The Here I Stand Theology Podcast (Romans 13, Philosophy, Politics and The Gospel

Here I stand, I can do no other.

Will you recant or will you not?

Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply. And by plain reason, popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves is captive to right no safe.

Podcast Introduction and Tyler Noe’s Ministry

The Here I Stand Theology Podcast is a ministry of Reverend Marta Baptist Church. We are not going to delay. We're going to jump right into the episode today. We are, have been anxiously looking forward to, uh, with eagerness and anticipation to talk with Tyler Noe from Bread of the Word Podcast.

So with that being said, without any further ado, let's go ahead and bring in Tyler, here we go. Hang on a minute. I forgot something. Let me try that again. Let's bring in Tyler Noe. We hope you're welcome, Tyler.

How are you, sir?

I'm doing pretty good. Thank you. Happy to be here.

Good, good. So Tyler, you were so gracious to, uh, let me be on your podcast a couple of months back. And that was such a, such a joy. I mean that with everything, it was so, um, such a, uh, it was a breath of fresh air really to be on with you.

And particularly you being a young man and so rooted and grounded in the faith. So we are so excited that you are with us today.

I appreciate that. I was, I greatly benefited from sitting down and listening to you preach for an hour. It was good for me too.

Okay.

Okay.

Bread of the Word, Verse-by-Verse Exposition, and Romans as a Podcast Focus

So let's, um, let's jump into this. I'll give kind of a segue, an introduction to the folks that will be watching this episode. Uh, Tyler, uh, every Sunday at two o 'clock, is that correct? When you release your episode, your podcast, every Sunday at two of the clock at two o 'clock, uh, Tyler releases a new episode from his podcast.

Bread of the word podcast. Tell us a little bit about bread of the word, how you got started. Tyler, uh, just kind of the formation of the podcast itself.

So bread of the word actually started out with, uh, with COVID when my church was, um, locked down. So we weren't meeting in person. Our congregation was mostly 80 plus. And so there were some logistical reasons that we thought it was probably best to go online for a while.

And so I started putting out content as part of a ministry at the church. I was on staff as the associate pastor for about a year. And so I was going, um, verse by verse through the book of Revelation.

And I quickly found out how much I did not know about the book of Revelation. You know, a 20 year old dispensationalist, I've got two college classes under my belt.

You was ready as the, as they say in the country to charge hell with a water pistol.

Pretty much. But, uh, I started going verse by verse through those first couple chapters and I'm breaking down how this all points to Christ. And then it, um, honestly it grew to a point that I moved into a separate platform and I started thinking about names and all this bread of the word is not really a name that you'd come up with necessarily, but honestly it came from one of the old, uh, um, prayers that the ancient Jews would recite back in the days of Christ.

Um, blessed are you Lord, our God who brings forth the bread of the earth.

Awesome.

And I, I, there was just something about that that really grabbed me that that is a cool prayer. Can we approach the word of God like that? And so blessed are you Lord, our God who brings forth the bread of the word.

That it fit. It was kind of weird and it's almost creative, but it, it fits so well. And this is ultimately what I've been trying to do is to feast on the word, to help equip people, to feast on the word.

Um, the motto for the bread of the word podcast is reclaiming the Bible and exalting Christ one verse at a time. Ultimately we just plow through, um, passages of scripture verse by verse. We've been going through Romans since I think October and then Ecclesiastes is on deck in a couple of weeks.

That'll be exciting to hear, to hear from, from a man who thought he knew everything, he did everything. And then he realized he didn't know nothing.

Oh, snap. I don't know anything.

Yeah.

I think that's a relevant book and I just can't shake Ecclesiastes right now. There's just something I think that we're missing there.

Right.

And I'm excited to break that down. I'm looking at a lot of the, the, the question asking we're seeing these days with, you know, deconstruction and postmodernism, what is truth? Why am I here? What matters?

I think those answers are in the word of God. Let's find them together.

Romans 13, Government, and the Christian Response to Authority

That's right. And it sounds a little, a bit like philosophy. I think we realized yesterday that we may be, we may be delving a little bit into philosophy tonight, but, uh, the, the, the, the main goal and the idea and where we really want to head toward tonight is understanding Romans 13.

