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

11110Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Passive obedience v. Political Dissidence

Expand Messages
  • Peter
    Sep 13, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Okay then, only those who are "a minister to thee for good" qualify
      as "powers". A minister for good is described in Due 17:19 "[The
      Law] shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of
      his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all
      the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20 That his
      heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not
      aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to
      the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his
      children, in the midst of Israel." If we're in agreement so far, let
      me ask some more questions. (1) Are all non-Christian rulers
      unlawful tyrants, or is obedience to the law written in their hearts
      enough to make them lawful magistrates? (2) At what point does a
      ruler become a tyrant, who is to judge? (3) Until what point are
      tyrants to be tolerated?

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
      <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Martin"
      > <paleopuritan@h...> wrote:
      >
      > > As for Cameron versus Calvin.
      >
      > The Covenanters certainly did not believe they were in opposition
      to
      > any of the orthodox divines in their defense of liberty against
      their
      > particular tyrant. Yet they, as we should today, only wish that
      > people get the facts straight before attacking their position:
      >
      > "Let none therefore object against the legality of what we have
      done,
      > or are doing: for we offer as (how inconsiderable we are said to
      be)
      > to prove ourselves to have done nothing against our ancient laws
      > civil or ecclesiastic, against any lawyers or divines whatsoever,
      our
      > ancient laws being judges; and we having safety to pass and repass
      > (if the public faith after so many breaches can be trusted) for
      that
      > effect. So then let no foreign kingdoms or churches through
      > misinformation or false copies (as they are many) of what we act
      or
      > do, because we have no access to the press as they; we say let
      them
      > not take up a wrong opinion of us or our proceedings: for we are
      only
      > endeavouring to extricate ourselves from under a tyrannous yoke,
      and
      > to reduce our church and state to what they were in the years 1648
      > and 1649." -- Declaration at Lanark.
      >
      > I offer this not as any proof towards either side of the current
      > discussion, only as a point of interest.
      >
      > gmw.
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic