Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10690Re: [Covenanted Reformation] The Civil Magistrate (was re: Question Regarding Political Participation)

Expand Messages
  • Dan Fraas
    Aug 2, 2004
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, jparnellm@u...
      > Riley, I will repeat that the following is the heart of the
      difference between
      > the FPCS and the RPNA:

      What about the OPC;)?

      > Ecclesiastical persons may not take upon themselves the power of
      the Parliament
      > in a constitutional govt.

      No, but they may call a spade a spade. Publicly declaring someone to
      have unlawfully asceded the throne is not to take the power of
      Parliament. It's being a good citizen.

      The people (represented in their Parliament) may
      > impeach a monarch or president for disqualification, but this power
      of the body
      > politic is not in the hands of individual citizens as individual
      citizens (inc
      > if they be ministers), nor is it in the hands of the church.

      True. But that doesn't mean they have to remain silent.

      > pronouncement of illegitimacy (in distinction to calling upon
      Parliament to
      > restrain or pronounce illegitimate) does not lie with an individual
      > inc. the Pope.

      On the contrary, it lies corporately and individually with every
      citizen including the ministers.

      > > Isn't that the duty of each and every person in the body politic
      > >
      > > according to his or her station?  Don't we all have an obligation
      > >
      > > uphold the law?   
      > >
      > No, the prerogatives of the Parliament as a body do not lie in the
      hands of
      > individual citizens, any more than the prerogatives of the church
      as a body do
      > not lie in the hands of individual members.

      True, but that's not what I said.

      A mere individual cannot impeach a
      > monarch or president, nor can a mere individual dispense the

      No, but he can recognize if someone is wielding authority without
      constitutional right to do so.

      > > So now ministers may not even declare that a usurper who takes
      > >
      > > in violation of standing law is illegitimate? 
      > The issue in question is a monarch (like King Charles II) or a
      President (like
      > G.W. Bush)- the powers that be in their day and in their country.

      Charles II became illegitimate when he defied the covenant, which was
      a constitutional requirement for the throne. If Bush tried to stay
      in power without reelection he would also not be a legitimate

      > >Did the prophets and
      > >
      > > ministers of God have to keep silent on their take-overs?
      > >
      > Let's consider some history:
      > 1. Did Elijah pronounce Ahab not to be the king, or did he exhort
      him for being
      > a wicked king?

      That's different because Ahab ruled by consent of the governed.

      > 2. Did John the Baptist pronounce Herod not to be the king, or did
      he exhort him
      > for being a wicked king?

      See above.

      > 3. Did John Knox pronounce Mary Queen of Scots not to be the
      > monarch, or did exhort her for being a wicked monarch (and called
      > Parliament to restrain her)?

      No, he didn't. Why not? Because Mary Queen of Scots WAS the
      legitimate monarch according to the laws of Scotland, unlike Charles
      II when he renownced the covenant. There is a such thing as a
      rightful ruler who rules unjustly, and there is such a thing as an
      unlawful Usurper who has no right to govern. The right to govern is
      determined in accordance with the covenantal constitution of the
      nation. If one of my commanders made a coup d'etat and took over in
      Washington D. C., I would not be obliged to recognize him or her as a
      lawful authority nor obey his or her commands. Now, over time, if
      the people consented to this arrangement, it could become the
      legitimate government. But that means the covenantal constitution
      changed. For Charles II, the constitution of the land said that he
      could only govern upon the condition that he swear and uphold the
      Solemn League and covenant. When he rejected it he completely
      undermined his own right to govern since it was the constitutional,
      covenantal, precondition of his reign.

      Blessings in Christ,

      Riley Fraas
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic