It’s clear from reading the Bible that God intended us to be free. The passage in Samuel that you quoted is only one of many that tell us that. The entire Bible is about people having Freedom to act and accepting the responsibility of those actions. (How’s that for core conservative values!).

As in defining more clearly your terms:

“God intended” — in what sense? His sovereign decretive will, his preceptive will, or his will of disposition? (from R.C.Sproul’s concise summary The Will of God) In any given instance what is true in one sense may very well not be true in another sense; e.g., did God intend “Liberty” for Joseph during his years in Egypt? or for those Christian American slaves whose freedom was probably delayed by a generation due to that little revolutionary action taken against England? or Christians today in, say, China?

“us” — again, in what sense? All of humanity in all times and places, or only those of a particular place at this end of history? If the former, why did God not bring it about his will sooner and more fully, and if the latter, what is to prevent him from revoking the privilege according to his own counsel?

“liberty” — of course the term is used throughout the Bible. But real danger comes when context is disregarded and its various applications are conflated. The conservative Christian must take to heart that the modern liberal movement began among self-identified Christians–or those drawing on Biblical terminology–to attempt to immediately establish the kingdom of God via force rather than via its sole proper means, the preaching of the gospel of Christ in the context of his church.

The most recent White Horse Inn roundtable touches on the importance of getting these distinctions right. Can’t live without that show.

As far as your saying “the entire Bible is about …”, please consider the implications of Jesus himself declaring what “the entire Bible is about”, namely—himself! Twice on the evening of his resurrection he says as much to the disciples:

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
:
Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:27,44-47)

We must look at the Constitution — not just at the debates surrounding it.

The Second Amendment, for example, went through something like 13 drafts.

I know the Bill of Rights came in to being in in 1791. Not as part of the original Constitution.

But you nail it as to the Constitution. I gather you’re a lawyer. Or a very smart person nonetheless.

Thanks.

that we’re thinking along the same lines.

Excellent work. I notice the contrast of the Constitutional Congress agreeing to accept the promise to pass the Bill of Rights to the Democrats of today, who have to accept the promise of Senate Democrats that they’ll amend their own bill to suit the House. I wonder how that will turn out.

The success of the Constitution is eerily self-balancing. It takes corruption in all three branches to screw it up, or at least in two combined with sheer hubris in five members of the other one.

But consider the First Amendment. Without that explicit protection written into the document, we might be like Holland right now, afraid to speak that we might illegally offend someone. Here, we’re only afraid of censure, nothing legal. But I don’t believe any other country has the equivalent to our First Amendment. That was nothing short of miraculous.

written here over the past few weeks that should be broadcast far and wide. How do we get these out to a wider audience?

This one is outstanding!

Well written…well reasoned…and stirring to the soul.

The only thing I would add is where you brilliantly lay out the character and make up of those who formed our Constitution…

And now, 1787 in Philadelphia, in what became known to history as the Constitutional Convention. Ostensibly they met to improve the existing Articles, but from the beginning, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, and others had already decided on a completely new government. It was a perfect storm. They had the advantage of:

* Experienced and able leaders and businessmen. If any effete parlor would-be intellectuals were among them, they were overshadowed by resolute men whose ideas were forged in the fire of hard reality.
* 100 years of British parliamentary government, which had shown both the wisdom and pitfalls of representative government.
* The writings and thinking of Hume, Locke, and Burke, who had studied representative government and had their ideas about how to make it better.
* Recent experience with an oppressive, arrogant, unresponsive government.
* Recent experience with a loose confederation.

Madison was the primary architect, but many points in the final product were the result of heated negotiations between men representing states with competing interests. The tri-part central government deliberately had separation of powers, carefully balanced to keep tyranny at bay.

I would add…they weren’t compromises in the mold of those we have today.

True, they had to make compromises to get things done…the bicameral legislature is a result of such compromises…but they had certain principles…certain rock ribbed foundational principles that they would not compromise…that they would not sell out…that they would not negotiate away for temporary advantage.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Preach it to me, brother…

Jesus is my only KIng…but you already know that.

You lay out an excellent rallying cry yet again.

