Christian response to persecution

Joe Keysor · #1 (**permalink**) 01-06-2005, 02:32 PM

I don't know if this is the proper place for this post, but I would be interested in some feedback:

The early Christians allowed themselves to be killed, and their faith was victorious.

The French Protestants took up arms and fought and were defeated, Catholicism remained dominant. If they had passively allowed themselves to be killed and accepted death calmly as I believe scripture indicates, might the Catholics have looked on and though "Maybe they are right, maybe we are missing something"?

If there was some passive acceptance of suffering, I would welcome more information on that also.

VirginiaHuguenot · #2 (**permalink**) 01-06-2005, 08:39 PM

As a descendant of the French Protestants who you say were "defeated," I beg to differ. Success for the faithful is not measured in terms of political victory. Many hundreds of thousands of French Huguenots were martyred, perhaps more in number than the early Christians, and many Roman Catholics were converted by the steadfastness of their faith as they sang the psalms of Marot while being consumed by the flames. In France, yes, Roman Catholics maintained the ascendancy just as in the early Roman Empire false religion maintained the ascendancy even after Constantine. But like the early Church which spread abroad the whole known world, so likewise did the French Huguenot disaspora of the 17th and 18th centuries leave a lasting effect upon much of the world. French Huguenots were dispersed to England, Holland, Germany, Switzerland (think Calvin), the US, South Africa and more. The political resistance of the French Huguenots was extremely influential in the American War for Independence a century after the diaspora (think Brutus' A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants (1579)). Their political resistance to tyranny is based on the Augustinian and Calvinistic application of Biblical principles of free republican government, to which Western civilization today owes a great debt. The early Christians laid down their lives because there were no Christian lesser civil magistrates to stand up to tyrants. In the Reformation there were Christian civil magistrates who defended the liberties of the saints against tyranny. Thus Christians witness against tyranny differently in different circumstances. There is no warrant to adopt the pacificistic view of non-resistance to tyranny simply because the early Church lacked those in authority to stand up to tyrants. Both the early Church and the French Huguenots (and Scottish Covenanters, American Presbyterians, etc.) all testified to Christ's Crown & Covenant in their own way in their own time.

Peter · #3 (**permalink**) 01-06-2005, 11:05 PM

The Covenanters did not always have a "lesser magistrate." I prefer to think the early Christians didnt take up arms and fight because they didnt have the means. Note that whether fighting for your principles against the government, or dying for them at the hands of the government you are still disobeying the govt. Passive resistance is still resistance. The early Christians didnot raise arms only because it was not expedient. There was no hope of success and fighting would only cause bloodshed, social discord, and if it could be saved otherwise, the end of their own lives.

Ranger · #4 (**permalink**) 01-06-2005, 11:21 PM

I personally think there is a call to suffering as long as the suffering is brought about by the purposes of God. In these situations, we should rejoice, not rebel against the suffering for it is producing fruit in our lives.

On a separate note, do you really live in Oman? I spent some time growing up in Sana'a, Yemen.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Ranger]

Ivanhoe · #5 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 12:48 AM

Although it is no surprise, I agree with Andrew and Peter. Furthermore, although not directly related, let us not have a warped, masochistic view of suffering and martyrdom. If we view suffering merely for suffering's sake, then we have missed the point. Now, you might ask, who has that kind of view? I fear that we miss the most obvious hope of martyrdom/suffering: vindication. The Christian can hope in suffering for the gospel for his is a suffering unto victory, whatever shape that victory may take. This is why I, as a postmillennialist, can reconcile the obvious "pessimistic passages" (although the fact that Paul was talking to his own time period is often ignored) with the general triumph of the gospel. If we are in a society where preaching the gospel will be met with statist resistance, then we MUST by all means testify to the crown rights of King Jesus.

Joe Keysor · #6 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Success for the faithful is not measured in terms of political victory.

True. I was not thinking of political victory but spiritual victory, the collpase of the pagan religion - though of course there was still a lot of sin and evil.

