# Reformed Men who Held Kings Accountable



## RamistThomist (Jan 20, 2006)

People say that we should mindlessly obey the king, whatever he commands, since Paul never said to rebel. I think, in full agreement with Reformed history, that this is a NAIVE ethic and our great Reformed heritage thundered against it.

I wrote elsewhere:


> I will say it another way: Given the legal and socio-political conditions of the first-century, the Roman Christians could not have resisted via armed force. However, it is naive and anachronistic at best, irresponsible at worst, to suppose that we live in the first-century today and that there changing social conditions are normative for us.
> A. Morality is absolute and never changes. However, our applications of moral systems do change. We are called to be good citizens. For the Roman Christians this meant obedience to Caesar. As American citizens we are called to be obedient to the civil magistrates as well. (And I will steal a little of my thunder and introduce my main argument).
> B. The question then becomes: When Caesar' law requires me to break the Law of the land (while not necessarily exclusive of biblical law, it can be and often is distinct from it), to whom do I owe obedience? That will be the argument of the next section.
> C. Grant me Premise B, then I can argue that resisting Caesar (and I will develop this below) is actually obeying Romans 13.



Now, the great hall of heroes. Remember, it is alleged that Reformed men never counseled resistance to tyranny led by the lesser civil magistrate. 

*Samuel Rutherford* wrote Lex Rex and argued that the Law is above the king. If the king is under the law, then he can objectively break the law. If he can break the law, then he can be punished for his crimes. This leads to...

*Oliver Cromwell*; King Charles conspired to murder English citizens. What is the penalty for conspiring to murder? Death. Cromwell brought him to justice.

*George Gillespie* in Aaron's Rod Blossoming and other writings maintained that the State is not above the church, nor does the church derive its authority from the State.

*John Knox* stood for the Rule of Law. Law is to be obeyed. That includes kings. No man is absolute and given full, unquestionable authority. To do so is to commit idolatry. It is ascribing deity to the creature. 

*John Calvin* said of unlawful princes, "So far from obeying them we ought rather to defy them!"

*Phillipe Du Plisse Mornay* wrote in _Vindicae Contra Tyrannos_ that neighboring princes are under obligation to remove tyrants from office when they threaten the well-being of the citizens.

More coming....

[Edited on 1--21-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## mgeoffriau (Jan 20, 2006)

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## mgeoffriau (Jan 20, 2006)

Locke's two treatises on government are excellent as well. I know that many have issues with his theology and epistemology, but I think this area is his strength.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.



 Don't forget Theodore Beza, Christopher Goodman and Johannes Althusius and Ulrich Zwingli who died on the battlefield.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 20, 2006)

Jacob, here is what I think about this:

If the authority of the Church is greater than the authority of the State, and we are called to resist tyrants in the churches, then surely we ought to resist tyrants in the State as well. However, that is not our direct calling. To resist tyrants in the churches surely is called for. And to resist tyrrany in the State is for the good of all. But our calling, our whole duty, is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. Where ever necessity calls upon us to resist tyrrany in the State for that end, we must resist tyrrany in the State.

It is not that the Church has advocated compliance with tyrrany, but that the way of humility is often the best road to overthrowing wickedness. For our first obligation is to overthrow wickedness in ourselves, to take the log out of our own eyes. And then the Spirit works mightily through us. Not that we've wholly succeeded, but that we are willingly submissive to His objective leading.

It is quite often so, that after you have struck back, returned kind for kind, that you find that the best way to have overcome wickedness is to have turned the other cheek. The wicked become ashamed when they cannot goad others into their sins, and their sins become the more obvious to others, and so to them as well. And that shames them.

Having said that, the Christian has a calling to work to oppose social ills. And that includes repressive and tyrranical government. If we are to oppose capricious men in the churches, then surely capriciousness in law and justice is also to be opposed by the Christian. This is for the peace of the Church as well as for the propagation of the gospel in the communities around the churches. Militant uprising is not the only way to do that, though. There are many peaceful and humble ways to pursue this. The Christian ought to avail himself of these ways as much as he can.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 20, 2006)

Reformed political theory, JohnV: A lesser civil magistrate is bound to uphold the law. Tyrants break that law. The lesser civil magistrate must act to uphold the rule of law.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 20, 2006)

I get tired of listening to people, masquerading behind Christian piety, who think we should never criticize our political leaders or they give them deference on everything. They load Romans 13 up with Hobbesian inferences instead of interpreting it commensurate with the Old Testament (e.g. 1 Samuel, 1 Kings, et al.). 

