Herbert Palmer: Romans 13 does not forbid resisting a tyrant

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
That Prohibition of Resistance cannot be meant here, which is wholly contrary to the Apostle’s reasons following, which persuade to Subjection and not Resistance. Or that Assertion, or Interpretation, is not according to the Apostle’s scope, which is formally opposite to his Arguments afterward.

But such is the Doctor’s Interpretation and Assertion, Ergo, His Assertion and Interpretation is, that Subjects may not resist a Prince, who is bent to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties.

The Apostles Reasons against Resisters are.

1. For Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.

Now is this a reason why I may not resist such a Tyrant?

Who can be more a terror to good works, and not to evil then he that is bent to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties? Ergo of such a Resistance of a tyrant the Apostle speaks not. But of Resistance of that Ruler, who goes altogether according to Laws and Liberties, which is justly punishable with Damnation without Gainsaying. ...

For more, see Herbert Palmer: Romans 13 does not forbid resisting a tyrant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top