The following is some more insight from Jim Babka on Gregg Frazer's thesis and the whole Interposition discussion in response to Jon's last post:
Jon,
I couldn’t read thoroughly all the comments back and forth between you and King of Ireland over at American Creation. After awhile, I skipped to the end. I’m not interested in weighing back into this fray, as I believe I’ve said everything I want to say on the matter. Still, I think that this particular discussion could be aided a bit with the following perspective.
I agree with KofI, for the most part, in the case he’s been building of late, both for the Presbyterian doctrine of interposition and its influence on the Founding Fathers. And, overall, I admire and appreciate what I’ve learned, from you, about Mr. Frazer’s thesis — that is, I believe that Theistic Rationalism was the primary belief system amongst the leading Founding Fathers.
But all that said, I think KofI’s critique of Mr. Frazer on this aspect of Interposition is focused imprecisely. Both Mr. Van Dyke and I have pointed out that Frazer dismisses, entirely, all the scholarship within Calvinist circles, following Calvin himself.
1) Frazer takes the view that Calvin didn’t really mean that kind of interposition! He meant that only lower magistrates who had the power, as a specific job description, to rebuke the king, could do so, albeit guardedly and hesitantly. This view ignores that Calvin lived in an era where individual interpretation of scripture was new, that Calvin’s view appears to have evolved, and that he made reference to Biblical situations that did not fit the take that the power was so limited.
2) Frazer is unwilling to consider that Calvin had contemporaries who wrote on the topic of interposition, who claimed Calvin personally agreed with them. Whether or not they were telling the truth, he ignores the fact that “Calvinist” scholarship expanding the doctrine of interposition began while Calvin was still alive.
3) He rejects the influence of Calvinist interposition authors on the Founders, even when John Adams cites one of them, and other historians like Gary Amos can demonstrate that the DOI was modified, in convention, to appeal to the Calvinists. That would suggest, along with King George’s claim of a “Presbyterian Parson’s rebellion,” that the ORTHODOX Presbyterians were a necessary part of the revolutionary block.
4) And, most amusing of all, he rules out the generations that followed Calvin and elaborated on his doctrine of interposition, as Calvinists — like, they don’t have the secret decoder ring, and if they do, they should return it. As I pointed out in the past, their non-Calvinism would come as a great surprise to most of them.
Jon, you are correct: Mr. Frazer’s hermeneutical/theological disagreement is legitimate, even if KofI and I think he gets that part wrong as well (to disagree with Frazer theologically, btw, does not require that we look at Scripture as uninspired — the mere doctrine of men). Each must judge for their own, but to me, judging historically, given the aforementioned four points, Frazer seems closed to contrary evidence on interposition.
And I’m not sure why. I for one think his historical flag in the ground is still erect and waving, even while disagreeing with him on this singular aspect.
42 comments:
Jim stated:
"This view ignores that Calvin lived in an era where individual interpretation of scripture was new, that Calvin’s view appears to have evolved, and that he made reference to Biblical situations that did not fit the take that the power was so limited."
This last part is exactly where I am going. The story of Othniel that Calvin references does not seem to fit either:
1. My Frazer says Calvin is saying
or
2. What Calvin himself is saying
I stressed this same story in my refutation of Frazer's uber dogmatic view of Romans 13. If the strict text is sacred and sola scriptura is king then how does Interposition become an exception? It seems to be a legal argument based on scripture more than scripture itself which would point to the natural law.
Those who do not know the Bible might swallow this without question but I know better. Thanks to Jim for seeing the same weakness in Frazer's argument on Interposition and Romans 13.
Babka writes:
to disagree with Frazer theologically, btw, does not require that we look at Scripture as uninspired — the mere doctrine of men...
Oh, I think as historians, we can and we must look at the Bible exactly that way, as an invention of men. otherwise, this is no longer a history blog, it's a religion blog.
What the Founding era believed was God's will is our only inquiry into religion and the Founding.
It's an interesting side discussion on whether John Calvin, St. Paul, Jesus or God would have approved of the American Revolution, but that's theology, not history.
And lately around here, the sideshow has become the main event.
Pls, let's get back on track. Pinky's exploration of the understanding of "group rights" vs. individual rights at the Founding is far more interesting and relevant to our own age.
