Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s means laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice. A commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws.Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God the things that are God's
We are expected to follow laws UNLESS they go against God's Laws....then God's Laws are paramount
there are some real whackjobs out there that 'do' things in the name of god that are against the law.
There are whackjobs everywhere
Someone has to explain this to me...
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s - so what exactly is Caesar’s? The coin with his face on it seems reasonable. I would agree that money belongs to the government in some sense, as it is manipulated by government and not a true representation of value. Perhaps the mistake is in allowing money to represent labor and value in the first place (as anyone who understands how the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking works will surely agree).
But who here will say that the labor itself, which we (perhaps foolishly) allow to be represented by money, belongs to Caesar? If so, precisely how much? Caesar claims the right to dictate how much without consulting you, or God’s law, on the matter; so if he demands 100%, we are obliged to give it, as per the words of Jesus Christ? This would mean Jesus is condoning delivering yourself into outright slavery - the theft of the human body and its labor. Considering that theft is explicitly denounced by God, this is not a reasonable position.
Do you agree or disagree that laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice?
Thank you. Natural Law was the basis for our laws well into the 1800's before legal positivism arose. They are only mutually exclusive when man's law becomes unjust. A government's moral inconsistency from Natural Law will inevitably doom any society to failure. When one begins with an unjust "law", results that are unjust are a matter of course. Let's use slavery as an example. It is wrong to treat any human being as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. In that case Natural Law and man's law were mutually exclusive, but it was man's law which led to an unjust outcome. Do you agree?Why must they be mutually exclusive again?
As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)
Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.
In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).
Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)
In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)
Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies
“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)
“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)
“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)
What a great elucidation of natural law. Thank you so much for that.
The reason why God's law and man's law are mutually exclusive has to do with their inherent nature as primary authorities. Neither admits exceptions for competing standards of behavior. Where the two diverge, the primary must take precedence in all cases, or it ceases to be an authoritative standard. Where the two are in agreement, one is but a hollow echo of the other, and thus its existence has no effect at all, It's fairly clear how one must take precedence when the two laws prescribe opposing actions, but where they are in alignment requires a bit more examination.
In cases where both God's law and man's law prescribe or prohibit the same action, it is not overtly apparent which standard is primary (the person must reveal it - if they even know themselves - or it will be revealed by their choice of action). If the two standards never diverge, the point is rather moot, but this is not the same as saying they both share the primary place (which can never be, since should a divergence ever occur, one must emerge as the primary, or both must be disregarded entirely).
For example, God's law prohibits theft, as does man's law - the two are in agreement. If the person refrains from stealing, one of these laws acted as authority upon the person, and the other was irrelevant. Even if the person considered both, and enjoyed knowing both were served by his action or inaction, the primary standard was sufficiently authoritative to prohibit the theft, and the other standards had absolutely no effect on the directing the person's action. If the other standard did not exist, nothing would be different. It contributes no content of its own, being redundant, and thus does not exist as an authoritative force on the person.
So both claim to be primary standards for behavior, and only one can actually be primary. This is why they are mutually exclusive. Have I demonstrated that to your satisfaction? If not, please let me know where you believe the argument fails.
Of course, we must keep in mind that is very common for neither standard to be primary, as the person just does whatever they want on a case by case basis, or sometimes follows one or the other, but not all the time. And also keep in mind that failure to fulfill the requirements of the standard is not the same as it not acting as a standard; it must be purposefully be disregarded for it to no longer be a standard.
... What does the Bible day [=say] about abortion ... ?
"You shall not kill"
Thank you. Natural Law was the basis for our laws well into the 1800's before legal positivism arose. They are only mutually exclusive when man's law becomes unjust. A government's moral inconsistency from Natural Law will inevitably doom any society to failure. When one begins with an unjust "law", results that are unjust are a matter of course. Let's use slavery as an example. It is wrong to treat any human being as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. In that case Natural Law and man's law were mutually exclusive, but it was man's law which led to an unjust outcome. Do you agree?Why must they be mutually exclusive again?
As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)
Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.
In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).
Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)
In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)
Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies
“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)
“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)
“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)
What a great elucidation of natural law. Thank you so much for that.
The reason why God's law and man's law are mutually exclusive has to do with their inherent nature as primary authorities. Neither admits exceptions for competing standards of behavior. Where the two diverge, the primary must take precedence in all cases, or it ceases to be an authoritative standard. Where the two are in agreement, one is but a hollow echo of the other, and thus its existence has no effect at all, It's fairly clear how one must take precedence when the two laws prescribe opposing actions, but where they are in alignment requires a bit more examination.
