Suffer yet another dialogue between myself and a critic. If those who receive this will read the comments on both sides, it may serve to give strength when facing ones own critics in the future.

Again, I will not identify the individual by name, but his reflections are not uncommon. His argument is strong, and yet must be challenged.

He said:

“It appears that you are advocating insurrection by individuals who band together, call themselves militia units and oppose government. By what authority will these militias oppose national martial law? This can only be done under the sanction of a civil government; any civil government, state, county or city. Only the civil magistrate bears the sword against wickedness, be it wicked men, wicked civil magistrates or wicked governments, cf Rom 13:4. This is the doctrine of intercession or interposition, a feature of American culture established centuries ago and supported by the Bible. This was the justification for the colonial governments opposing the king in the War for Independence. John Calvin wrote of this doctrine: ‘If there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors of God's ordinance.’

I am unclear as to what you are proposing. Please clear this up for me.”

I answer: I will be quick to clear this up, if indeed it will clear it up, for I fear that you may find my argument neither authoritative nor convincing. I have gathered already that you are deeply entrenched in your conviction. But your words will be useful to others who must also contend with arguments not unlike your own.

You say that I appear to be advocating insurrection. No Sir, no more than that advocated by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence. Sir, this government has proven to be harmful to the chief ends for which men form governments. Therefore, it is our right and duty to cast off tyrannical, oppressive, and abusive governments and to establish new government that may safeguard our liberty. If this then be insurrection, then yes, I advocate it.

You say that only civil magistrates bear the sword against wickedness. Ah yes, but that is only as long as government operates according to the divine mandate laid out for us in 2 Samuel 23:3 "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God."

God Himself has established the criteria by which men may rule others. But where is justice today and where is the fear of God before the ruler's eyes? Are they not gone? And when rulers, be they kings or county commissioners no longer rule justly and in the fear of God, break from that divine mandate, they have abrogated their office and have disqualified for themselves the position of leadership. Therefore they must be thrown down by the righteous who will rule in justice and the fear of God.

In this nation Sir, WE THE PEOPLE rule finally. We are the 4th Branch of Government, if you will, and when the other three branches have become corrupted and defiled altogether and absolutely, it is not up to the few who are righteous to oppose it? What Sir, can be the remedy if tyrants rule? Should we rely on civil magistrates to set in order that which has been defiled? Show me one nation, Sir, if you can, whose government has been self-correcting when that government has condensed, consolidated, and centralized power. Show me one government, Sir, if you can, that has freely given power back to the people. I say that you cannot. I say that the pattern of history shows clearly that revolution and civil upheaval are in fact the rule rather than the exception.

You use the words of John Calvin as support for lex Rex, the law of the king, as if to cancel out with one quotation the struggle of Americans from 1740 through 1776. I submit, Sir, without insult to the theological prowess of the late John Calvin, that he was born 2 centuries too early and too many miles away.

WE, SIR, ARE AMERICANS!!

We render no position of subservience or oblation to King or Monarch! WE THE PEOPLE have established this government as our servants! They, the government we gave birth to is OUR child, Sir, and it has disobeyed mightily. It needs to be rendered well a good beating! The rod of correction is long overdue.

But to your argument I would say that for you to hint that we ought to be humble and obedient before tyrants is to an American the most extreme insurrection! To throw off tyranny IS the American way. To submit to it is to create insurrection against what we are and who we are. The thought of peace at any price is treachery! The wishful thinking that magistrates in this wicked land mean for us only that which is wholesome and good is to march blindly into a pit and there to be machine-gunned. I'll have nothing of it ... I shall live on my feet if possible and die on my feet if necessary. I shall bow to no man!

I say Sir, that we are the grand children and great grandchildren of rebels. Our forebears exercised the most sublime statement of rebellion by simply walking away from the feudal lords and barons, the oppression of foreign governments. They rebelled by refusing to stay where tyranny reigned supreme. I say that we are the descendants of those rebels.... Sir, I submit to you that we are genetic rebels...it's in our blood!

The arguments for and against what we must do have already been made 225 years ago. We cannot add or take away from the cogent debate and final decision to revolt against the martial law of the Crown. To think that we would bow to martial law today is to forget who we are and where we came from.