Time to find you a publisher, my friend.

Here’s the best line (IMHO of course):

Selling your freedom for comfort is fine, but selling MY freedom for your comfort is contemptible.

Because this is really what it comes down to in the end, and why they must be defeated on every front. There is no room for compromise.

I’ve passed it around to as many who still keep a Bible in the house. (Think about it, send this to a Leftie and he has to go next door or to a library just to background-verify your content.)

There are more dimensions to what you’ve just written than most readers will allow.

nt

One of the best of the best.

The reference to Samuel, however, could do with a bit more context, without which faulty inferences could be drawn.

Samuel’s prophetic rebuke of the people, taken alone, makes it appear that either the people were wrong simply for desiring a king, or that God himself did not intend his people to have a king, or both. Those arguments have sometimes been applied to justify more modern king-removing ventures as always having the blessing of God–but no such direct inference can be made when the passage is taken in context.

In short, the prophetic record prior to Samuel already included references to God’s intended king, David, along with warnings of the consequences of selecting a king as the people ended up doing with Saul, acting in unbelieving rejection of God’s kingship in order to gain the perceived benefits of emulating their neighbors. The key issue is not whether God ordained kings–sometimes he did, at other times he did not–but whether the people were living by faith in God’s provision during their time and under whatever form his authority was mediated.

For example, one could infer that the days of the Judges were a libertarian paradise, and Ruth’s Boaz is certainly evidence that there was some level of stability, at least where believers could be found. But the other side has to be told as well, that “when every man did what was right in his own eyes” there were cycles of increasingly detestable degeneration requiring discipline from the Lord, not unlike later generations under the kings.

A “we will have no king”=divine-edict exegesis leaves little room for God’s foreordination of David, culminating in the promise of an eternal kingdom and foreshadowing his own greater son, the anointed King of Kings who would reign from that throne. The redemptive-historical hermeutic favored on the Reformed side is careful to apply inferences about that kingship in sharply different terms depending on whether the Sinaitic or Abrahamic covenant is in view.

For us in the latter administration, it is better to frame political theory in light of natural law rather than particular episodes unique to Israel in the long years leading up to the revelation of Christ. While the Scripture certainly does illuminate some aspects of natural law–since both have the same author!–we run a serious hazard when attempting to apply it to contemporary policy issues–as advocates of both the “we have no king” and the divine right of kings views have attempted–and in the process find ourselves a people so destitute of living faith in the one eternal king, whose children through the ages have been able to prosper even under the harshest of rulers.

Repeating a link I mentioned to Brian above, the White Horse Inn guys could be helpful for those not versed in the Two Kingdoms model: The Kingdom of God.

n/t

. . . there is a lot of marvelous wisdom in the Bible. This is yet another example.

Definitely on board with “Foolhardy tyrants and thieves, you shall have the reckoning you have so richly earned.”

. . . in spades, doubled.

I read bible.org about Samuel’s story and God’s criteria for a king.

Their conclusion is really, really good.

“Why then, even after Samuel warns the Israelites about the high cost of kingship, do the Israelites reject his warning and demand to have their king? Why are men willing to pay such a high price for so little? I think I know the answer, and I believe it is clearly implied in our text. Men loathe grace. It is detestable and loathsome, because it is charity. Grace does not bolster our pride; it produces humility. When we pay for something (by works or money), we think we own it. We think that when we pay for something we are in control. When we receive grace, we are not in control. God is in control. Grace is sovereignly bestowed, and so we cannot dictate how and when God will grant it to us; we cannot control its benefits. But good old fashioned work (we falsely suppose) obliges God to bless us. When we do the right things, God must respond predictably. We are in control. God becomes our servant. And so men would rather pay – and pay greatly –to maintain their pride and sense of control. This is why men prefer idols to God, even if they have to carry them. They believe that serving idols keeps them in control of their “god.” How foolish.”

I adore how scripture is forever relevant to our lives! An amazing read, thank you for sharing!

This section of scripture seems to be popular with redstaters.

http://www.redstate.com/wing_zero/2009/03/26/the-people-said-give-us-a-king/

Though mine is no where near the quality of yours…