Why reject the "divine right" of Kings?

[JM]

Brother aba I agree but would add that while Samuel's government was condemned by God, the same system of government under Saul was approved by God.

Still reading. Still learning. I'll be back.

JM

 

[abacabb3]

I think it is hard for us to grapple with mentally, but God's ideal for us it complete and total dependence on Him. This makes God our King in every single way. Human governments, by some degree, detract from God's Lordship in the world, though it is obvious He has ordained it and works good from evil, including Rome.

 

[JM]

Final Thought: I started my inquiry believing that Monarchies were condemned by scripture only to find out that scripture only condemns the “bad” Kings of Israel. In fact, Abraham was promised that his sons would be made Kings and the context was in the form of a blessing. No one system of government is endorsed in scripture and “republican-ity” is no more biblical n than any other form of government. Scripture reveals that God rules the nations through "Kings" or governments and He is still King of King. Sometimes a King/government is set up over a nation in judgement or for their blessing, God is still King of Kings. On a practical and pragmatic note Republicanism offers the best set of checks and balances for sinful man but I would like to add, the condemnation in 1 Sam. 8 is directed at nations self-reliance and wish to govern themselves. Canada is a constitutional Monarchy and now, after studying the issue, I’m not so sure it’s a bad thing. You may argue unbiblically that the concept is “outdated” but that’s a separate issue.

The Case for Kingship was helpful.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[lesliedellow]

Democrcy is the least worst form of government anybody has come up with so far.

 

[Inkfingers]

All forms of government are dependent upon the character of the people.

If the people involved are of good character, it matters not if its a democracy, a dictatorship or anarchy; all will work.

Similarly, the people involved are of poor character, it again matters not if its a democracy, a dictatorship or anarchy; all will end up a mess.

If people are of good character, which system minimises the potential for them being corrupted by it?

If people are of poor character, which system minimises the potential for the abuse of power?

 

[JM]

All forms of government are dependent upon the character of the people.

If the people involved are of good character, it matters not if its a democracy, a dictatorship or anarchy; all will work.

Similarly, the people involved are of poor character, it again matters not if its a democracy, a dictatorship or anarchy; all will end up a mess.

If people are of good character, which system minimises the potential for them being corrupted by it?

If people are of poor character, which system minimises the potential for the abuse of power?

As biblical Christians...we know what scripture teaches about character, of the believer and the lost. "O wretched man that I am!"

 

[Inkfingers]

As biblical Christians...we know what scripture teaches about character, of the believer and the lost. "O wretched man that I am!"

If that is the case, which system most reduces the potential for abuse of power (both in itself and in those it would police)?

 

[JM]

If that is the case, which system most reduces the potential for abuse of power (both in itself and in those it would police)?

Excellent question!

I use to believe republicanism was the answer but I’m doubting that now. According to the Freedom Index the US, a republican country, is not as free as other countries. Canada is a constitutional monarchy and we are rank a lot higher in terms of economic freedom and the rule of law. The US barely makes the top ten for rule of law. Constitutional monarchy has a series of checks and balances, from my reading it looks like we have 4 maybe 5, I'm still sorting the details out.

I’ve been reading different articles and works over at the Mises Institute (libertarian) and they highlight the advances Western culture has made under monarchy and point out mistaken presumptions often repeated by republicans. The Menace of the Heard is a free download and covers different forms of government including monarchical rule, highly recommend it.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: Even Lew Rockwell jr. admits that monarchical rule isn't a bad thing and he's a strong republican!

 

[JM]

A helpful video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpfPUhOO8q8

 

[drjean]

God ordained leaders to guide us, perhaps "public servants" is a good term to use? Did the people of the old Scriptures not want judges any more because they didn't tell them what to do, only judged when they didn't do the right thing? They wanted kings to tell them what to do, to lead them?

Nevertheless, God did appoint Kings (read Kings, Chronicles)... and as mentioned in Romans, we are to follow (within spiritual reason) those who rule over us.

I would caution going so far as to say that there is no earthly government to obey, as Christ is Head over all... that's Replacement Theology, not Reformed Theology.

 

[JM]

Well, since scripture doesn't forbid monarchical rule and it seems to be a pretty small form of government...I like the idea. Canada is a constitutional monarchy but I wouldn't mind seeing the Queen flex her muscle once a while.

 

[Radagast]

it certainly doesn't look like this is God's ideal form of government.

But yet it was what God established; first with David as king, then with Jesus as king.