Will I fight against a federal imposition of martial law? Yes! And if they call it treason, I shall answer as did Patrick Henry:

"If this be treason, then let's make the best of it."

Kind Regards,

Anonymous

       Anonymous then sent out a public email in response to Mr. Pardue’s private questioning.

Anonymous wrote:

Tom Pardue Sr. wrote:

> Anonymous, Let's do as the Bereans did, cf. Acts 17:11, and examine
> the Scripture and see if this be so. Rom. 13:1 Let every person be in
> subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except
> from God, and those which exist are established by God.
> Rom. 13:2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of
> God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

I have no argument with Romans 13 or with the writings of Peter. As a pastor, I have preached and taught that we need to be subject to higher powers. But again, I must allow that higher powers command contrary to God. When they do, they must not be obeyed. If that brings revolt, so be it.

As suspected, I cannot pry you from your deeply held beliefs, and yet you would kick at the notion that you are a Christian pacifist. Given a list of provocation’s, you must admit that you would defend with lethal force if necessary at some point. All sane men would and not a few insane. The natural law of self defense and that of ones own will out.

The point of arguing that Roman 13 teaches submission without qualification is pointless since ones understanding, or misunderstanding in this case, would leave no alternative than to submit.

But again, I must retreat to the natural law of self defense and the divine law of the shepherd and the steward. Both are entrusted with responsibility not to be thrown away.

What then is the answer? Shall we go meekly into the pit as herded animals to be killed because that is the will of the government? Your argument leaves little room to survive such a gruesome fate. On the other hand, if we look at Gideon who rose up against the de facto government of ruling Philistines and Midianites, we see that God stood on the side of the oppressed. Was Gideon wrong for rebelling against the government that God allowed to govern the land and its people?

You say that the American Revolution was not an insurrection. I would suspect that not a few British historians would tend to disagree.

I don't expect you to change your mind or your behavior. Neither should you expect me to recant and trade in my uniform for saffron robes or accept a vow of non-aggression.

There is too much at stake and I will not, cannot, go quietly into the night.

Without a convincing argument for Christian pacifism, I will dismiss it out of hand.

Have a good life.

Kind Regards,

Anonymous ~

       Mr. Pardue responds to a Lady on the email list. I’m sure Anonymous received this one also:

Dear Lady,

> Without a convincing argument for Christian pacifism, I will dismiss it out of hand.

Let's don't let Anonymous define the terms under discussion. He's defining the term based on his own set of presuppositions. What Anonymous defines as "Christian pacifism" is defined by God as obedience. He just doesn't like that definition. Also this is a type of abusive argument ad hominem. Identify the opponent as a "Christian pacifist" and his proposition is disproved. This is a logical fallacy which neither disproves my proposition nor proves his. Here is the dictionary definition of pacifist: "The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes." I agree with this as I believe most would. (Except Mr. Clinton around impeachment time.) However, I believe a nation should go to war to protect the lives of her citizens. A defensive war is just. Wars of aggression aren't. Here is another definition : "Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action." This is probably justified for offensive wars but not defensive ones.

I wrote an article for a Chattanooga newsletter and the Reformed theology journal, "Contra Mundum", about the murder of three people in a Jehovah's Witness family over close to where [snip] lives. The local paper made a big deal about Jehovah's Witnesses being pacifists and opposed to carrying weapons. (Article at: http://pages.preferred.com/~tpardue/tnccwlaw.html)

Here is an excerpt:

"Men are commanded to protect the weak (Ps. 82:4; Prov. 24:11) and their households (Ex 22:1-2). The most modern and lethal weapons of the era are used to accomplish this (Luke 22:36 ).

It is appropriate to act as the noble Bereans did and examine the Scriptures to see if this be so (Acts 17:11). The Apostle Paul clearly described heresy in 1 Tim. 5:8 "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." The context is that of charity for involuntarily indigent people but has a broader application. This command does not pertain exclusively to Christians but to all ("anyone"). "Especially for those of his household" is a component of "his own." All whom God has appointed to positions of authority (Romans 13:1) are commanded to provide what God has revealed that they provide for their constituents. God holds fathers, church leaders and civil magistrates accountable for their performance (Heb 13:17). This includes "providing" protection. Fathers are to protect their families and the state is to protect the right to do so."