The American Revolution was propelled by Presbyterians, America's Calvinists. They were not concerned whether John Calvin would approve. "Protestantism" meant nobody can tell you what to think or believe about the Bible or God's will, not even the Pope. John Calvin was no pope. In fact, he and the Founders equally despised popery.
That's historical fact.
Tom,
What Calvin thought is part of the history of theology. Which is germane.
Not part of the history of religion and the American Founding, if the Founders rejected Calvin's theology [on Romans 13]. Just as Aquinas is only part of the Founding where they agreed with him.
If he allowed for interposition they did not.
?
I was referring to natural law re Aquinas, but as a matter of fact, he was beginning to get there on interposition, as far back as 1250 or so.
http://www.shadowcouncil.org/wilson/archives/005614.html
I was talking about Calvin. I am not so sure they through at his position. I think the may have thrown out Frazer's position that he claims, I think wrongly, that Calvin shares. If this is true it destroys his whole political-theological case. Then he stands on the shaky ground of "theistic rationalist". The hair line crack in his egg is about to become visible and it is a historical argument not so much a theological one.
You will see in my next post that I do not care so much that he has a different interpretation than me. I do care that he says that mine and Mayhew's is not valid nor historical. That is a history issue not a theology one.
OK. As you can see in the article on Aquinas, the absolutist view of Romans 13 was already showing cracks in the 13th century. The Founders didn't exactly innovate a "new," non-Christian interpretation, which I believe Gregg is arguing.
Unless Aquinas wasn't a Christian either.
KOI,
When did I ever say that Mayhew's interpretation was not historical? That wouldn't make any sense, since he expressed it in an historical period and it had an impact on many.
In short, I've never said that. Alas, yet another straw man.
KOI,
Also, over in Positive Liberty I've answered your question from Dec. 15th about the extended quote from Calvin.
Welcome Back Gregg,
Part of a historical Christianity is what I am getting at. Do you believe it? The way it comes across when Jon says it makes it seem like your view is the only historical view.
I will check the comment out.
Tom,
No, that's not what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing that Mayhew produced a creative interpretation that influenced a significant number of ministers/congregations in the Revolutionary period who had not been influenced by previous attempts to mangle Romans 13.
Mayhew's audience didn't care about Aquinas and wouldn't have considered his argument persuasive because he was Catholic. So, whether or not Aquinas held a particular view of Romans 13 was irrelevant to them.
Others closer to Mayhew's camp had made attempts similar to Mayhew's to reverse what Scripture taught -- such as Samuel Rutherford -- but there's little/no evidence to suggest that they were familiar with his work.
Mayhew had the impact, which is why he was dubbed "The Morning Gun of the Revolution."
[parenthetically, there are significant questions about what Aquinas meant -- especially where various translations are involved; and "Wilson" too casually equates disobedience and revolution and tyrannicide]
KOI,
What I've said again and again is that the view held by Calvin and by me was the PREVAILING view in the church for 1500 years and is recognized as such by scholars with no dog in this fight -- including many who support revolution and are glad Mayhew did what he did. This is why Mayhew was so important.
It obviously wasn't the ONLY view. People identifying with Christianity have all sorts of screwball views, just like people identifying with any other religion or philosophy.
In sum, "my" view was the PREDOMINANT view in historical Christianity, alternate minority views notwithstanding.
No, that's not what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing that Mayhew produced a creative interpretation that influenced a significant number of ministers/congregations in the Revolutionary period who had not been influenced by previous attempts to mangle Romans 13.
Gregg, Aquinas [and Suarez and Bellarmine] were well known at least to those who influenced the Founding thinkers, and was studied at Harvard until the 1690s. Aquinas had become ensconced in Christian thought over a period of 500 years.
Aquinas is intertwined in Christian thought in the same way that we quote Shakepeare all the time without even knowing we're doing it.
Your blank slate of Reformation thought is untenable. Richard Hooker was a Thomist, and he was a main influence on Locke. Your Reformation narrative is simply not going back far enough in the history of Christian thought.
Algernon Sidney, right here:
http://www.constitution.org/as/dcg_102.htm
Your argument contra Aquinas holds no water.
Did Hooker in fact teach anything like Locke on the right to revolt and other unalienable rights.
Locke CITED Hooker -- as was the convention (the Straussians argue for cover) -- but I'd like to see what's distinctively "Hooker" (or "Hookerian") in Locke's teachings that dramatically impacted the American Founding.
