Martin Luther-Define your terms

In his treatise on secular government, Martin Luther makes a distinction between a spiritual government and a temporal government. A spiritual governing, he says is ruled by God's laws and as a result, there is no need for police officers, jails or guns. When they feel wronged, they turn the other cheek and thus the need for law enforcement vanishes. A temporal government is a government set up to constrain the wicked. Most if not all governments nowadays are of the temporal kind.

Luther's distinctions do not actually help his reader to understand the need for secular law because he does not define his terms correctly. According to Luther, there would be no need for a secular law if the entire state were made of Christians because they would obey all of the laws all the time. As you can can see, this is quite absurd. I feel quite confident in calling a Christian, yet I would by no means claim to obey all the law all the time. If you have any doubt just ask my parents. No one, not even the purest Christians can act the way Luther supposes.

Should Good Men Really Do Nothing?

The Bible is filled with verses which command Christians to obey their authorities. Paul says in Romans 13 1-2, "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. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." No doubt, this verse goes against conventional thinking. If God has ordained all rulers, then what are we as Christians supposed commanded to do when a ruler such as Hitler takes power? Are we to sit back passively and allow evil to continue? No, we are to rebel. As Martin Luther said, "I can no longer stand idly by and merely watch my ungracious lords and angry princes. I must resist then."

God makes one distinction in regards to rebellion. That is, rebellion can never be done for personal gain, but only for the good of our neighbor. Groups can rebel against injustice, but individuals are to turn the other cheek because rebellion due to a personal injustice roots itself in selfish ambition. Rebellion to protect another person, however, is rooted in love and selflessness. Nowhere in the Bible does God advocate sitting idle while our brothers die and are persecuted. Like Edmond Burke once said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Machiavellian Ethic or Lack Thereof

In response to: "The Prince is a concise statement of Machiavelli's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."

Machiavelli does believe that a Christian political theory is unworkable. In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli argues for pragmatism-a viewpoint I believe is diametrically opposed to Christian political theory. God is concerned with conforming everything unto his likeness and not with gaining or maintaining power. God expects all rulers to rule as he does-that is equitably, honestly, honorably, nobly, etc.

I disagree with the second statement-"It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter." Machiavelli actually defends a nihilistic counterethic. He advises rulers to act only to maintain power and by taking a secular viewpoint, Machiavelli precludes the existence of a political ethic. God is the foundation for all ethics and thus there can be no right or wrong action apart from His existence.