The bottom line: I believe the Bible teaches that pacifism is heresy and submission to civil authorities is obedience to God.

A friend tells this joke about a pacifist Mennonite. A fellow knocks on the door and informs the Mennonite head of the house that he is here to rape a woman. The Mennonite head of the house calls out to his wife, "Honey, it's for you." Incidentally, [snip] was a Mennonite, but his church was not pacifist. The duty of all mankind, including ladies, is to defend the innocent. The Biblical response is to resist. A true pacifist would "lay down, roll over, and be kicked in the you-know-what ..."

If a peace officer acts violently against a submissive person without just cause the peace officer is violating the law. He is punishing without due process of law. The violent lawless should be resisted with only enough force to restrain, even if a peace officer. So if the SWAT team breaks in your door and starts beating up submissive folks, shooting and causing general mayhem, I think a man is justified in attempting to restrain them by force if needed. This is done at the risk of getting beat up or shot, nevertheless we have a duty to protect the innocent. When the smoke clears, surrender and let the courts decide which violence was justified. Then take the peace officer to civil court and take his property for his actionable tort.

The Randy Weaver case is an excellent case study. Weaver, his son and a friend were walking on his property when the marshals allegedly opened fire. They returned fire and killed a marshal. If this account is true as reported Weaver's friend was justified in killing a marshal to protect himself. An Idaho jury exonerated him so I guess the account is credible.

If a peace officer identifies himself and produces a warrant or otherwise has grounds for arresting a person, he should go peacefully even though he make not believe the arrest is justifiable. This has happened to Franklin Sanders several times. God commands this, cf. Rom 13:1. Let the courts decide if the arrest was justified. Then take the peace officer to civil court and take his property for his actionable tort.

However, this is not what Anonymous is advocating. He is advocating armed organized resistance against the governing authorities. This is real macho but not allowed by God, so it isn't prudent. The scenario he postulates is martial law. If the President declares martial law Anonymous and his militia are going to resist. The only entity that can resist an unconstitutional order is another civil magistrate, either state, county or city. This is the doctrine of interposition or intercession described by Calvinists as the lesser magistrate opposing the greater magistrate. I suggest male machismo and bitterness against an apparent tyrannical government forms the basis for Anonymous thought process. So what's new? I'm mad too. What makes me the most angry is a magistrate who refuses to acknowledge that he is God's servant. That is practically all of them.

Here are some of Calvin's observations (emphasis mine):

"But if we have respect to the word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes. For though the Lord declares that a ruler to maintain our safety is the highest gift of his beneficence, and prescribes to rulers themselves their proper sphere, he at the same time declares, that of whatever description they may be, they derive their power from none but Him. Those, indeed, who rule for the public good, are true examples and specimens of His beneficence, while those who domineer unjustly and tyrannical are raised up by Him to punish the people for their iniquity. Still all alike possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power. I will not proceed further without subjoining some distinct passages to this effect. (Job 34:30; Hos. 13:11; Isaiah 3:4; 10:6; Deuteronomy 28:29.)

Scripture is clear that government is a gift and that rulers are God's ministers of justice even if they are wicked. Nations have wicked rulers because God has raised them up to punish them. When Israel was faithful she lived in peace. When she worshipped the Baals she lived under the yoke. America has been worshipping the Baals for years and is overdue to be under the yoke. Some might deduce that I am saying that America is Israel. I'm not. God punished wicked nations for worshipping the Baals. Nineveh is an example. She repented and escaped the yoke. America is no better. Anonymous wants to avoid the yoke at all costs. He is no better than anyone else. He just thinks he is. He should be praying for God to rend the heavens and come down like boiling water and revive His church. AND he should encourage all Christians to also.

