"Another authentic expression of orthodox Trinitarian political theology is that Romans 13 gives guidelines for rulers, but ultimately demands submission to government no matter WHO is in power, even if pagan tyrants. This was Calvin's position. Arguably this was St. Paul's position when he told believers to submit to the pagan psychopath Nero. Thus revolt -- whether to Clinton, Obama, Reagan, GW or GHW Bush, Stalin or Hitler -- is forbidden. But godly rulers, once in power, are free to enact biblically influenced laws, for instance the burning of heretics at the stake. "
This seems to state that Calvin taught that to revolt against a tyrant was forbidden with NO exceptions. If that is in fact what Jon is stating here he is completely mistaken. The following is Calvin's own words:
"I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings, (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians."(bold is mine)
Jon states elsewhere that Calvin's position is Frazer's position. This is simply not true. Frazer says there are no exceptions. Now I might be missing what Frazer has stated over and over again so I will leave room for him to clarify. But it seems clear to me that Frazer's words on the subject are not Calvin's words. So I must ask Jon again to explain himself. Frazer obviously is not going to comment on this or he would have. It is a simple question that I think deserves a simple answer.
Jon also stated:
"Needless to say what Locke argued for was NOT interposition but revolution and Calvin's and Locke's positions on the matter were almost 180% different."
It is "needed" that this is backed up with some facts. What is the difference between a "revolution" and an "interposition"? Ponnet was essentially a contemporary of Calvin and from what I read was a Calvinist. Here is what John Adams had to say about Ponnet and Locke:
"There have been three periods in the history of England, in which the principles of government have been anxiously studied, and very valuable productions published, which, at this day, if they are not wholly forgotten in their native country, are perhaps more frequently read abroad than at home.
The first of these periods was that of the Reformation, as early as the writings of Machiavel himself, who is called the great restorer of the true politics. The "Shorte Treatise of Politick Power, and of the True Obedience which Subjects owe to Kyngs and other Civile Governors, with an Exhortation to all True Natural Englishemen, compyled by John Poynet, D. D.," was printed in 1556, and contains all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards dilated on by Sidney and Locke."
Now for as much as there is no express positive law for punishment of a tyrant among Christian men, the question is, whether it is lawful to kill such a monster and cruel beast covered with the shape of a man. And first for the better and more plain prose of this matter, the manifold and continual examples that have been from time to time of the deposing of kings, and killing of tyrants, do most certainly confirm it to be most true, just and constant to God's judgment. The history of kings in the Old Testament is full of it.
And as Cardinal Pole truly cites, England lacks not the practice and experience of the same. For they deprived King Edward the Second, because without law he killed his subjects, spoiled them of their goods, and wasted the treasure of the realm. And upon what just causes Richard the Second was thrust out, and Henry the Fourth put in his place, I refer it to their own judgment. Denmark also now in our days did nobly act the same, when they deprived Christierne the tyrant, and committed him to perpetual prison."
Sounds like a long list of abuses and then a dissolving of political bonds with a tyrant to me. Anyone see anything different than what Calvin said above and Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence? It looks like a long list of abuses that violates the covenant between ruler and ruled that ends with the tyrant being deposed. Looks like Calvin and Frazer may disagree? The plot thickens....
(PS Ponnet's description of what King's do fits right in with God's prediction of what king's would do when Israel asked for a king in the book of 1st Samuel)