Thinking about Cromwell

[Theoretical]

Our brother is arguing that kings cannot be tried and executed, full stop. Agag's case disproves his argument.

That doesn't disprove it though, because Agag was a foreign king and part of a people group specifically called out for destruction by God Himself. In this case, it was the English executing their unquestionably legitimate (in terms of his reign) king and there was no such direct command from the Lord.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I struggle to follow this argument. Is a judge executing a pagan leader after a just war, acting on direct command of God, comparable to a king's own subjects executing their'e king?


If he can't be put on trial, dosen't that practically put him above the law, and render justice impossible?

Romans 12:19: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Our brother is arguing that kings cannot be tried and executed, full stop. Agag's case disproves his argument.

I agree that it doesn't in itself prove that subjects may try and execute their king, but that's not the use I'm making of it.

I have only ever spoken about the British context, which is what the topic was about: Charles I and Cromwell. I do not take to do with pagan kings in pagan lands.

 

[alexandermsmith]

In terms of resistance theory, they are all one.

I wonder if the Confederates would have been Cromwellian. The Old South was an aristocratic society, not a democratic one (which was its strength, of course).

 

[RamistThomist]

I wonder if the Confederates would have been Cromwellian. The Old South was an aristocratic society, not a democratic one (which was its strength, of course).

Joe Morecraft thinks they were, but I don't. Many Confederate politicians and Generals were Episcopalian, not Independents. Moreover, the prevailing ethos was Cavalier. Even more, the Yankees were actual descendants of Puritans.

The only possible response is that a number of Scotch-Irish emigrated to the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, but that would have made them Presbyterian, not Cromwellian (who was an enemy of Presbyterians).

 

[alexandermsmith]

Joe Morecraft thinks they were, but I don't. Many Confederate politicians and Generals were Episcopalian, not Independents. Moreover, the prevailing ethos was Cavalier. Even more, the Yankees were actual descendants of Puritans.

The only possible response is that a number of Scotch-Irish emigrated to the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, but that would have made them Presbyterian, not Cromwellian (who was an enemy of Presbyterians).

After all: it's North and South Carolina not Cromwell.

 

[TylerRay]

I wonder if the Confederates would have been Cromwellian. The Old South was an aristocratic society, not a democratic one (which was its strength, of course).

There was the aristocratic aspect, but there was also the yeoman. I think Jeffersonian views of political economy, which were dominant in the South, would favor Cromwell up until he went tyrannical.

Patrick Henry, while not a Confederate, was a Patriot, an anti-federalist, and a Southerner. He was of the very ilk that would later be Confederates. He once said in a speech before the House of Burgesses, "Caesar had his Brutus - Charles the First, his Cromwell - and George the Third" - cries of, "Treason!" began to ring out - "George the Third may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."

Apparently Stonewall Jackson was often compared to Cromwell. Dabney eschews the comparison, and shows his disdain for Cromwell, including the execution of the king.

There were probably differing views, just as there were in Scotland at the time.

I have only ever spoken about the British context, which is what the topic was about: Charles I and Cromwell. I do not take to do with pagan kings in pagan lands.

So only British kings are messianic, i.e., the Lord's Anointed?

 

[RamistThomist]

So only British kings are messianic, i.e., the Lord's Anointed?

My personal hero is Martyr-King Olaf II of Norway.

 

[TylerRay]

That doesn't disprove it though, because Agag was a foreign king and part of a people group specifically called out for destruction by God Himself. In this case, it was the English executing their unquestionably legitimate (in terms of his reign) king and there was no such direct command from the Lord.

I disagree, as it shows that a natural king is not immune from just execution.

Nevertheless, the burden of proof is on those that claim that a certain category of kings (be it Christian kings, British kings, kings anointed with oil, or whatever) are immune from natural principles of equity.

 

[RamistThomist]

Nevertheless, the burden of proof is on those that claim that a certain category of kings (be it Christian kings, British kings, kings anointed with oil, or whatever) are immune from natural principles of equity.

Perhaps, and others on this thread may have offered that argument. My argument was that someone who chooses not to rebel and kill a king does not have to engage in elaborate ethical justification. He is simply following 1 Peter 2:13. Someone who believes he has a right to kill a king may indeed have that right. Nonetheless, he will have to engage in very elaborate ethical reasoning to pull it off.