Besides, providence has blessed America with what is supposed to be a constitutionally-limited federal republic, and the people are supposed to be in control and have a right to criticize their leaders!

Jefferson might not be a Christian, but he was right when he said, "Free government is founded on jealousy, not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism."


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 20, 2006)

William of Orange


----------



## JohnV (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Reformed political theory, JohnV: A lesser civil magistrate is bound to uphold the law. Tyrants break that law. The lesser civil magistrate must act to uphold the rule of law.



Comes right out of _Jus Divinum_. No argument there. These are also the men who wrote the Confession of Faith. 



> II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto:[2] in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;[3] so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.[4]
> 
> 2. Gen. 41:39-43; Neh. 12:26; 13:15-31; Dan. 2:48-49; Prov. 8:15-16; Rom. 13:1-4
> 3. Psa. 2:10-12; 82:3-4; I Tim. 2:2; II Sam. 23:3; I Peter 2:13
> ...





> IV. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates [10], to honor their persons,[11] to pay them tribute or other dues,[12] to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake.[13] Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them :[14] from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted,[15] much less hath the pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.[16]
> 
> 10. I Tim. 2:1-3
> 11. I Peter 2:17
> ...


( with Scripture references included to show that they did not rule this on their own whims or fancies, upon the capriciousness of men, but on direct authority. )

and also, 


> I. Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy Word,[1] and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention.[2]
> 
> 1. Micah 6:8; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 13:21
> 2. Matt. 15:9; Isa. 29:13; I Peter 1:18; John 16:2; Rom. 10:2; I Sam. 15:21-23; Deut. 10:12-13; Col. 2:16-17, 20-23
> ...


 ( again with Scripture references to separate this from the capricious rule of men. )

These men did not contradict themselves, but I believe they thought carefully about these things as a whole as well as in its parts. 

Resistance to tyrrany is a good work, and should be done in compliance with our service to God, not as to what God will do in service to us. Bringing the Ark into the battle with us will not assure victory. God will be victorious for us if we allow Him the victory in ourselves first. The tyrants pose no threat to God; they are threats to us. And they are placed there by God perhaps because we deserved them, due to our impiety and irreverence. To oppose them, as such, is to oppose God. But to appeal to God to help us from under those very tyrants He has put over us is pleasing to God, and He will help us. Therefore it is our duty to submit to the extent that God has put them over us, and to resist to the extent that God wants to free us from them. 

So the best way to overthrow tyrrany is to learn Christ, and His obedience. And God will help us.

Note: I am not advocating compliance to tyrants. I am advocating proper resistance. I agree with you, Jacob, we should resist. But I would include all tyrants, not just political ones. And that includes ecclesiastical tyrants as well, and also ourselves as tyrants over ourselves. If we rule ourselves by our opinions rather than God's will, then we too are tyrants, only over ourselves. We have not that kind of rule over ourselves as to make up our own minds as to what we will believe and not believe. We are to believe God. And God sometimes puts these political and social tyrants over us to teach us Christ's submission. There is a time for a just war, to take up arms against the repressive regime. But let us not boldly take the Ark into battle with us as if forcing God to act for us.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 20, 2006)

no argument here


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 20, 2006)

here is an example of what I speak



> Scenario:
> 
> Let's say that you got a letter in the mail for a fifteen dollar tax from the supreme court. What do you do? The statist view of Romans 13 says that yuo must obey it, it being fromthe government and the government functionally acting as God on earth. Howevever, this raises the question of proper jurisdiction. If someone has no authority in an area, can they bind my conscience? Furthermore, the law does not allow--objectively--the supreme court tp tax (they probably do anyway, to hades with the law). Yea, to pay that tax would further covenant-breaking, thus putting me in violation of Romans 13.



[Edited on 1--21-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## JohnV (Jan 20, 2006)

Jesus did not have to pay the temple tax. He was a son, not a subject. The temple was to Him in the first place. Is it lawful for the owner to pay tax to Himself? Is He the benificiary of the temple service? Yet He submitted to it.


----------



## Peter (Jan 20, 2006)

Christopher Love - standing up to the tyranny of Oliver Cromwell.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Christopher Love - standing up to the tyranny of Oliver Cromwell.



I agree, actually. Cromwell was good in executing Charles I. The fact that he himself became tyrannical did not help his case.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 21, 2006)

What about Zwingli? Would you include him?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 21, 2006)

Jacob, I don't know anyone here who advocates _"that we should mindlessly obey the king, whatever he commands."_ I'm not exactly sure who you are arguing against. It's certainly no one on this Board. We all would agree that we are to obey God rather than man, that a magistrate's authority is bound by the law of God. But resisting tyrants does not grant us permission for political revolution. Christ's method of victory is conquering through love, just as JohnV has been saying. We return good for evil, and bless those who curse, heaping coals upon their head, letting their evil heart and guilty conscience drive them to the breaking point of irrationality and insanity or to submission to Christ. 

