07-02-2009, 03:52 AM
|
 | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: shelbyville, ky
Posts: 1,127
Thanks: 424
Thanked 447 Times in 294 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaScriptura  It has been implied (if not stated) that the signers of the Declaration were "magistrates" acting on behalf of their constituency.
I do agree with the principle of a "lesser" magistrate rising up against a "greater" magistrate in defense of the people... but I want to challenge the notion that the Founders can be properly understood as "magistrates."
Were they REALLY magistrates?
What lawfully appointed office did any of them hold in which they had a public obligation?
I think that for the most part they were wealthy, well-connected men emerging from a still aristocratic culture... but I can't think of any off the top of my head who were actual magistrates at any level at the time of the Declaration. | Do I understand that you actually approve a subordinate official rebelling against a superior official? How can that be allowed in light of the Word of God?
1 Peter 2:13-17 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
For Thomas Jefferson, the right, the duty to throw off one’s government was among those “self-evident truths” of which the Declaration speaks. But Madison and his peers just eleven years later feared this “principle” and regarded it as less than axiomatic. It was, in fact, comparatively new in English political thought.
It has been well understood in Christian nations that ultimate human authority resided in the king. As Josh noted in an earlier post Calvin argued scripturally and well that we must obey even harsh rulers. This understanding of what is sometimes referred to as the DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS was, however, perverted in the seventeenth century by such writers as Thomas Hobbes and Sir Robert Filmer. These men detached the principal of the sovereignty of the king from its biblical foundation and postulated raw or naked power as the foundation for the authority of the king.
It was against this perverted concept, more than that of Christian writers like Calvin, that Locke wrote, positing his even more tenuous theory of SOCIAL CONTRACT. It was likewise against Hobbes and Filmer that the justification for both the English Civil War, and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 was argued.
During this turbulent period of the 17th century a new understanding of sovereignty was developed. Absolute, incontestable authority came to be viewed as resting in Parliament, which represented the people. In this milieu John Locke published his famous SECOND TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT which was widely disseminated throughout the Colonies. In that work he gave encouragement to those who believed they were being ill treated by their rulers saying “… tell the people they are absolved from obedience … and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates.”
__________________
Bob, elder, RBC Louisville. 1689 LBCF
"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788 |