In cases where both God's law and man's law prescribe or prohibit the same action, it is not overtly apparent which standard is primary (the person must reveal it - if they even know themselves - or it will be revealed by their choice of action). If the two standards never diverge, the point is rather moot, but this is not the same as saying they both share the primary place (which can never be, since should a divergence ever occur, one must emerge as the primary, or both must be disregarded entirely).
For example, God's law prohibits theft, as does man's law - the two are in agreement. If the person refrains from stealing, one of these laws acted as authority upon the person, and the other was irrelevant. Even if the person considered both, and enjoyed knowing both were served by his action or inaction, the primary standard was sufficiently authoritative to prohibit the theft, and the other standards had absolutely no effect on the directing the person's action. If the other standard did not exist, nothing would be different. It contributes no content of its own, being redundant, and thus does not exist as an authoritative force on the person.
So both claim to be primary standards for behavior, and only one can actually be primary. This is why they are mutually exclusive. Have I demonstrated that to your satisfaction? If not, please let me know where you believe the argument fails.
Of course, we must keep in mind that is very common for neither standard to be primary, as the person just does whatever they want on a case by case basis, or sometimes follows one or the other, but not all the time. And also keep in mind that failure to fulfill the requirements of the standard is not the same as it not acting as a standard; it must be purposefully be disregarded for it to no longer be a standard.
Excellent. Yes, I agree with all you said except the historical note about early law in this country. I agree that natural law was the basis for those laws (in the same way a Hollywood film may be based upon a true story), but I question the success of the attempt, along similar lines as Lysander Spooner.
I am not familiar with the term “normalization of deviance”, but at first glance I suppose it to be what we see in the courts, whereby deviations from the spirit and/or letter of the Constitution establish precedence for future deviations, and create new platform from which to spring even further away from that document’s original intent. Is this in the ballpark?
The etymology of the word "jurisdiction" is as follows:
Middle English: from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’).
Jurisdiction means to speak the law. So who has the ultimate right to speak the law? Is it God, or is it man? Whose jurisdiction are we living under?
Man's law - governmental law - claims the right to authoritatively speak law which supersedes all others. If man's law conflicts with God's law, government claims the right to ignore God's law and punish by its own standards. But that is their claim. Where do you believe authority resides in your own life?
A man cannot have two masters. If you believe that man's law holds authority, then it must take precedence over all other law, including God's. If you believe God's law holds authority, then it also must take precedence. If one takes precedence as the authority which may dictate to you the appropriate standard of behavior, the other is obviated entirely, and ceases to exist as authority. Where the two coincide, one is redundant - a hollow echo - and that which is redundant cannot dictate behavior, as it contributes no content of its own. And so again, it ceases to exist as authority.
An authority must be primary to act as a standard; for its role is to judge all behavior, and all other standards of behavior. There can only be one standard in the primary place, and all others have no authority over it, or the being which lives by dictates of the primary standard. The logical implication is that if a person is to honor God's law as the primary authority, they can have no obligation to obey man's law, or to even recognize it as authority. If one does not recognize it, it is wrong for them to support it as such, and to impose it upon themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the world at large.
It appears conclusive that no person can both support government's claim to authority, and be a person of God.
Your thread is meaningless and stupid: Man has finite vision and ability to define only finite jurisdiction as is seen and applies to man himself. Man cannot even begin to estimate the jurisdiction of God, let along our place in it.
... What does the Bible day [=say] about abortion ... ?
"You shall not kill"
Actually, the translation got it wrong with that one. If you translate what it originally said in Hebrew (original language of the Bible), then you would know that the command isn't "thou shalt not kill" but rather "thou shalt not MURDER".
Translating something from Hebrew to Greek, then to Roman and finally English, you lose something about the original meaning.
... What does the Bible day [=say] about abortion ... ?
"You shall not kill"
Actually, the translation got it wrong with that one. If you translate what it originally said in Hebrew (original language of the Bible), then you would know that the command isn't "thou shalt not kill" but rather "thou shalt not MURDER".
Translating something from Hebrew to Greek, then to Roman and finally English, you lose something about the original meaning.
What is the defining characteristic of “murder”?
... What does the Bible day [=say] about abortion ... ?
"You shall not kill"
Actually, the translation got it wrong with that one. If you translate what it originally said in Hebrew (original language of the Bible), then you would know that the command isn't "thou shalt not kill" but rather "thou shalt not MURDER".
Translating something from Hebrew to Greek, then to Roman and finally English, you lose something about the original meaning.