Furthermore, if you will advocate political revolution, who is the legitimate magistrate? Who is the legitimate lesser magistrate? How do you distinguish between a well intentioned yet illegitimate authority and a legitimate authority? Where do the laws of men fall into play in establishing a legitimate magistrate in the sight of God? Should we acknowledge the authority of the Constitution in legitimizing magistrates? Some here would say absolutely not, because the Constitution does not acknowledge "Christ as King." Where do we go then? Back to jolly ole England? 

I think you are on to something about building up the Church to prepare for the coming age "dark" age. This is something which I think about alot, wondering what kind of world my children will have to live in after I am gone, seeing the great rise of wickedness in our land. But in doing that, we need no political revolutionaries. The gospel can transform any occupiers without the sword. If I am not understanding you than I apologize and will seek further clarification.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Jacob, I don't know anyone here who advocates _"that we should mindlessly obey the king, whatever he commands."_ I'm not exactly sure who you are arguing against. It's certainly no one on this Board. We all would agree that we are to obey God rather than man, that a magistrate's authority is bound by the law of God. But resisting tyrants does not grant us permission for political revolution. Christ's method of victory is conquering through love, just as JohnV has been saying. We return good for evil, and bless those who curse, heaping coals upon their head, letting their evil heart and guilty conscience drive them to the breaking point of irrationality and insanity or to submission to Christ.
> 
> Furthermore, if you will advocate political revolution, who is the legitimate magistrate? Who is the legitimate lesser magistrate? How do you distinguish between a well intentioned yet illegitimate authority and a legitimate authority? Where do the laws of men fall into play in establishing a legitimate magistrate in the sight of God? Should we acknowledge the authority of the Constitution in legitimizing magistrates? Some here would say absolutely not, because the Constitution does not acknowledge "Christ as King." Where do we go then? Back to jolly ole England?
> ...



I don't advocate political revolution, but restoration of the social order. Revolution is a French concept that I abhor. I am summarizing Knox, Cromwell, etc.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 21, 2006)

We are in a society that worships death. We need not fear the barbarians at the gates. They have been ruling us for quite some time. 

I can summarize my views and what I do not mean another time, indeed I have elsewhere. Simply stated, the lesser civil magistrate is to stand for the rule of law in society. In short, just laws are to be obeyed and enforced, even when the lawless occupy teh magistracy. The lesser civil magistrates (justice of the peace, county sherrif, even governor) is to enforce the law and press a Law above the law to hold the king accountable.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Fine. But what determines the legitimacy of the lesser magistrate who will restore this order?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> *Phillipe Du Plisse Mornay* wrote in _Vindicae Contra Tyrannos_ that neighboring princes are under obligation to remove tyrants from office when they threaten the well-being of the citizens.



As written here, anyway, this sounds like the neocon justification for Iraq after WMD weren't found, albeit with a far different geopolitical situation.

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



For the moment I will refer you to a fine essay by non-theonomist John Jefferson Davis in _Evangelical Ethics_. He states (in no logical orde):

1) A clear, definable goal.
2) Just methods.
3) The Consent of the people directly affected.
4) Just cause.
5) Just plan for afterwards.
6) The LM must demonstrate that the king is breaking laws and is a terror and threat to the people. Even then, immediate action is not necessarily warranted. This is case-sensitive.
-------------------------------------]

Of course, Davis says it better than i do and I am not giving his argument justice, but it is the best *concise* Reformed position that I have seen.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I won't disagree with you. Mornay never escaped his natural law influence and thus rendered many of his arguments weak and suspect. He wasn't the last word on teh subject, to be sure.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Just to clarify, what Duplessis-Mornay said about princes intervening in another sovereign territory besides their own was that if a neighboring prince was persecuting _Christians_ then there exists a duty for the Christian prince to intervene (ie., interpose themselves between the tyrant and the persecuted brethren) and protect those Christians who were being persecuted albeit they were not his subjects but another's. The basic principle is: international borders should be respected for the sake of the authority of magistracy, but the Church is international in scope and borders should not prevent a Christian prince from coming to the aid of persecuted brethren in another jurisdiction.

