Quote:
Originally Posted by Confessor  Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaScriptura If a FATHER is brutally abusing the son or daughter, does the MOTHER have the right - the duty, perhaps - to rise up and defend the child in defiance against her husband, the head of the house, the "greater ruler?" Both are rulers in the home, though the mother is the "lesser." | I think this is simply to say that the mother is dutifully obliged to protect life per the sixth commandment, and therefore this is a case of obeying God rather than man, for her husband's ordering her not to defend the children would be an order that she sin.
In other words, this seems to be an example where you ought to disobey if you are ordered to sin. But I don't know how this relates to the American Revolution. |
I think you are missing the point and trying to create too narrow a line by trying to make this an issue in which someone is being "ordered to sin."
The 5th Commandment principle as I decscribed it applies to the government as to the parents.
In my example, the father doesn't have to order her to do anything... the mother goes against Eph 5 by refusing to sit idly by, but is justified by her defense of her kids. Likewise, the kids are justified if they use force to protect their mother from a cruel father.
How it relates to the American Revolution...
Magistrates, like parents, are dutifully bound to protect and defend their charges.
If the list of grievances in the Declaration is accurate, then we get a picture of a government that was essentially raping the populace. The Founding Fathers (acting here as the mother from my previous illustration) stood up and said, "No more" to the Crown (acting here as the father from my previous illustration). It was the Crown that then initiated military action. (Kind of like a cruel father turning his wrath on the mother when she stands up to protect the children.)
If you want to do what you did and try to make my illustration one in which the wife is justified because the father was "ordering" her to sin by "ordering" her to sit by in violation of the 6th Commandment... well... then I think that would apply in the case of the Revolution in that the Crown essentially told the Founders to be quiet. Except in the case of the Revolution, the Founders weren't ordered to be quiet as the Crown violated the 6th Commandment alone... they were told to submit as the Crown forced violation of the 6th, 7th and 8th and 10th!
Submission to any human authority is always conditional and never unflinchingly and unswervingly absolute.