Calvin continues:

"We need not labor to prove that an impious king is a mark of the Lord’s anger, since I presume no one will deny it, and that this is not less true of a king than of a robber who plunders your goods, an adulterer who defiles your bed, and an assassin who aims at your life, since all such calamities are classed by Scripture among the curses of God. But let us insist at greater length in proving what does not so easily fall in with the views of men, that even an individual of the worst character, one most unworthy of all honor, if invested with public authority, receives that illustrious divine power which the Lord has by his word devolved on the ministers of his justice and judgment, and that, accordingly, in so far as public obedience is concerned, he is to be held in the same honor and reverence as the best of kings."

This agrees with Scripture but not necessarily with the view of sinful man about to be under the yoke.

Calvin continues:

"But rulers, you will say, owe mutual duties to those under them. This I have already confessed. But if from this you conclude that obedience is to be returned to none but just governors, you reason absurdly. Husbands are bound by mutual duties to their wives, and parents to their children. Should husbands and parents neglect their duty; should the latter be harsh and severe to the children whom they are enjoined not to provoke to anger, and by their severity harass them beyond measure; should the former treat with the greatest contumely the wives whom they are enjoined to love and to spare as the weaker vessels; would children be less bound in duty to their parents, and wives to their husbands? They are made subject to the froward and undutiful. Nay, since the duty of all is not to look behind them, that is, not to inquire into the duties of one another, but to submit each to his own duty, this ought especially to be exemplified in the case of those who are placed under the power of others. Wherefore, if we are cruelly tormented by a savage, if we are rapaciously pillaged by an avaricious or luxurious, if we are neglected by a sluggish, if, in short, we are persecuted for righteousness’ sake by an impious and sacrilegious prince, let us first call up the remembrance of our faults, which doubtless the Lord is chastising by such scourges. In this way humility will curb our impatience. And let us redect that it belongs not to us to cure these evils, that all that remains for us is to implore the help of the Lord, in whose hands are the hearts of kings, and inclinations of kingdoms." (Daniel 9:7, Proverbs 21:1, Psalm 82:1, 2:10; Isaiah 10:1.)

Anonymous claims that if the national government declares martial law, the constitution is abrogated and men are not obligated to obey. This is an unproved premise of the "social compact" espoused by John Locke and others such as Rousseau and Hume. Ironically, Locke was a Calvinist and a Presbyterian and Rousseau was from a Calvinist French Huguenot family from Geneva where Calvin did his greatest work. Hume was a Scotsman. Knox did his greatest work in Scottland. The "social compact" is just another tradition of men which contradicts the Bible. Calvin observed that men under the yoke of a tyrant should be patient, repent, call upon God and wait on Him. Anonymous is not being patient. He is doing the exact opposite of Calvin's counsel. He is trying to "cure these evils."

Calvin continues concerning opposing tyrants:

"Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and perhaps there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets). So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannize and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians."

Private men and groups of private men are forbidden to oppose tyrants by force. When the Hebrews were under the yoke of the Phillistines God raised up judges to oppose them. Athaliah murdered the heirs to the throne and reigned for six years. Then Jehoiada organized the lesser magistrates to oppose her, cf. 2 Chron 22:12ff. After God condemned the Hebrews to roam in the wilderness for forty years they rebelled. They attempted to oppose the tyrannical Canaanites, cf. Nu. 14:1ff, apart from the leadership of Moses. This what Anonymous is trying to do. They failed, cf. Nu 14:45. I have no reason to believe that Anonymous will succeed. David was unjustly pursued by Saul and refused to even harm a hair on his head.

Here is what Calvin says about obeying magistrates who command contrary to God:

"We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates — a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree (Daniel 6:22), because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions (1 Kings 12:28). With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet (Hosea. 5:11). So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that presence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining anything imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows, or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are contemned. As Solomon says, "The wrath of a king is as messengers of death “ (Proverbs 16:14). But since Peter, one of heaven's heralds, has published the edict,“ We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires, when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional consideration (1 Corinthians 7:23), that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety."

He is saying resist an order to disobey God, but be prepared to suffer for it. Just as our spiritual ancestors suffered we should expect to suffer. This comports with the Bible:

Matt. 10:23 "But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish {going through} the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.

Matt. 10:24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master.

John 15:18 "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before {it hated} you.

John 15:19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

John 15:20 "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.

John 15:21 "But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.