Right.

I mean, I know over the last two years, Romans 13 really has come to light more so than probably normally within the mind of the Christian. And there's been a lot of, there've been a lot of, uh, I think misconceptions and, uh, wrong headed thinking about Romans 13.

And what I so appreciate, um, Tyler about what you do on the pod, on your podcast is that you compare scripture with scripture that you're not reaching out for some vague, uh, or new ideology, but you are genuinely trying to, uh, that you are genuinely exegeting the scripture, like you say one verse at a time.

And, and there's, there's one other tagline that you have on your podcast. What is that about leaving breadcrumbs? I love that.

Leaving a trail of breadcrumbs to a more meaningful and God saturated life.

Amen. Amen.

That is so good. But before we get into that tonight, let's start because we want, uh, it's likely our audience may already know you. We tried to share you around and get you, get you out there. Um, but maybe our audience wants to know a little bit more personal about Tyler.

Who is Tyler Noe? What does he, what does he like? What does he dislike? Right. We don't want to, we, I want to say like and hate, uh, but you know, the snowflakes may not like that. So, so, but it's the here I stand theology podcast.

So we can say what we want and with the exception of YouTube or Facebook shutting us down, so be it. Uh, so let's start with some fun icebreaker questions tonight, Tyler. So my first, my first question to you now, you know, this one's coming.

Can you spell a vaca tour that, uh, that was so common.

I laughed so hard when I saw that one was coming. How do you spell provocateur? P R O V O C a T E.

You are provocateur. P R O V O C a T U E R E U R. U E R. Anyway, anyway, the point was, the point was, uh, that, you know, if we're going to say words, we need to be able to spell the words and I find myself doing that from time to time.

And I'm always, I'm, I'm always checking myself on that. So how about this? So you know, the arm wrestling question, you know, that's the, that's the, really the main thing. So, uh, in your household, if you, in your, uh, you, um, if you've gotten members of your household.

So if you and any member of your household arm wrestled, who would win?

Well, if I arm wrestled my dad, I would lose.

Good answer. Good answer. Good answer. All right. So now let's go to theology questions. So who is your favorite pre-reformer?

Pre-reformer, probably Augustine.

And how about favorite reformer?

John Knox.

Oh, yes.

I was there.

I give you a high five and hug you for that. And how about favorite post-reformer?

John Owen.

John Owen. Very good.

Puritan.

He is profound when I can read him.

Read, reread, stop, digest, reread again.

Yes, absolutely.

Very good. Very good. So let's, uh, let's jump into the, uh, the text of scripture. Let's go ahead and bring that up. Cause obviously if we're going to be talking about it, we want to look at it. That is our foundation and is our basis.

So let's read what we'll do. We'll just read the entire 13th chapter of Romans. Scripture says, let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God. And those that exist have been instituted by God.

Therefore, whoever resist 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. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?

Then do what is good and you will receive his approval for his God's servant for your good, but if you do wrong, be afraid for he does not bear the sword in vain for he is the servant of God and avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore, one must be in subjection, not only to God's, not only to avoid God's wrath, but also for the sake of conscience for, because of this, you also pay taxes for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing, pay to all what is owed them taxes to whom taxes are owed revenue to whom revenue is owed respect to whom respect is owed honor to him.

Whom honor is owed. Oh, no man, anything except to love each other for the, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law for the commandments. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not murder.

You shall not steal. You shall not covet and any other commandment are summed up in this word. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

Besides this, you know, the time that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep for salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed the night is far gone, the day is at hand, let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light, let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires.

So let's just start at the beginning of the chapter here. Uh, let's just start there. So what is the context of Romans 13, Tyler?

Paul’s Mission to Rome and the Application of Romans 13

So when he is writing the book of Romans, Paul is writing to the Christians in Rome and he's, he's gathering support. He wanted to go to Spain. He wanted to, um, partner with the church in Rome and hope to maybe come there and minister with them both for their benefit and his.

