tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5138700160703805202..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: John Calvin Taught Rebellion to Tyrants is DISOBEDIENCE to GodBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39940364819059930842010-03-23T18:14:24.683-06:002010-03-23T18:14:24.683-06:00Joe,
I'll step one more time into the never-e...Joe,<br /><br />I'll step one more time into the never-ending Othniel labyrinth.<br /><br />Calvin cites Othniel as an example of GOD bringing judgment on a tyrant -- NOT of men being justified in deciding for themselves that a ruler is unworthy of their subjection (rebelling).<br /><br />You persist in ignoring what I've said several times in response to your suggestion that the Othniel story invalidates (what I think is) the clear message of Romans 13.<br /><br />As I've said before, when I say that Romans 13 absolutely commands subjection, the absolute command applies to US (to men; to humans; to people living on earth; etc.), those for whom the Word of God was intended. It does NOT apply to God. So, while WE are absolutely not free to reject submission to authority and/or RESIST authority, GOD IS FREE TO DO SO. This is also what Calvin says. GOD BRINGS HIS JUDGMENT ON TYRANTS -- but it is not OUR place to do so.<br /><br />So, if GOD raises up someone as a deliverer, then HE (God) is bringing judgment. IF someone has direct revelation from God that God has chosen him for that role, THEN (and only then) is he justified in engaging in overthrowing authority. That is not a violation of the absolute command that WE not resist because it is GOD acting through an instrument of His choice.<br /><br />If God does not reveal to that deliverer that he has been chosen by God for this role and he chooses to rebel on his own volition, then his rebellion is just as sinful as mine -- and God uses his sin to accomplish His purposes (as He did Pharaoh, for example).<br /><br />ALSO:<br />Judges 3:10 says the "the Spirit of the Lord came upon him [Othniel]," but that does NOT mean that whatever he did was God's will from that point on. There are plenty of examples -- even here in Judges -- in which someone was imbued with the Spirit of the Lord and then did evil/wickedness. See, for example, Judges 8:24-27 and Judges 16:1. For that matter, all Christians are baptized with the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of the Lord), but we still sin and do evil.Gregg Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883853316391723287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17986859057828601352010-03-23T17:38:07.034-06:002010-03-23T17:38:07.034-06:00Tom,
There is no "Gregg's assertion ther...Tom,<br /><br />There is no "Gregg's assertion there's no Lex Rex in Locke" -- I have never made such an assertion. What I've said is that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that Rutherford influenced Locke.<br /><br />I have never denied that CalvinISTS have read Calvin in a manner convenient for their preferred position, either. I have merely pointed out that Calvin himself went out of his way (WITH THE HISTORICAL EXAMPLES HE GAVE) to try to keep people from misinterpreting what he said. THE HISTORICAL EXAMPLES ARE WHAT THEY ARE -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE RELATED IN LATIN OR IN ENGLISH.<br /><br />The problem with Mr. Bangs's argument is that Calvin didn't cite the Dutch situation as an historical example of what he meant -- he cited the tribunes, ephors, and demarchs. I'm sure it's convenient to ignore those examples and find examples one likes better, but all it tells us is what you and Mr. Bangs prefer -- not what Calvin said or meant.Gregg Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883853316391723287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13757730720607535462010-03-20T07:03:14.007-06:002010-03-20T07:03:14.007-06:00"That is, you could analyze what the Founders..."That is, you could analyze what the Founders did and some, even much of what they SAID they did under the rubric of some kind of interposition, that British violated British law, that America, as intermediate magistrates "resisted" the "unlawful" actions of the British.<br /><br />However, they still said they revolted on more than one occasion. And that doesn't square with either Calvin or more generous notions of "interposition."<br /><br /><br />I think Tom stated earlier that all that really matters for our purposes is if they were trying to fit in with the rubric and in line with 1688 in England. I agree.<br /><br />With that stated, I think you pose a fair question here: <br /><br />Does saying you are revolting disqualify you from a lawful interposition? <br /><br />I would say my initial reaction is that no matter what you call it or who does it when you take out a King it is an revolt. Maybe Calvin and those like Frazer that cite him on Romans 13 quibble over this because of their dogmatic views of Romans 13 and their view of Rebellion?