Christ has said that we cannot conform to the world. If we are faithful, we won't. When we don't, we will be persecuted. Inevitably, that's part of the walk. One of the early church fathers, perhaps Tertullian, wrote that "the blood of the martyrs waters the field of the church." Anonymous wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to call himself a Christian and avoid suffering by conforming to the world. That is walking by sight, not faith.

Bear in mind that John Calvin wrote all of this during and after a time of severe persecution. The Romanists used the government to persecute Christians. The Catholics altered their catechism to allow the immediate murder of any Protestant. Indeed, the Romanists were particularly severe on Calvinists. In the 1564 St. Barthomew Massacre the French reportedly murdered 20,000 French Huguenots, innocent men, women and babies. This was not a theoretical solution posed by Calvin, but a real one.

Tom Pardue Sr.

       Mr. Pardue then responds to an outside email:

Gentlemen,

Anonymous wrote:

>An outside writer wrote:

> > TOM, IF YOU DON'T BELONG TO A MILITIA WHAT AND WHERE DO YOU HAVE
> > ANY RIGHT TO EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY?????

I suppose one might argue that I have a right to exist here because I was born here then served as a regular army combat arms officer for 20 years, five months and six days.

> Perhaps the more succinct question might be, "If you don't belong to a militia do you
> have any hope of staying alive in this country?"

> Kind Regards,
> Anonymous

Is this the gospel of "salvation by militia?"

Ps. 146:5 How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, Whose hope is in the LORD his God....

Ps. 118:8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in man.

Ps. 118:9 It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in princes.

Is. 2:22 Stop regarding man, whose breath {of life} is in his nostrils; For why should he be esteemed?

Is. 31:3 Now the Egyptians are men, and not God, And their horses are flesh and not spirit; So the LORD will stretch out His hand, And he who helps will stumble And he who is helped will fall, And all of them will come to an end together.

Is. 37:6 And Isaiah said to them, "Thus you shall say to your master, 'Thus says the LORD," Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me.

Jer. 17:5 Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind And makes flesh his strength, And whose heart turns away from the LORD.

Tom Pardue Sr.

        Mr. Pardue responds to another contention by Anonymous:

> > Tom Pardue Sr. wrote:
> > Anonymous, Let's do as the Bereans did, cf. Acts 17:11, and examine
> > the Scripture and see if this be so. Rom. 13:1 Let every person be in
> > subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except
> > from God, and those which exist are established by God.
> > Rom. 13:2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of
> > God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
>
> I have no argument with Romans 13 or with the writings of Peter.
> As a pastor, I have preached and taught that we need to be
> subject to higher powers. But again, I must allow that higher
> powers command contrary to God. When they do, they must
> not be obeyed. If that brings revolt, so be it.

When the higher power commands Anonymous to sin, he must disobey, cf Acts 4:19, 5:29,16:14ff. But you are to conduct yourself in the same manner as the apostles. This is not your proposition. Your proposition is that armed men band together and rebel against the civil magistrates whom God has testified, notwithstanding their wickedness, are His servants. It is apparent from Scripture that government is a gift from God. Bad government is better than anarchy.

> As suspected, I cannot pry you from your deeply held beliefs,
> and yet you would kick at the notion that you are a Christian
> pacifist. Given a list of provocation’s, you must admit that you
> would defend with lethal force if necessary at some point.
> All sane men would and not a few insane.

Are you familiar with logical fallacies? I can identify two here. The term "Christian pacifist" is a pejorative term. This is the logical fallacy of abusive argumentum ad hominem. Instead of attacking the proposition, you attack the man. This does not disprove the proposition. This is also ad hominem (tu quoque). This form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practice what he preaches. My actions are not the norm. The Bible is. Showing inconsistent fidelity to an ethical canon does not disprove the ethical canon.

Nevertheless, this is beside the point. The right to individual self defense granted by God is not the proposition. The right of self defense is not a sanction for individuals or groups of men to rebel. Rebellion is the sin of witchcraft, cf. 1 Sam 15:23.

> The natural law of self defense and that of ones own will out.