See what he said here.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



I am going to have to think about that for a good bit. If this is the case, we would be at war, all over the place, more than we are today.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 22, 2006)

I am not willing to say that Mornay was perfect in his exposition, but, and this is extremely important, it is a progression and a maturation that is distinctive of Calvinist political thought, and for that he is to be praised.

For those who are somewhat sympathetic to what I have been saying, consider this: It is interesting that most political tracts from the Reformed perspective have been written with sometimes the vaguest trace of natural law in them. One wonders how much more fervent they would have been had they left the last traces of old romanism behind. Like, naming their book "Ehud."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 22, 2006)

I also recommend _A Short Treatise on Political Power_ by John Ponet.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 22, 2006)

George Buchanan on resistance to tyrants


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 22, 2006)

And who can forget Andrew Melville who once told King James of Scotland in 1596 that he "was God's silly vassal and that there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is Christ Jesus the King, and His kingdom the Kirk, whose subject King James VI is, and of whose kingdom, not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member he was."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> What about Zwingli? Would you include him?



I would. See Calling and resistance: Huldrych Zwingli´s (1484-1531) political theology and his legacy of resistance to tyranny by A.W.G Raath and S.A. de Freitas.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 22, 2006)

A Hind Let Loose by Alexander Shields


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 22, 2006)

Richard Cameron and the Sanquhar Declaration


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 22, 2006)

Jacob said:
"People say that we should mindlessly obey the king, whatever he commands, since Paul never said to rebel. I think, in full agreement with Reformed history, that this is a NAIVE ethic and our great Reformed heritage thundered against it."

Romans 13 says:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities...

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.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right."


Question #1:
Who exactly says we should "mindlessly obey the king"?

Question #2:
I guess I do not know Reformed history that well. In light of Romans 13, how did our Reformed forefathers rebel against their kings?

Did Oliver Cromwell behead the leaders of his time? 

This has me quite concerned over my Calvinist leanings.

Question #3:
Who defeated communism in the USSR?
Reagen? Thatcher? Pope John Paul II? The inefficiencies of socialism?
God?

Question #4:
In the US, "the authorities" actually encourage you to vote. Voting against a sitting president is not rebellion. 
How precisely then should you rebel in the US?

Question #5:
Which kings should we have rebelled against?

Question #6:
Proverbs16:
"The Lord works out everything for his own ends-
even the wicked for a day of disaster."

I take this verse to mean that God is actually "directing" history.
Am I wrong?


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 22, 2006)

Jacob said:
"Revolution is a French concept that I abhor."

I always thought "rebellion" and "revolution" are basically the same. 

(Ah, those Frenchmen)


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 22, 2006)

I know most people here might like Cromwell, but I think he was somewhat of demagogue. He supplanted tyranny with tyranny.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 22, 2006)

I like the idea of interposition of lesser magistrates precisely because it lends strength to the constitution and the rule of law, and upholds rights of people, and is better than violent revolution. The measure of public opinion is sufficient counterweight against abuse of interposition. Yet people act like that is disruptive and _rebellious_. When you eliminate any concurrent voices to counteract consolidation or usurpation, you leave the potential backlash at tyranny as a possibility. Lord Acton was right to say that John Calhoun and not Webster was "the true defender of the Union."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 22, 2006)

I have answered all of these elsewhere, but I will try again.



> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> Jacob said:
> "People say that we should mindlessly obey the king, whatever he commands, since Paul never said to rebel. I think, in full agreement with Reformed history, that this is a NAIVE ethic and our great Reformed heritage thundered against it."
> 
> ...



Pretty much any evangelical. Norm Geisler writes along these lines in his book on ethics. GaryDemar takes him to task.



> Question #2:
> I guess I do not know Reformed history that well. In light of Romans 13, how did our Reformed forefathers rebel against their kings?
> 
> Did Oliver Cromwell behead the leaders of his time?
> ...



Calvinists, believing in the sovereignty of God, said that no man is absolute and only God is beyond criticism. Secondly, they said that the king is under the law. If the king is under the law, then he can break the law. If he can break the law, he can be *punished* for his crimes. However, he cannot be punished by just anyone. We do not support vigilantism. He can only be punished by a public official, a lesser civil magistrate who has the support of the people, among other things.



> Question #3:
> Who defeated communism in the USSR?
> Reagen? Thatcher? Pope John Paul II? The inefficiencies of socialism?
> God?



Irrelevant to the argument but probably JPII and Russian incompetency. Socialism is moronic to the nth power. See my comments elsewhere on why stupidity cannot win in the long run.



> Question #4:
> In the US, "the authorities" actually encourage you to vote. Voting against a sitting president is not rebellion.
> How precisely then should you rebel in the US?