And I think it's safe to say that he saw Rome in some ways as a, almost like a gateway city to reach the Roman empire with the gospel that the Christians in Rome were in an optimal position to spread the gospel through Rome, the Greco-Roman society.

So when we get to Romans 13, Paul is, um, he's laid out a lot of heavy, deep doctrine, uh, just chiseling away at pride and all this piece by piece with like a surgical knife almost for so many chapters.

And he gets to chapter 12 and he moves into application and he's laying out some, some hard truth still, but it's directed in application of be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Um, live peaceably with all where as far as it depends on you.

And after he says that sentence, we get the government in an age where a lot of the Jews wanted to shake off Rome and go back to Israel as a superpower. Paul says, submit.

Yeah.

So, um, so Paul is saying submit. And is the government at that time good or bad?

Rome was very wicked, very barbaric. It was not something a lot of people wanted to submit to, but Paul in this letter does say, be in submission to the authorities that are above you.

Yep.

Government as Servant, Deacon, and Punisher of Evil

So, um, how is a good government modeled? Tyler, I mean, you talked about this in your episode, but again, I just, I want you to unpack all this here with us. So, uh, a good, you, you actually, I'll quote you on, in your episode, you said a good government is modeled after the fact that there is a good God over us.

Right. So if we keep reading in Romans 13, he uses the phrase ministers of God at least twice. And when we read that in Greek, um, it actually comes out to the same word that is rendered as deacon, that in a sense, government is a deacon of God.

And it's the same word that we translate as deacon. When we get to like second Peter with the qualifications of a deacon of an overseer. And it's very much used that way throughout the New Testament. I don't think it's out of place to say that the government is a deacon in that way, that they are entrusted as an overseer of the people of God.

That's right. Uh, invested originally as the Lord designed government to be. So I think there's a, I don't think we put this, had this in our notes, but it made me think about something when you were just saying what you said there.

Um, the, the idea that as servants of God, the primary role of the government, the primary function of government is, and has been biblically, would you agree or disagree on this is, or has been, and is according to the scriptures has been a punitive, um, had a very punitive office as by the text itself, right, that God, Paul said, God is set government over us, uh, to punish evil doers in, I guess I'm, I'm setting this out there as, uh, as from the perspective or the idea of punitive law, punishing law versus positive law.

In other words, kind of saying, if you do this, you'll be blessed. If you do that, you won't. Um, what in your estimation has been the, uh, the thrust of, of government or the function of government, punitive or positive law primarily?

In recent years, I would say without a doubt that we see this, this positive law, this notion of almost like this economy of blessing, which when we really break that down, that's a very Roman Catholic idea of trying to cooperate with grace and, um, work with the system and honestly play the system.

It's like a stock market of getting this, this desired end. If you want this, do what the government says. And there is some of that. I mean, it does say in Galatians that you reap what you sow. And Paul does say to, um, if you want to live peaceably, then honor the government that there is an element of that reaping and sowing, but in the grander picture here, the government should exist to bear the sword and punish wickedness.

Right.

Is not a positive economy system like that, but it's, it's punitive. It is punishing wickedness, which is a much smaller scope than what we're seeing today.

I would agree a hundred percent right there. I just kind of wanted to touch on that because that, that really is a big deal when you really get down and start looking at, uh, at, at what government and its function and its roles, uh, biblically should be.

So how would you say that the view of governmental authority has been skewed by a kind of, I'll say this, how has governmental authority, the idea of governmental authority not been skewed? That's too, too light of the word.

How has it been turned on its head by two, by those in the government themselves and by those of us who are governed. The people of the, of a government. So let's start with the government itself. How has the government turned this on its head?

Well, that's a, that's a little bit of a history question, but that ultimately I think goes back to about 1900 when you saw the rise of what we call progressivism. And honestly, the progressives were probably more in line with today's conservatives, just to put that out there.

But, um, the idea of progressivism was this notion that we've progressed from the authorial intent of the constitution, that it needs to be a living document. That it was those original intentions of the founders were sufficient for the America of their day.

But it doesn't work now. We need a better handle on new issues.

Yeah.

