Constitutional Monarchy

[JudgeRightly]

Marke, I apologize. I mistakenly referred you to the criminal justice system seminar, which has very little to do with the structure of government, and more to do with just the justice system of a just government. (It's still worth every penny, though, and honestly, I don't know why they don't charge more for it, with how valuable a resource it is!)

Here is the resource I was thinking of that addresses your argument (this one is free to read):

Biblical Apologetic for America's Constitutional Monarchy | KGOV.com

kgov.com

I suspect I agree with Bob Enyart

Considering you made the exact argument that Bob addressed (and by that, I mean debunked) in the above linked article, not likely.

but I don't have the money to buy the book.

See above.

The point is that God wanted Israel to have a king, but Israel wanted a king before God was ready to give them one.

Also, the best (since human government inherently contains imperfect humans, no human government is perfect) form of government we can have on earth is a monarchy. And since most of humanity does not trust God, humans do need a king.

But this is irrelevant to the discussion Clete and I were having, which is quite a ways further down the discussion path, as he and I are having the discussion under the assumption of the government being a monarchy, rather than something else.

(By the way, @Clete, I haven't forgotten about responding to your posts, just been busy, and have been pondering what you've said, as you make some great points that I've been mulling over how to address. I'll get around to responding eventually, but I want to make sure I have enough time to do so while also being in the mood to type up a well thought out response. Thank you for your continued patience! )

 

[marke]

Marke, I apologize. I mistakenly referred you to the criminal justice system seminar, which has very little to do with the structure of government, and more to do with just the justice system of a just government. (It's still worth every penny, though, and honestly, I don't know why they don't charge more for it, with how valuable a resource it is!)

Here is the resource I was thinking of that addresses your argument (this one is free to read):

Biblical Apologetic for America's Constitutional Monarchy | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Considering you made the exact argument that Bob addressed (and by that, I mean debunked) in the above linked article, not likely.



See above.

The point is that God wanted Israel to have a king, but Israel wanted a king before God was ready to give them one.

Also, the best (since human government inherently contains imperfect humans, no human government is perfect) form of government we can have on earth is a monarchy. And since most of humanity does not trust God, humans do need a king.

But this is irrelevant to the discussion Clete and I were having, which is quite a ways further down the discussion path, as he and I are having the discussion under the assumption of the government being a monarchy, rather than something else.

(By the way, @Clete, I haven't forgotten about responding to your posts, just been busy, and have been pondering what you've said, as you make some great points that I've been mulling over how to address. I'll get around to responding eventually, but I want to make sure I have enough time to do so while also being in the mood to type up a well thought out response. Thank you for your continued patience! )

I still believe the Jews were wrong to want to be ruled by human government instead of by God.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I still believe

In other words, you're not willing to be convinced otherwise.

the Jews were wrong to want to be ruled by human government instead of by God.

God wanted them to have a king. Thus, their desire for a king wasn't wrong, but their impatience and unwillingness to wait on God was what was wrong.

 

[marke]

In other words, you're not willing to be convinced otherwise.



God wanted them to have a king. Thus, their desire for a king wasn't wrong, but their impatience and unwillingness to wait on God was what was wrong.

It may be hard to determine among ourselves who is unwilling to be convinced of opinions that differ from their own. Samuel was displeased when the Jews said, "Give us a king." God told Samuel not to take their rejection personally because, apparently, when the Jews said "Give us a king" they were rejecting God.

1 Samuel 8:6-8

King James Version

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.​

 

[Clete]

If people trusted God they would not need an earthly king.

1 Samuel 8:6-8​

​

King James Version​

​

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.​

7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.​

8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.​

Only true for the nation that God has offered to reign over. Here's a copy of a post I made earlier in the thread that addresses this point....