<br /><br />The problem is that either we are misreading Calvin or he undermined his own argument with the example of Othniel. I kind of doubt the latter since he was well versed in the Bible but maybe is biases blinded him to an illogical conclusion. <br /><br />I am going to shift the frame of this is my next post a little to the angle I should have brought in from the start about how one can follow the command to love self and neighbor out of reverance of God and stand by and let a tyrant slaughter the neighbor? How is that justice?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13525858551867530960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26194483405848137492010-03-18T19:55:43.825-06:002010-03-18T19:55:43.825-06:00I've been corresponding with a Calvin-Reformed...I've been corresponding with a Calvin-Reformed scholar named Jeremy Bangs, who wrote to express his appreciation of our discussion. Here's his take.<br /><br /><br />TVD: <i>Also interested in your reading of the Calvin passage in dispute<br /><br />"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..."<br /><br />which seems to permit a rebellion like that of America's Continental Congress, a duly constituted "magistrate."</i><br /><br />Bangs: YES - WHAT'S THE DISPUTE? CALVIN COMES AROUND TO THE IDEA THAT A RULER WHO CONTRADICTS DIVINE COMMANDS CAN BE OPPOSED WHEN FOLLOWING GOD'S COMMANDS REQUIRES THAT ONE NOT OBEY. SO THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONS OF OPPRESSION THAT HAVE TO BE SUFFERED BUT THERE ARE OTHERS WHERE DIVINE OBLIGATION INCLUDES NOT OBEYING.<br /><br />BTW, Jeremy adds,<br /><br /> CALVIN NONETHELESS WANTS INDIVIDUALS TO APPEAL TO PROPERLY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES (WHETHER SUPERIOR TO THE UNJUST RULER OR SIMPLY PARALLEL DID NOT REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AS THE ATTEMPTS BY THE NETHERLANDS' STATES GENERAL TO FIND AN ACCEPTABLE RULER AFTER THE DEATH OF WILLIAM OF ORANGE DEMONSTRATE).<br /><br /><br />I ran across this tidbit meself recently: The Dutch "shopped around" for another monarch and offered their crown to several European monarchs, all of whom declined as more trouble than it was worth. [It wasn't uncommon for someone to be king of more than one country back then.]<br /><br />Which is a great thought experiment for us 21st centurians to understand the 18th, and just how radical the monarchless American republic was for the times.<br /><br />We take our bourgeois liberal democratic republic for granted as self-evidently the best and most natural system these days, but back then, the world went, WTF?<br /><br />And after France failed with their pale imitation of the American revolution, what happened? <br /><br />Back to the tried-and-true, in this case, Emperor Napoleon.<br />______________<br /><br />Jeremy Bangs is the author of<br /><br /><a href="http://www.plimoth.com/books-media/books/colonial-history/strangers-and-pilgrims-travellers-and-sojourners.html" rel="nofollow"><i>Strangers and Pilgrims, Travellers and Sojourners - Leiden and the Foundations of Plymouth Plantation</i></a>.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58772171938409312762010-03-18T17:09:24.577-06:002010-03-18T17:09:24.577-06:00Well, again, the word "revolt" is not as...Well, again, the word "revolt" is not as important as the concept and the context. It appears America's Calvinistically-inclined were at peace that their actions were justified before God, and not anti-biblical.<br /><br />I also ran across this bit on Calvin's immediate successor:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Beza<br /><br /><i>In 1574 he wrote his De jure magistratuum (Right of Magistrates), in which he emphatically protested against tyranny in religious matters, and affirmed that it is legitimate for a people to oppose an unworthy magistracy in a practical manner and if necessary to use weapons and depose them.</i><br /><br />Now, I don't know what this means, or if we can trust the Wiki on this. I appeal to any good Calvinists out there who are up to speed on Beza and his works for info.<br /><br />But as previously noted, the Reformed tradition is not owned solely by Calvin, nor is the Bible.<br /><br />As for the dimension that seems Lockean, that the King voided the "social contract" with his people, there also seems to be a lot throughout the Christian tradition of a "covenant" with the people, and as we all know, that sovereignty rests with the people can be found as far back as Aquinas and I'm sure further back than that.<br /><br />Whether the two tracks converged, or were simply "in the air" as a truism that was secularized via Locke would be a different study. One certainly would think Jefferson didn't trouble himself on whether John Calvin would approve or not. On the other hand, that his arguments are compatible with the Reformed tradition might not be sheer luck.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18937696556226553842010-03-18T16:54:21.162-06:002010-03-18T16:54:21.162-06:00I anticipated and noted this in my original commen...I anticipated and noted this in my original comment. That is, you could analyze what the Founders did and some, even much of what they SAID they did under the rubric of some kind of interposition, that British violated British law, that America, as intermediate magistrates "resisted" the "unlawful" actions of the British.