tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post8415035870778486714..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Calvin, Interposition, and "the Problem of Othniel"Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12693753665708396632010-05-02T22:35:55.470-06:002010-05-02T22:35:55.470-06:00Tom
I missed the link I used to the piece on Adam...Tom<br /><br />I missed the link I used to the piece on Adams and Vindicae a while back. But I think it profound. I was trying to tell Jon way back that the "social contract" came from Christian covenent theory long before enlightenment figures got a hold of it. Vindicae sounds like a good read if one can find it in English. <br /><br />I think my next posts will concentrate on comparing all these different writings to Locke and the DOI. My suspicion is that there will be little difference.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84674387758265862362010-05-02T22:30:47.843-06:002010-05-02T22:30:47.843-06:00"So, as a third point of order, I would not c..."So, as a third point of order, I would not conflate the Biblical story of Othniel and John Calvin on "interposition" under Romans 13 with the current controversy over Obamacare, except in the most general way of linking the concepts. Surely we would not ally Madison or especially Jefferson, who spat upon him, with any of the thoughts of John Calvin. That would surely be a bridge too far in any literal sense, although it might not be cynical to say Jefferson and Madison exploited the concept of "intermediate" magistrates righteously opposing the tyranny of kings, John Adams and the Federalists in this case."<br /><br />No matter what we call all this it really just plain old federalism. I do think Jefferson carried many of the same arguments from the DOI into the doctrine of 98. I also think you see the DOI ideals in Federalist 10 and 51 when Madison talks about the best form of government to ensure the protections of individual rights. <br /><br />I think this modern states rights/federalism movement is foolish to look for intellectual material only back to 1798. Interpositon and the concepts behind it go all the way back to Pope Gregory at least.<br /><br />I also am willing to bet that a lot of the Protestant resistance theory writers got there stuff from Catholic writings. Especially the one's like Ponet the wrote during the Reformation. Seems he was smart enough not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20769721480709199292010-05-02T22:23:25.072-06:002010-05-02T22:23:25.072-06:00Tom stated:
"Still, while fanning the flames...Tom stated:<br /><br />"Still, while fanning the flames of opposition in Virginia and Kentucky [and winning a level of "interposition" legislation there], Jefferson and Madison stopped short of any justification of "nullification" by the individual states of the "general" government's legislations."<br /><br />My understanding(mainly from reading a lot on the tenth amendment center web site) is that Jefferson did call for nullification. Though I have never really checked out the documents for myself. It is on my list of things to do.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24404016176925691002010-05-02T12:55:05.712-06:002010-05-02T12:55:05.712-06:00Jon, what burden of proof are you assuming? I thi...Jon, what burden of proof <i>are</i> you assuming? I think you're in the very least obliged to oppose John Adams here.<br /><br />From <br /><br />http://www.davekopel.com/religion/calvinism.htm<br /><br />..which makes Vermigli the main witness for Calvinism, the story of Othniel being from Judges 3:<br /><br /><i>The Italian preacher Peter Martyr Vermigli brought Calvinism to England in the middle of sixteenth century, during the reign of Edward VI, but after Mary ascended the English throne, Vermigli’s position in England became untenable, and he fled to Zurich. In a commentary on Romans (1558) and another on Judges (1561), he argued that inferior magistrates, though not the people themselves, have a duty to overthrow a ruler who violates his covenants. The key part of the Judges commentary was reprinted in Common Places, a collection of Vermigli’s works that Calvinist preachers used as a teaching resource in following decades. </i><br /><br />If Kopel's correct, that rather cements K of I's argument that Calvin had been surpassed on the topic by equally authoritative Calvinist thinkers, starting with the mighty Vermigli.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Martire_Vermigli<br /><br /><br />see also<br /><br />http://positiveliberty.com/2006/08/babka-replies-to-frazer.html<br /><br />from several years ago. It never ends.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55603092815703644642010-05-02T11:05:44.269-06:002010-05-02T11:05:44.269-06:00Well I think we can point by point show the differ...Well I think we can point by point show the differences between Ponet and Locke. However, the burden still remains on the other side to show a connection between Locke and Ponet et al. AND to show that the American Presbyterians and Congregationalists who argued pro-revolt relied on *those* Calvinists like Rutherford more so than on Locke.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43375906208111232522010-05-02T10:47:55.522-06:002010-05-02T10:47:55.522-06:00Jon
