Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
John Knox was a prominent figure in the Reformation who emphasized biblical government over natural law. However, his successor George Buchanan shifted towards Enlightenment theories, diluting the biblical focus. This departure from the biblical covenant continued throughout history, leading to the need for a Bible reset. Samuel Rutherford, a Scottish minister, played a key role in resisting the tyranny of kings and promoting biblical law. He challenged the divine right of kings and emphasized the authority of Old Testament law. Rutherford's work, "Lex Rex," differed from "Vindici contra Tauranos" by relying more on biblical examples and precepts rather than natural law. However, Rutherford still acknowledged the importance of natural law. His ideas indirectly influenced the American colonies through figures like John Locke. The justification for secularizing government was based on the acceptance of natural law by rational individuals. To learn more, visit greatbiblereset.com. A week or so ago we noted that John Knox was the high point of the Reformation in the sixteenth century because of his staunch refusal to default to natural law in his theory of biblical government like Luther and Calvin did. Sadly, his strict reliance on Old Testament legal theory was diluted by his immediate successor George Buchanan, who reverted to classical Enlightenment theories of self-evident, inalienable human rights, social contract, and popular sovereignty divorced from Bible law. This expanded the base of support for the Reformation, but it came at a price, a departure from the all-important biblical covenant with God. It should be noted that in passing, Buchanan was the childhood mentor of the wayward King James VI of Scotland, later to become James I of England after the death of Elizabeth I. This unfortunate, temporizing influence of natural law has been repeated over and over and over throughout the centuries until today we arrive at the dire need for a great Bible reset to avert the looming judgment of God. That requires a forthright return to the original intent, not of the U.S. Constitution, but of the Mosaic Covenant of Exodus 20-24, which contains the Ten Commandments and their case law illustrations. We desperately need a great Bible reset to counter Klaus Schwab's great economic reset. In the succeeding century, the seventeenth, Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex Rex to revive the heritage of Knox and counter the theory of divine right of kings in which the king answered to no one but God. Rutherford responded that law is king and the people have the right to overthrow a lawless king. Calvin, however, had taught that the people should suffer patiently until a lower magistrate appeared to lead them to freedom, as we see repeatedly in the book of Judges. But Rutherford denied the need for a lower magistrate and planted seeds of democracy that eroded biblical authority in the long run. Samuel Rutherford, who lived from 1600 to 1661, was a Scottish Presbyterian minister. He played a key role in resisting the tyranny of the Tudor and the Stuart kings. He also helped compose the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was the most widely used Protestant catechism. Rutherford had a winsome personality and was often able to win over his bitter enemies. Life in 1630 Scotland was a bit dicey, especially for a Presbyterian minister out of favor with Archbishop Laud, so a pleasing personality came in handy. Laud was a theological hatchet man of Charles I. He was convicted of non-conformity by the High Commission for opposing Arminianism and was confined to the King's Palace at Aberdeen in Scotland. The people thought him a strange man and his cause not good, was Rutherford's initial assessment of public opinion of him at first, but he slowly won public confidence, much to the chagrin of the educated clergy. I am here troubled, he wrote, with the disputes of the great doctors, especially Dr. Barron, on ceremonial and Arminian controversies, for all are corrupt here. But I thank God with no detriment to the truth or discredit to my profession. Richard Hooker taught Divine Right theory through the final years of the Elizabethan era. Both James I, who ruled from 1603 to 1625, and Charles I, who ruled from 1625 to 1649, used this theory to harass Puritan clergy in England and Scotland. This was a prelude to the Puritan revolt after the 1650s. For instance, James I believed that he was ordained to serve the will of the people. But this will was defined by the king, with no regard for the will of the people. Rutherford challenged this Divine Right of Kings concept from the standpoint of biblical law or the word of God. But he went to the opposite extreme, I believe. We might ask, in what ways did Rutherford's Lex Rex differ from Brutus Morne's Vindici contra Tauranos? Well, Vindici contra Tauranos was based far more heavily on natural law reasoning than Lex Rex. By contrast, Lex Rex is heavily laced with biblical examples and precepts, thus Morne was more apt to emphasize the natural liberty of man and the role of government in protecting that freedom. Rutherford, on the other hand, was more realistic concerning the sinful nature of man and the necessity of civil government restraining that nature. He does not question the authority of Old Testament law for modern jurisprudence, and he places the king under that law. However, this did not prevent him from starting out his book with several chapters extolling the virtues of the law of nature. Here we have it again, same old natural law. For example, he quotes a man named Suarez favorably, that a power of making laws is given by God as a property flowing from nature, and himself, scripture's arguments may well be drawn out of the school of nature. So here again we have the same old natural law argument, but eluding the authority of biblical law. And unfortunately, both authors drew the onwarding conclusion that the whole body of the people is above the king, and that the king derives his power to rule from the people, not from God, even though he quotes Romans 13 quite a bit. Rutherford, for example, gives slight emphasis to the inauguration ceremony, holding it to be only symbolic and declarative, not really dative. It places nothing in the king. At least in part because of this, Brutus Morney ironically seems to have a better handle on the doctrine of the interposition of the lower magistrate in cases of abuse of power than does Rutherford. So why did Rutherford choose the title for his work, Lex Rex? Well, he chose the title Lex Rex, or law is king, to stand in stark contrast to the divine right theory of Rex Lex, the king is law. Rutherford was responding to the theories of divine right of kings that were prevalent in his day, that is, the day of James I and Charles I, the first part of the 17th century. Divine right theory held that since God alone chose the king, the king was therefore accountable to none but God. The king himself was, in fact, the divine mouthpiece, and his word was therefore law, that i.e., Rex Lex. The law is king. By contrast, Rutherford argued that since the people made the king, the king was ultimately accountable to the people. Such an arrangement lies at the heart of democratic theory, I believe, reducing ultimately to the rule of the majority. Cora made the argument against Moses, that all the Lord's people are holy, every one of them, and God caused the earth to swallow them up, Cora and all 250 of his followers. There seems to be an element of inconsistency in Rutherford's formulation, however, because he simultaneously declares Lex Rex, law is king, and points often to the governing authority of God in Romans 13. But in a democracy, the people rule over the law itself. What influence did Rutherford have on the American colonies? Rutherford didn't have much direct influence on the American colonies, but his indirect influence was substantial through men like John Locke, who secularized his theories. Unfortunately, Rutherford's approbation of natural law was taken up by men like John Locke to develop a more secularized version of the biblical covenant that made considerable headway in the American colonies. The justification always goes something like this. Since not everybody accepts the Bible, let's drop the biblical baggage or the biblical language for the sake of unity and base our government on natural law. As rational men, we can certainly come to agreement on the fundamental principles of natural law, can't we? Well, learn more about why we can't. Take a moment to go to greatbiblereset.com and pick up a free copy of Keys to the Classics for yourself, subtitled A History of the Decline and Fall of Western Civilization. You can also get a free set of resistance bands at boomers-alive.com and get some incredible deals on supplements, such as buy one get three free, for example, and 15% of the net proceeds go to fund scholarships for low-income families at kingswayclassicalacademy.com. Thanks for being here today, and I look forward to seeing you tomorrow for more on the teaching of Samuel Rutherford.