And this was spearheaded largely by, um, Teddy Roosevelt's Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey and some of those guys. But it was this notion of progressing from the original and ultimately it was vying for bigger government.

This notion that the government will take care of all of our problems. And we saw that really start to come into fruition. Um, probably after world war II with, um, Franklin Roosevelt and the new deal and all of these, um, government offices he opened, you know, all these, these programs and all of this, all this extra stuff, trying to rebuild the economy after the war, and actually it prolonged the reconstruction from the war because of all this, this level of, um, government intervention and the trickle down from that actually wreaked a lot of havoc on the economy and all these, these bailouts didn't, they didn't pan out.

And so you, but you have that model that's emerging of the government exists to make my life easy to take care of me. And human greed and selfishness can take things a long way. So we've come a long way in the almost 80 years since then, but that idea still persists that the government exists to take care of me, to make my life easy, to essentially put my feet up.

And we've, it's, it's just gotten bigger and the problems have gotten bigger since the forties. So that scope is massive now. We've, we've definitely got that misconstrued that the, from the government side of the perspective here, um, they exist to have absolute control over everything so they can fix everything.

And ultimately that makes government to be God. And when we dig into that a little bit, um, one example we could go with was, uh, when Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed and there were, there were these protests outside the Supreme court and you had people singing amazing grace.

Oh, wow.

Well, hold up because two minutes earlier they were singing imagine by John Lennon. Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy to try. We've already invoked this worldview, but there is no God above the state.

Now we're going to sing to the God that we just said doesn't exist. Is it necessary? And so we had this, this mindset that the government is the final authority. And when the government says it's a problem, it's a problem.

But then it also stems from a view of us as people under that authority of moving from being citizens to subjects that we don't live in first century Rome. We live in a government that was modeled to operate at the consent of the governed.

But with this notion of bigger governments and bigger programs and bigger budgets, we've gotten away from that to the government is more like a King, more like a, a absolute monarchy, almost a dictatorship sometimes, and we are just along for the ride.

Idolatry of Government and the Christian Duty to Look to God

So the, uh, so, so there we see how the government has turned its, uh, turned the idea of government from a biblical understanding up on its head. And as the people under being the gov, the people governed, uh, would you say that it's an accurate statement to say that we have, uh, well, you mentioned it.

Actually, we, we, a lot of folks, Christians, even unwittingly see the government, uh, and they wouldn't come out and say it with their mouth, right? They, they see the government as God, but they have become so dependent upon the government and the, uh, the rise and the fall of, uh, political parties and the, uh, the condition of our financial status, so on and so forth, they've solved that as their hope and their peace within the world, as opposed to looking unto the Lord, because yeah.

Oh, absolutely. I would say that we, as a, as a nation are looking to government for our deliverance and providence, which by definition is idolatry and it's simplest terms, we are looking to government to save us.

Amen. Amen.

Um, so with that being said, let's, let's ask this question next. So if the government doesn't have a right to do what it wants to do, and we, as citizens of the government, um, should not look to the government as God who governs, this is a softball question, Tyler, who governs the citizens and the.

Government. That would be God, right?

And God's law. Would you agree there?

I would agree.

Natural Law, Man’s Law, and Divine Command Theory

So you've done a fantastic job of talking politics. Now let's talk philosophy for just a minute. So here we make our segue. Um, so, um, natural law and, uh, Aquinas this year, as for some reason in, in, in reform circles kind of made a comeback, kind of made a rise in popularity, but he wasn't, he wasn't all right.

I'm not on board with Aquinas. I like the idea of the philosophy of natural law to it, to an extent, until you really start digging and, you know, kind of peeling back, back the, the layers of what's under it and what goes on with it.

But, but we have really two things that I wanted us to touch on here was, um, natural law, um, versus, uh, uh, natural law theory versus divine command theory.

Right.

So there are, there are two things here. Uh, and, and you, I, I appreciated your response when I texted you this, you said, Oh, you were like excited that we were going to talk philosophy. So that, that immediately, that immediately pumped me up cause I'm, I'm ready to hear, uh, ready to hear what you, what you have to say about it.

