This essay responds to the idea that if small government is good, then no government is better.
Two Kinds of Libertarians
If a small government is good, no government at all must be better, right? Some libertarians agree, some don’t. That point of disagreement defines the two basic forms of libertarianism.
- Anarchist libertarians believe true liberty can only be achieved if there is no government at all. Any form of government is oppressive.
- Minarchist libertarians believe that a government is necessary for liberty. The ideal government is not oppressive.
Or to put it more succinctly:
- Anarchy = no government
- Minarchy = minimal government
Governments Abuse Power
The main problem with governments is that they can use their power to oppress the public and violate the rights of the people. At first glance that makes anarchism appealing. As one anarchist put it, how can minarchists trust “the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers” to coerce and oppress the public? (The Minarchist’s Dilemma) There’s nothing to stop the government from using its power for evil. The only way to prevent that is to eliminate the government completely.
Ayn Rand offers a succinct explanation of why anarchy cannot and does not work.
[A] society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.
I’m a Minarchist
I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. There are practical reasons for my belief. E.g., I don’t think anarchism is workable in a fallen world filled with sinful people. It devolves into might-makes-right. Even Ayn Rand, a hostile critic of religion, recognizes that fact. But for now I want to focus on biblical reasons to support a minarchy. According to Romans 13, God establishes earthly governments and expects Christians to submit to them in obedience to God. Submitting is not optional for Christians.
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).
God’s Purpose for Government
OK then, submitting to the government is biblical. Does the Bible say that men must be governed, though? Is it acceptable to submit to the authorities that exist while also advocating their abolition? I believe not. The reason is related to the purpose of government. Let’s look at Romans again, to see the purpose of government.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 13:3-5) [Emphasis added].
The Bible is Not About Political Philosophy
The God-ordained purpose of government is to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” God doesn’t tell us to obey the government on a whim; we must obey the government because it is God’s instrument of justice on Earth. The precise form of government isn’t detailed in the Scriptures, but the qualities of that government are listed: a government acceptable to God is one that punishes evildoers and holds no terror for those who do right. There is no biblical support for the idea that God’s purposes (i.e., punishing evildoers) can be achieved without a government.
The Bible isn’t a treatise on political philosophy. It doesn’t discuss the merits of republics or kingdoms or dictatorships; it doesn’t list the virtues of democracies. All the Bible tells us is that governments are established by God for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers. As a Christian, I can only support governments that achieve those biblical objectives. As a citizen and a rational, thinking human being, I believe a minarchy is the best kind of government to fully achieve God’s stated purposes for government.
To summarize:
- I am not an anarchist. I believe God has established earthly governments for a purpose.
- I am a minarchist because I believe a minarchy best fits the purposes of government laid out in Romans 13.
Are Anarchists Heretics?
This doesn’t mean that anarchy is heresy. I believe you can read the Bible and come away with an understanding that anarchy is compatible with God’s character and with biblical values. For example, you might look to the period of judges and see that God preferred Israel as a nation without a national government. God permitted Israel to have a king, but he warned them of the dire consequences. I don’t believe this implies that anarchy is God’s preferred system of government, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion.
So no, anarchy is not heresy. I believe minarchy is a more reasonable understanding of the Bible, but good Bible-believing Christians can be anarchists too.
Great article. I basically agree with you 100%.
Whoa buddy, that’s a big can of worms you’re opening. There’s a lot of bad blood between these two camps (Mises Institute vs. Cato Institute, etc). Let me just address two points on which I can at least clarify, from my point of view, the anarchist’s argument.
“If a small government is good, no government at all must be better, right? ”
Correction - If government has, by its nature, the wrong incentives and the inability to calculate (see the “Economic Calculation Problem”, http://mises.org/econcalc.asp) then it cannot operate in an efficient or, in many cases, even ethical manner. If this principle is correct in examples such as FEMA and the DMV (which most libertarians would agree) then it is correct for all things the government does, including justice and defense. Its incentives and its market position (or lack of a market) have not changed in the areas of justice or defense, therefore the principle still applies. I believe that the principle is correct, so I believe government cannot succeed where private alternatives would fail.
