Hold on. Rome ruled. They found Huss guilty of heresy. They measured heresy by their theology. We as protestants know they were wrong in their theology, but were they wrong in condemning him, as he did break the law of the land.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

Well,

__________________
Chris


A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

Visit My Website Here

Christopher Blum
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Burlington, KY

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

No one is bound to keep an unjust law.

__________________
*Peter Gray* Elkins Park RPCNA

"Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. " Mk 9:24
"The greatest thing we can desire, next to the glory of God, is our own salvation; and the sweetest thing we can desire is the assurance of our salvation. In this life we cannot get higher than to be assured of that which in the next life is to be enjoyed. All saints shall enjoy a heaven when they leave this earth; some saints enjoy a heaven while they are here on earth." Joseph Caryl

Rome was within the civil law..........

Peter you just said:

Rome and the civil magistrates saw this as a break in their laws......

[Edited on 1-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]

I have to disagree with you here. Romans 13:1 (ESV) tells us, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God," and thus, as long as authorities do not command us to sin, I must conclude that should indeed submit to them, even if it is unjust.

Baed upon Chris' premise Rome was not technically wrong, but theologically.



[Edited on 1-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]

What exactly was Rome's relationship to the civil magistrate at the time?

Chris,
I believe Rome (ahem) ruled.

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5.27-29

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

Here for reference purposes is the story of John Huss:

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/7.html

In that short article, the ultimate reason for Huss' execution is stated:

As I said above, Romans 13:1 instructs us to submit to the civil authorities, even in acts of injustice and abuse, as long as they do not command us to sin. Well, for Huss to have publicly acknowledged that the office of the papacy did in fact exist by divine command would have constituted sin on his part, and thus he was not bound to obey the civil authorities in his case, since doing so would have simultaneously resulted in sin. So while we are often obligated to submit to the civil authorities when they are wrong, in Huss' case he was not, and thus I maintain my initial statement that Rome was wrong in their actions.

Kind of funny, the topic of this thread has shifted from "michaelservetus" (a username) to "Michael Servetus" (a person).

Chris, God does not consent to the reign of tyrants. Rom 13:3,4 qualifies which rulers constitute a "power" and are the "ordinance of God". He must be a fear to evil, not good, and must be a revenger to them that are evil.
1st- Rome mingles ecclesiastical power with civil. The power of the church is excommunication, admonishion, (spiritual) not the sword.
2nd- As a civil ruler Rome was not a terror to evil but a terror to good, therefore Rome was no civil power but a corruption thereof.

Otherwise we are in agreement.

And from Michael Servetus to Jon Huss! What polar opposites!

I think that's a misinterpretation of that passage, for it does not say, "Let every person be subject to the civil magistrate while it is faithful to God," but rather, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (emphasis mine). Even those rulers that use their power in the wrong way are providentially put in their position by God.

It does indeed go on to say that it is the magistrate's responsibility to be faithful in carrying out God's law, but it nowhere says that we are free from submitting to them when they fail to do so. The reason we are free from submitting to them when doing so would make us sin is because "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). But all that verse tell us is that we must obey God when doing so would be contrary to obeying man in the situation, hence the word "rather." But that does not logically give us the freedom to disobey man unless doing so would constitute disobeying God. And there are many unbiblical laws the civil magistrate is able to make that, while going beyond biblical command, would not cause its citizens to sin by adhering to it. So since obeying such laws would not result in disobeying God, disobeying man in such cases would not be being done in order to obey God, which is the only case in which Acts 5 allows us to do so.

Well, as a Church, Rome was not yet apostate, otherwise none of the future Reformers could have have ever been considered lawfully ordained. And while Rome did indeed misuse her power by confusing ecclesiastical and civil powers, that is for them to answer to God about, but it does not force her citizens to sin.

One additional consideration to bear in mind is that Romans 13 applies to civil authorities. The Bishop of Rome has never had any legitimate civil authority outside the Papal States (Bohemia was not part of the Papal States) and even now is limited since the creation of the Vatican City by the Lateran Treaty of Feb. 11, 1929, between the Vatican and the kingdom of Italy, which established the autonomy of the Holy See. It was Pope Gregory VII who first asserted civil authority in his Dictatus Papae (1090), in which he claimed:

The authorities that executed John Huss consisted of the Council of Constance (1414-1418), a council called by Pope John XXIII. Ironically, that council had just settled rival claims to the Papacy (Pope vs. the Anti-Popes!). The council, I would argue, had no legitimate civil authority since that is outside the scope of authority given to the Church. The true civil magistrate at the time was Wenceslaus IV, Holy Roman emperor, who had guaranteed safe conduct to Huss even if he was found guilty. Nevertheless, the council acted on its own Papal and illegitimate authority in condemning and executing Huss. The trial was a farce, the basis of law was a farce, and Huss should be not be considered a law-breaker but a just and honorable man who died for the cause of Christ.

[Edited on 17-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

<whistles>

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

In any case, it seems we are all agreed that Rome was wrong in the situation, for one reason or another.

The Anti-Anti-Christs!

But what is a "governing authority". Let the immediate context define that for us:

It does not say every Ruler *should* but every ruler *is*. Agreed that everyone who wields power does so providentially, but not every one who wields power providentially owns our conscientous obedience, ie they are not a "Ruler", or "Power" in the sense the word is used here.

Agreed that Rome had not fully Apostasied and ceased to be a church, until she canonized fundamental error at Trent (so that all with in the church must maintain heresy) Christ indeed would be with His officers always Mt 28:20, but Rome was still an apostatising church and not a civil power at all, though through force but w/o authority she had civil power.

[Edited on 17-1-2005 by Peter]

[Edited on 17-1-2005 by Peter]

Yeah, I just wanted to welcome the guy with the username and ask him what was up and why he was here. Didn't expect the thread to turn into this. Turned into a good thread though.

__________________
Dan McPherson
Creekside, PA
Faith OPC - Indiana, PA

“The ultimate destiny of every individual is decided by the will of God, and blessed it is that such be the case. If it were left to our wills, the ultimate destination of us all would be the lake of fire.” -- A. W. Pink

No doubt! What a cool thread. I guess this wasn't a welcome thread but an education thread on why we don't always say Welcome. This guy was toast from the beginning. I guess he wanted to be, just like his name sake.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?