Reformed Men who Held Kings Accountable

Status
Not open for further replies.
RamistThomist

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
Click to expand...

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]
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
ttowel1.jpg


William of Orange
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

4. Luke 3:14; Rom. 13:4; Matt. 8:9-10; Acts 10:1-2
Click to expand...
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
12. Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:6-7
13. Rom. 13:5 Titus 3:1
14. I Peter 2:13-16

15. Rom. 13:1; Acts 25:9-11; II Peter 2:1, 10-11; Jude 1:8-11
16. Mark 10:42-44; Matt. 23:8-12; II Tim. 2:24; I Peter 5:3
Click to expand...
( 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

II. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:[3] and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,[4] strengthen their assurance,[5] edify their brethren,[6] adorn the profession of the gospel,[7] stop the mouths of the adversaries,[8] and glorify God,[9] whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[10] that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.[11]

3. James 2:18, 22
4. Psa. 116:12-14; Col. 3:15-17; I Peter 2:9
5. I John 2:3, 5; II Peter 1:5-10
6. II Cor. 9:2; Matt. 5:16; I Tim. 4:12
7. Titus 2:5, 9-12; I Tim. 6:1
8. I Peter 2:15
9. I Peter 2:12; Phil. 1:11; John 15:8
10. Eph. 2:10
11. Rom. 6:22

III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.[12] And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of his good pleasure:[13] yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.[14]

12. John 15:4-6; Rom. 8:4-14; Ezek. 36:26-27
13. Phil. 2:13; 4:13; II Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:16
14. Phil. 2:12; Heb. 6:11-12; II Peter 1:3, 5, 10-11; Isa. 64:7; II Tim. 1:6; Acts 26:6-7; Jude 1:20-21

IV. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.[15]

15. Luke 17:10; Neh. 13:22; Rom. 8:21-25; Gal. 5:17
Click to expand...
( 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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

[Edited on 1--21-06 by Draught Horse]
 
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.
 
Originally posted by Peter
Christopher Love - standing up to the tyranny of Oliver Cromwell.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by puritansailor
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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]
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by puritansailor
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Originally posted by Pilgrim
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.
Click to expand...

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]
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by Pilgrim
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.
Click to expand...

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]
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by Pilgrim
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.
Click to expand...

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]
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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."
 
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."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LeeD
A Puritan Pastor Who Discipled Men?
Replies
3
Views
464
NaphtaliPress
NaphtaliPress
Ben Zartman
  • Locked
Who or which traditions qualify as 'Reformed'?
2 3
Replies
65
Views
7K
Dachaser
D
Stephen L Smith
First Mass since Reformation to be held in Swiss cathedral
Replies
4
Views
836
Stephen L Smith
Stephen L Smith
thbslawson
  • Locked
Who's Reformed??
2 3
Replies
68
Views
29K
Beau Michel
Beau Michel
D
  • Locked
Fulgentius on the meaning of "all men" whom God desires to save
Replies
6
Views
2K
DTK
D
Back
Top