10690Re: [Covenanted Reformation] The Civil Magistrate (was re: Question Regarding Political Participation)
- Aug 2, 2004--- In email@example.com, jparnellm@u...
> Riley, I will repeat that the following is the heart of thedifference between
> the FPCS and the RPNA:What about the OPC;)?
> Ecclesiastical persons may not take upon themselves the power ofthe 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 powerof the body
> politic is not in the hands of individual citizens as individualcitizens (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 uponParliament to
> restrain or pronounce illegitimate) does not lie with an individualminister,
> 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 politicto
> > according to his or her station? Don't we all have an obligation
> >hands of
> > uphold the law?
> No, the prerogatives of the Parliament as a body do not lie in the
> individual citizens, any more than the prerogatives of the churchas 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 thesacraments.
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 takespower
> >President (like
> > in violation of standing law is illegitimate?
> The issue in question is a monarch (like King Charles II) or a
> 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 andhim for being
> > 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
> 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 didhe exhort him
> for being a wicked king?See above.
> 3. Did John Knox pronounce Mary Queen of Scots not to be thelegitimate
> monarch, or did exhort her for being a wicked monarch (and calledupon
> 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,
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>