State of nature/contract & rights, it seems to me, is Hobbes, not Hooker.
The point is that Aquinas was known to the Founding generation, even if only indirectly. Gregg tries to write him out.
See Algernon Sidney's mention of the Schoolmen above. See Bellarmine vs. Filmer vs. Locke.
See the Second Treatise:
This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity.
Now, it's true that Locke goes on to deviate from Hooker later in the same piece. However, the Founders seemed to follow Hooker here, no?
This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself
sounds more than a little familiar:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
Gregg,
How is Mayhew's view any different than Ponnet's? How is the Declaration of Independence any different from "Short Treatise"? Are you saying Ponnet had been bitten by the Enlightenment bug a few hundred years ahead of tiime?
The Aquinas or Enlightenment false dichotomy needs to end. There were many, many men that shared the same view of Interposition and Romans 13 long before Mayhew.
Also what does his doctrinal views have to do with his political theology?
Tom,
This part of Locke made it into the DOI. It is the whole foundation for equality and inalienable rights. Where did he start to deviate from Hooker?
Jon,
I have read just a little about it but the contract thing goes back pretty far to Canon law. It goes back to the whole idea of covenant that you see in the Old Testament. The idea comes from the whole Saul and David thing. The people had to consent to Saul and this was the covenant. They say that David was annoited but had not made a covenant with the people yet.
I have not read enough of it and gone back to check the Bible verses to see if it works but in general I think they make a good case that is how it was in the Old Testament. The arrogance of modern man thinks that we are the only ones who have ever thought of this stuff.
I think the problem with Protestants(I used to be one) is they think the Church started in 1517. It did not.
Same chapter, King.
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm
EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE.
Sec. 9. I doubt not but this will seem a very strange doctrine to some men: but before they condemn it, I desire them to resolve me, by what right any prince or state can put to death, or punish an alien, for any crime he commits in their country. It is certain their laws, by virtue of any sanction they receive from the promulgated will of the legislative, reach not a stranger: they speak not to him, nor, if they did, is he bound to hearken to them. The legislative authority, by which they are in force over the subjects of that commonwealth, hath no power over him. Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England, France or Holland, are to an Indian, but like the rest of the world, men without authority: and therefore, if by the law of nature every man hath not a power to punish offences against it, as he soberly judges the case to require, I see not how the magistrates of any community can punish an alien of another country; since, in reference to him, they can have no more power than what every man naturally may have over another.
Interposition is not one of my areas of concern, so I admit I'm winging it here. But it appears from this section and those that follow it, Locke rejects "interposition" as unnecessary under the law of nature.
However, my main argument is that the Founders read Locke not as closely as some of his more radical contemporaries and most scholars today, for as we see above, it's Hooker who makes it into the D of I, via Locke.
The essential equality of human beings is the first requirement for the corollary of natural rights, as well as for that of consent of the governed, both being concepts that have their origins in medieval Christian philosophy.
Gregg,
I got you now. I stand corrected. You have stated the Predominate view before I remember. I took it as dominant. Totally different. I still think you need to clarify the dates when you talk about Nero. You are quoted a lot to secular people that would think your interpretation that God was speaking through Paul ahead of time laughable but still pass that along not knowing that the dates do not match up for it being a direct command at that time to people that were under a tyrant.
King, my own view is that "covenant" is not part of the Founding theology, and [paleo-cons? like] Robert Kraynak argue that the lack of a covenant with God is what makes America NOT a "Christian nation."
It's quite clear to me [and confirmed in Washington's first inaugural address as well as Mr. Abbott's favorite Adams quote], that the Founding was seen as a covenant or contract between men, between equals.
The Bible features no contract between men, only with God. David was indeed anointed, as was Saul. [In fact, David kills the Amalakite for killing God's anointed, Saul. That was beyond man's authority, and indeed supports the absolutist view of Romans 13.]
Tom,
I think you may be right about Locke. I also noticed that the Virginia bills of rights look a lot the Declaration except that it does not say that all men are created equal. It just says that they are equal in nature. Maybe the fair doctrine is right about a few things. I think he just takes his case too far. The nuances are hard to detect here.
One has to read all these documents closely to have a chance. I just asked Greg the same thing that Locke asks here though. Why does the magistrate have the right to resist and the citizen does not? That would leave the Jew with no recourse against Hitler which is never going to be okay with me. Interesting discussion as usual.
