Robby,
I don't understand what view your affirming:
Question #1: Are you affirming that some rulers are ordained by God, and that others are not?
Question #2: Are you saying that we are only obliged to obey rules that we think are good rules, and we are free (before God) to resist a ruler wherenever we disagree with a rule?
Rom 13:2 says "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation". How do you square that with your affirmation of the validity of civil disobedience?
Paidion,
I understand your answer to the Question #1 for Robby would be "yes". This leads me to ask if you would agree that we are more or less completely lacking in having any standard at all by which we can discern what rulers are in what category? It seems that rulers, if they have are obliged to honor any code of conduct at all, have one that is entirely different than everyone else - at least in the standard revitalized divine right of kings view (RDRK). It's doesn't seem to be enough to say, as Robby has, that we have to use "common sense". The scope of authority claimed by rulers is simply far to broad for that.
Example on one side of the spectrum:
Robby noted:
robbyyoung wrote: Clearly when Paul was writing Romans The Church was under persecution by both Roman and Jewish authorities to some extent. Yet Paul insists that God is THE AUTHORITY over what He established to rule over the affairs of men.
Why not extrapolate that, despite the fact that ISIS persecutes Christians, we could reasonably conclude that this situation parallels Paul's. Paul seems to say rebelling against Caesar is rebelling against God (13:2). Why not say rebelling against ISIS is tantamount to rebelling against God? Who is to say that God isn't working all things together for His purposes, through in his use of the sword of ISIS?
Example on the other side of the spectrum:
In the USA, as is typical of modern governments, virtually every action under the sun is regulated. This is done by either outlawing the action entirely, or coercion through the tax code. Given the encyclopedic volumes of regulations, there are countless cases to pick from where our rulers punish the actions of their citizens that are good. I'll give an example that was popular recently in the USA: I think it would be a good thing, that I could do for my neighbors, to become and entrepreneur and offer health insurance plans that exclude coverage for services people won't use, or that they find to be morally objectionable (e.g. abortion, contraceptives, etc,.). But, alas, this is against the law, and Caesar's would punish those who endeavor to do this particular good thing. Caesar is a cause for fear in doing many good things. We could conclude that he should not be reckoned as a divinely appointed authority, and the Christian has no obligation to obey him.
Example of secession:
In the 1770's some of King George's subjects in North America rebelled. At least until King George relinquished his claims in North America, Christians should have considered that participation in the secession was rebellion against a divinely appointed authority. If history had been otherwise, and England never relinquished its claims of authority over the US, then we would be obliged to dissolve the USA government and return to rule by London. (i.e. a proper view would regard the rebellion of the 1770's as an ongoing usurpation of rightful authority). In more general terms, it is the problem of which person somehow establishes the right to subject others to his rule? If England revived the claim, why would it be invalid? or would it be?
Given the broad scope of government, it's easy to justify whatever conclusion you want to reach. Therefore, in practice, no obligations are being imposed on anyone through Romans 13.