But, um, so a couple of different things that we could look at. I'll bring us up a, uh, a graphic and we can try to kind of go over it together here and we'll, we'll touch on natural law. We'll touch on divine command.

So really three, it's really three things. Uh, natural law, man's law, and God's law. Natural law is a, I think a very generic reference to God's law based upon this little chart here, right? Natural law based upon principles and truth inherent to creation, uh, man's law based upon dogmatic beliefs or constructs of the mind.

So we have a lot of philosophy that goes into that. A lot of ideology, social justice in our current day, CRT, things like that. Uh, it all plays into, into kind of that column there. Uh, natural law, uh, I'll skip down to the third one.

Uh, it's somewhat, it is universal in the true sense in reference to God's law being natural law, uh, exists and applies anywhere in the universe, regardless of location, right? It doesn't matter whether you're in America, whether you're in Africa, you're in Asia, no matter where God's moral or natural law as it's posited is universal.

Uh, man's law, however, differs based on your location. It's okay to do one thing. If you're in another country, as opposed to doing something here in the United States, uh, natural laws, eternal, immutable exists and applies for as long as the universe exists and cannot be changed.

Again, this, these basic understandings of natural law really, I think do a good job of, of honing the idea down. But again, when you start peeling back the layers, you see the flaws in it. And last of all, man's law changes with time based upon the whim of legislators.

And really it boils down to moral relativism, how, you know, it's morally applicable in our day based upon the changing morality of our day. So talk a little bit, if you would, there about, uh, about, about the distinctions between natural law and man's law.

And then we'll just touch briefly on divine command theory as well.

So the idea with the natural law, I think what they're referring to is what we would, um, find in places like Romans one about how we knew God, but we didn't honor him as God, even though he's plain to us that there's an element of God's character that is reflected in nature because we're made in the image of God.

And I think what we're talking about with this, this basic, um, natural law could be summed up largely in the 10 commandments, which is the often considered to be the most basic summary of the law, specifically the second table, those last six, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, bear false witness against thy neighbor and things of that nature.

For the most part, those are things that we would generally agree are good things.

Yeah.

Where that gets ugly is we also have a carnal mind. We have a darkened mind that is consumed by sin. And so there's kind of a give and take almost like a balance issue here. That's the law is written on our hearts that we're made in God's image.

And this law, which is a transcript of his character, um, is also, we don't see it that way, we don't look at it, right. Because we have a sinful mind, um, as Paul described it in Romans seven, the law is spiritual, but I am of flesh.

That's right. Carnal soul to understand.

Yep.

And so there's, there's that, that there is, there is a natural law. There is this basic understanding of morality. That's hardwired into us. That is transient. That is not bound by time. That is always this way now will not change, but in the same token, we forsake that for sin.

Yes.

I think, um, Aquinas wrote that this, this, uh, happens because of selfishness that when we act in selfishness, we actually ignore the natural law. That's built into us. And I can kind of get on board with that interpretation of it while also recognizing the problem of sin.

So when we get to man's law, we have that carnal mind that is dominating our worldview and how we formulate ethics that isn't in line with that natural law built into us, that is very much rooted in that carnal mind.

And that way of thinking that I am the determining factor here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So there is a natural law of sorts that we're building laws off of. It's just not God's.

Amen.

And that's go ahead.

And that's, we've created a cheap substitute, really a corruptible shadow of, and called it morality. But any sense of morality presupposes a religion and is built on a notion that there's somebody up there who's decided what is good and bad.

And often with man's law, that person is whoever's just sitting in the chair.

Yeah.

And, and the, uh, again, the, the issue with Aquinas, Aquinas said this concerning natural law, his positive position on it. He said that Aquinas said this, we don't need the Bible, the church or religion class in order to understand natural law.

Instead, our instincts show us the basic goods. And so there's in that philosophical ideology, there are seven basic goods, but he said, our instincts show us the basic goods and reason allows us to derive the natural law from them.

He goes on to say this instead, our instinct shows us the basic goods and reason allows us to drive to kind of repeat that in reason allows us to derive natural law from them. Now, if I were to, if we were to Tyler, if we were to take this statement that he just made, I mean, you can, with the exception of, of he was four, what 14th century, I think Aquinas was.