By all means vote. Thirdy Party if you can. You don't rebel. A lesser magistrate rises up and restores the social order. But here is a case study: Let's say that what happened in Florida with Terry Schiavo (ie, the Supreme Court executing her) happened in an Alabama with Roy Moore as governor (which he might win in the next election). Roy Moore would have exercised his constitutional right and surrounded her bed with his own guard, armed to the teeth, to protect Terry. This would have put George II in a tight spot. You have this uncompromising man in Alabama who his interposing and nullifying an order in the name of the Law. If George II had brought troops down there, the citizens of Alabama, led by Roy Moore, would have the God-given right to defend themselves. 
If you think the above is more ravings from a right wing nut job, I simply refer you to a fine essay written by John Jefferson Davis which is eerily similiar to what I have been saying.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of the above will happen anytime soon. The church has yet to repent of her sins and the spiritual tenor of the country, unlike the heroic tenor of the church during the First War for American Independence, is not ready for this type of action.


> Question #5:
> Which kings should we have rebelled against?



I don't know. Using the above guidelines someone can do reasearch on this. 


> Question #6:
> Proverbs16:
> "The Lord works out everything for his own ends-
> even the wicked for a day of disaster."
> ...



I don't think so.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 22, 2006)

Here is a case study:

Scenario:

Let's say that you got a letter in the mail for a fifteen dollar tax from the supreme court. What do you do? The statist view of Romans 13 says that yuo must obey it, it being fromthe government and the government functionally acting as God on earth. Howevever, this raises the question of proper jurisdiction. If someone has no authority in an area, can they bind my conscience? Furthermore, the law does not allow--objectively--the supreme court tp tax (they probably do anyway. Yea, to pay that tax would further covenant-breaking, thus putting me in violation of Romans 13.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Jan 22, 2006)

Doug Kelly's book is an excellent historical overview of this pattern:

http://www.exodusbooks.com/details.asp?ExID=247

Amazon link for those who want an excerpt:

Amazon.com: The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World: The Influence of Calvin on Five Governments from the 16th Through 18th Centuries: Books: Douglas F. Kelly


[Edited on 1-22-2006 by mgeoffriau]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Doug Kelly's book is an excellent historical overview of this pattern:
> 
> http://www.exodusbooks.com/details.asp?ExID=247
> ...



To say that kelly's book is superb is to grossly understate its importance. Kelly has summarized the issues better than anybody else.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 22, 2006)

You know, I may be very stupid, but I am having trouble grasping this thread.

King Saul was appointed by God, but fell into disfavour with God.

King Saul disobeyed God, glorified himself, and attempted to kill the apple of God's eye - David.

King Saul, I believe, did not act in a lawful manner.

Yet David did not kill King Saul when he had the chance. In fact, David killed someone who said that he killed King Saul.

To me, David seemed to place extremely high value on not dishonouring God's chosen leaders.

Question #1:
Am I interpreting this history of David correctly?

Question #2:
Was King David correct not to rebel?

Question #3:
If King David did not dishonour King Saul in spite of prolonged threats to his life, when should we? A $15 tax levied by the Supreme Court does not appear to be that onerous.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> You know, I may be very stupid, but I am having trouble grasping this thread.
> 
> King Saul was appointed by God, but fell into disfavour with God.
> ...



1. Close. But you are taking unique, hard cases and trying to make universal applications.

2. David resisted the King. The fact that he did not kill him doesn't alter the fact that David was an outlaw in the purest sense of the term. And now, I am going to pull a stunt that non-theonomists always use against me (this isn't against you, Henry; I just have wanted to do tihs for a while): Israel was a theocracy. Nothing applies anymore. Just kiddding!

In more detail. After the fall of Israel things changed with civil magistrates. David the Outlaw was not a magistrate. he had no jurisdiction to call Saul to an account. However, in a post-Rome Western World, the law states that the King is under the law. If he is under the law he can break the law. If he can break the law he can be punished like a criminal.

3. You don't understand. It is against the law for the Supreme Court to tax. Therefore, if I obey them by complying wiht the tax I am breaking the law and thus violating Romans 13.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 22, 2006)

Let me clarify what I am NOT saying:

1. I the citizen am NOT going to lead an offensive, armed revolt against the government. That is beyond my jurisdiction. However, given the context of the Second Amendment, I do have the right to defend myself against private and government tyranny (see Jefferson for proof).