“The main problem with governments is that they can use their power to oppress the public and violate the rights of the people.”
Correction - The main problem with government is that they produce nothing and cannot provide anything at all without first taking it from someone else. Also, based on my observations, I would say that government cannot solve any problem without creating a bigger problem somewhere.
I would like to say that I do support the Minarchist movement (I happily voted for Ron Paul), because I think we accomplish nothing if we agree on most things but fight each other over the details. However, as Murray Rothbard believed, you have to have goals based on principled idealism, while embracing progress even when it is less than your stated goals.
This is wisdom. I too have no problem voting for guys like Ron Paul. I’ll even support people like Milton Friedman or Richard Epstein because they move the society closer towards a more pure ideal.
It seems clear that pragmatists (minarchists in this case) would be wise to hold to higher ideals than their pragmatism, but idealists (anarchists in this case) should support progress that is, well, not quite ideal.
However, I should mention that as far as mainstream politics goes, there is hardly ANYONE who does not counter a mildly minarchist position with a large carton of super-statist policy.
“The main problem with government is that they produce nothing and cannot provide anything at all without first taking it from someone else”
Sure they can. It’s called charging user fees, rather than taking taxes. You can have a voluntarily funded government you know. It won’t work for a welfare state, but a minarchy will do fine with it
Colin wrote:
I agree that idealists should support progress even if it is not ideal. I should make it clear that I my minarchist beliefs are not born of pragmatism. Minarchy is the ideal. However, an anarchist might support minarchy out of pragmatism, so I see where you’re coming from, Colin.
On the other hand, I am a pragmatist about many things. Bull-headed idealism is counterproductive when it prevents incremental progress. Minarchy is my ideal, but pragmatically I’m willing to make a lot of compromises. We’re not going to fix the system in a day, or even in a generation. I’ll go out on a limb and predict that we’ll never eliminate statism and collectivism. The best we can hope for is to make things a little better.
“Sure they can. It’s called charging user fees, rather than taking taxes. You can have a voluntarily funded government you know. It won’t work for a welfare state, but a minarchy will do fine with it”
If a service can be provided on a voluntary basis, then why should it not be provided in a competitive market. And, if it is provided in a competitive market, then by definition it is not government but free market.
-Ike
ragnar_rahl wrote:
Ayn Rand wrote an essay describing such a system: “Government Financing in a Free Society.” The essay is collected in The Virtue of Selfishness.
Ike wrote:
The services of a government are qualitatively different than the services offered by a business. Ayn Rand talks about the idea of competitive governments in her essay “The Nature of Government.” When there is competition for the services offered by a government, the situation degrades into might-makes-right.
This is just laziness on behalf of Rand. You don’t have to automatically presume they whip out their guns (literally or coercively) and start fighting each other. Perhaps competitive security or police agencies will have designated arbiters in disputes or arbitration clauses. This illustration definitely does not prove that society must be structured such that there is a monopoly on force above these agencies somewhere to have the final say.
They could, and that would solve part of the problem. But what happens when the two agencies can’t agree on an arbiter? And don’t tell me they always will, because they won’t. Human beings are still evil and immoral, and they will try to cheat justice.
Somebody must be the final authority and make the final determination about who is right and who is wrong, and enforce that decision. With so-called free competition in government, you will eventually run up against the situation Rand describes. Maybe it won’t end in a shootout, but justice will not be served.