Quote:

Many hundreds of thousands of French Huguenots were martyred, perhaps more in number than the early Christians, and many Roman Catholics were converted by the steadfastness of their faith as they sang the psalms of Marot while being consumed by the flames.

I confess to not having as much knowledge as I should, and not doubt brave martyrs glorified Christ by their deaths, but a Huguenot general, attacks, hangings, vengeance, rebellion, only served to fan the flames of hatred and did not glorify Jesus Christ.

As to the Huguenot Diaspora, that was undoubtedly God's providence, he brings good out of evil and all things work in the end to his glory.

Quote:

The political resistance of the French Huguenots was extremely influential in the American War for Independence a century after the diaspora (think Brutus' A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants (1579).

I think the Americans could have achieved independence gradually, as the Canadians and the Australians did. I have read, and think it is reasonable, that at the time of the revolution 1/3 of the colonists were for independence, 1/3 wanted to stay with Britain, and 1/3 were waiting to see which side won. I think the American revolution was unbiblical, a resistance to divinely ordained authorities. The leaders of the revolution, including Franklin, Jefferson, and John Adams were not bible believing Christians.

Quote:

Their political resistance to tyranny is based on the Augustinian and Calvinistic application of Biblical principles of free republican government, to which Western civilization today owes a great debt.

It is true western civilization owes Christianity a great debt, as I have seen from living in Asia and the Middle East. One great biblical principle is obedience to the law and to the authorities. Other principles are spiritual: God knows what you do, you will be judged, this life is only a preparation for eternity, forgive others, and such spiritual truths. I do not see armed resistance to tyranny in the bible.

Quote:

The early Christians laid down their lives because there were no Christian lesser civil magistrates to stand up to tyrants. In the Reformation there were Christian civil magistrates who defended the liberties of the saints against tyranny. Thus Christians witness against tyranny differently in different circumstances.

True, there were no civil magistrates, but I don't see them taking up arms and fighting in any case. That is purely speculative, we have to rely here on holiness and the Spirit and wisdom from God. In the Reformation, civil magistrates such as the elector of Saxony had the duty to defend his state, but Luther was no advocate of military means to resist Catholicism. I suppose it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line in every case, it depends on the leading of the Spirit. But I believe scripture does not want people to fight for Christ.

Quote:

There is no warrant to adopt the pacificistic view of non-resistance to tyranny simply because the early Church lacked those in authority to stand up to tyrants. Both the early Church and the French Huguenots (and Scottish Covenanters, American Presbyterians, etc.) all testified to Christ's Crown & Covenant in their own way in their own time.

The Scottish Covenanters (to take one example) were obviously correct in refusing to accept the authority of a church they felt was unbiblical, but to take up arms and fight is a different matter entirely. Paul says the authorities are ordained of God. He did not say you can resist them if lesser magistrates support you.

There is a quote from William Wallace - very stirring, but was he a Christian?

Joe Keysor · #7 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 04:23 AM

Quote:

I prefer to think the early Christians didnt take up arms and fight because they didnt have the means. Note that whether fighting for your principles against the government, or dying for them at the hands of the government you are still disobeying the govt. Passive resistance is still resistance. The early Christians didnot raise arms only because it was not expedient. There was no hope of success and fighting would only cause bloodshed, social discord, and if it could be saved otherwise, the end of their own lives.

Paul did not say "You may resist the authorities when it is expedient." He said the authorities are ordained of God. I think some advocates of Christian resistance do not believe this. Did God ordain George III? He did. I believe the early Christians did not fight because they were more concerned with spiritual things - though of course their situation was very different.

George III was far less oppressive and cruel than the Caesars, he was not persecuting Christians, and "No taxation without representation" is not a biblical principle. Can you imagine Paul saying to the Corinthians "The Romans are taxing you unjustly, take up your weapons and fight for independence"? There might have been some local magistrates who would have gone along, the Greeks had tried to revolt against the Romans before.

Joe Keysor · #8 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 04:26 AM

Quote:

I personally think there is a call to suffering as long as the suffering is brought about by the purposes of God. In these situations, we should rejoice, not rebel against the suffering for it is producing fruit in our lives.

