Luther and Calvin :Part 2

Luther and/or Calvin talk about the soul and how God is the only one who can rule the soul.Humans do not have authority over the soul because they can't kill or bring to life the soul.They also talk about how secular obedience and power only extend to taxes and outward things.I agree that there is a limit of power and secular authority cannot rule faith and God's Word. If a secular authority contradicts with God's law, the Christian should obey God's law and suffer for God rather than deny Him.

Luther and Calvin: Part 1

All mankind is divided into two sections: the first is the is the kingdom of God where those who truly believe in Christ belong and the second is the kingdom of the world. Christians are not subject to the law or the sword and do not need them. Both of the governments must be allowed to continue, one to make people just and one to keep outwardly peace.

Prince Quiz

"The Prince is a concise statement of Machiavell's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."

Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?

(Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx: Modern Western Political Thought, p. 32)


In the first part of Germino's evaluation of Machiavelli's "The Prince", he states that Machiavelli believes that Christian political theory cannot work in a world concerned only with power. Throughout Machiavelli's book he proves that this statement is true. The purpose of Machiavelli's book was not to tell prince's how to do the right thing but how to acquire power and keep it. It didn't matter what it took to stay in power. The things that Machiavelli proposes seem reasonable but when considered thoroughly, something in us has to disagree with the prince destroying his entire kingdom to make sure that no one rebels. There is obviously no room for justness and honesty in the struggle for power. Machiavelli explains that the appearance of virtue can be more valuable than true virtue. Sometimes a prince can be virtuous and be harmful to the state and sometimes he can do evil and immoral deeds that help the state. Machiavelli emphasizes that a prince needs to do whatever it takes to keep his power, even if that means not considering what is morally right and wrong.

I disagree with Germino's second statement that says that Machiavelli rejected the idea that only power and brute force matter. It seems clear to me that Machiavelli did, in fact, support the claim that only power and brute force matter. His entire book is devoted to keeping someone in power by any means possible. If Machiavelli rejects this idea of the importance of power, then what would he support? He certainly does not support a moral standard for a ruler and it seems clear in his book that power and brute force are the key to being a successful ruler.