All systems will have flaws, yes, but the system being discussed here wasn't proposed lightly. Israel didn't really demand much of a move. It was not a fundamental change in the form of government, it was merely the installation of a king to preside over the system they already had. The reason Samuel (and God) didn't like it much was because the idea for Israel had been for God to be their king. The whole system hasn't been presented here in this thread and so there's no reason you would know this but the proposed system would effectively be the "judge-archy" (the actual term is "Kritarchy" or "kritocracy", by the way) that you mentioned above except with a king as the chief judge which would make sense since we are not Israel and God has made no offer to act as the head of our nation nor to provide any super-natural protection as He did for Israel.​

​

It should be noted that God did grant them and even personally select a king and there can be no doubt at all that God had always intended to give Israel a kingdom and so whether God Himself is the king of the nation of Israel or whether He installs a human king, the fact remains that the proposed form of government, as imperfect as it may be, is God's preferred form of government and it is therefore my preferred form of government and should be yours as well. There certainly could be no valid biblical argument made for the superiority of any other form of government.​

​

The following link will take you to a much more complete presentation of the actual proposed constitution which includes links to both the biblical and political rational behind what is included in it, as well as links to the proposed criminal code and code of use. It is rather surprising the amount of time and effort of thought that has gone into it. I think you'll find it worth your time to read it through.​

​

The Proposed Constitution of America​

Lastly, is there any chance at all that you intend to respond to what I actually said about who should be eligible as a candidate for the first king?


(Gigantic fonts are annoying, by the way.)

 

[Clete]

(By the way, @Clete, I haven't forgotten about responding to your posts, just been busy, and have been pondering what you've said, as you make some great points that I've been mulling over how to address. I'll get around to responding eventually, but I want to make sure I have enough time to do so while also being in the mood to type up a well thought out response. Thank you for your continued patience! )

Take your time. I totally get it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It may be hard to determine among ourselves who is unwilling to be convinced of opinions that differ from their own.

Objectively, it's quite clear who's unwilling to be convinced. I'm not the one using phrases like "I still believe..." after being rebutted, however soundly, in the previous post

Samuel was displeased when the Jews said, "Give us a king." God told Samuel not to take their rejection personally because, apparently, when the Jews said "Give us a king" they were rejecting God.

They were rejecting God's timing for a king.

Such is, inherently, a rejection of God as their King.

Pay attention to what God said:

And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. - 1 Samuel 8:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Samuel8:7&version=NKJV

God is telling Samuel that they don't want God reigning over them, they want a man to reign over them, something they can see and feel, rather than the one who made them.

As I said before (and as was said in the link I gave you above): God wanted Israel to have a king. (Preferably Himself, as Clete said, but a king nonetheless.)

God gave them the Mosaic law LONG before they demanded a king, and especially before He chose David after the failure of a king that Saul was. In the Mosaic law is contained a set of laws for, you guessed it, an earthly king.

Why would God give a law for something that He doesn't want, instead of just prohibiting that which He doesn't want to occur? The law would have been the absolute best place to do so!

 

[marke]

Objectively, it's quite clear who's unwilling to be convinced. I'm not the one using phrases like "I still believe..." after being rebutted, however soundly, in the previous post

After I offered my opinion as a rebuttal to those who disagree with me, are you still unwilling to be convinced that I am right?

 

[marke]

Only true for the nation that God has offered to reign over. Here's a copy of a post I made earlier in the thread that addresses this point....

All systems will have flaws, yes, but the system being discussed here wasn't proposed lightly. Israel didn't really demand much of a move. It was not a fundamental change in the form of government, it was merely the installation of a king to preside over the system they already had. The reason Samuel (and God) didn't like it much was because the idea for Israel had been for God to be their king. The whole system hasn't been presented here in this thread and so there's no reason you would know this but the proposed system would effectively be the "judge-archy" (the actual term is "Kritarchy" or "kritocracy", by the way) that you mentioned above except with a king as the chief judge which would make sense since we are not Israel and God has made no offer to act as the head of our nation nor to provide any super-natural protection as He did for Israel.​