Here is the crux of the matter. And if the authorities are ordained of God? And if suffering is part of his plan for us? And to die is gain?

Quote:

do you really live in Oman? I spent some time growing up in Sana'a, Yemen.

Yes, I do live in Oman, I have been here for over a year now and like it a lot. If I had not personally experienced it I would not have believed Moslems could be so friendly and easy to get along with. There is negativism toward Bush and Israel, but none against me. My biggest problem is with an English teacher at our school, who is a really evil person, obscene, vulgar, immoral, conceited, bitter, resentful, trying to find happiness in life by pretending she is a man, chiefly interested in sex and booze - a real trial sent by God for my edification.

When were you in Yemen?

I am drawn to the Middle East, and feel quite at home here.

Ranger · #9 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 07:31 AM

I lived in Yemen in 91-93 and again in 97-98.

I strongly believe that there is a call to suffering, and that if that results in martyrdom sobeit. I don't think that leads us to become pacifists though. We still must fully submit to the authorities. So I guess I'm kinda with both of you, hehe.

Joe Keysor · #10 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 09:38 AM

I am not a thoroughgoing pacifist. Romans says clearly enough that God has given governments the power of the sword - without that there would be chaos. I think a Christian can serve in the military or on the police force, and use force to protect others, but only as a legitimate representative of a government enforcing order.

VirginiaHuguenot · #11 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Keysor

I confess to not having as much knowledge as I should, and not doubt brave martyrs glorified Christ by their deaths, but a Huguenot general, attacks, hangings, vengeance, rebellion, only served to fan the flames of hatred and did not glorify Jesus Christ.

As to the Huguenot Diaspora, that was undoubtedly God's providence, he brings good out of evil and all things work in the end to his glory.

I think the point in your initial post was to say that the early Church succeeded in its testimony because Roman Christians did not fight back against the Roman Emperor; whereas French Huguenots failed in their testimony because they did fight back against tyrannical kings.

In both cases, Christians were slaughtered and scattered which God used providentially to build the Church ("the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church" -- Tertullian; cf. Acts. 8.1). Both testimonies succeeded in spiritual terms.

The hangings and "vengeance" that occurred in the French Wars of Religion, to the best of my knowledge were conducted by Roman Catholic moncharist forces, not by Huguenots. It was their atrocities against the faithful that excited the flames of passion in the rest of Europe against Roman Catholic tyranny. Remember the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre (1572)? I contend that the French Huguenots both in situations where they were martyred for the faith and where they fought back testified wonderfully to the grace of God in their sufferings.

Quote:

I think the Americans could have achieved independence gradually, as the Canadians and the Australians did. I have read, and think it is reasonable, that at the time of the revolution 1/3 of the colonists were for independence, 1/3 wanted to stay with Britain, and 1/3 were waiting to see which side won. I think the American revolution was unbiblical, a resistance to divinely ordained authorities. The leaders of the revolution, including Franklin, Jefferson, and John Adams were not bible believing Christians.

It seems by this statement that you support the idea of seccession as long as it is not done by means of force. In other words, you support seccession only if the chief magistrate(s) agree that the citizens may choose their own government. And if the tyrant in charge doesn't agree, you seem to be making the case that his will should prevail. It is my view that magistrates both lesser and greater have a duty to be a minister of God to the people for good. When they abuse the legitimacy of their office, and instead turn on the people they are supposed to protect and nourish, they may be held accountable by the law and resisted in self-defense if they persecute the very people they are appointed to shepherd.

It is true in America that there was division among the colonists about both the wisdom and justness of the cause of independence. But every colony sent legislators to the Continental Congress, petitioned the king and Parliament for redress of grievances, and ultimately signed the Declaration of Independence.

It is also true that many leaders on the American side were unbelievers. America has paid a big price for that since. The Constitution that we have today is unBiblical in many respects. I am not blind to the deficiencies of our Founding Fathers -- far from it. However, those who did the fighting were very often faithful believers. King George III himself spoke of the "Presbyterian rebellion" because so many Presbyterian pastors lead the way and were followed by so many Scotch-Irish Presbyterian citizens.

Quote:

It is true western civilization owes Christianity a great debt, as I have seen from living in Asia and the Middle East. One great biblical principle is obedience to the law and to the authorities. Other principles are spiritual: God knows what you do, you will be judged, this life is only a preparation for eternity, forgive others, and such spiritual truths. I do not see armed resistance to tyranny in the bible.

I would encourage you to consider the writings below as well as the numerous Scriptural examples of Biblical resistance to tyranny (read also the Book of Judges!).

See Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex (1644): http://www.constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm

See Junius Brutus' A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants(1579): http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm

See Theodore Beza's Concerning the Rights of Rulers Over Their Subjects and the Duty Of Subjects Towards Their Rulers(1574): http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Beza1.htm

See Christopher Goodman's How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed(1558): http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Goodman1.HTM

See John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), Book IV, Sec. 20 (30-32):

Quote:

Quote:
(Constitutional magistrates, however, ought to check the tyranny of kings; obedience to God comes first, 30-31)
30. When God intervenes, it is sometimes by unwitting agents

Herein is the goodness, power, and providence of God wondrously displayed. At one time he raises up manifest avengers from among his own servants and gives them his command to punish accursed tyranny and deliver his people from calamity when they are unjustly oppressed; at another time he employs, for this purpose, the fury of men who have other thoughts and other aims. Thus he rescued his people Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh by Moses; from the violence of Chusa, king of Syria, by Othniel; and from other bondage by other kings or judges. Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans; the confidence of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, - Cyrus having previously subdued the Medes, while the ingratitude of the kings of Judah and Israel, and their impious contumacy after all his kindness, he subdued and punished, - at one time by the Assyrians, at another by the Babylonians. All these things however were not done in the same way.

The former class of deliverers being brought forward by the lawful call of God to perform such deeds, when they took up arms against kings, did not at all violate that majesty with which kings are invested by divine appointment, but armed from heaven, they, by a greater power, curbed a less, just as kings may lawfully punish their own satraps. The latter class, though they were directed by the hand of God, as seemed to him good, and did his work without knowing it, had nought but evil in their thoughts.

31. Constitutional defenders of the people's freedom

But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves, the Lord by their means equally executed his own work, when he broke the bloody sceptres of insolent kings, and overthrew their intolerable dominations. Let princes hear and be afraid; but let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer.

I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings, (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.

32. Obedience to man must not become disobedience to God

But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command any thing against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates - a dignity to which, no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree, (Dan. 6: 22,) because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions, (1 Kings 12: 28.) With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet, (Hosea 5: 11.) So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining any thing imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are condemned. As Solomon says, "The wrath of a king is as messengers of death," (Prov. 16: 14.) But since Peter, one of heaven's heralds, has published the edict, "We ought to obey God rather than men," (Acts 5: 29,) let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional considerations (1 Cor. 7: 23,) that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety.

Quote:

Scriptural examples of lawful resistance to tyrants:

Quote:
(1) Abraham resisted the wicked alliance of kings who had conquered Sodom and Gomorrah, and did not acknowledge them to be "the minister of God" merely because they had gained a military power to rule (in God's providence), but rather Abraham defeated them and rescued Lot from their clutches (Gen. 14:13-16).

(2) Moses did not recognize Pharaoh as "the ordinance of God", but resisted his tyranny and delivered Israel from servitude in Egypt (Ex. 7-14).

(3) Judges such as Othniel (Judg. 3:8-11), Ehud (Judg. 3:12-30), Shamgar (Judg. 3:31), Deborah and Barak (Judg. 4), Gideon (Judg. 6-8), Jephthah (Judg.11-12), and Samson (Judg. 13-16) resisted tyrants who ruled over Israel rather than granting to them subjection for conscience sake.

(4) David did not subject himself for conscience sake to Absalom as a "higher power" to whom honor was due as "the ordinance of God", but resisted him even though Absalom had won the hearts of all the people of Israel and had gained military control of Israel (2 Sam. 16:15; 2 Sam. 18:6-8).

