09 Jan 16
1 edit
At the moment I am reading an account of those who executed Charles I. Charles stated that the court he was standing before was illegitimate because he by virtue of the Divine right of Kings was answerable only to God. The court asserted that he ruled by the will of the people and had transgressed that trust by waging war upon them.
I suspect that the doctrine finds support in various verses in the Bible, notably Romans 13, where it states that, 'the superior authorities stand in their relative position placed their by God. . . .and he who takes a stance against this arrangement takes a stance against God'.
In my own mind however it is clear that in the case of Israels first King Saul, this came about not because of the will of God (who was against it) but because of the will of the people who desired a King like the nations. Samuel warned against this saying that it would result in oppression but the people would not listen. Saul and therefore all subsequent Kings of Israel were said to sit upon the throne of God as being a representative of God. Never the less this came about not by the will of God but by the will of the People.
There is some confusion therefore in my mind whether the doctrine finds any substantiation in scripture. If you know anything about it please let it be heard.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is an interesting topic in its broadest perspective but I'm wondering why this particular incident is troubling you? I don't see a "doctrine"; what I see is a condemned secular state leader trying to lean on the dubious connectivity with the church to save his skin. That history records this event and that the condemned happened to be king at the time bears no relationship whatsoever to true doctrine.
At the moment I am reading an account of those who executed Charles I. Charles stated that the court he was standing before was illegitimate because he by virtue of the Divine right of Kings was answerable only to God. The court asserted that he ruled by the will of the people and had transgressed that trust by waging war upon them.
I suspect t ...[text shortened]... ne finds any substantiation in scripture. If you know anything about it please let it be heard.
The Bible does indeed say that God sets up Kings and authorities, it also says that he brings them down. Saul's appointment may have been against God's expressed will but that doesn't mean he didn't, by fact of non-intervention, "permit" Saul's ascension to the throne.
I think that sometimes it is possible to confuse the express will of God with God's general sovereignty and his provision of mankind's volition.
09 Jan 16
3 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterIt is because I am reading books concerned with the topic. I thought i made that obvious. Perhaps not obvious enough.
This is an interesting topic in its broadest perspective but I'm wondering why this particular incident is troubling you? I don't see a "doctrine"; what I see is a condemned secular state leader trying to lean on the dubious connectivity with the church to save his skin. That history records this event and that the condemned happened to be king at the ti ...[text shortened]... the express will of God with God's general sovereignty and his provision of mankind's volition.
Charles I is not leaning on any connectivity with the church, he derives his beliefs from interpretation of scripture some of which have been cited. Parliament and the Puritans also during his trial quote scripture in support of their position. The King fervently believes (as do others) in the Divine right of Kings in that he is responsible to no one but God having derived his authority from God, the Parliamentarians profess that he is accountable to the people.
Here are Pauls exact words -
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. - Romans 13, King James Bible.
Clearly its very difficult to argue in the face of such that the King is subject to, 'the will of the people'.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
09 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLook to Daniel old chap (chapter 3).
It is because I am reading books concerned with the topic. I thought i made that obvious. Perhaps not obvious enough.
Charles I is not leaning on any connectivity with the church, he derives his beliefs from interpretation of scripture some of which have been cited. Parliament and the Puritans also during his trial quote scripture in support of ...[text shortened]... ry difficult to argue in the face of such that the King is subject to, 'the will of the people'.
God does seem to protect those humble folk who defied Nebuchadnezzar, which i think speaks volumes.
09 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat renders the score moot is when the game is changed (seemingly) without the courtesy of even a moment's notice.
It is because I am reading books concerned with the topic. I thought i made that obvious. Perhaps not obvious enough.
Charles I is not leaning on any connectivity with the church, he derives his beliefs from interpretation of scripture some of which have been cited. Parliament and the Puritans also during his trial quote scripture in support of ...[text shortened]... ry difficult to argue in the face of such that the King is subject to, 'the will of the people'.
10 Jan 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYes this is true however this is God exercising his will, what of the will of the people to dispose of a King?
Look to Daniel old chap (chapter 3).
God does seem to protect those humble folk who defied Nebuchadnezzar, which i think speaks volumes.
10 Jan 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHumm is it possible that you could be less cryptic and speak more plainly for I am naught but a simple peasant unaccustomed to such intrigue.
What renders the score moot is when the game is changed (seemingly) without the courtesy of even a moment's notice.
10 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWho hold power in the UK? It is not the Queen/King; it is an elected Parliament, the Cabinet and principally the prime Minister to the Monarch. Clearly the people elect the leader who, they wish and clearly they deselect him. I think that trying to understand the will of God in this matter through an examination of a historical deposed King in a single country, on a single continent, in a moment in time is an excercise in futility.
It is because I am reading books concerned with the topic. I thought i made that obvious. Perhaps not obvious enough.