2. The only way a magistrate can be overthrown is by a lawfully established lesser magistrate, seeing the people being terrorized by the Chief Magistracy, acts on a large scale to protect the citizenry.

see my articles at patrickhenrypatriot.blogspot.com


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 23, 2006)

As usual, I come into these threads way late, but I'm going to chime in anyway. 

I think the first thing a citizen of a republic must do is understand the structure of his government and the scope of its authority. We do not need a rebellion if citizens consistently and knowlegably call officicious agents to task when they exceed authority. That is the main problem today with the U.S. 

As an example, people don't understand (or care, apparently) that it is literally unlawful for Congress to delegate authority to the executive branch. (I say that deliberately, even the most liberal constitutional scholar will admit that the current practice in Washington is not what was outlined in the supreme law of the land. They are enamored of the 'living breathing' concept of the Constitution, but that only confirms that they know what it originally meant). We don't need an armed rebellion to get back to the original practice. Instead, we need education and outrage.

Jacob's example with the court imposing a tax is exactly on point. You not only do not respect authority that exceeds its lawful bounds, you should raise the hue and cry. Make a big deal about minor transgressions because, if you don't, the next one will be bigger. This you can do with a telephone and a little time. You don't need to be well-armed, but you do need to be brave.

I have a current situation in which a local court has started imposing fines on attorneys for not filing certain administrative papers deemed necessary by the local clerk. Neither the court rules nor statute require these papers. The clerk has no statutory authority to make his demands. The fine is only $30 for failing to file a "case resolution form" and I'm fighting it. I am sure I will prevail at the appellate court level. It would be a lot less hassle for me to pay the $30 and go along, but, in my eyes, this is a big deal. An authority cannot exceed his jurisdiction and should be resisted when he tries.

So, in our day to day lives, we should honor rightful authority and resist unjust usurpers. In a republic, it is our duty to understand the difference.

Vic


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> 
> Jacob's example with the court imposing a tax is exactly on point. You not only do not respect authority that exceeds its lawful bounds, you should raise the hue and cry. Make a big deal about minor transgressions because, if you don't, the next one will be bigger. This you can do with a telephone and a little time. You don't need to be well-armed, but you do need to be brave.
> 
> ...



If I may paraphrase what Mr Victor so concisely stated, I am running an *internal critique*. In my supreme court analogy I set out to show, conclusively I believe, that if one obeys the "law" in this case, one ends up breaking the law. In other words, if you are right you are necessarily wrong. It is a powerful form of refutation. The worldview of such people is inherently schizophrenic. Such a people cannot remain free and such a society signs its own death warrant.

[Edited on 1--23-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 23, 2006)

First of all Jacob, I think we both appreciate how difficult this issue is. You seem to place a lot of emphasis of "higher laws", and I can appreciate this. (Actually I find this emphasis very refreshing.)

Secondly, I do not have a firm position on this issue, because during war this issue is really, really difficult.

On one hand.....

During Jesus' time, the Romans were really brutal. They persecuted many people in a most sadistic fashion. They also disobeyed many Godly laws. 

Yet neither Jesus, nor Paul, seemed to advocate rebellion or disobedience. 

This fact seems to really speak against civil disobedience, and for a strict interpretation of Romans 13.

When I read the OT, I get the impression that God overthrows evil leaders - sometimes with even more evil leaders. 

Godly people like Daniel, Jeremiah, Nathan, etc. seem to be pacifists who warn the people of their sins. 

I can think of only one instance when Daniel disobeyed a king's edict. (Though this instance was significant.)

These facts seem to argue very much against civil disobedience.

On the other hand....

Exodus 1:17 says:
"The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt told them to do."

This seems to justify civil disobedience in one limited case.

Perhaps we can say that for the most part Christians are compelled to obey civil authority, however, in certain limited cases of "higher laws" it is permissable to disobey. (Lord, please forgive me if I am wrong. This is really tricky.)


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 23, 2006)

To clarify my point, I do not consider voting against a sitting president or appealing any tax to be civil disobedience in the United States. That is because the American government has allowed these types of "disagreements."

I, myself, have appealed against certain isolated tax regulations in Canada, and noone in government complained. In fact, one civil servant said I should start my own organization.

What I consider civil disobedience in the US is wilfully engaging in behavior that you know government leaders do not condone (eg hiding income, smuggling goods, seeking to compromise the nation's security, rebellion, etc.)

The issue of "proper" civil disobedience weighs heavy during times of war, dictatorships, colonialism, and with regimes that violate human rights.

I am sorry if I confused the issue.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 23, 2006)

Oh, a larger issue still plays in my little head....

The Romans were absolutely brutal. They sadistically and brutally killed many people. They killed moms, dads, sons, daughters...