Where is the "natural law of self defense" found? For every natural law theorist there is a distinct set of natural laws. Which natural law theorist is correct? There is only one lawgiver, cf. Ja. 4:12; Is 33:22. As Blackstone observed: "This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other.  It is binding all over 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, mediately or immediately, from this original." (1W Blackstone p41) And "[T]he doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures." (1W Blackstone p42)

> The point of arguing that Roman 13 teaches submission without
> qualification is pointless since ones understanding, or
> misunderstanding in this case, would leave no alternative than
> to submit.

That is exactly what it says. This is inescapable. The problem is that prideful man refuses to submit and prefers rebellion. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego all resisted orders, yet submitted to the governing authorities. The apostles submitted. The early Christians submitted. As Tertullian observed, "The blood of the martyrs waters the field of the church." The only qualification is that a civil magistrate is the only one who can resist another civil magistrate, cf. Rom 13:4. Your claim that individual bands of men can resist the civil magistrate has no support in Scripture.

Your proposition includes the notion that individual bands of men can lawfully depose a civil magistrate. This has happened in the past. Absalom deposed David, cf. 2 Sam 15:1ff. Adonijah deposed David, cf. 1 Kings 1:5ff. This was improper as Scripture clearly shows. The outcome was calamitous. The only circumstance under which your proposition has merit is if your militia comes under the control of the governing authorities as the posse comitatus. There an axiom of American law written in the national constitution and in many state constitutions that the militia is controlled by the governing authorities. That is why the President is CINC.

> But again, I must retreat to the natural law of self defense and
> the divine law of the shepherd and the steward. Both are entrusted
> with responsibility not to be thrown away.

You simply state as fact what you must prove, i.e. that your concept of natural law and divine law are correct. This is begging the question, another logical fallacy. The concept of natural law in America came from Thomism. This is the natural law that gave us Roe and judicial usurpation. Natural law apart from the law revealed in the Bible is a foggy subjective notion and nothing more than anarchy.

> What then is the answer? Shall we go meekly into the pit as
> herded animals to be killed because that is the will of the
> government?

No we will obey God. If it is His will that this happen, so be it. As Matthew Henry remarked, "The grace of the gospel teaches us submission and quiet, where pride and the carnal mind only see causes for murmuring and discontent. Whatever the persons in authority over us themselves may be, yet the just power they have, must be submitted to and obeyed. In the general course of human affairs, rulers are not a terror to honest, quiet, and good subjects, but to evil-doers. Such is the power of sin and corruption, that many will be kept back from crimes only by the fear of punishment. Thou hast the benefit of the government, therefore do what thou canst to preserve it, and nothing to disturb it. This directs private persons to behave quietly and peaceably where God has set them, I Timothy 2:1, 2.

It may be God's will to grant reformation of His church instead of the pandemonium you predict. It is our duty to pray for the governing authorities that we might live in peace. Concurrently we pray that He will judge our magistrates to repentance, if that is His will. If not His will then He will judge them to destruction. This is the Christian's imprecatory prayer; that God will judge to repentance or destruction and replace ungodly men with godly men who will judge justly.

You don't know what He will do. He has granted repentance and reformation in the past. You, in your walk by sight, just pessimistically assume the worst. You are commanded to walk in the faith that God will keep His promises and protect you and your family and sustain you in whatever situation He wills to put you in. God's will be done in spite of your efforts to thwart it, cf. Dan 4:34f; Job 9:12; Eph 1:11; Romans 8:28.

> Your argument leaves little room to survive such
> a gruesome fate.

You are walking by sight, not faith, Anonymous.

> On the other hand, if we look at Gideon who
> rose up against the de facto government of ruling Philistines
> and Midianites, we see that God stood on the side of the
> oppressed. Was Gideon wrong for rebelling against the
> government that God allowed to govern the land and its people?

This argument is sophistry. Gideon was a judge appointed by direct revelation by God, cf. Ju 6:14, to save Israel from an oppressive de jure government, cf. Ju 2:14, not a de facto government. You cannot claim this authority nor can anyone else. This was the case with all the judges. You know this. However, the Book of Judges does validate my proposition that only lesser magistrates may oppose greater magistrates. Never did the Hebrews under the bitter yoke of their enemies successfully oppose them as a band of men acting apart from the governing authorities.