<br /><br />However, they still said they revolted on more than one occasion. And that doesn't square with either Calvin or more generous notions of "interposition."<br /><br />Gregg Frazer, after Russell Kirk, note the rhetoric of those parts of the DOI [the parts that talk about revolt, not the parts that complain about British violations of British law] may have been a wink to France to get for support.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-271224694011003812010-03-18T15:21:37.437-06:002010-03-18T15:21:37.437-06:00Where in existing British law did the mechanism ex...<i><br />Where in existing British law did the mechanism exist for the Continential Congress to legally resist British Rule?</i><br /><br />Well, as I said, under whatever reasoning they used in Britain in 1688. Including that the king "abdicated."<br /><br />The colonists did not recognize parliament as lawful authority over them and disobeyed them freely and in good conscience.<br /><br />However, the state legislatures and the Continental Congress <i>were</i> the lawful magistrates [THEM] you require here:<br /><br /><i>"I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of Kings"<br /><br />The question is who is THEM? It's lawful magistrates, "appointed" pursuant to some lawful mechanism to -- perhaps among other things -- restrain the tyranny of Kings.<br /><br />Calvin is saying, IF you have that lawful option, GO FOR IT.</i><br /><br />No problem, then, even according to your own argument.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11025018230870587932010-03-18T14:36:27.603-06:002010-03-18T14:36:27.603-06:00Dang. They sounded interesting but not that inter...Dang. They sounded interesting but not <i>that</i> interesting.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84525425490692542142010-03-18T12:25:19.830-06:002010-03-18T12:25:19.830-06:00Even at my college with our limited JSTOR license,...Even at my college with our limited JSTOR license, the first article wanted to charge me $34, the second one $10.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32665400427831517482010-03-17T22:41:07.210-06:002010-03-17T22:41:07.210-06:00Tom stated:
"Further, as the above article a...Tom stated:<br /><br />"Further, as the above article argues, there were two strains of thought in the revolution---one, a Lockean-Jefferson rebellion that we see Jefferson carry to the French revolution.<br /><br />The other strain is the New England-Knox-Calvinist one of Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, far more religious, conscientious and less virulent than Jefferson's.<br /><br />This appears reasonable: New England [and Adams] opposed the French Revolution even as Jefferson promoted it and even defended its excesses as necessary."<br /><br />I think we see these two strains of thought in the DOI and the fact that Adams and the Congress had to curb what Jefferson wrote and added more God references that would appeal to Calvinists and other orthodox types seems to support this. <br /><br />Which is pretty much what Jon's overall point about the founding has been in that there was a lot of ideological strains that inspired it. I just think "Enlightenment" tends to mean "Secular" too much and that the "Christian" influences are misundertood and thus under emphasized.<br /><br />In other words I think we agree more than we disagree and this whole exchange helped flesh that out. If this is true Jon I think you and Barton agree more than you would think if you read where he is coming from more.<br /><br />I know he overstates his case and gives shitty evidence for some bizarre conclusions at times but overall his point is a good one if taken in moderation.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71710825788187650412010-03-17T22:26:51.768-06:002010-03-17T22:26:51.768-06:00So Jon are you willing to revise your statement ab...So Jon are you willing to revise your statement about the DOI to:<br /><br />The DOI was not a "Calvin" style interposition<br /><br /><br /><br />and/or to stipulate that:<br /><br /><br /><br />The DOI was a "Ponnet" style interposition <br /><br />If so with the latter then the Christian idea of interposition most certainly was an idea that had a great deal of influence on creating Gladstone's "a free people sovereign" that helped launch the modern world in contrast to much of what you and Ed seem to state on this topic.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56140438823130359092010-03-17T22:18:52.551-06:002010-03-17T22:18:52.551-06:00Calvin:
