I think I might be changing my mind about something

[Craigbythesea]

Paidagogos wrote,

So, if Paul left no room for exceptions then he would seem to be in tension with Peter and John (Acts 4:19).

No, not at all!

Acts 4:19. But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge;
20. for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard."

1 Pet. 2:13. Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
14. or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

Peter not only submitted himself to the Roman government, as wicked as it was, but he instructed others to do the same. He made only one exception—the Roman government told him not to proclaim the gospel and Peter chose to obey God rather than man because man was telling him not to do something that he was expressly told to do by God,

Matt. 28:19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20. teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

“Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution.”

 

[Bluefalcon]

I think some here are taking Paul and Peter way too strictly. It's almost the old Emperial mindset that used to rule China. If a rebellion succeeds in overthrowing the government, Heaven ordained it, while if it failed, Heaven disallowed it. America succeeded in overthrowing England, so God ordained it. But in order for America to overthrow England, it had to break God's law of submitting to the governing authorities. This is a self-contradiction.

 

[Bluefalcon]

Peter and Paul had a general assumption. Governments in general punish bad people and reward good people. All governments have laws against doing bad things. God has ordained these laws. All laws against bad things in essence come from God himself.

 

[R. Charles Blair]

Just about all said that can be said on all this, but one quick notion in passing - "coerced charity" is an oxymoron invented by a moron. If we are to give, it must be a personal decision.
For the government to do its God-ordained task of "providing for the general welfare," it must coerce payment of taxes (though we as believers should be glad to pay our reasonable share). Thus what comes through the government is not in any sense a voluntary assistance, and may well hurt more than it helps. The "safety net" should be used to get people out of poverty, not keep them in it. One practical application for New Orleans may be "no coerced federal tax dollars to rebuild anything in a flood plain." If private business, individuals, voluntary assistance (Habitat, etc.) or local and state government choose to help New Orleans rebuild Sodomorrah, so be it; please do not force me to do anything more than the disaster assistance we've been doing through our church life (I've been directly involved), as a
"hand up" for people in a terrible situation.

If my house burned, or were destroyed by an earthquake (I'm on the New Madrid Fault), it isn't very likely federal dollars would or should rebuild a home for me. When billionaires build on the barrier islands, or on flood-prone California hillsides, why should my coerced tax dollars be spent to help them rebuild to be destroyed again?

Interesting topic! Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28