11015Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Passive obedience v. Political Dissidence
- Sep 4, 2004--- In email@example.com, "Peter"
> Who/what qualifies as the "ordinance" of God? The texts seems toThen it is damnable to resist all in power without exception. Is this
> imply all in power without exception.
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
> But...Rom 13:1 For there is no power but of God: the powers that beSome suppose that Paul was not addressing any specific government.
> 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 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,And we do not deny that a tyrant is better than anarchy. Nor do we
> however, wicked he seems, being providential given the reins of
> power, is the ordinance of God and he is good for keeping order. My
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 thePerhaps he saw a deficiency in his own arguments. Perhaps he caved in
> Revolutionary Church). Probably later he saw a deficiency in his own
> arguments you don't.
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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>