Critiquing: How Can Romans 13:3 Be True When Some Governments Persecute Christians?

May 8, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Governments and Morality — Lesser Magistrates Doctrine — Authority Hierarchies — Government Overreach — School Environment

---

Overview of Arguments

The content discusses how Romans 13:3 can be true despite the persecution of Christians by some governments. Greg Cokol and Amy Hall argue that while God ordains governments to punish evil and promote good, human corruption can lead to governments deviating from this purpose.

Logical Consistency and Coherence

God-Ordained Government vs. Human Corruption

Key Point: The argument posits that God ordains governments to punish evil and reward good. When governments deviate from this purpose, they lose their God-ordained authority.

Evaluation: This reasoning has internal coherence but lacks external substantiation. The claim that governments lose their authority when acting contrary to God’s purpose is not empirically verifiable. Additionally, the content fails to address how one determines when a government has deviated sufficiently to lose this authority.

“It’s really clear in this passage that God ordained government for the purpose of punishing evil and promoting good. The minute a government is no longer punishing evil and promoting good, but doing the opposite, then it is not doing the thing that God ordained it to do. And therefore, at least in some measure, it loses its authority.”

Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates

Key Point: The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates is cited as a historical precedent for resisting higher authorities that act against God’s purposes.

Evaluation: While this doctrine provides a framework for challenging unjust authority, its application is complex and context-dependent. The content does not sufficiently explain how to navigate these complexities in contemporary settings, leading to potential misapplication.

“And what they said is when it comes to wicked governments, they are operating outside of their God-ordained responsibility. And therefore, they don’t have the God-ordained authority that they would have if they were doing what they’re supposed to do.”

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies

Appeal to Authority: The reliance on historical doctrines and religious texts as primary justifications can be seen as an appeal to authority. This approach assumes that these sources are inherently correct without critically evaluating their relevance or applicability to modern contexts.

Confirmation Bias: The discussion appears to selectively highlight examples that support the argument while ignoring counterexamples. For instance, the content discusses the alleged overreach during the COVID-19 crisis but does not consider instances where government intervention may have been beneficial or necessary.

Hasty Generalization: The assertion that a government acting contrary to God’s purposes automatically loses its authority is a broad generalization. This fails to consider the nuances of governance and the potential for partial compliance with moral standards.

“So, there are various levels of types of authority that God has ordained. He’s the authority of the government. He’s ordained the authority of the church. He’s ordained the authority of parents over their children.”

Unsubstantiated Claims

Claim: Governments lose their authority when they act against God’s purposes.

Obligation to Substantiate: This claim is significant and requires robust substantiation. Without clear criteria for determining when a government has crossed this threshold, the argument remains speculative.

Method to Test: Empirical testing of divine mandates is inherently challenging. However, evaluating the tangible outcomes of government actions—such as public well-being and justice—can provide a more practical measure of their legitimacy.

“Notice that God says we should obey the governments because they are a minister of God for good. But what if obeying the government causes us to do evil or the government is doing evil instead of punishing evil? Well, that undermines its legitimacy even before God.”

Degree of Belief and Evidence

Mapping Belief to Evidence: The content asserts strong beliefs about divine ordination of governments without presenting proportional evidence. For beliefs to be credible, they should be supported by evidence commensurate with their strength.

Evaluation: The lack of empirical evidence to support the theological claims weakens the overall argument. It is crucial to critically evaluate the available evidence and adjust the degree of belief accordingly.

“This passage is identifying the purpose that God ordained governments and just like he ordained marriage. But there are exceptions to the sanctity of marriage. Jesus himself says when there’s adultery, for example, Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, when there is an abandonment by a non-Christian spouse, we live in a fallen world.”

Conclusion

The content attempts to reconcile the theological perspective of Romans 13:3 with the reality of governmental persecution. However, it suffers from logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. The arguments, while coherent within their theological framework, lack external validation and fail to provide a clear, practical application for contemporary issues. To enhance the credibility of such arguments, it is essential to present robust evidence and critically evaluate the assumptions underlying theological doctrines.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.