I do own and have read “The Virtue of Selfishness”. I enjoyed it very much, especially the essay on Monument Builders. However, I do not accept Ayn Rands view on competitive government. Her view assumes that a free market society would have all of the same functions and methods as a statist society. She is correct that the “forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer”. This however does not mean that society cannot thrive without “forcible restraint of men” in her sense of the phrase. People as a society are very good at developing solutions to the road blocks which stand in the way of cooperation and economic development. Somalia is a good example of this, although governmental sources would have people believe that Somalia is a chaotic place torn by warlords (see: “Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It” http://mises.org/story/2066, “The Rule of Law Without the State” http://mises.org/story/2701). Rather than a system of punishment, a capitalist society is more likely to focus on protecting individuals from damage through insurance and incentive structures. I cannot imagine all possible solutions to all problems, but suppose you purchase insurance for your property. In the absence of a police state this may or may not include subscription to a private security force (for property and personal defense). Suppose also that something of yours is damaged or stolen. In this case you would be reimbursed according to your insurance policy. Your problem has been remedied at this point, but it does not stop there. Just as with auto insurance today, the insurance companies will want to minimize their own damages by seeking reparations from the insurance of the offender. Insurance companies would have a financial incentive to contract with each other to receive compensation in the event that the other company’s customer damages their customer’s property. This would result in insurance policies which would include penalties for customers that damage the property of another company’s customer. In this way the customer has incentive to avoid “criminal” behavior, not from the victim’s “police” force, but from his own insurance company. But what if the “criminal” chooses to have no insurance? In this case, the victim is still compensated for his damages, but the incentive to avoid criminal behavior is the lack of protection for the criminal in a police-free society (where, by the way, people will often choose to carry guns for personal defense). This is one possible solution, not necessarily the best. But consider these benefits:
1) The victim receives compensation for losses in all situations covered by their insurance policy.
2) Private defense security firms are very likely to be more efficient and reasonable than public police agencies.
3) All people benefit from the presence of private security near a business or neighborhood, even if they did not pay for them.
4) Much criminal behavior which we currently see is the result of government interference in private lives (drug lords/dealers, much of the crime induced by poverty and the failure of public schools, etc).
For better ideas than mine on the subject read Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard.
-Ike
Ike, what you’re describing doesn’t work without introducing forcible restraint. The entire system breaks down when one man decides to flout the system of insurance and take what he wants by force. Somebody must use physical force to stop him. The scheme you just described is ultimately vigilantism. That’s a problem because it boils down to every man (or every insurance company or what have you) using force to impose his own interpretation of right and wrong. There isn’t any objectivity in that scenario. It’s just might makes right.
I skimmed the Somalia article. That isn’t describing competing governments. It’s describing fluid, informal regional governments. They operate on a property-based model (which I like a lot! Good for them!) They’re not democratic (potentially bad) and their justice is highly immoral because it holds people responsible for the crimes of others (if a man can’t pay the penalty for his crime, it is exacted from his kin.) The system keeps the people in line and it has apparently brought some stability to Somalia, but it does not respect liberty.
First, the system I described discourages crime by introducing greater risk to the criminal who “floats” the system and by reducing conditions which breed crime. Once again, the “forcible restraint” does exist in a defensive sense (I mentioned private security for insured customers and personal carry for defense). Also in this scenario, insurance companies are businesses which need to make a profit. It is much more profitable to agree on terms of right and wrong through contract then to try to force your will in the market place. Companies which are perceived as destructive to a society do not profit, they go bankrupt.
Also, the point of the Somalia articles was not competitive governments, it was to demonstrate the ability of a society to achieve cooperation without the use of forced government. I agree that the idea of governments competing within the same geographic area is worthless, but only when they are governments (that is funded by involuntary means). Private, voluntary solutions to the problems of individuals are more than sufficient to maintain order in a free-market economy.
Finally, democracy is not my goal, it is the tyranny of the minority by the majority. Democracy does not respect the rights of individuals. My goal is a society run by the people through the individual decisions in the market place. See “Democracy, The God That Failed” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
-Ike
Ike, I agree with you about democracy. It isn’t the goal. The goal is liberty, respecting people’s rights. The best systems in existence today seem to be democratic–actually, constitutional republics, but I digress–so I admit a bias toward democratic systems because all others have so far demonstrated themselves less likely to respect individual rights.
Really? I think there might be some decent competition from places like the UAE (monarchy), Hong Kong (Communist) and others. You can also see a great sum of wars, death, violence and destruction from democracies supposedly limited by a constitution.