> You say that the American Revolution was not an insurrection.
> I would suspect that not a few British historians would tend
> to disagree.

This is the logical fallacy of appeal to anonymous authorities. It does not disprove my proposition. There is also the matter of defining terms. As Rushdoony observed: "If God be indeed creator of all things, all things must be defined in relationship to Him, or else we have a false definition." The Bible defines insurrection as a band of men who oppose the governing authorities as in Nu. 15:1ff. The result of this insurrection was inevitable as will be the results of your insurrection: Num. 14:45 Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites who lived in that hill country came down, and struck them and beat them down as far as Hormah.

> I don't expect you to change your mind or your behavior.
> Neither should you expect me to recant and trade in my
> uniform for saffron robes or accept a vow of non-aggression.
>
> There is too much at stake and I will not, cannot, go quietly
> into the night.
>
> Without a convincing argument for Christian pacifism, I will
> dismiss it out of hand.
>
> Have a good life.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Anonymous

An argument need not be accepted by all to be nonetheless conclusive. Personal opinion is subjectively qualified. The truth isn't. It is an inescapable fact that your position is not based on the evidence presented in the Bible. It is based on pragmatism, unBiblical presuppositions and philosophical bias and will come to no good end. Tragically, you have a dedicated following.

Tom Pardue Sr.

        Mr. Pardue then stops the debate here, with this response to a lady on our list:

Dear Lady,

You are correct. It is past time to cease this discussion with Anonymous. Prov. 27:22 Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, {Yet} his folly will not depart from him.

It is interesting how Anonymous has reacted. I just ended a long correspondence with a local fellow who claims to be a Christian and a libertarian. He would answer my claims, objections, rebuttals and propositions with vain rhetoric just like Anonymous. When I pointed out that he was using abusive ad hominem he responded that I was. I ended this relationship because he called me a liar and a sham, he bore false witness and refused to repent. He is just as opinionated as Anonymous. That is the problem with both. They substitute their own opinions on issues for the revealed truth in the Bible.

Just for the edification of the group I'll expose Anonymous. I don't care if he claims a win in our dialogue. As I have said many times before, an argument need not be accepted by all to be nonetheless conclusive. Personal opinion is subjectively qualified. The truth isn't. I've made my points. He just doesn't like them.

Scroll down and see how he reasons. He is just like my former libertarian friend. He doesn't care about truth. He just wants to win.

Anonymous writes:

> My learned critic, Tom Pardue presents what he believes
> is a Biblical basis to oppose the formation of a defensive
> militia, and yet his argument is riddled with contradictions.
> Mr. Pardue talks about situations in which he thinks that
> lethal force to defend is appropriate (see the SWAT response
> below). Mr. Pardue quotes scripture about defending ones
> own family in the snippet from the article he wrote (see below).
> This all sounds very militant.

I think I explained my position without equivocation in distinguishing between duty and heresy, i.e. pacifism. And fully explained the axiom that defensive military forces are always responsible to the civil government.

> The problem I see in Mr. Pardue’s commentary is that he
> has, without any support whatsoever, characterized me as
> an aggressor. While he accuses me of ad hominem by painting
> others as Christian pacifists, he paints me as being offensive!

My question, not an accusation, in a private email to Anonymous: "It appears that you are advocating insurrection by individuals who band together, call themselves militia units and oppose government . . .I am unclear as to what you are proposing. Please clear this up for me."

His answer to my inquiry in part:

"God Himself has established the criteria by which men may
rule others. But where is justice today and where is the
fear of God before the ruler's eyes? Are they not gone?
And when rulers, be they kings or county commissioners
no longer rule justly and in the fear of God, break from that
divine mandate, they have abrogated their office and have
disqualified for themselves the position of leadership. Therefore
they must be thrown down by the righteous who will rule in
justice and the fear of God. "

If this isn't insurrection, there are no cows in Texas. In other words, "It depends on what 'insurrection' means." He subjectively defines insurrection as obedience in spite of a clear definition in the Bible. He just doesn't like the Bible's definition, so he supplies his own.