Yet neither Jesus, nor the 12 disciplines advocated rebellion. Hence, the argument for a strict interpretation of Romans 13.

All I can think to say is that surely God had a purpose to allow this immense suffering. 



....and I get angry when people chew food with their mouth open. I am a sinner.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 23, 2006)

Victims of the Darkness: Government Surveillance and Intimidation 

Right now, here in the United States of all places, the government _doesn't condone speaking out against the government_. They make lists of people that are against the war in Iraq, they monitor protests, they make dossiers of what they call _anti-government speech_. Heck, quotations from the founding generation are anti-government by their perverse standards. They show a fundamental disrespect of the law that they themselves profess to uphold. 

They even have secret service agents visit a little kid over his social studies project on the Bill of Rights, where he illustrated dissent by taking a picture of the President, and photographing it alongside a thumbs down. It turns out the photo developer turned him into the police, and the police turned him into the Secret Service. And rather than ignore it as, they go interrogate the little kid. At least, his teacher had gumption to stand by him...

After the Patriot Act, they are getting obviously unwanted attention as people and corporations have rightfully resisted their encroachments. They have no right to ask library software makers to turn over lists of computer records of all library users, and their reading habits. No, I say we should scream, and shout, and voice our discontent with this... 

The Hobbessian spirit which animates modern interpretations of Romans 13, of resigned pacificism and timidity in the face of tyranny, mocks true Christian piety and humility. Christ stood up to a hypocritical amoral generation of Pharisees, who he condemned as a "brood of vipers," and they executed him for it.

In our country, people who think because they have a magistrate's badge-- presume they have a right to instigate crime, lay traps and snares, tempt and entrap people, and than buy off informants and witnesses. And yet we call it the _administration of justice_.

[Edited on 1-23-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> As an example, people don't understand (or care, apparently) that it is literally unlawful for Congress to delegate authority to the executive branch.



That violates the old pre-Blackstone Anglo-Saxon legal maxim _delegata potestas non potest delegari_ (a delegated power cannot be redelegated). Today, the Congress abdicates its responsibility and mindlessly delegates away every authority from the war powers and of course powers it doesn't even have. Likewise, so called administrative law within the bureaucracy, has agencies which enact regulations, enforce those regulations, and adjudicate disputes over those regulations. It completely violates the separation of powers, and the most basic principles of federalism. Theoretically, one can appeal administrative court decisions, but the federal courts seldom hear them, and give deference to the administrative courts. 

It delegates them to the Presidency and now it is trying to delegate them to so called multilateral institutions like FTAA, which can enact binding regulations on the U.S.

Sadly, most people don't know about this phenemenon. But than again most people are generally ignorant of twelfth-grade Civics, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> You not only do not respect authority that exceeds its lawful bounds, you should raise the hue and cry. Make a big deal about minor transgressions because, if you don't, the next one will be bigger.



The Fate of Abuses and Usurpations under the American Constitution

The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.
"“James Madison

Well, I discussed this and echoed these quotes in my article on interposition earlier, which no one really put much stock into, as evident by the lack of posts.

"œ[E]very act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
"“Alexander Hamilton, The Judiciary Department, Federalist #78. June 14, 1788.

"œThe people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal in arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory: It is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government; yet only his fellow citizens can convict him."
"“Theophilus Parsons, Debate in Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788, 2 Elliot's Debates, p. 94; 2 Bancroft, History of the Constitution, p. 267.

"œBut when Congress, (exercising a delegated and strictly limited authority) pass beyond these limits, their acts become null and void; and must be declared to be so by the Courts, in cases within their jurisdiction; and may be pronounced to be so, by the States themselves, in cases not within the jurisdiction of the Courts, or of sufficient importance to justify such interference." 
"“Robert Young Hayne, Herman Belz, ed. The Webster-Hayne Debate on the Nature of the Union, (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2000), p. 173.

I realize that Henry is from Canada, but our constitutional systems are not aloof from one another as they have an Anglo-American pedigree, and such principles against usurpations of the law can be found in Blackstone and in the common law jurisprudence.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> Oh, a larger issue still plays in my little head....
> 
> The Romans were absolutely brutal. They sadistically and brutally killed many people. They killed moms, dads, sons, daughters...
> ...