Are those here advocating for anarchism supporting a system where force is never used, or a system where there is no centrally recognize standard for the appropriate use of force?
Any centrally mandated standard for the use of force IS government. That central authority could be donation funded, formed by agreement of every person “governed”, or just a standard that all parties agree to recognize. In any case, such a standard for the appropriate use of force IS government. By definition, government is nothing more or less than a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force. I don’t really think anyone can argue that such a standard isn’t useful (it allows people to more readily know what offenses will result in the use of force), but if anyone here would like to do so I’d be interested. Is anyone suggesting that society can operate WITHOUT the use of force, using purely economic corrections to fight crime?
The problem with a competing government system is that it becomes far too easy to reach a situation where citizens of government A are harshly punished for violations against the rights of citizens of government B, but citizens of B face little repercussions when offending against government A (See also US mercenaries in Iraq). Two government having jurisdiction in the same area results in highly unequal application of justice.
(Please note that this condition of unequal application justice is viewed as unfavorable by most non-anarchists.)
Atanamis, I don’t have the time to argue it now or here (except for clarification purposes), but I would idealistically advocate “voluntary governments” as decentralized economic entities. Basically, private “toothless” government-type organisations based on the consent of the governed via contract. Society is organized up from the individual rather than down from authority. No rights are given to groups that do not rest in the individual.
“…I think there might be some decent competition from places like the UAE (monarchy), Hong Kong (Communist) and others…”
Colin, sorry to correct you, but Hong Kong has been listed for 14 years as the most free-market economy in the world by the Index of Economic Freedom, unlike the rest of China which is still communist.
“Are those here advocating for anarchism supporting a system where force is never used, or a system where there is no centrally recognize standard for the appropriate use of force?”
Anarcho-Capitalism is a political economic system based on private property rights in which no agent is granted the right to initiate force against another (including taxes which are taken by force). In such a system defense is always legitimate.
Ike, my point is that Hong Cong is ruled by a communist country - they are in fact not “communist” in their actions, but they demonstrate how even communist regimes can have loads of freedom (in certain places at least).
Gotcha. I do get what you mean about Monarchies having some advantages too, although they clearly don’t respect property rights.
No government (defined as the agency with a monopoly on physical force) is an impossibility. There will always be some group that has more arms than any other. And who is going to disarm them? If anyone, then that “anyone” becomes the government. If noone does, then the gang with the arms is the government. There can’t be no government.
Mr. Martens: Much of your arguments hinges on a particular interpretation of Romans 13 and the Randian justification for government.
I submit to you one article and one book that deal with these issues. First, I have a published article on LewRockwell.com that gives an alternative view of Romans 13:1-7. It is not an “anarchist” interpretation by any means, but it refutes the notion that Paul is by definition saying government is a good thing.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/horn1.html
Second, I would suggest reading Linda and Morris Tannehill’s book “The Market for Liberty”, which to some extent takes a Randian view but refutes nearly every objection to anarcho-capitalism that Rand conceived of.
http://www.mises.org/store/Market-for-Liberty-P302.aspx
Now, don’t get me wrong, I would be quite happy if minarchism were re-established in this country - which is why I whole-heartedly supported Ron Paul. In fact, I believe that if true minarchism were present then a lively discussion of anarcho-capitalism could commence in the public square and in the end the best ideas will win.
Thanks Mr. Horn. I probably won’t read Tannehill’s book (at least not soon; I’ll keep an eye out for it) but I’ll defnitely read your article.
That article on lewrockwell.com was excellent. Thanks for the contribution.
Thanks for visiting Norman! We (I at least) love LewRockwell.com.
Mr Horn
I have read your article. Was intrigued by your use of Romans 13 to suggest that one should “replaced the words “governing authorities,” “rulers,”…. to Nero and Herod” Close, Mr Horn but you miss altogether. No need to include Herod. Remember St Paul wrote to the Romans in Rome, the Governing authority at that time was the Pagan Roman Empire, and at the head of this Roman Empire is the Roman Emperor. Romans 13 pertains to the Roman Empire, no other governing authority.
