Dr. Barnhouse and the Bible

Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse: After we see the differences between what might be called a godly revolution in our land and the godless revolutions in France and Russia, we have the basis for further study of the relationship of the individual to constituted authority. These questions are not for the past.

They will be the questions by which a Christian must judge himself in relationship to war, in relationship to segregation, to the authority of the Supreme Court, the conflict with states’ rights, and all other matters that must go deep into the heart of the believer in Christ who wants to hear the Lord say, "Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord."

And it is because I wish to hear this word of welcome when I see my Lord that I grasp these questions which are like so many nettles which can hurt you only if you touch them lightly, but which can lose their power to hurt if they be seized with faith and with humble dependence on the spirit of God.

Guest (Male): Over a half-century ago, the late Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, then pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, saw the need to spread God's word beyond the hearing of his local congregation. He started the radio ministry which has become known as Dr. Barnhouse and the Bible. The application of God's word as taught by Dr. Barnhouse is as relevant today as when he first taught over the radio airwaves decades ago.

The message we will be featuring on today's edition of Dr. Barnhouse and the Bible is entitled What Price Revolution. In the 1960s, the Beatles captured the spirit of the decade when they sang, so you say you want a revolution. But the 1960s counterculture fostered a widespread attitude of rebellion against all authority.

That is antithetical to biblical Christianity. Are there any circumstances under which a Christian can support revolution? And how can a believer respond biblically to an oppressive anti-Christian government? The scripture text for this edition of Dr. Barnhouse and the Bible, Romans chapter 13, we’re looking at verses 2 and 3. Here again is Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse with a message entitled What Price Revolution.

Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse: Through the Lord Jesus Christ we come unto thee our Father and our God, and in the Holy Spirit. There is none like unto thee, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thou hast made the universe, and thou hast made us. In spite of the fact that we belong to a rebellious race, thou hast loved us and hast given thy Son to die for us so that thou couldst join us to thyself and have us with thee in the government of the universe forever. While we live in this life, may we submit to thee in all things. We ask it in the name and for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

We study today in the 13th chapter of Romans, verses 2 and 3. Therefore, he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed. And those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Now, this text raises the question: what should be the attitude of the Christian when rulers are a terror to good conduct and are themselves bad men who encourage the actions and rule of bad men?

We have seen that a believer need not obey the authorities when they contradict the plainly expressed laws of God. In the days of Nazi Germany, it was not necessary for a German citizen to obey Hitler's orders to murder a Jew. Today, it is not necessary for a Russian pastor to obey an atheist commissar's order to stop preaching the existence of God.

Someone may ask that we leave Germany and Russia and apply this teaching to our own country. And this we will seek to do, beginning with the early history of our nation. Did our colonial forebears have the right to cast off the authority of England and establish an independent government?

This question has haunted me for several years. It has been comparatively easy to prepare 27 studies on the first chapter of Romans and the more than 350 studies in all on the first 12 chapters. In these studies, I had to deal with such controversial questions as the nature of eternal punishment, the nature of justification, and the absolute security of the one who has been redeemed by Christ.

Bible teaching concerning the second coming of our Lord and the themes of election and God's eternal purpose. But such matters are only slightly controversial when compared with what might be stirred up by questioning the righteousness of our founding fathers in revolting against England or the legality of the Declaration of Independence.

I have read the epistle to the Romans scores of times during these years of exposition. And always, there has been a great cloud upon my thinking when I came to this 13th chapter. Never did I believe that I had the fullness of God's mind as to the meaning of what was set down here in the scripture. I soon came to the fixed conclusion that the laws of God are superior to the laws of men.

When there is definite conflict, obedience must be rendered to God rather than to man. Immediately, however, I saw that the question next to be solved was: at what point does human law run counter to divine law? Just where may a man refuse to obey constituted authority on the ground that such authority has departed from divine principles?

And I was forced to the conclusion that may not satisfy some: that each individual must answer this question for himself in the context of daily life. I also saw that two sincere Christian believers might reach opposite conclusions and become stern antagonists in a civil struggle. And yet, both be in the will of God. I will amplify these conclusions in the course of this and future studies.

