https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31nfDvZgTlQ
As we start part V we note that in the introduction of the debate Rosebrough went out of his way to say this interview was not a debate. Rosebrough’s protestations at the beginning that this was not a debate with Mahler are irrelevant. This was a debate and the reason Rosebrough later wanted to insist that it wasn’t a debate is because Mahler wiped the floor with Rosebrough. It was bad and the real badness of it begins to be seen in this segment.
I will give Mahler this… he excels at what Lawyer’s excel at. He is a master at argumentation. We see in Mahler the classic example of lawyer advice on how to argue;
When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When the facts and the law are both against you, argue policy
I would also say Mahler’s ability to keep his composure in light of Rosebrough’s obvious exasperation and incredulity were points in favor of Mahler’s presentation. There were times when Mahler was clearly wrong but his ability to calmly drive his errant points home worked in his favor.
In this segment Rosebrough is exposed pretty badly by Mahler. In this segment we learn that both Rosebrough and Mahler are Statists. Though Mahler does not state it I’m pretty confident that he would contend that the colonists were in unbiblical rebellion for rising up against King George. Meanwhile, Rosebrough insists that the Colonialists were correct for rebelling against King George as following their lesser Magistrates. Yet, Rosebrough also said here that he would obey Stalin and Hitler. Rosebrough would obey Stalin and Hitler but not King George III? That is more than a little arbitrary. It seems that Rosebrough picks and chooses on his own authority what rules of Caesar he will obey and what he will not obey.
Actually, he and Mahler agree here seen in Mahler’s clear inference that Stalin should not have been obeyed. (Mahler references Solzhenitsyn’s counsel.) Mahler and Rosebrough just have different standards for what should and should not be obeyed. As for myself, I would have counseled Christians to disobey all these tyrants.
There was argumentation here on the meaning of Romans 13. Rosebrough was clearly in the wrong here as he seeks to suggest that Romans 13 teaches that Christians must submit to tyrants. In fairness to Rosebrough he seemed to be confused here. At one point he said that Christians should submit to tyrants on matters like speed limits and where they can. At other points he said things like, (paraphrasing) “if the Magistrate wants to kill me as a Christian the Lord will take care of him,” suggesting that the Christian should passively accept his unjust execution.
We’ve written a great deal here on Romans 13. Here are just two of the posts. There are others that can be found by putting “Romans 13” in the search engine here at Iron Ink.
Rosebrough clearly stated that he would obey Hitler and Stalin but not George III. I would say that Christians had no business obeying Stalin, George III, or Hitler. Especially when Hitler said… “Bring your lame, halt and blind so I can kill them.” Roseborough actually said that it is sin to resist a murderous magistrate.
I would contend that if the Emperor wants to kill you for preaching the Gospel and you willingly surrender to the Emperor to be killed you have just violated the 6th commandment. Rosebrough is confused on this subject as seen in this statement;
“I am not called to armed insurrection on the basis of the fact that the state is opposing Christianity.”
So, the fact that the State is killing millions of babies does not allow us to rise in armed insurrection to oppose the State? The links posted above explain my reasons for so thoroughly and adamantly disagreeing with Rosebrough here.
Rosebrough does allow for a seeming exception with the Colonialists rebelling against George III suggesting that it was not sedition for the Colonialists to rise up against George III since the Colonialists were following lesser Magistrates. I am pretty sure that King George III and British Parliament would have still called the Colonial rebellion “sedition.”
This section is very important in my opinion. I am of the conviction that pulpits across our land ought to be reverberating with the same kind of counsel that Reformed and Lutheran pulpits reverberated with when the clergy at that time was referred to “the Black Robed Regiment.” We live in a time when pulpits should ring with the counsel of rising up against the tyrant state that we are currently living under. Guys like Rosebrough counsel passivity in the face of the most God-awful and dishonoring behavior as coming from the State. God’s people need to be told by God’s spokesman while speaking from God’s holy desk that tyrants have no license from God to destroy the weak, to persecute Christians, or to tyrannize the public as they are currently doing and have been doing for quite some time. Debate can be had as to how best go about this and the timing of this but the necessity for it can not be disputed.