(5) Elijah did not honor Ahab as "the minister of God" for good, but resisted him by fleeing from him and his wicked queen (1 Kgs. 17:3; 1 Kgs. 19:3), and by taking the sword from the hands of Ahab so that he and the people slew the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs. 18:40).

(6) Elijah did not acknowledge the lawful authority of king Ahaziah to rule over Israel, for he resisted the king by not obeying the king's order to compear before him and even brought God's fiery judgment upon the representatives of Ahaziah's authority (2 Kgs. 1:9-13).

(7) Jehoiada did not subject himself for conscience sake to the tyrant Athaliah, but put her to death even though she accused all those who resisted her of treason (2 Chron. 23:12-15).

(8) God Himself resisted the idolatrous kings of Israel by not acknowledging them to be ministers whom He appointed (Hos. 8:4).

(9) Jesus instructed His disciples that when they were delivered up to gentile kings for Christ's sake, rather than acknowledging them to be "the ordinance of God", they were to testify against them (Mt. 10:18), and to flee their tyranny rather than submit to them for conscience sake (Mt. 10:23).

(10) God gives wings to the church to flee from the persecution which Satan brings against her by means of tyrannical civil and ecclesiastical government rather than commanding the church to render conscientious subjection to such tyranny (Rev. 12:14).

(11) "The prince of this world" (Jn. 14:30) is to be resisted by Christians (Jms. 4:7). If Satan (who grants power to wicked tyrants to rule) is to be resisted, should not tyrants who rule by Satan's wicked power also be resisted? If we cannot be subject for conscience sake to Satan, how can we be subject for conscience sake to those who rule by his power ?

Source: http://www.ecn.ab.ca/prce/books/bibcivgv/bibcivgv.htm

Quote:

True, there were no civil magistrates, but I don't see them taking up arms and fighting in any case. That is purely speculative, we have to rely here on holiness and the Spirit and wisdom from God. In the Reformation, civil magistrates such as the elector of Saxony had the duty to defend his state, but Luther was no advocate of military means to resist Catholicism. I suppose it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line in every case, it depends on the leading of the Spirit. But I believe scripture does not want people to fight for Christ.

I'm not sure why you can justify armed resistance on the part of the Elector of Saxony against the greater authority of the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope (who don't forget historically has claimed the highest authority in all civil as well as ecclesiastical affairs), and yet not approve of Huguenot resistance against Catholic authorities in France.

Quote:

The Scottish Covenanters (to take one example) were obviously correct in refusing to accept the authority of a church they felt was unbiblical, but to take up arms and fight is a different matter entirely. Paul says the authorities are ordained of God. He did not say you can resist them if lesser magistrates support you.

I think you have a misunderstanding about what Paul is saying when he speaks of the higher powers which are ordained of God. First of all, as Calvin notes in his commentary on Romans 13.1, "powers" is plural with reference to all the civil magistrates in a given state, both the lesser and the greater. What does a citizen do, for example, when as in the US, there exist co-equal branches of government (at least constitutionally that is the case in America)? When Congress and the President or the Supreme Court are at odds, the Constitution does not give one branch authority over another. So where does the citizens' allegiance lie? How about with the magistrate who is adhering to God's law, whether lesser or greater or equal? Also, what does it mean to be "ordained"? God in his providence certainly raises up and casts down kings, sometimes as a blessing to the people and sometimes as a judgment. God's providence ordains all that comes to pass, does it not? Yet, Paul goes on to describe the office of the magistrate as a "minister of God for good." Does a tyrant meet that qualification? I think not. Romans 13 is not a blank check to tyrants and it is not justification for pacificism on the part of Christians. The Sixth Commandment obligation to preserve our lives and the lives of others in self-defense is not overruled by the Fifth Commandment obligation to obey our superiors. As Peter said, "We ought therefore to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5.29). Magistrates are not above the law. The law holds tyrants to account (Lex Rex) and the law must be enforced even if it takes a citizen army to do it. The principle underlying Romans 13 is that we obey in the Lord. That is how children and wives are to obey their fathers and husbands, for example. Self-defense is a natural right given to all men. Would you tell a child who is being beaten to death by an abusive tyrannical father that the Fifth Commandment prevents you from reaching out to save the child? I hope not. When self-defense is not an option, and there is no lesser civil magistrate to interpose himself between the tyrant and the people, then, yes, there is no doubt that Christians are called to glorify God through suffering. Yet, to fail to resist tyranny when it is lawful and appropriate to do so is a violation of the Sixth Commandment and an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Christian citizen.