> If by doing so he can create the impression that I am the leader
> of a gang that wants to attack the government, burn, bomb, and
> kill, he can sway his readers into dismissing the rest of what
> I'm trying to say. Mr. Pardue's fault is that he's done what
> he accuses me of doing.

What? He created this impression. My fault is what? This is really incoherent.

> But consider that I am not aggressive nor do I want to slash and
> burn the government into oblivion.

He has sure fooled me. Just how does he propose to oppose martial law? With paint guns?

> What if I am representative
> of thousands of Christian fathers and husbands who will defend
> themselves and their families against the hobnailed tyranny of
> a wicked government that no longer rules justly and in the fear
> of God (2 Sam 23:3)? What if I am the rule rather than the
> exception?

This is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum). A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population. This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.

This doesn't prove his proposition or disprove mine. It is just speculation that there might be many people who hold the same view. They could all be wrong. This is irrational.

> Has an alliance of Christian men who have vowed
> to defend their family against the wicked stepped over some
> Biblical prohibition? You be the judge.

Let the Bible be the judge. Either he is wrong, I am wrong or we both are. The truth is found in the Bible, not in the opinions of the judges.

> I suspect that Mr. Pardue will resort to using lethal force to
> protect his family...

I said I would under certain circumstances but not as he advocates.

> He and thousands of other men understand
> the feelings of heroes such as William Wallace.

I wonder what makes him a biblical norm. Is this the gospel of salvation by Braveheart?

> If bringing together godly men who love their families and liberty
> more than their own life itself, to fight in defense of what God has
> given to them is wrong, then yes, I am wrong. And if the Bible
> anywhere teaches that a father or husband should sit quietly
> while his family is being butchered, then yes, I will disobey
> the Bible. But of course, each reader here knows that the
> opposite is true, for if a man will not care for and defend his
> own family, his has forsaken the very core meaning of
> responsible love.

Doesn't this emotive, and patriotic language just stir you up and make my proposition look foolish? This is the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion and the logical fallacy of "prejudicial language." Again this neither proves his proposition nor disproves mine.

> You be the jury and make your decision. You have all the
> information and evidence you need. Wrestle with the issue
> as you ought to until you can take a stand like men and women
> of God. The Soul 0f Liberty is yours. The decision is yours.
> The consequences also are yours.

Just more of the same.

Tom Pardue Sr.

        As far as I know, it was there that it publicly ended.

        In the opinion of this writer, Mr. Pardue has prevailed in this forum. Is he a Christian pacifist? No. He was clearly pointing out the importance of understanding the spiritual and Biblical principles of why this nation is where it is today. As I have said before, until the true Church in America, the Bible believing, Born Again Church, finally abandons all of her pride and preoccupations, the Holy Spirit's restraining influence in our society will continue attenuated and dulled; the Church continuing her retreat behind the perimeter of her own camp, where she will sit grasping at the things of the world, whether governmental institutions, political parties, church marketing strategies, religious denominations, or a social gospel in a furtive effort to resolve so many of the complex but exclusively spiritual and moral issues at hand.

        All due respects to the men and women of the state militias and their Patriotic stand, but this nation is already an occupied nation from long ago. It’s political and social life has been overrun with doctrines of devils (I Timothy 4:1) with the ensuing results. Will we commit the final rebellion against our Lord by caving in to the enemies final purposes? He continually seeks to destroy the Church. So, such things should be gravely considered and not impetuously rushed into. The government, legally placed there by the majority of voters, clearly is placed there by the Lord for correction on the nation. As it was in the time of Jesus’ ministry and the occupation of the Holy Land by the Imperial Roman Empire, so it is today. The only way for its citizens to throw off this occupational force is by, first, returning once again to the Gospel to impact the nation, and to this nation's founding principles and the One who mandated them.

        “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” Ephesians 6:11-13

        God grant that more modern day Christian statesman like Mr. Pardue would be raised up and deployed into the spiritual arena of battle, that the Church would heed the call of the Holy Spirit to truly repent, return wholly to Him, and with the weapons of our warfare, take the battle back into the spiritual realm once again. Biblical Truth still takes precedence over American history and traditions. Help us to see that.