Thank you.
I must diagree, however. Although Calvin may have been the greatest Theologian of the Christian religion since St. Paul, nevertheless, he did give in to his tyrannical nature in the Servetus incident and therefore as nice a guy as he may have been in other matters, Calvin was a tyrant.
So tell me, why did you bring Calvin into the tyrant discussion?
because Calvin is credited with bringing the doctrine of total depravity "front and center." Whether he should be credited over Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas is up for discussion, as these men taught the same stuff... with some reservations on Aquinas. Nevertheless, modern evangelicals are largely biblically illiterate, have a soft view of the depravity of man, and thus are suckers for the view that we should look for "godly men" rather than focus on being a nation of law.
Neither will help if we are a society determined to be depraved, but the rule of law provides a better defense against tyrants, as it restrains the so called "good"men like GW Bush, as well as the socialists. Further, because of the universal sinfulness of men, it is real foolishness to put your trust in men.
I was not trying to set up Geneva (a theonomic church/state entity) as the ideal at all. Rather, I was bemoaning the shallow view of the depravity of men and the consequent foolishness of the evangelicals who ignore their own bibles in attempting to hammer out a philosophy of political activism. Therefore "where is Calvin when you need him most?"
We can talk about whether the incident with Servetus (which I brought up, btw) is an anomaly or an indication of the tyrannical nature of Jean Calvin at another time. It is not germane to the issue at hand, which is whether or not men should be trusted to rule, or all men should be expected to submit to law. I thought we settled that issue with LEX REX vs the Divine Right of Kings.
Historical revisionism. Either that or methinks you don't know what a real tyrant is.