I understand what you are saying, friend, but feel I have addressed it elsewhere. Here is an excerpt from an article I wrote:



> However, the nature of theology is that it progresses (the standard by which is how biblically faithful it is becoming) in its understanding of how to apply biblical principles to modern day circumstances. I will say it another way: Given the legal and socio-political conditions of the first-century, the Roman Christians could not have resisted via armed force. However, it is naive and anachronistic at best, irresponsible at worst, to suppose that we live in the first-century today and that there changing social conditions are normative for us.
> A. Morality is absolute and never changes. However, our applications of moral systems do change. We are called to be good citizens. For the Roman Christians this meant obedience to Caesar. As American citizens we are called to be obedient to the civil magistrates as well. (And I will steal a little of my thunder and introduce my main argument).
> B. The question then becomes: When Caesar' law requires me to break the Law of the land (while not necessarily exclusive of biblical law, it can be and often is distinct from it), to whom do I owe obedience? That will be the argument of the next section.
> C. Grant me Premise B, then I can argue that resisting Caesar (and I will develop this below) is actually obeying Romans 13.



When I have more time I will post stuff that shows legal theory developing in Western Christendom that, and this is interesting because it transcneds boundaries and time periods, places kings under God's law. 

To be honest, I am not impressed with the Roman argument. For one, I am not a roman citizen and my rights and _responsibilities_ as an American are different and they demand that I respond differently as well.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 23, 2006)

I'm glad I am not a Roman. I don't know why Christians look back to the despotisms of antiquity and forget we're in what is supposed to be constitutional republic where the government is amenable to the people. With the blessings of republicanism, we ought to look to God as the sovereign, and not some King or messianic State. 

Yes, pray for our leaders, and likewise pray that God would remove the bad ones, and raise up just and righteous ones. 

Unlimited submission isn't for me... nor was it for the Christians in the catacombs of Rome.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I'm glad I am not a Roman. I don't know why Christians look back to the despotisms of antiquity and forget we're in what is supposed to be constitutional republic where the government is amenable to the people. With the blessings of republicanism, we ought to look to God as the sovereign, and not some King or messianic State.
> 
> Yes, pray for our leaders, and likewise pray that God would remove the bad ones, and raise up just and righteous ones.
> ...



Right. Paul gave a lot of commands that we probably don't need to make normative and absolute. Or, to say it more specifically, we do not need to make Paul's application, which was unique in his society, normative for us today. Like, Paul said it is best not to marry because (unstated premise) you are about to be a human torch lighting the streets or Rome. Of course, we need to be obedient to our magistrates and pray for them and seek the peace of the social order. My duties are to be a good, constitutional citizen. To do that I must take Jefferson's advice on the second amendment--guns keep away the government.

But we are not to place magistrates above the law. Once a Christian places the King above the law, he has equated, functionally, the King with God. God is the only Transcendent Law-giver. God is the one who determines right from wrong. Only God has the capability to determine right from wrong. Only God is above criticism. To place the King above the law is to say that the king has the same attributes, judicially, as God.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 23, 2006)

Oh how many problems result because people confound _power_ with _authority_?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Oh how many problems result because people confound _power_ with _authority_?



Massive bloodshed, for one. I have a stirring quote on that:



> "œ There is no law, no appeal, no higher order, beyond and above the universe. Instead of an [vi] open window upwards, there is a closed cosmos. There is thus no ultimate law and decree beyond man and the universe. Man´s law is therefore beyond criticism except by man. In practice, this means that the positive law of the state is absolute law. The state is the most powerful and most highiy organized expression of humanistic man, and the state is the form over the universe, over every human order, the law of the state is a closed system of law. There is no appeal beyond it. Man has no "œright," no realm of justice, no source of law beyond the state, to which he can appeal against the state. Humanism therefore imprisons man within the closed world of the state and the closed universe of the evolutionary scheme (introduction to The New Legality by
> Hebden Taylor, 3).



And I read this one hammer-blow of a sentence from Rushdoony:



> Therefore, the essential nature of the modern state is power, "and it maintains itself in terms of pweor, its most basic law is power...The humanistic statea may profess the common good...but it moves essentially and always in terms of pwoer, or else it finds lean and hungry humanistic wolves ready to devour it...This means that humanistic law is inescapably totalitarian law, for "the humanistic state not only lacks a transcendental limitation on its law, _it also lacks all such limitations on its power, so that its total power reinforces its total law._


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 23, 2006)

Let's not forget Robin Hood!



> Oh the world will sing of an English King
> A thousand years from now
> And not because he passed some laws
> Or had that lofty brow
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 23, 2006)




----------



## Peter (Jan 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Oh how many problems result because people confound _power_ with _authority_?





 argumentum ad baculum
 divine right of kings
 conscientious obedience to tyrants and usurpers
 Christ's crown rights

http://covenanter.org/Wylie/twosonsofoil.htm


----------