"The former class of deliverers bein...Calvin:<br /><br />"The former class of deliverers being brought forward by the lawful call of God to perform such deeds, when they took up arms against kings"<br /><br />Othniel is most clearly in this class. HE WAS NOT A LOWER MAGISTRATE restraining the power of the King. He revolted and the Spirit of God aided him. <br /><br />Thus:<br /><br />1. Your reading of Calvin on this matter is scewed<br /><br /><br />OR<br /><br /><br />2. Calvin undermines his own argument with this example<br /><br /><br />I am not sure which one it is yet to be honest. I think Calvin was conflicted on this and it shows in his writings. Babka gives some credible evidence in his series of posts on this that Calvin later clarified his position on this or changed his mind when he saw first hand what was done to the Hugenots.<br /><br />I might add too that the exception of any type of resistance undermines Frazer's whole argument that the command in Romans 13 is absolute. If there is one exception then why not others? <br /><br />I am sure I will have more to say as I read all this again with your comments but I do thank you for responding in such a thorough way. I think this was a good post and as usual I learned a great deal from reading the back and forth between you and Tom.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89271977097278857612010-03-17T22:09:12.564-06:002010-03-17T22:09:12.564-06:00"Where in existing British law did the mechan..."Where in existing British law did the mechanism exist for the Continential Congress to legally resist British Rule?"<br /><br />I allow that the answer to this question MAY point to where Calvin would differ from Ponnet, Locke, and later Calvinists on interposition. BUT even if you are correct, and I am not done evaluating all of what you wrote, this does not mean that your original statement that the DOI was not an interposition stands just because Calvin my disagree.<br /><br />Jefferson himself used the argument of interposition in 98 to claim "state rights" against the Alien and Sedition Acts. The evidence is against you.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23609871014925201552010-03-17T22:04:23.895-06:002010-03-17T22:04:23.895-06:00Calvin stated:
"I am so far from forbidding ...Calvin stated:<br /><br />"I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of Kings"<br /><br />Tom replied:<br /><br />"means he's NOT forbidding it."<br /><br />I would agree. He seems to forbid private men of their own volition but then goes on to say that public men had a duty to curb tyrannical kings. <br /><br />Exactly the part I pointed out many months ago when I posted on this and Jon stated the DOI was not an interposition. <br /><br />At best it is not a "Calvin" interposition though I think the above put a great deal of doubt on that as well.<br /><br />King/JoeKing of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35481869650934989682010-03-17T21:59:07.879-06:002010-03-17T21:59:07.879-06:00"I am so far from forbidding them to withstan..."I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of Kings"<br /><br />The question is who is THEM? It's lawful magistrates, "appointed" pursuant to some lawful mechanism to -- perhaps among other things -- restrain the tyranny of Kings. <br /><br />Calvin is saying, IF you have that lawful option, GO FOR IT.<br /><br />Otherwise, if no such lawful mechanism exists, you submit to and obey the worst tyrant you could imagine God might send you.<br /><br />This is not "revolt."<br /><br />Where in existing British law did the mechanism exist for the Continential Congress to legally resist British Rule?Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32192492377494521512010-03-17T21:41:19.308-06:002010-03-17T21:41:19.308-06:00Well, the first page of my google search isn't...<i>Well, the first page of my google search isn't giving the the pages I'm looking for re Noll.<br /><br />Though he may answer these questions this summer at the Witherspoon Institute:<br /><br />http://lehrman.isi.org/about/announcements/view/id/96<br /><br />In particular, it will explore why the great majority of dissenting American Protestants supported the War for Independence even though the Calvinist tradition (illustrated by Calvin himself) originally advocated obedience to rulers and was hostile to the antinomianism of more radical reformers.</i><br /><br />Hmmmm. Mebbe I'll get meself to the Delaware Valley for some Noll this summer.<br /><br />;-)<br /><br />But he has to answer to the texts, both Calvin's and Adams'. And <i>Vindiciae</i>. AND Knox AND Rutherford.<br /><br />I think Winispringer and this essay by some professor from somewhere <br /><br />http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=27906<br /><br />put a big dent in that.<br /><br /><br /><br />And for the record, the only reason I propped up McNeill as an authority was on the assumption he has Calvin in Latin, French, and only then in English. If he's editing Calvin only based on translations to English, then I withdraw proffering him.<br /><br />Still, I do not withdraw a plain reading of Calvin-in-English that<br /><br /><br /><i>"I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of Kings"</i><br /><br />means he's NOT forbidding it.<br /><br />An interpretation 180 degrees in the other direction requires more backing than us just shooting the shit. This here is a serious blog.<br /><br />/8-[D>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5387157951537687242010-03-17T21:36:49.376-06:002010-03-17T21:36:49.376-06:00Well, this isn't
