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

11015Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Passive obedience v. Political Dissidence

Expand Messages
  • gmw
    Sep 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Peter"
      <GrayPJ@c...> wrote:

      > Who/what qualifies as the "ordinance" of God? The texts seems to
      > imply all in power without exception.

      Then it is damnable to resist all in power without exception. Is this
      your position? The quote you provide below is actually saying the
      opposite, as is clearly states "Tyranny... is not from God... to
      oppress is not from God and is not a power but a licentious deviation
      of power."

      > But...Rom 13:1 For there is no power but of God: the powers that be
      > are ordained of God... The power, or "licentious deviation of a
      > power", reigning/tyranizing over the recipients of Paul's letter was
      > Caesar. Why would Paul instruct the Romans how to behave under a
      > power (Rutherford's strict definition) when Nero was a tyrant?

      Some suppose that Paul was not addressing any specific government.
      Some suppose that if Paul was addressing Nero it was at a time before
      he showed himself to be a Christian-persecuting tyrant. Others
      suppose that if Paul intended any particular "power" that he may have
      intended Parliament who was at the time taking side against Nero. At
      any rate, what is important is to look at what Paul is actually
      describing... THAT is what you are to obey and not resist in any form.

      > Is he inciting them to rebelion?

      No, he certainly is not. Neither is it the Covenanter position to
      incite others to rebellion. Covenanters distinguished their case as
      it was circumstantiated -- a covenanting king in a covenanted land who
      was put in his position under covenanted laws, who then burned the
      covenant, changed the position he held to include being head of the
      church, and changed all the laws to which Covenanters might have appealed.

      > More likely, he's saying, Nero,
      > however, wicked he seems, being providential given the reins of
      > power, is the ordinance of God and he is good for keeping order. My
      > thoughts.

      And we do not deny that a tyrant is better than anarchy. Nor do we
      deny that we are to resist a tyrant in all things. What we do deny is
      that tyrants are what Paul is describing in Romans (a terror to evil
      doers, a praiser of those who do good, etc).

      > Alexander Shields couldn't even convince himself (joining the
      > Revolutionary Church). Probably later he saw a deficiency in his own
      > arguments you don't.

      Perhaps he saw a deficiency in his own arguments. Perhaps he caved in
      and joined the Revolution Church after being influenced by Mr. Linning
      and Mr. Boyd, later regretting that decision. I say perhaps, because
      I do not know. Tertullian wrote alot of good stuff, and later changed
      his mind too -- it's not evidence of the incorrectness of the first
      position.

      gmw.
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic