A while ago for my Politics course I had to write a paper on the development of resistance theories in Early Modern Europe. By resistance theories, I mean the right of people to revolt against rulers which they feel have abused God's law/natural law/generally been too tyrannical.
While I was doing research for it, one thing that struck me was the diversity of views within the Reformed tradition. Calvin seems to have been strongly opposed to any sort of violent resistance by the elect, and he said that tyrannical rulers were appointed by God to punish the elect. The only time he might suggest otherwise is in the last version of the Institutes where he points to the example of Daniel disobeying an impious royal edict.
On the other hand, it is very clear that the Scottish Covenanters and English Puritans had differing views on the matter. Even within the circle that approved of violent resistance, there were differing views. Perhaps the best theory is that of Knox in 'The Appellation', where he argues that not only kings but also the nobility are appointed by God to their roles, and that the nobility may justly revolt to protect themselves and the people should the king abuse his position. Buchanan appealed on a less biblical basis than Knox, and so even though they came to the same conclusion Buchanan's books were burned as heretical. Just south in England, the Puritans also had their own resistance theories, which appealed to history and the original appointed order by God. They looked back to an almost mythical Saxon past where the people, in theory, chose their rulers; in contrast to the absolute monarchs prior to the Interregnum. As such, the Parliamentarians saw themselves as removing the 'Norman yoke' when civil war broke out.
So clearly, there were very differing views on this from all sorts of respectable Reformed people... so I wonder what are the opinions of Reformed folks today?
Linear Mode