​

It should be noted that God did grant them and even personally select a king and there can be no doubt at all that God had always intended to give Israel a kingdom and so whether God Himself is the king of the nation of Israel or whether He installs a human king, the fact remains that the proposed form of government, as imperfect as it may be, is God's preferred form of government and it is therefore my preferred form of government and should be yours as well. There certainly could be no valid biblical argument made for the superiority of any other form of government.​

​

The following link will take you to a much more complete presentation of the actual proposed constitution which includes links to both the biblical and political rational behind what is included in it, as well as links to the proposed criminal code and code of use. It is rather surprising the amount of time and effort of thought that has gone into it. I think you'll find it worth your time to read it through.​

​

The Proposed Constitution of America​

Lastly, is there any chance at all that you intend to respond to what I actually said about who should be eligible as a candidate for the first king?


(Gigantic fonts are annoying, by the way.)

If America needs a king, then let it be someone God favors, not some secularist who angers God with his rebellious beliefs and policies.

 

[JudgeRightly]

After I offered my opinion as a rebuttal to those who disagree with me, are you still unwilling to be convinced that I am right?

I don't care about your opinion unless you can back it up with facts and strong reasoning, and most importantly, with Scripture!

What I care about are the facts, namely, the fact that you have yet to make a compelling argument FOR your opinions, especially one that hasn't already been addressed.

 

[Clete]

If America needs a king, then let it be someone God favors, not some secularist who angers God with his rebellious beliefs and policies.

Exactly my position! There seems no good reason to leave the selection entirely up to a purely random selection where every male in the country is on equally likely to be selected as the king of an overtly Christian nation.

 

[Clete]

If America needs a king, then let it be someone God favors, not some secularist who angers God with his rebellious beliefs and policies.

Everyone can have an opinion. The difference is whether that opinion can be established by scripture AND sound reason. This is a debate forum not a personal opinion forum. Please, please try to apply yourself toward making actual logical arguments. It will be much more enjoyable both for you and for everyone you interact with here. The idea is for iron to sharpen iron. That can't happen if you show up with a sword made of wood.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

After I offered my opinion as a rebuttal to those who disagree with me, are you still unwilling to be convinced that I am right?

 

[marke]

Everyone can have an opinion. The difference is whether that opinion can be established by scripture AND sound reason. This is a debate forum not a personal opinion forum. Please, please try to apply yourself toward making actual logical arguments. It will be much more enjoyable both for you and for everyone you interact with here. The idea is for iron to sharpen iron. That can't happen if you show up with a sword made of wood.

Clete

My argument: God said Israel had rejected Him as king over them by asking Samuel to appoint an earthly king to rule over them. I conclude that to mean God did not favor them asking for an earthly king to rule over them.

I have no other argument.

 

[JudgeRightly]

My argument: God said Israel had rejected Him as king over them by asking Samuel to appoint an earthly king to rule over them. I conclude that to mean God did not favor them asking for an earthly king to rule over them.

The counterargument is that God put the laws concerning the actions of earthly kings ruling over the nation of Israel into the Mosaic law LONG before the Israelites' desire to have an earthly king, rather than God reigning over them directly. Which raises the question, why put those laws there if God didn't want His nation to have an earthly king?

You don't, and moreso CANNOT, prohibit something by regulating it, because regulating that something inherently permits it in circumstances other than the ones you prohibit.

The answer should be obvious: God DID want His nation to have an earthly king, and so He set up the laws governing His nation to include laws on how an earthly king should act, so that He could work His plan to come as the Messiah to rule, born from a royal bloodline of kings in His nation's past.

In other words: Having a king was part of His plan all along.

 

[Clete]

My argument: God said Israel had rejected Him as king over them by asking Samuel to appoint an earthly king to rule over them. I conclude that to mean God did not favor them asking for an earthly king to rule over them.

