Romans 13: Person, Office, or Both? — Reformed Libertarian

Louis W. Hensler III, JD, professor at Regent University’s School of Law, wrote a tremendously helpful paper for the Regent University Law Review titled “Flexible Interpretations of ‘The Powers that Be’ from Constantine to Mandela and Beyond.” He outlines two […]

via Romans 13: Person, Office, or Both? — Reformed Libertarian

One thought on “Romans 13: Person, Office, or Both? — Reformed Libertarian

  1. markmcculley

    Scott Clark is just like ALL OTHER Reformed folks—he withdraws any claim that the Lord Jesus has anything to say to those who use state violence but he also has an over-realized eschatology which claims that the “means of grace” are already in the hands of only paedobaptist elders. Why would anybody ever say that power and violence are corrupting?
    Scott Clark slanders all in the group,giving two very different accusations, but claiming that the reason is that all “them” don’t have his “just right balance of eschatology” —Scott Clark–There were those who sought to bring about heaven on earth: the Anabaptists. Ecclesiastically, they sought to bring about a pure visible church by requiring a profession of faith as a condition of water baptism. By this they sought to eliminate the ambiguity inherent in infant members of the visible church and the visible administration of the covenant of grace. They argued that the new covenant church is so eschatological, so heavenly, that it was inappropriate to include infants in the visible church.
    In politics, though some of them counseled withdrawal from civil and secular society (because secular life was thought to be unclean and corrupting) but some of them transferred their highly-realized (or over-realized) eschatology from THE CHURCH and they took over a powerful social rebellion known as the Peasants’ War

    Scott Clark– Rejection of the status of Christian children continues to perpetuate)a principle of radical discontinuity between Abraham and the Christian, i.e. a radical principle of discontinuity in the history of redemption . This denial of the fundamental unity of the covenant of grace as symbolized in the administration of the sign and seal of the covenant of grace to covenant childre, is serious enough to warrant saying that any congregation that will not practice infant initiation (baptism) into the administration of the covenant of grace is not a church


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s