What is the defining characteristic of “murder”?
Murder is generally defined as the killing of someone who did nothing to deserve it.
You can kill someone in self defense if they attack you first, or, if you are serving in the military, you are allowed to kill because you are defending your country.
Just another example of how Christianity sometimes gets it wrong.
The etymology of the word "jurisdiction" is as follows:
Middle English: from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’).
Jurisdiction means to speak the law. So who has the ultimate right to speak the law? Is it God, or is it man? Whose jurisdiction are we living under?
Man's law - governmental law - claims the right to authoritatively speak law which supersedes all others. If man's law conflicts with God's law, government claims the right to ignore God's law and punish by its own standards. But that is their claim. Where do you believe authority resides in your own life?
A man cannot have two masters. If you believe that man's law holds authority, then it must take precedence over all other law, including God's. If you believe God's law holds authority, then it also must take precedence. If one takes precedence as the authority which may dictate to you the appropriate standard of behavior, the other is obviated entirely, and ceases to exist as authority. Where the two coincide, one is redundant - a hollow echo - and that which is redundant cannot dictate behavior, as it contributes no content of its own. And so again, it ceases to exist as authority.
An authority must be primary to act as a standard; for its role is to judge all behavior, and all other standards of behavior. There can only be one standard in the primary place, and all others have no authority over it, or the being which lives by dictates of the primary standard. The logical implication is that if a person is to honor God's law as the primary authority, they can have no obligation to obey man's law, or to even recognize it as authority. If one does not recognize it, it is wrong for them to support it as such, and to impose it upon themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the world at large.
It appears conclusive that no person can both support government's claim to authority, and be a person of God.
Your thread is meaningless and stupid: Man has finite vision and ability to define only finite jurisdiction as is seen and applies to man himself. Man cannot even begin to estimate the jurisdiction of God, let along our place in it.
The “believer” to whom this thread’s question is posed typically accepts that they are within God’s jurisdiction, according to the popular definition of the word “God” as creator of the universe. If you would like to take an alternative position that you believe in a God whose jurisdiction does not include the world of man, that’s perfectly fine, and your answer to the question posed would be “No”.
If, instead, you are not a believer at all, this thread may not be for you. However, considering the worthwhile investigation into the validity of man’s law, I think anyone with an earnest interest in political philosophy would find the discussion of value.
... What does the Bible day [=say] about abortion ... ?
"You shall not kill"
Actually, the translation got it wrong with that one.
If you translate what it originally said in Hebrew (original language of the Bible), then you would know that the command isn't "thou shalt not kill" but rather "thou shalt not MURDER".
Translating something from Hebrew to Greek, then to Roman and finally English, you lose something about the original meaning.
The etymology of the word "jurisdiction" is as follows:
Middle English: from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’).
Jurisdiction means to speak the law. So who has the ultimate right to speak the law? Is it God, or is it man? Whose jurisdiction are we living under?
Man's law - governmental law - claims the right to authoritatively speak law which supersedes all others. If man's law conflicts with God's law, government claims the right to ignore God's law and punish by its own standards. But that is their claim. Where do you believe authority resides in your own life?
A man cannot have two masters. If you believe that man's law holds authority, then it must take precedence over all other law, including God's. If you believe God's law holds authority, then it also must take precedence. If one takes precedence as the authority which may dictate to you the appropriate standard of behavior, the other is obviated entirely, and ceases to exist as authority. Where the two coincide, one is redundant - a hollow echo - and that which is redundant cannot dictate behavior, as it contributes no content of its own. And so again, it ceases to exist as authority.
An authority must be primary to act as a standard; for its role is to judge all behavior, and all other standards of behavior. There can only be one standard in the primary place, and all others have no authority over it, or the being which lives by dictates of the primary standard. The logical implication is that if a person is to honor God's law as the primary authority, they can have no obligation to obey man's law, or to even recognize it as authority. If one does not recognize it, it is wrong for them to support it as such, and to impose it upon themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the world at large.
It appears conclusive that no person can both support government's claim to authority, and be a person of God.
Your thread is meaningless and stupid: Man has finite vision and ability to define only finite jurisdiction as is seen and applies to man himself. Man cannot even begin to estimate the jurisdiction of God, let along our place in it.
The “believer” to whom this thread’s question is posed typically accepts that they are within God’s jurisdiction, according to the popular definition of the word “God” as creator of the universe. If you would like to take an alternative position that you believe in a God whose jurisdiction does not include the world of man, that’s perfectly fine, and your answer to the question posed would be “No”.