Yeah.

So 14th century, if we take 14, this 14th century statement and we put it up against Joel Osteen, Joel Osteen literally said, I believe everybody's basically good. So this, this is the problem with the natural law theory, assuming that it can be understood naturally, it can't be understood naturally, right?

And it won't be pursued naturally. Again, we go back to what you've been teaching on your podcasts since October. Romans teaches us that there's, that there's no good in man. And so to kind of, uh, to, uh, another kind of a philosophical view concerning morality and ethical ethical morality would be the divine command theory.

So divine command theory is a belief that what's moral and what's immoral is commanded by God. I would say, amen. How about you Tyler?

I'd say at least once. Amen.

And so, uh, so there's some grounding issues, of course, with, uh, natural law theory, but, uh, divine command theory kind of solves that grounding problem that says every ethical system needs some kind of foundation.

And of course, with divine command theory, it's God. So the, uh, the, uh, I guess the challengers, one of the well-known challengers of the divine command theory was, uh, Plato. So, um, the argument against the platonic argument against, um, divine command theory is I'll get, I'll get tongue twisted trying to say this.

Uh, do you, do you know what I'm gonna say here? The euthyphro problem, right? So it's all about a discussion that Socrates and euthyphro had on the steps of the courthouse, right? So the, the challengers to divine command theory asked this question.

They say they asked two questions to challenge it. And I, and I've really, it's like, again, this is like one of those cases where the world, and I'm speaking of those that don't have a biblical worldview for ethics, morality, and everything that goes comes and goes in between, it's like they give us bullets for our gun.

And they say here, please put these bullets in your gun and shoot at me. But they say, they say they asked two questions to challenge divine command theory, and that first question is, are right actions right because God commands them or are right actions commanded because they are right.

And so the idea in that is that we got to choose one of the two. So which is it? And really the answer I would say, and you, you, you jump in here. I'm not, I'm not meaning to, this is supposed to be you talking, but I kind of want to lead on this, but, uh, the idea here that they say are right actions, right, because God commands them or does God, uh, or are right actions commanded because they are right.

I would say yes to both as a Christian. What about you?

I like ice cream and I eat ice cream, but do I eat ice cream because I like to, or do I eat ice cream because I want to, or do I like to want, I would say that they're very similar, they're very nuanced, but I think those are complimentary terms that they're two sides of the same coin that there is.

Yes, they are good because God commands them, but also that God commands them because they are good according to what, according to his own moral character, that when God set out to create the world, as, as Augustine dealt with this idea of the divine command, he called it the divine fiat or the divine imperative that there is, these are imperative.

Yes.

This is how it is. And he's vying for the creation of the abstract of these things that we can't necessarily hold like truth and beauty and freedom, that those are all rightly defined by God. And because God is good, they are, there is a good, there is goodness in truth, there's goodness in beauty and freedom because the one who created them is good and they are a reflection of his goodness.

And that anything we create or try to create in this world in terms of legislation or moral codes, if it doesn't line up with what God has called good, then it's not because God calls it good because he is good.

Amen. Amen.

So whether in the philosophical system, whether it's natural law or divine command theory, as Christians, it boils down to what does God's law state, right? And you, you said it a moment ago, the 10 commandments, right?

Those are referred to as the moral law. That's what's right. And that's what's wrong. There's two sides of the same coin there. So when we as Christians, so as I was listening to, to your podcast episode, by the way, I was up in the graveyard at the church, Mo, and I don't know if I told you that, but man, I was, there may have been some gravestones got hit.

I was enjoying that. But I mean, you, and that really is really what it boils down to. So if we as Christians are going to have a right view of government, we've got to have first a right view of God.

Right.

Sphere Sovereignty, Submission, and the Limits of Resistance

So when we break this down, this idea of submission and government and all, Abraham Kuyper wrestled with this a little bit and he argued for a system he called sphere sovereignty, that there's three institutions that were set up by God, the church, the family, and the state, and that they, these three operate in their own little bubbles of influence.