But may I digress for a moment in order to return with a stronger vindication of this opinion. Early in life, I took the road toward a career that I then thought might occupy my whole life. I prepared to be a professor of history and spent more than a decade in reading tens of thousands of pages of history.

Still earlier in life, I had dedicated myself to the ministry of Bible teaching. Unknown to me, the two careers were to fuse, that of Bible teacher predominating. From my student years, I’ve always read the Bible from the viewpoint of history and studied history from the viewpoint of the Bible.

With this stereoscopic view, I hope to lend depth and perspective to this challenging subject. For if I can set before you the principles by which an individual had to choose whether to follow George Washington or be a loyalist in allegiance to the crown of England, we may be able to understand better the choices that lie before us in our own lives.

The problem has been muddied by the fact that some historians have thought that the American Revolution and the French Revolution were alike. A deep study of the two movements, however, will reveal that they have nothing more than the word revolution in common and that they differed greatly in causes, progress, and results.

At the beginning of the 19th century, a German writer, Friedrich von Gentz, published an essay comparing the two revolutions. John Quincy Adams, who became sixth president of the United States, saw the importance and truth of von Gentz’s work and translated it into English. In his introduction, Adams wrote, a modern philosopher may contend that the sheriff who executes a criminal and the highwayman who murders a traveler act upon the same principles.

But the plain sense of mankind will still see the same difference between them. That is here proved between the American and French Revolutions. The difference between right and wrong. Reduced to its simplest terms, the American problem was really a problem within the government of England. Parliament had grown to power, and this power was face-to-face with the power of the king.

Most of the colonies had been given their status by a grant of the king. Some of the colonies were the private property of the men who received charters. In the beginning, Parliament was very indifferent about the colonies. And no one questioned the power of the king to dispose of the new continent according to his wish and to govern it as he desired.

But when, on the one side, after the Revolution of 1688, the influence of the British Parliament upon all the affairs of government had become greater, firmer, and more general. And when on the other side, the extraordinary importance of the colonies in their rapidly growing population, in their constantly improving culture, and in their unexpected and splendid flourishing state was daily more evident.

The idea by degrees crept into every mind that so great an essential part of the British Empire could not possibly be withdrawn from the superintendency of Parliament, even though nothing should have been said of it hitherto in the public transactions. Now, it’s not generally known that the citizens of Boston, who threw the tea into the harbor, were ready to pay the East India Company for the loss of the tea.

It was to preserve the principle of representative government that the tea was thrown into the sea. It was the harshness of the British Parliament that inflamed and united so many minds in the colonies. The Congress which met at Philadelphia in 1774 were far from thinking of any Declaration of Independence when they first studied the problems that confronted them. In fact, they passed an address to the king which was remarkably pacific.

The text is important. Our forefathers wrote, "We ask only for peace, liberty, and security. We wish no lessening of royal prerogatives. We demand no new rights. From the magnanimity and justice of your majesty and the Parliament, we promise ourselves the redress of our grievances, firmly convinced that when once the causes of our present complaint are removed, our future conduct will not be undeserving of the milder treatment to which we were in better days accustomed."

"We call God, that being who tries the inmost heart, to witness that no other motive than the fear of the destruction which threatens us has had any influence upon our resolutions. We therefore entreat your majesty as the loving father of all people, bound to you by the ties of blood, by laws, affection, and fidelity, not to permit in the uncertain expectation of a result which never can compensate for the wretchedness by which it must be attained any further violation of those sacred ties."

"So may your majesty in a long and glorious reign enjoy every earthly bliss. And this bliss and your undiminished authority descend upon your heirs and their heirs till time shall be no more." That doesn’t sound very much like a revolution. A year later, the British had forced the issue, so that the Boston Massacre, the ride of Paul Revere, the Battle of Concord Bridge, and the other terrible conflicts had begun their course.