Quote:

There is a quote from William Wallace - very stirring, but was he a Christian?

I don't claim that Wallace was a Christian. I do believe he is an outstanding example of a patriot who resisted tyranny lawfully.

Ivanhoe · #12 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 10:12 AM

Andrew,
I am tempted to throw in the Harry Seabrook essay you gave me.

Joe,
Also, Wallace was ordained for the clergy until other matters prevented his going. Secondly, he always carried a Psalter with him wherever he went and died with it next to his heart. Does that make him a Christiah? No, but I would rather him die with that next to him that cursing God.

Joe Keysor · #13 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 10:39 AM

About Wallace, I only asked, I know nothing about his spiritual life.
Many people who are not Christians at all can be brave patriots who will fight and die for their country, but what will it profit them on the day of judgement?

VirginiaHuguenot · #14 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Andrew,
I am tempted to throw in the Harry Seabrook essay you gave me.

VirginiaHuguenot · #15 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 10:45 AM

Here's a little article about William Wallace that you might find interesting: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/19...braveheart.htm

Patriotism and courage in the face of evil are virtues to be commended whether they are manifested in a believer or an unbeliever.

Joe Keysor · #16 (**permalink**) 01-07-2005, 12:01 PM

VirginiaHuguenot,

Please excuse the brief nature of my response, I would like to cover your post as much as possible in a limited space.

It seems to me, though I recognize that I do not have enough knowledge as I should, that one group overcame a false religious system, where as in the other case the false religious system remained intact. I am not convinced by the argument that Christians can take up arms and fight the authorities.

Wasn't there a Protestant general, Coligny? I thought the Protestants justified armed resistance and practiced it. You yourself say they fought back, which I think was unbiblical.

"It seems by this statement that you support the idea of seccession as long as it is not done by means of force. In other words, you support seccession only if the chief magistrate(s) agree that the citizens may choose their own government."

If the higher power agrees, and it is amicable, why not?

"And if the tyrant in charge doesn't agree, you seem to be making the case that his will should prevail." Right. You said "It is my view that magistrates both lesser and greater have a duty to be a minister of God to the people for good. When they abuse the legitimacy of their office, and instead turn on the people they are supposed to protect and nourish, they may be held accountable by the law and resisted in self-defense if they persecute the very people they are appointed to shepherd." But Paul does not say "You only have to submit to the authorities as long as they don't abuse you." The Romans were very abusive.

I agree there was support in every colony, but also opposition and passivity.

I know many Christians were involved in the American Revolution - their mistake in my view. Even Christians can be wrong. They had far more freedom under George III that the early Christians did under Rome, and the justifications of the Declaration of
Independence seem strained to me. I am no fan of Jefferson's. Here is a link showing the depth of his paganism:
http://www.angelfire.com/co/Jefferso.../jeffbsyl.html

About biblical examples of resistance to tyranny, the Old Testament is the word of God with many wonderful truths, but many things were done there not suitable for Christians, we have a higher revelation and a better covenant. Romans takes precedence in my view.

The other links you gave look interesting. For now i will confine myself to the comments in your post.

Cerainly the rulers have an obligation, but when they disobey and are wicked? The early Christians endured them. True, they did not have lesser magistrates to support them, but it is difficult to imagine them fighting in any case.