The way Romans should be read is for example: “Let every soul be subject to the Holy Roman Emperor:”
The abuse of Romans 13 is wide spread today. From Robert Mugabe, to the evangelical “Family” who runs things in Washington (or so they say).
Most always constantly ignore one simple fact that modern democracy did not exist in St Paul’s day and age. Romans 13 does not apply to the United States, does not apply to a Robert Mugabe, a Hitler or what have you. Romans 13 applies only to the governing authority that St Paul was a citizen of and that is the Roman Empire, then Pagan, now Roman Catholic.
So the way Romans 13 should be read today is as follows:
Using you as a guide Mr Horn replacing “governing authorities,” “rulers,” to the Roman Emperor or in it’s Roman Catholic form: The Holy Roman Emperor:
Let every soul be subject to the Holy Roman Emperor: for there is no power but from God: and the Holy Roman Emperor, is ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the Holy Roman Emperor, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For the Holy Roman Emperor is not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Holy Roman Emperor? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the Holy Roman Emperor. For the Holy Roman Emperor is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for the Holy Roman Emperor beareth not the sword in vain. For the Holy Roman Emperor is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For therefore also you pay tribute. For the Holy Roman Emperor is the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose. Render therefore to the Holy Roman Emperor his dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law.
The only Divinely Ordained form of Government is the Roman Empire, then in St Paul’s time, Pagan, and in modern times, Roman Catholic. All other forms of government are merely permitted and tolerated by the Blessed Trinity and therefore these modern forms of government can be changed by the will of good men, Men however as Romans 13 tells one, are not allowed to resisteth the Holy Roman Emperor, if one does then according to St Paul one resisteth the ordinance of God.
Michael,
I can agree with you that Paul is speaking about the authorities at the time, and not trying to make a wide-reaching statement on government in general. However, I do not think it follows that the “Roman Emperor” or “Roman Empire” carries over to the “Holy Roman Emperor” or “Catholic Church” - which is an entirely different regime.
Colin:
Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine was still Roman Emperor after his conversion. The Holy Roman Empire is the continuity of the Roman Empire in its pagan form. Modern man may disagree with this statement for what ever reasons, but continuity of the Roman Empire has always been acknowledged by those ruling as Roman Catholic Emperors and those defending the rights of the Roman Empire.
The Holy Roman Empire is the continuity of the Pagan Empire. To say otherwise, is a recent modern invention, or better yet, a distortion of history. That is the reason why the world is subject to the likes of Robert Mugabe and his application of Romans 13 to his very own person: “Mugabe cited Romans Chapter 13 in the Bible to make his point that he was appointed President by God and only God would remove him from office. “Even Romans 13 says leaders are appointed by God. I am an image of God who appointed me to my current position” Zimbabue Times June 20, 2008
What nonsense coming from Mugabe. Agreed?
All this confusion on Romans 13 is due to the fact that the main political entity that St Paul wrote on, the Authority of the Holy Roman Emperor is now in abeyance for 100 years or more, dating either from November 11th 1918, when the annihilation of the Austria-Hungarian Empire took place with the Armistice, or going back further to Napoleon and his treaty of Pressburg in 1806 dissolving the Holy Roman Empire.
So now we get the “family” those “elitist Christian fundamentalists” running the show in Washington D.C. applying Romans 13 to themselves.
The world saw Hitler do the same.
Now it’s Mugabe’s turn to apply Romans to himself.
A vacuum has been created with the abeyance of the Holy Roman Empire, so now everyone and their grandmother takes it upon themselves to apply this Romans chapter 13 and verse as they see fit.
Michael,
I fully agree with you that Romans 13 is abused in the favour of the state (including evil men, but also good men). However, I do not believe, from your own argument on Paul’s meaning, that the HRE is portable from the regime at the time of writing. The HRE and Roman Empire (West, I presume is what you are referring to, or does the East count? In which case, Islam followed that - perhaps they are also a legitimate authority derived from Romans 13?) have been very distinct entities for much of their existences.
