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

combined response

Expand Messages
  • raging_calvinist
    Rather than reply to all the latest posts by DR, I m going to make some general statements here. 1. I have not yet touched upon what a man, or what a
    Message 1 of 734 , Sep 17, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Rather than reply to all the latest posts by DR,
      I'm going to make some general statements
      here.<br><br>1. I have not yet touched upon what a man, or what a
      people, might do under a usurper or a tyrant, other than
      to say that they may resist (by which I mean a very
      wide range of things I've not yet brought into the
      discussion) or remove (again, by which I mean a wide range of
      things depending on different circumstances). Some
      things are being assumed which I have not yet
      addressed.<br><br>2. There are about 10-12 links regarding Calvinist
      and Reformed views of the civil magistrate and
      resistance to tyrants in the links section. Authors include
      Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva), John Knox and
      Christopher Goodman (co-pastors in Geneva's english-speaking
      congregation), Samuel Wylie (who gives perhaps the best
      presentation of the Covenanter position I've seen in one
      little book), and I will be adding a link to Martin
      Luther's admonition to the German people to fight against
      papist tyranny if they are forced to. They should be
      checked out by anyone who wishes seriously to look into
      the issues involved. Many of the objections being
      brought up are discussed in them in great
      detail.<br><br>3. I am not advocating a) resistance against lawful
      magistrates who are ruling lawfully, b) armed rebellion by
      private individuals, c) disregarding a magistrate because
      he is a heathen or is "bad." I honestly do realize
      that when hearing a position which you've had limited
      exposure to, one tends to misunderstand the distinctions
      which are being made, but when this happens, critique
      can miss the mark. Much that DataRat has said, I am
      in agreement with (especially regarding a local
      magistrates responsibility and lawful right to defend his
      subjects from higher ranking magistrates [or, as DataRat
      described, those magistrates who have a greater region to
      rule]).<br><br>4. While Knox said things Calvin never publically
      advocated, they are in agreement with many of the underlying
      principles. Knox in Scotland, by advocating his views of
      resistance was risking his own life along with his people's.
      Calvin's situation was different, in that the oppressed
      people he was advising were the Hugenots over in France.
      We do know that the Hugenots were not laying down
      and taking it, but I am not aware of any writing
      wherein Calvin advises them to act the way the
      did.<br><br>5. This isn't an issue of who's more Calvinist than
      the other guy. Calvinism is a nickname for
      Reformation Christianity. In many things, Calvinists are
      united. In other things, they differ... sometimes ever-so
      slightly, sometimes more so. Those things universally held
      ought not to be easily dismissed. Those things with
      which we find difference among many Reformers, we need
      to take a careful look at without automatically
      assuming one guy's not a Calvinist ... especially in an
      area such as this... where we have some people making
      conclusions which others SHOULD have made given the premises
      which both agree upon. For example, Calvin did not like
      Knox's "First Blast of the Trumpet..." which was a book
      denouncing Mary as the lawful magistrate because she was a
      tryanical woman (it's available in the links section).
      Calvin did not dislike the book because of Knox's
      premises (all of which Calvin agreed! Women should not
      rule, a tryanical magistrate is not properly the
      ordinance of God, etc). Calvin's objection was that the
      human tradition in England allows them to have such
      unlawful rulers. Since when does Calvin appeal to human
      tradition for determining right and wrong? See
      <a href=http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/GovtWome.htm target=new>http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/GovtWome.htm</a> for a short treatment of the "first blast"
      controversy.<br><br>Ok, that's all I got for now. Hope this is helpful
      and that this discussion continues to be an edifying
      one. Others are welcome to join in as
    • almo_no1
      prayers are easy gmw, you ve got em.
      Message 734 of 734 , Sep 18, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        prayers are easy gmw, you've got 'em.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.