Judge Rightly wrote in his thread of 2017 - An Advocation of Government - that "A Constitutional Monarchy is the only form of Government that God authorizes. (We find this in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.) Not anarchy, not democracy, or it's sister, republic, not an oligarchy, not a plutocracy, not a democratic republic, nor an aristocracy, nor a dictatorship. - Not a Constitutional Republic.- Constitutional Monarchy.
Does the New Testament say that a Constitutional Monarςhy is the only form of government that God authorizes? Romans 13 deals with "the higher powers" and with obeying "rulers." "Higher Powers" is from υπερεχουσαιςhy - see https://www.biblehub.com/greek/1849.htm - Strong's 1849, exousia, power to act, authority, Usage: (a) power, authority, weight, especially: moral authority, influence, (b) in a quasi-personal sense, derived from later Judaism, of a spiritual power, and hence of an earthly power.."
The meaning of the Greek word "exousia" sounds like it refers to priestly power.
Historian Quentin Skinner in The Foundations of Modern Political
Thought, 1978, goes over the influence of several Scotch
and English Christians, such as John Knox and Samuel Rutherford, on John
Locke and the late 18th century American political ideology behind the creation of the Constitutional Republic.
John Locke's book, Two Treatises of Government, according to Skinner, influenced Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and had an influence on James Madison and other Founding Fathers. James Madison and his Committee in the House created the Bill of Rights, which is one reason our Constitution is said to make us a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy
Isaiah 10: 1-2: "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless."
There are some other verses in the Old Testament about the right of the people - see Lamentations 3: 33-36, and Malachi 3: 5,
Saying that God, in the New Covenant, only approves of a Constitutional Monarchy is a dispensationalist postulate. A "dispensationalist postulate" would support the starting postulate of dispensationalism that God now, in the New Covenant, has two elect peoples and two different programs for redemption.
"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..
Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has "...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.." Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447
Chafer, a founder of Christian Zionism, following John Darby and C.I. Scofield, claimed the Bible is a mass or more or less conflicting writings and that dispensationalism or Christian Zionism makes the Bible more easily classified and assimilated, or more easily understood.
Chafer and other founders of dispensationalism do not quote New Testament texts when they say that now, in the New Covenant, God has two peoples, Israel and the Church, which makes the starting ideas of dispensationalism postulates.
There is a difference between a postulate and an interpretation. An interpretation, if its based upon an explicit New Testament text, is not merely a postulate.
If a man made theology states that elect Jews and elect Gentiles remain separate for eternity, but when you read New Testament scripture - Ephesians 2: 13-22 or Galatians 3:28-29 - New Testament scripture says the opposite, in explicit ways, then you know that theology is postulating instead of interpreting.
A postulate is something that assumes the existence, fact, or truth of (of something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
I won't quote the entire text in Ephesians 2: 13-22 because Paul goes on and on about the unity of Believing Jews and Believing Gentiles. "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:"
And in Galatians 3: 28-29 Paul says "28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Paul also reminds us in Romans 10: 12 that ".For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. "
Does the New Testament say that a Constitutional Monarςhy is the only form of government that God authorizes? Romans 13 deals with "the higher powers" and with obeying "rulers." "Higher Powers" is from υπερεχουσαιςhy - see https://www.biblehub.com/greek/1849.htm - Strong's 1849, exousia, power to act, authority, Usage: (a) power, authority, weight, especially: moral authority, influence, (b) in a quasi-personal sense, derived from later Judaism, of a spiritual power, and hence of an earthly power.."
The meaning of the Greek word "exousia" sounds like it refers to priestly power.
Historian Quentin Skinner in The Foundations of Modern Political
Thought, 1978, goes over the influence of several Scotch
and English Christians, such as John Knox and Samuel Rutherford, on John
Locke and the late 18th century American political ideology behind the creation of the Constitutional Republic.
John Locke's book, Two Treatises of Government, according to Skinner, influenced Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and had an influence on James Madison and other Founding Fathers. James Madison and his Committee in the House created the Bill of Rights, which is one reason our Constitution is said to make us a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy
Isaiah 10: 1-2: "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless."
There are some other verses in the Old Testament about the right of the people - see Lamentations 3: 33-36, and Malachi 3: 5,
Saying that God, in the New Covenant, only approves of a Constitutional Monarchy is a dispensationalist postulate. A "dispensationalist postulate" would support the starting postulate of dispensationalism that God now, in the New Covenant, has two elect peoples and two different programs for redemption.
"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..
Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has "...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.." Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447
Chafer, a founder of Christian Zionism, following John Darby and C.I. Scofield, claimed the Bible is a mass or more or less conflicting writings and that dispensationalism or Christian Zionism makes the Bible more easily classified and assimilated, or more easily understood.
Chafer and other founders of dispensationalism do not quote New Testament texts when they say that now, in the New Covenant, God has two peoples, Israel and the Church, which makes the starting ideas of dispensationalism postulates.
There is a difference between a postulate and an interpretation. An interpretation, if its based upon an explicit New Testament text, is not merely a postulate.
If a man made theology states that elect Jews and elect Gentiles remain separate for eternity, but when you read New Testament scripture - Ephesians 2: 13-22 or Galatians 3:28-29 - New Testament scripture says the opposite, in explicit ways, then you know that theology is postulating instead of interpreting.
A postulate is something that assumes the existence, fact, or truth of (of something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
I won't quote the entire text in Ephesians 2: 13-22 because Paul goes on and on about the unity of Believing Jews and Believing Gentiles. "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:"
And in Galatians 3: 28-29 Paul says "28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Paul also reminds us in Romans 10: 12 that ".For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. "