Calvin gives some examples that you cite. Moses is a unique exception, what other rebellion has ever been directly supported by God in such a way? Old Testament examples are not more important than Romans. Jael killed Sisera and was praised for it - does that mean I can kill my enemies now? Or have an adulteress stoned to death? He gives other examples, "Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans..." But those were pagans. God can use pagans to overthrow powers when he chooses - Churchill and Roosevelt were not Christians. That does not guide the conduct of believers.

Just as kings may punish their own satraps because they have a higher power, so Christians can punish kings because they have a higher divine power? The higher power of the Christian is not in my view of this sort. Calvin's argument seems weak here. It is not the calling of the Christian to punish rulers and remove them at will as a king may remove a satrap.

Calvin says: "let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. I speak only of private men."

So, private men should not resist, we agree on that.

If a magistrate supports it? Magistrates supported the Confederacy in the Civil War - I don't believe that sanctified the rebellion. Magistrates can be found who will resist for their own ends or advantage. Romans says be subject to the higher powers, not the lower ones.

David did not subject himself to Absalom, David was the higher power, of course the government has the right to resist rebellion. This shows George III had the right to resist the colonists.

Elijah slew the prophets of Baal? Shall I go kill the liberal pastors who teach a false gospel? He called down God's fiery judgement? Why didn't the American revolutionaries try that? They could have asked God to send down fire on the armies of George III.

Yes, Christians can flee persecution, that is allowed specifically. But the early Christians, when unable to flee, were led like sheep to the slaughter.

The prince of this world is to be resisted, by spiritual means, not earthly ones.
Satan is to be resisted - so if a minister of Satan is persecuting me should I punch him in the nose? "If we cannot be subject for conscience sake to Satan, how can we be subject for conscience sake to those who rule by his power?" Jesus was not subject to Satan, but he submitted to the authorities unto death, he did not say "I will resist Satan, and his agents too" and encourage his men to fight. Of course, he came to die, but the early Christians died also. Are we not supposed to be like Christ, and have the mind of Christ?

You say "I'm not sure why you can justify armed resistance on the part of the Elector of Saxony against the greater authority of the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope (who don't forget historically has claimed the highest authority in all civil as well as ecclesiastical affairs), and yet not approve of Huguenot resistance against Catholic authorities in France."

The Elector was a legitimate authority. The Pope had no authority, and did not even think of ordering the Elector to hand over Luther. The Pope had a false authority, and Luther resisted it only with the word and the Spirit. If he had been taken he would have gone to his death like John Hus.

About Romans 13 not being a blank check to tyrants, I have the following comments on the subject (written on another topic and pasted). I assert that even a tyrant can be part of God's plan for a larger good.

"This passage leads to difficult questions, the chief of them being, "Does this make God responsible for evil? Did he ordain Hitler and Stalin? Were they ordained of God?" Looking at this question - and Paul was writing at a time when the government was a rapacious and blatantly imperialist power that actively persecuted Christians - we can be sure that God does not do wrong or evil. He is the father of lights, in whom there is no imperfection. Evil cannot tempt or approach him, but evil does exist in the world, as well as in the unseen spiritual realms, and in some way God controls it, and regulates it, without being touched by it himself. And, the final day will come when the kingdom of God is revealed and evil is finally banished.
"If, though, it says in Romans that rulers "are not a terror to good works, but to evil"; that the ruler is the minister of God for good; that he is the minister of God to execute wrath on evildoers; that we should be subject to the authorities - does this apply to Hitler? That seems impossible - but first, it is necessary to note that Paul is not writing to the world at large. He is not writing here to ordinary people, who are subject to only common emotions. He is writing here, as it says in the opening sentences of the letter, to those that are beloved of God, called to be saints.
"Those who have experienced the power of God unto salvation; who know that the world lies in wickedness, but they have been chosen and called of God; who know that to die is gain; who know that the hairs of their heads are numbered by God, and have faith that their times are in God's hands, and believe they will not die until it is God's time for them to depart to a better world; these with a divine strength given by God do not fear those that can only destroy the body, but after that can't do anything else. They know what the bible means when it says "Fear none of those things which you will suffer," and can endure torture, "not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection," as it says in Hebrews.
"More than that, they not only do not fear death and suffering. They can (in the strength of God's Holy Spirit, not in the strength of the flesh), rejoice if they are made partakers of Christ's sufferings, and glorify God when they suffer for his sake, as God speaking through Peter said: "if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." He also says:

Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.
But rejoice, inasmuch as you are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

"To such Paul is writing, and while those who are walking in the light of Christ experience the full range of normal human emotions, they are not subject to those emotions, but transcend them and conquer them with a peace that the world cannot give or take away. Jesus even said that those who are persecuted for his sake are blessed, supremely happy, though this is folly and stupidity to the world. They see Herod in his glory, sitting in wealth and ease, and imagine that he is better off than John the Baptist in a dungeon, about to be beheaded, but they judge by outward appearances only.
"With this in mind we can see more readily that Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Castro, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or any of the other institutionalized powers of evil that systematically inflict horrible cruelties, are "not a terror to good works." They are the ministers of God to execute wrath on the world by means of the powers God specifically allows them to receive from Satan. In some way that we do not know, they all contribute to the culmination of world history when God will be glorified, and his full justice will be seen. The evildoers will receive the full measure for what they have done - wrath, tribulation, and anguish - while the righteous will receive glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.
"More specifically, about God's providence including even the reign of Hitler, could not God have caused Hitler to be killed in World War I? Hitler was in the thick of some of the most destructive battles in the history of the world, yet he survived while people all around him were slaughtered. Could not God have caused Hitler to drop dead of a heart attack at any time after the war? The fact is, that God could easily have removed Hitler at any time but decided not to do so (and those who deny him this power do not even believe in God at all). Was it because God was helpless, powerless to intervene, or because God was subject to human free will and unable to override it, that Hitler was allowed to survive, and flourish, and magnify himself to such an astonishing height of evil? Or was it because Hitler was in some way part of the grand scheme of things? Hitler was not allowed to win, but he was allowed to act for a time, and the limits were precisely set, to the day and to the hour."

Paul says the higher powers. If a magistrate wants to rebell can I say, "He is the magistrate, now I am free to rebell." How much suffering and misery is caused by these rebellions? To no purpose. If Bush tries to seize power and establish a dictatorship and the governor of Indiana leads a force to oppose him, you can join him if you like, I will not. That is between you and God.

In the US, where branches are co-equal, there has been no occasion for fighting and rebellion in my lifetime. But, in a crisis, where does the citizen's allegiance lie? I believe in freedom of religion, they can decide for themselves.
I would not want to take up arms to fight for any of those people, that will not solve the spiritual problems of the American people.

What does it mean to be ordained? If Julius Caesar is in power, he is ordained. If someone assassinates him and wins the civil war, that person is ordained, God is at work in those things. A Christian should not take sides in a conflict of that sort, when both sides are carnal. When the government is actively persecuting the church, then they can flee, or submit if taken.

By the way I do not believe George III was abusing his power and do not see taxation with representation as a divine right guaranteed in the bible. They had more freedom from the taxman under George than we do today - shall we rebell?

God's providence does set up and remove kings, and he brings it to pass according to the infallible counsels of his secret will. Mostly he uses wicked men consumed with a lust for power to achieve those ends it seems.

Of course we should not obey the authorities if they command us to do somehting contrary to scripture. That is not armed rebellion.

Self defense is a natural right given to allmen? Why didn't the first Christians avail themselves of it (other than by flight and evasion)? I don't see that in the bible.

I could try to save a child who was being beaten to death, that is not a case of a higher power as described in Romans.

If you feel that under a lesser magistrate you can resist the tyrant, that is between you and God. As to "an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Christian citizen," I think refusing to take part in the American Revolution would have been in no sense an abdication of responsibility.

Christians have ben consistently abdicating their responsibilities in America for the last fifty years. It is not a question of resisting tyranny, but of failing to stand for biblical truth.

One could write a book on this subject. My comments are far form exhaustive, just some thoughts. I do not think Calvin is the last word on a subject (not that you said he was).