Vaccine Mandates

I don’t know how profitable it is to continue this debate, but here goes…

A document is nothing more than a set of rules/laws by which a group of people have decided to be governed or by which a superior has informed inferiors what they must do and not do. A document has no power by which to discipline transgressors, and it is the group or the superior which must do so. To take a current example, there are certain men in the PCA who are speaking and living out of accord with the governing documents of the denomination. But it is men, not the governing documents, who must bring discipline, and when they do not, it is they, and not the governing documents, who are abdicating authority.

Yes, strictly speaking you are correct, and I was not unaware of that fact. My point is that the federal and state legislatures are elected by the people, and if the people want to amend the Constitution, they can elect legislators who will do so.

2 Likes

Joel, you are right on with this. The baseline New Testament teaching on respect for authority is always men: the king, his ministers, and those who bear the sword. The laws of men exist to serve the purposes of those men.

And comparing the Constitution to the Mosaic law is (while interesting and appropriate from a historical sense) a non sequitur here because God who gave His Law lives, while the men who gave the Constitution are dead, and it is up to us who live to observe it, amend it or ignore it, if which the first two the Founders explicitly gave us the authority to do, and the last they are powerless to prevent.

3 Likes

Perhaps not, but the question we are dealing with is whether the answer to all our problems is some sort of super majority of opinion on… well…everything a President could do in four years. I reject that majority opinion is the problem or the solution.

I do agree that the people of our nation have brought wicked leaders upon themselves, but that is a separate issue. And I reject that the problem is our leaders are insubordinate to “the people”.

Yesterday was Constitution day, and I instructed the kids on the colonial American history, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Not only did we talk about the separation of powers but also about the preamble which you mentioned.

The constitution was intended to establish a system of justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty.

So when someone takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution and fails in every measure of this mandate, it’s not railing to say so, Also, the standard is not whatever the majority opinion says. It’s faithfulness to their oaths, that’s in the constitution.

3 The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

I contend they are insubordinate to constitution, a subordination established by their oaths. And due process can certainly hold them accountable to that.

I’m happy to wrap up the discussion of government tyranny with that.

Reminds me of something I occasionally say to my patients: “I don’t mind that you’re skeptical of me but please be just as skeptical of your chiropractor.” (No offense to chiropractors)

5 Likes