John Calvin Taught Rebellio...Well, this isn't <br /><br /><i>John Calvin Taught Rebellion to Tyrants is DISOBEDIENCE to God</i><br /><br />I'm <i>observing</i> this debate between you and Mr. Winispringer, and giving my honest input on the evidence being presented. Me, I don't care what Calvin thought, and neither did John Knox. John Calvin was not God or Jesus or St. Paul or the Pope.<br /><br />And "Calvinism" is only a shorthand for the <i>Reformed</i> Protestant tradition. John Calvin does not own it.<br /><br />Neither does John Calvin own the Bible. To call the American revolution "anti-biblical" in any fashion is to give John Calvin authority over the interpretation of scripture, something that any good Protestant would dismiss as just more papism. Then or now.<br /><br />As for the facts on the ground---where the rubber meets the road---the colonists did not recognize Parliament as their rightful rulers. Parliament "took over" the British regime in 1688, long after the colonies received their charters from the King. This fact is in The Farmer Refuted, it's in the D of I. Screw Parliament.<br /><br />So, there was only the King to deal with, and the lawfully elected/appointed Continental Congress had the lawful authority per "interposition" to declare the King had "abdicated," the same argument used to justify the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that deposed Charles II and put William [and Mary] in his place.<br /><br /><i>"He [King George] has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us."</i>---D of I <br /><br />Same argument. Jefferson <br /><br /><i>"And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not<br />warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of<br />resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as<br />to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost<br />in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from<br />time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.<br />It is its natural manure.”</i> <br /><br />...didn't give a damn about such niceties. He was a Jacobin at heart. But John Adams and New England, the Cradle of the Revolution, did.<br /><br />I had no interest in your "battle" with Mr. Winispringer, the "King of Ireland," Jon. But I've done a ton of digging looking for support for either of your "sides." I can't find any support for<br /><br /><br /><i>John Calvin Taught Rebellion to Tyrants is DISOBEDIENCE to God</i><br /><br />as it applies to the Glorious Revolution or the American.<br /><br />And even if you could prove that, or at least argue it viably from Calvin's "Institutes," Knox, Rutherford, and their source, <i>Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos</i> take "Calvinism" out of Calvin's hands more than a century before the American revolution, and even well before Britain's Glorious Revolution.<br /><br />All these signposts are there in the Founding era literature, if we have our eyes open for them. New England was as conscientious before man and before God in justifying their revolution as the makers of the Glorious Revolution were. Not "anti-biblical" by any stretch.<br /><br />But it's also true that Thomas Jefferson didn't give a good goddam about any of that. Bloodthirsty Jacobin that he was...<br /><br />;-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76491618454535979992010-03-17T21:17:33.397-06:002010-03-17T21:17:33.397-06:00Here is something fun I found from Noll. Not on C...Here is something fun I found from Noll. Not on Calvin, but Romans 13 & America.<br /><br />http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1999/february8/9t2070.htmlJonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12112323579001764882010-03-17T20:49:12.402-06:002010-03-17T20:49:12.402-06:00Well the first page of my google search isn't ...Well the first page of my google search isn't giving the the pages I'm looking for re Noll.<br /><br />Though he may answer these questions this summer at the Witherspoon Institute:<br /><br />http://lehrman.isi.org/about/announcements/view/id/96<br /><br /><i>In particular, it will explore why the great majority of dissenting American Protestants supported the War for Independence even though the Calvinist tradition (illustrated by Calvin himself) originally advocated obedience to rulers and was hostile to the antinomianism of more radical reformers.</i>Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66393898895570403242010-03-17T20:40:26.990-06:002010-03-17T20:40:26.990-06:00Their own state legislatures and the Continental C...<i>Their own state legislatures and the Continental Congress were their "magistrates."</i><br /><br />I did note I think you can analyze what they did and much of what they said they did using this language of interposition.<br /><br />However, they went further and said they revolted. And Calvin, as I understood him, would side with the British because, the law, as it then existed, recognized King George/Parliament as the final arbiters.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8685923283352681292010-03-17T20:23:32.056-06:002010-03-17T20:23:32.056-06:00I speak only of private men.