Tom stated:
"The essential equality of human beings is the first requirement for the corollary of natural rights, as well as for that of consent of the governed, both being concepts that have their origins in medieval Christian philosophy."
It was Hooker that made it in through Locke. But I have read some stuff that say this goes back Pre-Aquinas. I have been looking at a law school here in Naples that teaches from Natural Law. Dominos Pizza founder started it. I am realizing more and more that the Protestants threw out the baby with the bath water.
These discussions the last year has helped me solidify what I want to do.
Tom,
i was talking about covenant between king/government and people not God. Have not read enough about it to be clear. Sorry. I have read it was part of the Canon law as the king not being above the law. I think the Church in the time of Gregory used it to depose a few kings too. I think it was this episode called the Investitures? that started the whole Interposition thing.
Also, the whole idea of Locke that the people had the same power as the magistrate my not mean to depose there as I read it again. Even if it does that did not make it into the DOI because the wrote as the lawful government with the right to depose the king.
I wouldn't term Kraynak a paleo-con. Rather a meat & potatoes Republican Catholic social conservative.
Most paleo-cons have written off the Republican Party and have for some time.
Barry Shain is actually more associated with the Paleocons (whom you like to write off as cranks).
Tom,
They made covenants with each other all the time. It is just another word for contract. I have to go study for my Real Estate exam of I would look them up. I remember one I think one they took off their shoe as a sign of the covenant.
King,
It's important -- as Tom noted -- to understand the difference -- or what those of us argue is a difference -- between the "biblical covenant" on the one hand and the "social contract" on the other.
It's true that political contractarianism (i.e., the notion of individual rights) *could* be traced before Hobbes to canon law.
However, the historical context was that Hobbes hit the scene arguing "state of nature/contract and rights" in a seemingly innovative sense and was "justly decried" by those in power (esp. ecclesiastical authorities).
And then Locke enters the picture and, though doesn't endorse Hobbes (for obvious reasons), rather Locke invokes Hooker (a safe, respected authority), but proceeds to discuss/criticize Hobbes on terms that Hobbes seems to have dictated (i.e., "state of nature/contract and rights").
Likewise, Rousseau then hit the scene and argued with BOTH Hobbes and Locke on those same terms (state of nature/contract and rights).
Thus, the idea is state of nature/contract & rights was a novel teaching and whatever their differences among them, THAT formed a lowest common denominator "worldview" among Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
To further compound the irony, Hobbes was textually less Christian than Locke (though Hobbes did like Locke claim to be a Christian); but his worldview on the state of nature (life therein being nasty, brutish and short) seems closer to a Calvinistic worldview than Locke's cheery (or not pessimistic enough to pass the test of Christian orthodoxy) view of human nature.
I have been looking at a law school here in Naples that teaches from Natural Law. Dominos Pizza founder started it.
I think Robert Bork teaches there. If you study there, prepare to exit a practicing Roman Catholic, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Seriously, there are some HEAVYWEIGHT guys who teach there (though the community demands you strictly adhere to Roman Catholic teachings on lifestyle issues).
Not sure if he teaches at the law school, but Michael Sugrue (who gave up a seat at Princeton to teach there) is about as good a professor of political philosophy as it gets.
Jon,
I reject a lot of Catholic Dogma so I doubt I will become a "practicing Catholic". It is just a goal at this point. I have money and GPA issues. I am about to start in Real Estate and it seems to be busy again so the money problem will hopefully be solved. I know someone in admissions so maybe I can get some slack on being a bum when I was 20.
I have always wanted to do law but never did. I regret it now but at least I know what I want to study. I would like to be the Christian Sandfeur. Long, long way to go.
Jon,
What innovations did Hobbes make over the Canon lawyers?
I reject a lot of Catholic Dogma so I doubt I will become a "practicing Catholic".
Roman Catholics -- especially of that ilk -- are very good arguers. Though -- perhaps because of peculiar issues with Roman Catholic bigotry & America -- they tend to be less public than the Protestant televangelists.
Because it's a relatively new college, it doesn't have the prestige, hence it's not as hard to get into, as a Notre Dame. But it's got some top rate thinkers/teachers there.