And within another year, the same men who had announced their hope that the king and his heirs should rule forever in undiminished authority had signed the Declaration of Independence. Now, over against this, read a paragraph of the French historian de Tocqueville, who wrote that the French half-way down the stairs threw themselves out of the window in order to reach the ground more quickly.

By seeming to tend rather to the regeneration of the human race than to the reform of France alone, it roused passions such as the most violent political revolutions had been incapable of awakening. It inspired proselytism and gave birth to propagandism and hence assumed that quasi-religious character which so terrified those who saw it, or rather became a sort of new religion, imperfect it is true, without God, worship, or future life, but still able, like Islamism, to cover the earth with its soldiers, its apostles, and its martyrs.

The same thing could be written a century later about the Russian Revolution and the rise of communism. Now, we come back to the spiritual problem which faced our forefathers here in America. An individual Christian in France or in Russia could never have moved in sympathy with those upheavals which were so godless.

What part could a believer in Christ have had in the riots of Paris, the enthronement of a nude harlot as goddess on the altar of a church, and the continuing murders culminating in the murders of 1793? Or what part could a believer in Christ have had in the purges of millions by the communists in Russia?

But here in America, in the time of the colonies, were godly men who did not move without prayer and waiting on the Lord. Listen, as late as July 1775, the Congress sent another address to the king which has been called the Olive Branch. In this, the leaders of the colonies showed their dismay at the disturbance of peaceful relations by the force of Parliament and stated, "that we wish nothing more ardently than the restoration of the former harmony between England and the colonies and a new union founded upon a lasting basis."

"Capable of propagating that blessed harmony to the latest generations and transmit to a grateful posterity your majesty’s name surrounded with that immortal glory which was in every age bestowed upon the saviors of the people. We protest to your majesty that notwithstanding all our sufferings in this unhappy contest, the hearts of your faithful colonists are far from wishing a reconciliation upon conditions which could be inconsistent with the dignity or the welfare of the state from which they sprung and which they love with filial tenderness."

"If the grievances which now bow us down with inexpressible pain to the ground could in any manner be removed, your majesty will at all times find your faithful subjects in America willing and ready with their lives and fortunes to maintain, preserve, and defend the rights and interests of their sovereign and of their mother country." It doesn’t sound much like revolution, does it?

But this was the address which Mr. Penn, on the first of September in 1775, delivered to the Earl of Dartmouth, to which some days after he was informed no answer could be given. Von Gentz therefore concludes, the revolution of America was therefore in every sense of the word a revolution of necessity. England alone had by violence effected it. America had contended ten long years, not against England, but against the revolution.

America sought not a revolution; she yielded to it, compelled by necessity. Not because she wished to extort a better condition than she had before enjoyed, but because she wished to avert a worse one prepared for her. Now, certainly in his providence, our God worked events in England so that the creation of a new nation was forced upon the colonists here in America.

The founders of our nation were overwhelmingly believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and pious followers of the Christian ethic. They were men who came to their decisions with deep agony of soul lest they should veer even in small degree from moral righteousness. But we must have equal sympathy for those true believers who held that it was their Christian duty to continue in faithfulness to their king and the authority of the mother country.

Many godly families emigrated from the colonies to Canada in order to avoid accepting the revolution. My home, which lies in the country outside of Philadelphia, is on a road that is said to have been the dividing line even in William Penn’s day between the Quakers and the Presbyterians.

The Scotch and English were here together in those days, and they differed sharply in matters of conscience. The very house I live in has one little room that was here before the revolution. I’ve sat in it and pondered the heart of the man who left it to go follow George Washington and the heart of the man who lived across the road who would not bear arms and who was willing to leave his home and goods and go to Canada in order that he might not have to fight.

These men are not answerable to me or to you or even to history. They are answerable to God alone. Each man had to face his problem for himself. Did the man who lived in my house face this text from Romans 13? Did he wonder whether he was disobeying God when he took his musket and prepared to use it against English soldiers?