Charles I is not leaning on any connectivity with the church, he derives his beliefs from interpretation of scripture some of which have been cited. Parliament and the Puritans also during his trial quote scripture in support of ...[text shortened]... ry difficult to argue in the face of such that the King is subject to, 'the will of the people'.
10 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterYou seem to be having some difficulty understanding what I am asking. I will state it plainly and simply. Does the divine right of Kings have any support from scripture. Does 'the will of a people' to depose a King have any support from scripture.
Who hold power in the UK? It is not the Queen/King; it is an elected Parliament, the Cabinet and principally the prime Minister to the Monarch. Clearly the people elect the leader who, they wish and clearly they deselect him. I think that trying to understand the will of God in this matter through an examination of a historical deposed King in a single country, on a single continent, in a moment in time is an excercise in futility.
I would also like to point out that the concept of divine right is not limited to the UK, nor even Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
10 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think there is some support in scripture, but it is not conclusive, nor is what there is practically possible to implement. I don't know of sriptue supporting the people deposing a King, but this does not mean that the people doing so is against God's will. There is no clear conclusive mandate either way and therefore despite there being a claimed "doctrine", there cannot be one in reality.
You seem to be having some difficulty understanding what I am asking. I will state it plainly and simply. Does the divine right of Kings have any support from scripture. Does 'the will of a people' to depose a King have any support from scripture.
I would also like to point out that the concept of divine right is not limited to the UK, nor even Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Jan 16
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDoes the divine right of Kings have any support from scripture.
You seem to be having some difficulty understanding what I am asking. I will state it plainly and simply. Does the divine right of Kings have any support from scripture. Does 'the will of a people' to depose a King have any support from scripture.
I would also like to point out that the concept of divine right is not limited to the UK, nor even Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not start your considerations by, first, seeing if you can locate the phrase "Divine right of kings" in Romans 13 or anywhere else in the Bible ? The phrase itself seems to imply that the king has the "right" to do any old thing he wants, which cannot be supported by the Word of God.
And whoever recommended the book of Daniel I would concur with.
Being subject there did did not mean to Daniel or his three friends being completely complicit.
Danial and his three friends did not obey the Babylonian king as if he had some "divine right" to do anything. However, not a hint, not a whisper of insubordination did they manifest. With "due respect" they chose, at the peril of their own lives, to obey the Divine, the higher authority.
Consider these things along with your musings on Romans 13.
10 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonshipOh Jaywill, one could use the same line of reasoning with the term 'trinity', are you willing to deny its existence in the bible? I need to research what first of all James VI has written on it, for he wrote a tract upon it and what Charles I quoted during his trial to support his position.
[b] Does the divine right of Kings have any support from scripture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not start your considerations by, first, seeing if you can locate the phrase "Divine right of kings" in Romans 13 or anywhere else in the Bible ? The phrase itself seems to imp ...[text shortened]... ine, the higher authority.
Consider these things along with your musings on Romans 13.[/b]
10 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCryptic.
umm is it possible that you could be less cryptic and speak more plainly for I am naught but a simple peasant unaccustomed to such intrigue.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
There is such a thing as political sway--- the ebb and flow, if you will--- which often times has equal or greater pull than the current rule of law.
No matter how strong the king might be, without support on critical levels, his agenda will go no where.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Jan 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobielol, believe it or not I KNEW that you would come back with that !!
Oh Jaywill, one could use the same line of reasoning with the term 'trinity', are you willing to deny its existence in the bible? I need to research what first of all James VI has written on it, for he wrote a tract upon it and what Charles I quoted during his trial to support his position.
Right on time.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Jan 16
3 edits
Oh Jaywill, one could use the same line of reasoning with the term 'trinity', are you willing to deny its existence in the bible?
That's correct that the same approach could be used with trinity. But I did NOT say that just because it is absent the concept is not true. You assumed that I was saying that.
The word trinity is not in the Scripture. So what's the difference between that and the so-called "Divine Right of Kings" ?
Well I said to START with seeing if the phrase is in the Bible. Right? All I said was START there.
So the same is true with a contraversial word (to some people) - trinity.
Step two. Notice that I DID NOT say that JUST because you cannot find the phrase "divine right of kings" in Scripture doesn't mean the concept has no validity. Right ?
Rght.
So the second step would be to understand WHAT some scholars have in mind by the phrase - "divine right of kings". Then you see if the idea has biblical support.
I gave examples of disobedience with respect indicating that the saints of God did not follow any concept that the king had Divine Right without limitation. That is what my step attempted to point out.
Now in the case of trinity I do understand that what is meant is the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. In THAT case, though the word trinity is not in the Bible, the truth that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God IS in the Bible.
You may have assumed that I meant JUST because you do not see the creedal phrase or the creedal term in Scripture means that there is no truth to it. That was not what I was saying. I was only saying that if the term or phrase causes you some concern, START with examining if the term or phrase is in the Scripture.
Kings have no divine right to do whatsoever they want in any way in any time any how just because they are kings.
If divine right of kings means something LESS than that, then I would have to consider what was meant then.