Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex, p.34
“For a nation thus abused to arise unanimously and to resist their prince, even to the dethroning of him, is not criminal, but a reasonable way of vindicating their liberties and just rights; it is making use of the means and the only means, which God has put into their power, for mutual and self-defense. And it would be highly criminal in them not to make use of this means. It would be stupid tameness and unaccountable folly for whole nations to suffer one unreasonable, ambitious, and cruel man to wanton and riot in their misery. And in such a case it would, of the two, be more rational to suppose that they who did NOT resist rather than that they who did, would receive to themselves damnation.”
Rev. Andrew Eliot (1718 – 1778)
Congregational Minister – Boston
A discourse concerning Unlimited submission
Or, you can go with this idiot,
I’m sorry, but if you ever say something this dumb and never apologize your credibility is forever lost. Even if you do apologize, I am not listening to you without remembering how wrong you were with this one.
This is honestly the first time i have ever seen someone in “Reformed” world being so overblown by Romans 13 that he allows no discretion with Acts 5. And I used to look up to Friel…. wow.
Hello Ryan,
Yeah … it has to be one of the more wilder things I’ve heard someone who claims to be Reformed say.
Get healthy,
P.S. – I’ve read about 1/2 of that book you sent me. It has had some very helpful thoughts. Thank you.