Who does then?
All this may be true (I do agree with you as to the points you raise). But it doesn’t address whether or not the government has the authority to mandate vaccines.
2 Likes
God does. This is an example of basic common sense. God gives Caesar authority in order to do the things that God wants Caesar to do. That defines the limits of Caesar’s authority.
This doesn’t really answer the question though, as God – throughout history – has given some “Caesars” pretty incredible authority. Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, etc. Each of these men did what God wanted them to do.
Just saying, it isn’t as simple as making an appeal to the descriptives (yes, descriptives) in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 and then presuming ourselves to be at liberty to relieve ourselves of submission to rulers who aren’t “promoting what is good.”
1 Like
Heard from a friend in a GC who serves as an Army chaplain. He is tasked with interviewing men who want an exemption from the vaccines.
He’s said he has had to recommend refusing all of them. The men have to be able to point to a specific religious teaching they adhere to and prove the sincerity of their belief. They aren’t meeting the requirements.
FYI
3 Likes
Where do we find this divine specification? And what things are included in this definition of limitation?
1 Like
If one of the duties of government is to protect life, then both requiring or forbidding certain medical treatments is definitely within its authority, generally speaking, regardless of this particular.
4 Likes
Reed - To your point about all 50 states require vaccinations to enroll in public school, in Ohio that’s not quite true - or it’s partially true. More interesting is that Ohio allows the following exemptions:
- The child had the disease and acquired natural immunity;
- The vaccination is medically contraindicated for the child or is not medically
appropriate for the child’s age; - The child’s parent declines vaccination for reasons of conscience, including
religious convictions.
The above would seem to be a reasonable vaccine policy; but that’s not what we’re seeing with the current administration.
4 Likes
No one was required by conscience to obey an abusive tyrant just because God raised them up unless they were given specific special revelation to do so.
We are required to obey tyrants only in the specific areas of their legitimate authority, not their illegitimate authority.
And protecting life is central to their legitimate authority. Do you acknowledge this to be true?
1 Like
That is unconscionable.
This lends itself to reductionistic thinking, which I reject.
It’s not reductionistic. It’s a principle. Not a universal. A principle. If you cannot discuss principles, we have nothing to discuss.
3 Likes
It’s a leading question. I would never say, “It is a general principle for a ruler to protect life” because it only tends to bad conclusions. This mentality could prove basically anything thus it is a bad starting principle.
“It is a ruler’s job to protect life. Medical experts of history believe that bloodletting through leeches protects life. Therefore the ruler demands that you be bloodlet by leeches.”
“It is a ruler’s job to protect life. Sugar causes disease that leads to death. All sugar is banned.”
“It is a ruler’s job to protect life. Car accidents cause death. Therefore the ruler has the right to set all speed limits everywhere to 15 mph.”
It’s not a leading question. It’s a question of what the government’s legitimate authority is. If we disagree on basic principles, we can’t get anywhere until we iron that out. I’m going to have to ask you to stop commenting until you are willing to move beyond bombast and are willing to reason about these things.
2 Likes
The government is analogous to a father. A father has a degree of latitude in how he exabits his civil authority for the sake of righteousness but there is a principle of reasonableness. Just as I have the right to have my kids do chores, but not the right to send my kids to the salt mines.
2 Likes
Indeed. Agreed. And thank you. Now we are having a discussion.
There are some who deny outright the government’s duty to protect life. I’m just curious if you would deny this. If you don’t deny that, then we are having a discussion of where the line between chores and salt mines is. If you do deny it, we need to focus there.
With respect to the 6th commandment, yes. The issue is that there is no line and as soon as you grant that this is an issue of line-defining then you have already lost. You can never define a line that is “reasonable” especially when you are dealing with people who hate you and want you dead. Any such leader has forfeited their rights to be a leader. In Joe Biden’s case, he never even had the rights to forfeit because he did not win the election and he is not the president. Besides his treachery in stealing the election, he deliberately murdered our soldiers and supplied arms to our enemies.
The only reason to disobey a governing authority is if it asks you to do something that directly contradicts God’s commands as written in his word. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a Government could require its population to get a vaccine. In the case of COVID it seems unwarranted for a plethora of reasons, but as has been discussed at this forum and elsewhere our submission is not dependent on the wisdom or efficaciousness of the authority’s stipulations.
Is it a slippery slope to tyranny? Perhaps. But I would note that any Government action is a potential slippery slope to tyranny. There is no allowance in scripture for such speculation - one can only evaluate the government dictates on a case-by-case basis.
3 Likes
Strongly disagree. I am disobeying this mandate and I will defend myself to the death over it.