Barry Shain's an historian, not an advocate. He's fine with me, and altho I don't think I buy his thesis of "community rights" in toto, he does great research into religion and the Founding that the secular academy bypasses.
As for paleo-cons, that Pat Buchanan got 0.4% of the vote in 2000 and his magazine has a circulation of 10,000, I think that granting them an iota of importance in the public debate at all is to give them an iota too much.
Hey, I got you good with that Hooker-Locke-D of I thing, Jon. You asked for a smoking gun and you got one right between the gluzzies.
;-)
I admit I haven't dug into Hooker himself much, but as we see, even if Locke was hiding his radicalism behind Hooker's skirts, the Founders only saw the skirts.
__________
As for Ave Maria Law School, King, I'd steer clear.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/09/how-an-ideologue-destroyed-ave.html
[Read the comment from the 3L too.]
Besides its internal problems, despite that fact that its grads passed the bar at a better than a 90% clip, the law industry is largely secular and liberal, and voted Ave Maria one of the very bottom law schools in the country.
Perhaps for good reason, perhaps out of bigotry. Regardless, Ave Maria's graduates are dead meat in the job market, which also has got absolutely terrible for rookies in the past 2 years. [I work in the industry.]
Look elsewhere. Anywhere else, if you want a job.
I do not want to go to law school to be a lawyer per se.
My goal is to get into Real Estate and use the law degree to learn to beat asinine Environmental laws. The man who can so that can make a billion dollars in Florida. I want to learn the business end of it first then the law end. Could take me years.
It is not just about money though it is about protecting private property rights. If I can make some money doing it the better. I was a missionary and still am. Learned a different message and am fighting a little different fight. The whole heaven coming to earth thing and doing something that actually helps the world rather than just running around telling everyone that does not agree with my narrow view of God they are going to hell.
Anyway, good dialogue as usual gentlemen.
Jon stated:
"Because it's a relatively new college, it doesn't have the prestige, hence it's not as hard to get into, as a Notre Dame. But it's got some top rate thinkers/teachers there."
That is what attracts me. I really want to learn this stuff the right way. That is why I appreciate you helping me with my writing.
By the way, on my next post if I put words into your mouth you did not say then feel free to correct it with what you are trying to say. I miss the nuances at times.
Tom,
I don't think we want to get into a pissing contest about the publication numbers of political-intellectual journals. Most of them are money losers and their losses are financed by rich folks who care about getting ideas out.
Last I checked, lewrockwell.com beat the Corner in terms of number of hits.
Shain is an historian, true; but he has his biases like any other historian and is a self described paleo-conservative polemicist.
BTW, King---the conservative radio talker Hugh Hewitt still keeps up his law practice for some reason, doing exactly the same real estate/environmental law. In the industry, that specialty is called "land use."
Shain is an historian, true; but he has his biases like any other historian and is a self described paleo-conservative polemicist.
Is that so? I've only read an essay or 2, plus what Pinky writes about him.
Still, he is an accredited historian, a professor at Colgate. I can hang with a polemicist if he has some standing. Even Howard Zinn, whom I think deserves mainpage treatment here whenever the spirit moves someone.
Dr. Zinn is a serious guy, and gets a place at the table.
As for lewrockwell.com, some of those guys are pretty solid scholars too. I've quoted the late Murray Rothbard meself. When they argue, they bring deep facts, not just sophomore-level opinions. It's the lightweights I object to featuring on our mainpage, regardless of their POV.
And you can't deny that your favorite whipping boys [or "beards"] from the minuscule theocratic right get more cyberink on our mainpage than all other POVs put together. I think we should be mindful of that and keep an eye on that imbalance.
How about something on Brian Tierney?
Tom,
Land Use is what I want to do. Federal government is taking up all of Florida. Someone needs to stop them. Might as well try and make a billion dollars while I am at it. Then we can start a school for Thomism and send some bad ass dudes all over the world equipped to do some good. One step at a time though.
Then we can start a school for Thomism and send some bad ass dudes all over the world equipped to do some good.
Or take Ave Maria over when it fails. You can found or refound a "Thomist" school without the demands for Roman Catholic dogma.
Anything but dogma for me. By the way Protestants have just as much if not more! Took the second best looking girl I have ever hooked up with(#1 was Ms Teen Maryland) to get me to go back to church. I am going for New Years with her tomorrow night. God has his ways.
Post a Comment