religious freedom.  He framed the issue the wrong way.  If a government does nothing (concerning religion), then people do have religious freedom.  Thus, the burden of proof is actually on Pinto to show that God commands governments to act against false religion, not the other way around.  In the absence of such evidence, it is a best an open question.

To illustrate this point further, suppose someone were to propose a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to eat pizza.  As silly as this sounds, the amendment would not be unscriptural.  You could argue that this is wrong because somebody could eat too much pizza and thereby be guilty of gluttony.  I think that it is safe to say that there is nowhere in the Bible where it says that government authorities have a biblical prerogative to protect pizza-eating. But this is irrelevant.  The relevant fact is that there nothing in the Scriptures that gives them the responsibility to ban it.

Pinto quotes “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent…” (Acts 17:30).  In context Paul is talking about idol worship, but Pinto leaves out or glosses over the rest of the verse which says, “…because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”  But this passage does not say that it is man’s prerogative to judge the world, but God’s.  (Jesus is obviously the one referred to as “a man”.)  The first part of the statement is in present tense, but the last part of the statement is in future tense and is obviously referring to the Day of Judgment.  In other words, the command to repent is for now, but judgment is later.  The “overlooking” refers to relative leniency in post-death judgment for those who died before Christ in comparison with those of the New Testament dispensation.  Like many other passages Pinto quotes to support his view, there is absolutely no commandment expressly given or implied for civil government.

Many people across the political spectrum similarly twist the Scriptures using this same reasoning to support various worldviews.  Commandments to give to the poor are used to support Socialism, Communism, and/or welfare programs and public education.  “I will bless those who bless you…” is used to politically support the nation of Israel.  I don’t have anything against the nation of Israel, but using such scriptures for that purpose is very bad exegesis.

Here is one example of a time when God gave the people the right to do something that wasn’t right.  In I Samuel 8, God told the people that they should not be desirous of having a king.  Nevertheless, he allowed the people the choice to have a king.  It is obvious from this passage that, if civil government is given too much centralized power, it tends to become corrupt and abuses the people.  This is a point that Pinto would do well to consider before supporting the idea that civil government should be given the power to decide who is to be punished for religious heresy.

Divorce and remarriage after divorce were permitted with minimal limitations under the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), but Jesus commanded against it (Matthew 19), saying, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery…Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.”  Thus, this is an example of a case where God permits, even now, something that isn’t right.  Of course this allowance is only temporary.  In the end, those who do not repent will face the judgment of God.  But Pinto is using general statements about God’s judgment to try to prove punishment for religious heresy is for now.

But let me help Pinto with his argument by quoting some Scriptures that he has overlooked.  These are the passages I mentioned earlier, namely Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-16 and 1 Timothy 2:1-2.  According to these passages, the role of civil government is to:

1. Be God’s servant.
2. Be a terror to bad conduct.
3. Be an avenger who carries out God's wrath (or punishment) on the wrongdoer.
4. Refrain from being a terror to good conduct.
5. Praise those who do what is right.
6. Facilitate, for believers, a peaceful and quiet lifestyle, godly and dignified in every way.

If the real purpose of “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers” was to try to convince people that government should punish worshippers of false gods, why didn’t Pinto use these verses to prove his point? Of course, it is impractical for a government to punish every evil deed which occurs within its jurisdiction.  Thus the central question is, among the acts of evil that men may commit, which ones should government focus on deterring?  Doctrines like the virgin birth, the trinity, redemption through the cross and the resurrection are vital to our religious faith and for eternal salvation, but has God mandated that a failure to believe these is a crime for today’s governments to punish? 

Consider that Paul wrote in I Corinthians 5:11-13 (ESV), “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders?  Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.”  When Paul refers to the judgment of the one “who bears the name of brother”, he is clearly speaking of one of the prerogatives of church authority, not one of civil authority.  This is easy to see because it is the one “who bears the name of brother” who is “inside the church”.  Obviously, civil authority is God’s instrument to judge both those who are outside and inside the Church.  But for the sins that Paul mentions (sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness, and swindling), it is primarily the authority of the Church to judge those in the Church, because, at least in many cases, it isn’t appropriate or practical for civil government to judge such sins in a way that accomplishes God’s purpose for the judgment. (See 1 Corinthians 5:5, 7.)