Yes, and then that argument was rebutted by more than one of us who not only explained that it would only apply in the context of a nation that God had offered to rule as King over and provided ample resources to other more substantial rebuttals to your interpretation that come with scores of biblical references that establish without doubt that your interpretation is incorrect.

That's precisely the difference between an opinion and a well thought out and rationally established biblical position. One is compelling the other isn't. One takes long effort and careful thought and biblical scholarship, the other requires a single proof text and the same mental effort expended by an eighth grader deciding whether he likes blue shoes or red ones.

I have no other argument.

Right, well there's not anything wrong with that so long as you let those who do have actual arguments to persuade your mind. If you don't know something then there's no fault in that. The fault comes when ignorance becomes willful. If there's something you come across that you hadn't ever considered before then use it as an opportunity to learn something. Pick the arguments apart if you can! That would be fun! That would be just the thing that TOL was intended for. Once you've picked at it then keep on picking at it until you can't find anything else to pick at and then make a decision about whether you're going to let the arguments out weigh your opinions. That's what intellectual honesty looks like and what we should all be striving to exemplify, myself included.

Clete

 

[marke]

The counterargument is that God put the laws concerning the actions of earthly kings ruling over the nation of Israel into the Mosaic law LONG before the Israelites' desire to have an earthly king, rather than God reigning over them directly. Which raises the question, why put those laws there if God didn't want His nation to have an earthly king?

You don't, and moreso CANNOT, prohibit something by regulating it, because regulating that something inherently permits it in circumstances other than the ones you prohibit.

The answer should be obvious: God DID want His nation to have an earthly king, and so He set up the laws governing His nation to include laws on how an earthly king should act, so that He could work His plan to come as the Messiah to rule, born from a royal bloodline of kings in His nation's past.

In other words: Having a king was part of His plan all along.

Why did God say the Jews rejected Him by asking for an earthly king?

 

[marke]

Yes, and then that argument was rebutted by more than one of us who not only explained that it would only apply in the context of a nation that God had offered to rule as King over and provided ample resources to other more substantial rebuttals to your interpretation that come with scores of biblical references that establish without doubt that your interpretation is incorrect.

That's precisely the difference between an opinion and a well thought out and rationally established biblical position. One is compelling the other isn't. One takes long effort and careful thought and biblical scholarship, the other requires a single proof text and the same mental effort expended by an eighth grader deciding whether he likes blue shoes or red ones.



Right, well there's not anything wrong with that so long as you let those who do have actual arguments to persuade your mind. If you don't know something then there's no fault in that. The fault comes when ignorance becomes willful. If there's something you come across that you hadn't ever considered before then use it as an opportunity to learn something. Pick the arguments apart if you can! That would be fun! That would be just the thing that TOL was intended for. Once you've picked at it then keep on picking at it until you can't find anything else to pick at and then make a decision about whether you're going to let the arguments out weigh your opinions. That's what intellectual honesty looks like and what we should all be striving to exemplify, myself included.

Clete

If we assume God considered the Jewish request for an earthly king an offense for Israel only, what clear biblical instruction do we have that God wanted other nations ruled by an earthly king?

 

[marke]

If we assume God considered the Jewish request for an earthly king an offense for Israel only, what clear biblical instruction do we have that God wanted other nations ruled by an earthly king?

Does God give clear indications for the American government? Does He approve of the two-party Constitutional Republic system? Does He favor communism? Does He want America to be a socialist oligarchy? Was it God's will for European settlers to gradually take over properties in America that were formerly owned by nobody? I would like to see your "well thought out" arguments in support of your opinions.

 

[Clete]

Why did God say the Jews rejected Him by asking for an earthly king?

I suspect because it took more faith than they could muster to accept God as their King. I'm sure they felt like having an invisible God as the King was like not having a king at all and they wanted a king that they could see with their own eyes like everyone else around them had. That's pretty easy to understand, right?