If, instead, you are not a believer at all, this thread may not be for you. However, considering the worthwhile investigation into the validity of man’s law, I think anyone with an earnest interest in political philosophy would find the discussion of value.
Political philosophy has nothing to do with God. You speak of God in the abstract as a third person idea as someone with absolutely no direct experience in the matter so resort to discussing "God" as an abstract subject. God is much more than simply something to be believed or not believed, based solely on one's degree of faith or lack thereof. God by design encompasses all and far more so there is no possibility of being outside God's "jurisdiction" unless you are willing to treat the subject as just one more dry intellectual topic of philosophy like so many bobbles of curiosity on your desk.
Our universe like all things has a cause, something which started it or brought it about and that thing is god. Whether you choose to view that as a personal (conscious, intelligent) or impersonal (non-conscience, non-intelligent "event" or object or force) thing as a matter of theism or atheism is up to you. Obviously, those of at least some faith or direct experience will choose the former, those with absolutely no faith or direct experience have no choice but to speculate endlessly about it as just one more dry, sterile intellectual abstraction, which is what makes the thread meaningless and stupid: You wouldn't ask a car mechanic about chemistry, so why listen to the ramblings of someone with absolutely no knowledge of God? You can take all the great philosophers down through the ages from Abraham, to Homer, Confucius, Siddhartha, Socrates, Plato, Justinian, Kant, James, Spinoza, Santayana to a hundred others and add them all up and combined they are exactly ZERO percent closer to understanding the jurisdiction / domain of God because God can never be approached intellectually or imagined as a matter of the finite mind but only known through the heart by virtue of His Mercy as a matter of Love.
This being a political forum,
This being a political forum,
Check your heading, this is Religion and Ethics. If you want Politics, go to the POLITICS forum.
Shouldn’t this be in religion not politics?
Pick your version, t's quite clear.
"New International Version
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
New Living Translation
Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.
English Standard Version
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Berean Study Bible
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God.
Berean Literal Bible
Let every soul be subject to the authorities being above him. For there is no authority except by God; but those existing are having been instituted by God.
New American Standard Bible
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
King James Bible
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:1
Pick your version, t's quite clear.
"New International Version
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
New Living Translation
Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.
English Standard Version
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Berean Study Bible
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God.
Berean Literal Bible
Let every soul be subject to the authorities being above him. For there is no authority except by God; but those existing are having been instituted by God.
New American Standard Bible
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
King James Bible
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:1
Our founders had to ponder that very predicament. And they questioned Romans 13 in the Declaration of Independence without actually mentioning it. For example the Declaration has this:
"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Without a long wall of text, After having this debate many times, the reason America ever separated from the tyranny of King George began in Galatians 5: 1 "For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage."
Just as your single source is not the whole story, neither is the starting point for those Christians who resist unconstitutional powers.
Christians must obey the authorities to the extent that their laws are not contrary to biblical law and / or antithetical to our unalienable Rights (and the earliest court decisions said our unalienable Rights pre - dated the Constitution and were above the law.
Today, the United States Supreme Court disagrees, but God is still in charge and Christians are never obligated to surrender God's authority to the whims of mortal men who think they can over - rule God.
Pick your version, t's quite clear.
"New International Version
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
New Living Translation
Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.
English Standard Version
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Berean Study Bible
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God.
Berean Literal Bible
Let every soul be subject to the authorities being above him. For there is no authority except by God; but those existing are having been instituted by God.
New American Standard Bible
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
King James Bible
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:1
Our founders had to ponder that very predicament. And they questioned Romans 13 in the Declaration of Independence without actually mentioning it. For example the Declaration has this:
"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Without a long wall of text, After having this debate many times, the reason America ever separated from the tyranny of King George began in Galatians 5: 1 "For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage."
Just as your single source is not the whole story, neither is the starting point for those Christians who resist unconstitutional powers.
Christians must obey the authorities to the extent that their laws are not contrary to biblical law and / or antithetical to our unalienable Rights (and the earliest court decisions said our unalienable Rights pre - dated the Constitution and were above the law.
Today, the United States Supreme Court disagrees, but God is still in charge and Christians are never obligated to surrender God's authority to the whims of mortal men who think they can over - rule God.
No, sorry.
"Galatians 5: 1 "For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage."
Paul was rebuking the Galatians (and Peter) for falling back into their Jewish ways, it has nothing to do with Government at all. Sorry If a "single" source is the word of God.....any "extra Biblical" source must be judged in it's light, NOT the other way around.
Shouldn’t this be in religion not politics?
Politics is religion in action.