I see the sixth item in the above list of prerogatives for civil government as being the key to understanding the answer to the central question, “Which acts of evil should government deter?”.  That is to say, government should protect the innocent and promote peace primarily by punishing people who commit unjustified acts of violence, and secondarily by punishing other acts which are potentially dangerous to one’s physical well-being or property, may readily lead to violence, or in some other way prevent peaceful and quiet living.  But Pinto criticizes the Founders for having this aim, quoting I Thessalonians 5:3, “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”  But of course this passage isn’t teaching that it is wrong to seek peace for your nation. See Hebrews 12:14, Romans 12:18, etc.  I Thessalonians 5:3 is talking about a government which will falsely promise peace with no intentions of delivering it. It is a specific government--one which will be in place at the time of Christ’s return.  Since most or at least a great many of the Founders died peacefully of old age, I certainly don’t see “sudden destruction” as an apt description of their fate.  Pinto certainly did not prove this particular point to my satisfaction. 

In summary, Pinto puts you through so much hearsay evidence just to prove that five men were pagan, Masonic, deist, and Catholic devotees of Rousseau and Voltaire.  Then he asks you to conclude that, guilty by association, the rest of the Founders were also not real Christians.  You are told to be disbelieve the sincerity of what they said in public in front of many witnesses and yet trust the testimony of a small number of witnesses. Then, if he has you convinced that he knows what he is talking about, he hopes to get you to accept, without thinking critically, the conclusion that the reason why the Founders supported religious freedom is so that they could practice their pagan religion without persecution.  From this, without any real proof, he asks us to further conclude that whole idea religious freedom must be wrong and that American Christians both then and now have been duped into believing this supposedly unscriptural concept.

 

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 7

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the seventh in the series.  Click here to read the first article.

Already Married or Shot Gun Wedding?

What about a man and a woman who have already been living together or have already had sexual intercourse?  Break this down into two claims.  First one might claim that the man and woman are then really already married in God’s eyes.  This claim is false because there is nothing in the Bible to substantiate this and Jesus said, “…the man you now have is not your husband…” to the woman at the well (John 4:18).  Another variation would be to say that the man and the woman are not already married, but are obligated to be married because of what they have already done (i.e. a shot gun wedding doctrine).  Here is closest thing I could find about this:

Exodus 22:16-17 says,

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV) says,

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

(Both the 1984 and the 2011 NIV version of the above passage use the word “rapes” which I do not agree with.  But that interpretation is of no benefit for one arguing against me.) 

This argument is obviously false.  For one thing, a divorced woman is not a virgin. 

And again, we do not live under the laws of the Old Testament.  That laws against sexual acts in the Law of Moses carry over into the New Testament is something which may be indicated in Acts 15:29, 21:25.

Acts 15:28-29 says,

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things…

Acts 21:25 says,

As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

But these passages in Acts most definitely do not say that anything that is permitted under the Law of Moses is permitted for New Testament Christians!  And more to the point, it doesn’t say that an obligation (to marry) under Law of Moses is also a New Testament obligation.  Concerning sexual immorality, it is at most only saying that any sexual behavior that is prohibited under the Law of Moses is also prohibited for New Testament Christians.  The key word or phrase is “abstain” or “keep themselves from” (KJV).  It’s funny how some people would want part of Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to carry over into the New Testament, but they have no need to do so when it comes to paying 50 shekels of silver, getting the father’s permission, or that “he may not put her away all his days”.  Everybody always takes the more permissive part and ignores the rest.

Suppose the divorced woman and the man she is living with have children together.  Since the children belong to the father and since according to the Bible, the father is commanded to teach, discipline and take care of his children, then couldn’t the father marry the mother of his children so that he can obey these other biblical commandments?  No.  You could use the same argument to justify polyandry.  If the commandment against remarriage after divorce was not a moral absolute, then it would be a good argument.  But it is a moral absolute, so it isn’t a good argument.  It might be difficult for a father in this situation to fulfill the biblical commandments concerning parenthood without marrying the mother, but it is not impossible.

There are numerous other false exceptions such as physical abuse, alcoholism, etc.  This writing cannot address all of these issues, but suffice it to say that they are not scripturally supportable.  These are purely visceral arguments.  And remember that the issue of remarriage after divorce and the issue of what constitutes biblical grounds for divorce are two different issues.

Click here to read the conclusion of this series.