The colonists didn&#...<i> I speak only of private men.</i><br /><br />The colonists didn't recognize Parliament. Their charters were from the King.<br /><br />Their own state legislatures and the Continental Congress <i>were</i> their "magistrates."<br /><br /><i>John Calvin Taught Rebellion to Tyrants is DISOBEDIENCE to God </i><br /><br />All I asked is that you find some scholar besides Gregg Frazer to support that ASSERTION. Mark Noll will do. But even he has a hill to climb against the editor of Calvin's "Institutes."<br /><br />Not that it's insurmountable, mind you. But surely we apply the same standards here as we applied to the late great OFT.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22803438811641545542010-03-17T19:51:59.350-06:002010-03-17T19:51:59.350-06:00You aren't going to get me with "appeal t...You aren't going to get me with "appeal to authority." But if we are going to appeal, Gregg's interpretation of Calvin and revolt is (as far as I remember) that of Mark Noll's, Nathan Hatch's and George Marsden's who are as authoritative as it gets.<br /><br />Re your passage, in my version I reproduced the larger passage with the quote you threw at me in bold:<br /><br /><i>... Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. 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). <b>So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings,</b> 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.</i><br /><br />Calvin seems to say here that intermediate magistrates, appointed to restrain the licentiousness of Kings, OUGHT to to do when the King is licentiousness. I think we are improperly getting hung up on how this might relate to the DOI & its call for revolt (I don't think such passages vindicate revolt at all).<br /><br />Rather, we may be missing the forrest for the trees in ignoring Gregg's and my (I learned from him) example of Congress being able to remove the President, pursuant to a legal mechanism. <br /><br />That itself is part of a "republican" balance of power scheme. And we see that in Calvin's idea of "interposition."<br /><br />This also fits with the "checks and balances"/strict constitutionalism view of the East Coast Straussians that values the "republican" Constitution more than the "liberal" "rights oriented," revolutionary DOI, which should be ignored, not embraced.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69082737788204765462010-03-17T19:11:20.950-06:002010-03-17T19:11:20.950-06:00So you disagree with the editor of Calvin's &q...So you disagree with the <i>editor</i> of Calvin's "Institutes," who presumably has access to the original Latin*?<br /><br />That<br /><br />"I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of Kings"<br /><br /><i>doesn't</i> mean he's NOT forbidding it?<br /><br />What can I say? Do you have a single scholar besides Gregg Frazer who agrees with your reading? Of an English translation, not even the originals? <br /><br />I'm trying to work with you here, Jon, but you can't say 1 + 1 = 3 without some support. <br /><br />;-)<br />_______________<br /><br />*Wiki:<br /><br /><i>The original Latin edition appeared in 1536 with a preface addressed to King Francis I of France, written on behalf of the French Protestants (Huguenots) who were being persecuted. Most often, references to the Institutes are to Calvin's final Latin edition of 1559, which was expanded and revised from earlier editions. Calvin wrote five major Latin editions in his lifetime (1536, 1539, 1543, 1550, and 1559). He translated the first French edition of the Institutes in 1541, corresponding to his 1539 Latin edition, and supervised the translation of three later French translations. The French translations of Calvin's Institutes helped to shape the French language for generations, not unlike the influence of the King James Version for the English language. The final edition of the Institutes is approximately five times the length of the first edition.</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81573975110425241322010-03-17T18:13:33.531-06:002010-03-17T18:13:33.531-06:00"Calvin turns here with startling abruptness ...<i>"Calvin turns here with startling abruptness to approve, and solemnly urge action by constituted magistracy to protect the liberties of the people."<br /><br />which blows this whole riff out of the water, absent a strong counterargument.</i><br /><br />Not really he's trying to do what Rutherford et al. (and by et al. I'm including the modern day Rutherfordians, like the "Rutherford Institute" who try to claim resistance to tyranny and political liberty for Calvin) in playing up Calvin's exception.<br /><br />I've read the passage in context. I stand by my analysis that what Calvin meant by intermediate magistrates were men (like Congressmen) acting pursuant to existing legal mechanisms.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20805159382940041872010-03-17T18:10:06.329-06:002010-03-17T18:10:06.329-06:00I know Adams mentioned the Vindiciae Contra Tyrann...I know Adams mentioned the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, which is why I tried to couch my assertion. If I remember the context in which he cited it, he vomited the name with a plethora of others and barely touched the substance of the argument.<br /><br />It could be that the Vindiciae and Lex Rex were read by a lot of folks. But they were barely cited by the key and non-key Founders and by Ellis Sandoz's sermons which cite Locke over and over again.<br /><br />It could be there's a lot more out there than what Sandoz reproduced. But that's the standard bearer book of political sermons so far. And from what I remember, lots of Locke, little to no Rutherford and Vindiciae in there.<br /><br />Likewise I've seen Locke connect with both Hooker and Shaftsbury, among others. But not Rutherford.<br /><br />Rutherford's views on Liberty of Conscience were also not Lockean at all (I'm not sure if you want to me quote Rutherford's defense of Calvin having Servetus burned).Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.com