Will he incur judgment because he thus resisted? God knows. And the man will answer to God. Did the neighbor who ran away rather than use his musket against man instead of game flee because of human ties, because of conscience, or because of something unknown to us? What was in the heart of Benjamin Franklin's own son that caused him to choose for the king against his own father?

To accept a path that caused him to be arrested by the colony of New Jersey and to retire to England to live there on the king’s pension? These questions are beyond us. And I claim that the thoughts of the man down the road from me now are just as much beyond me as are the thoughts of those who lived here during the revolution.

Now, if today’s message seems somewhat removed from the usual pattern of Bible study, I hope my listeners will grant me indulgence. I have had to give this study in order to clear my own thinking and to bring you on to what is to follow. For after we see the differences between what might be called a godly revolution in our land and the godless revolutions in France and Russia, we have the basis for further study of the relationship of the individual to constituted authority.

These questions are not for the past. They will be the questions by which a Christian must judge himself in relationship to war, in relationship to segregation, to the authority of the Supreme Court, the conflict with states’ rights, and all other matters that must go deep into the heart of the believer in Christ who wants to hear the Lord say, "Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord."

And it is because I wish to hear this word of welcome when I see my Lord that I grasp these questions which are like so many nettles which can hurt you only if you touch them lightly, but which can lose their power to hurt if they be seized with faith and with humble dependence on the spirit of God. And our God and Father, we pray thee to bless the heart of each one who listens. Especially of those who face deep problems with regard to the obedience of law and constituted authority.

Men and women who have consciences about civil problems, wilt thou bless them, we pray thee. And each one of us that moment by moment as we make our decisions, that we may be reminded that we are not answerable to each other, but only to thee. And we give thee the praise through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Guest (Male): When the laws and government of man come in conflict with God's commands, we must prayerfully search the scriptures and seek the Lord's wisdom in order to respond in a Christ-like manner. We hope you have benefited from today's message entitled What Price Revolution.

To listen to additional Bible teaching by Dr. Barnhouse, visit us online at alliancenet.org. Again, our website, alliancenet.org. An audio copy of today's teaching is available by calling us toll-free, 1-800-488-1888. Today's message again is entitled What Price Revolution, or simply request message number R13-3.

We would also like to make available to you a free copy of our booklet entitled Abounding Grace. In his book Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, John Bunyan described his despair over the weight of his sin before finding peace in Jesus Christ. Perhaps like Bunyan, you feel the burden of your sin pressing in on you. You may feel that you have fallen so often and sinned so badly that you may have given up any hope of salvation.

This free booklet will convince you that the superabundant flood of God's grace is available to cleanse you and give you peace. Ask for your free copy of Abounding Grace when you call or write. Dr. Barnhouse and the Bible is a radio ministry of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We exist to promote a biblical understanding and worldview.

Drawing upon the insight and wisdom of reformation theologians from decades and even centuries gone by, we seek to provide contemporary Christian teaching which will equip believers to understand and meet the challenges and opportunities of our time and place. The Alliance also produces the radio broadcast, The Bible Study Hour, featuring the teachings of the late Dr. James Montgomery Boice, and Every Last Word, featuring the Bible teaching of Dr. Philip Graham Ryken.

For a complete list of radio stations carrying our programs, visit us online at alliancenet.org. Dr. Barnhouse and the Bible comes to you through the generous gifts of listeners like you. If you have benefited from this broadcast and would like it to continue, please prayerfully consider a donation to help us keep this ministry on the air.

For more information or to make a contribution to help further our work, contact us by calling us toll-free, 1-800-488-1888. That's 1-800-488-1888. Write to us at Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Box 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103. Visit us online at alliancenet.org.

Be sure to ask for a free resource catalog featuring books, audio teachings, commentaries, booklets, videos, and a wealth of other materials from outstanding reformed teachers and theologians, including doctors Donald Grey Barnhouse, James Montgomery Boice, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Philip Graham Ryken. Thanks for listening. Join us again next time for more classic teaching on Dr. Barnhouse and the Bible.