I happen to be a Roman Historian. The HRE is (”was” is more correct) not a continuation of the Roman Empire, but a modern revision that came about much later on after the political collapse of the Western Roman Empire to lend legitimacy to the secular power of the catholic church and certain lords. There is no cut and dried continuation.
But more important, this still doesn’t fit with the idea that Paul was writing about the specific government at the time.
Islam is a political movement created by Mohammed to rebel against the authority of the Roman Empire. Everywhere Mohammed made an appearance in the Roman Empire, revolts broke out against the Empire.
Islam like modern democracy are merely permitted and tolerated forms of government. Neither of these forms are Divinely Ordained. According to St Paul, only the Roman Empire is Divinely Ordained. These other forms of merely permitted and tolerated governments may be changed into another form or abolished all together if these political forms create and enforce bad laws and bad customs.
“The HRE is (”was” is more correct) not a continuation of the Roman Empire”
If this statement is true then you as a Roman Historian should be able to provide evidence of this. Quote from any of the Holy Roman Emperors claiming that the Holy Roman Empire is not a continuation of the Pagan Roman Empire.
Michael, the “evidence” that the HRE is not the Roman Empire would not be some man’s opinion. If we used this kind of thing as evidence, Hitler is a messenger of God, Louis IV is ordained by God and the United States is the new Israel.
Colin
Totally agree with you. No one man can destroy or annihilate a Divinely Ordained form of Government. According to Romans 13 this Divinely Ordained form of Government is the Pagan Roman Empire. This is the very reason for the obedience of All of the Roman martyrs to the Pagan Roman Empire. These Roman martyrs did not behave as the Old Testament fathers did who when confronted with bad laws and bad customs contrary to the faith, overthrew and destroyed various kingdoms. These kingdoms that were destroyed or annihilated by the Old Testament fathers were merely permitted and tolerated forms of government and therefore could be changed or destroyed by the good will of a few good men without offence to the Blessed Trinity. Not so with the Pagan Roman Empire. These Roman Martyrs went to their death rather than overthrow the authority of teh Pagan Roman Emperor.
The Old Testament fathers example of overthrowing governments does not apply to a Divinely Ordained form of Government, which according to St Paul is the Roman Empire. St Paul also tells us that the Roman Empire will exist until the end of time in his second letter to the Thessalonians. St Paul tells us that only with the final revolt against the Roman Empire will the manifestation of the antichrist occur.
“And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.”
All Church Fathers interpret the above words from St Paul that the Authority of the Roman Emperor will hold off the manifestation of the antichrist:
“And now you know that the existence of the Roman Empire withholdeth, that the antichrist may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that the authority of the Roman Emperor who now holdeth, do hold, until the authority of the Roman Emperor be taken out of the way.”
To back up what I have written above is taken from Church Tradition, from the Church Fathers:
John Chrysostom Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians ii. 6–9.
“Only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way,” that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exit himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God.”
Tertullian The Apology Chapter 32
“There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth–in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes—is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire”
St. Ambrose upon 2 Thess. 2 saith, that after the defection and abolition of the Roman Kingdome, antichrist shall come.
Colin:
Ask yourself if these Roman Christians prayed in behalf of the pagan Roman emperors nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general, and for the continuance of the Roman Empire so as to hinder the manifestation of the antichrist, don’t you think that in these very same prayers, that mention was made that the pagans convert to Christianity?
If Roman Christians desire in their prayers that Pagans be converted to the One True Faith, do you not think that the pagan Ruler is also included in this same prayer?
Look at the fruits of the Roman Martyrs. Their prayers were answered and pagan Rome was converted. And if pagan Rome was converted, then so was its pagan form of government. The Pagan Roman Empire was converted to the Holy Roman Empire.
Michael,
Yes, I agree.
Agreed also.
I think we are at an impasse here. While it is reasonable that pagan Romans and even emperors could have been / were converted, this does not lead to the conclusion that the institution was “converted” and that the HRE was that “converted institution.” I think we shall have to agree to disagree at this point, Michael. I thank you for your perspective and I hope you will continue to converse on this site!