I think the burden of proof is on you to show...Jon<br /><br />I think the burden of proof is on you to show where Locke and Ponnet differ that much. I also linked a an article that Tom linked a while back in the last paragraph that seems to point to a direct link between Vindicae and Adams. <br /><br />Nontheless, Calvin is not the best sourco on interposition. I think I just managed to get your chief witness thrown out!King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13696165826212322522010-05-02T09:21:21.799-06:002010-05-02T09:21:21.799-06:00Likewise with the sermons. I know the Sandoz coll...Likewise with the sermons. I know the Sandoz collection better than most (but not perfectly, not as well as some others). And I'm sure there is more great stuff to be discovered.<br /><br />However, what I want to see is the American Presyb. and Cong. justifications in their pro-revolt sermons.<br /><br />I'd argue, you see far more Locke and far less Ponet, Rutherford, and Vindicae. And there is little to ANYTHING in the record that connects Locke to Rutherford, et al.<br /><br />If I am wrong, show me the money.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88361640967109674812010-05-02T09:19:21.970-06:002010-05-02T09:19:21.970-06:00Tom,
No question Anglicanism was the chief politi...Tom,<br /><br />No question Anglicanism was the chief political theology source of submit to the King. Ironic in that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Marshall, among others were Anglicans and had to therefore, go outside of their churches' official teachings for their justifications on rebellion.<br /><br />My main beef is with those who argue they instead turned to Sola Scriptura, biblical Christiany. They simply did not.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7368800397534607642010-05-02T08:26:54.460-06:002010-05-02T08:26:54.460-06:00Believe it or not I have to go work on a Sunday. W...Believe it or not I have to go work on a Sunday. When I get home later tonight I will address some of your points of order. I think all three are excellent points and should help me clarify what I am and am not saying.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13525858551867530960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2694671571153017652010-05-01T22:59:07.021-06:002010-05-01T22:59:07.021-06:00Second point of order, the meaning of "interp...Second point of order, the meaning of "interposition" as it was used in the immediate post-Founding period, as a "states' rights" argument, specifically against the Adams/Federalist government's <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts<br /><br />which brought their downfall in the election of 1800 to Jefferson and Madison's insurgent Democrat-Republican party.<br /><br />Still, while fanning the flames of opposition in Virginia and Kentucky [and winning a level of "interposition" legislation there], Jefferson and Madison stopped short of any justification of "nullification" by the individual states of the "general" government's legislations.<br /><br />Perhaps anticipating their own takeover of the levers of the US government themselves? Afterall, the election was only 2 years away. Nah, that would be cynical.<br /><br />;-)<br /><br />So, as a third point of order, I would not conflate the Biblical story of Othniel and John Calvin on "interposition" under Romans 13 with the current controversy over Obamacare, except in the most general way of linking the concepts. Surely we would not ally Madison or especially Jefferson, who spat upon him, with any of the thoughts of John Calvin. That would surely be a bridge too far in any literal sense, although it might not be cynical to say Jefferson and Madison exploited the concept of "intermediate" magistrates righteously opposing the tyranny of kings, John Adams and the Federalists in this case.<br /><br />[There's a quote from Jefferson in later life totally trashing the Federalists as monarchists, BTW.]<br /><br />And as minor point of order, I still have reservations about the term "revolution" used synonymously with "revolt." The American Revolution didn't topple the king, only separated from his his sovereignty:<br /><br />---There was no "divine right of kings" under Calvin or Romans 13 because<br /><br />---Sovereignty was given by God to the people, who invest it in their ruler<br /><br /><i>That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...</i><br /><br />---A ruler can forfeit that sovereignty not only by disobeying divine or natural law, but by "usurpation" or "abdication"<br /><br />[The Declaration of Independence uses the term "usurped" twice and also "abdicated" once. Coincidence? I don't think so...]<br /><br />In other words, I think the literal use of Calvin has a resonance in the American Revolution. But as time goes on, the echoes are real, but grow fainter.<br /><br />I reckon the only question in 2010 is whether we can still hear echoes of the echoes, or if their resonance has disappeared altogether.<br /><br />Good and solid post from King of Ireland, our friend and co-bloggerist Joe W. Great and subtle link at the end for people who actually care about the facts, to dissident clergyman John Ponet's <i>A Short Treatise on Political Power</i> from 1556<br /><br />http://www.constitution.org/cmt/ponet/polpower.htm#chap4<br /><br />of which John Adams wrote<br /><br /><i>"all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke"</i><br /><br />Heh. 1556. "The Enlightenment," my ass. Primary point of order made and carried by your post here, K of I. Well done, sir.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24065428590456371112010-05-01T22:55:36.914-06:002010-05-01T22:55:36.914-06:00King, I'm enjoying your study of Jean Calvin h...King, I'm enjoying your study of Jean Calvin here, but I hope you'll permit me to raise several points of order once Calvin met the American Revolution:<br /><br />First of all, echoing a bleg from historian Mark David Hall in one of our previous comments section, he was looking for a native-born American or Calvinist [Presbyterian or Congregationalist] clergyman who opposed the American revolution under Romans 13 aside from <br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/04/rev-john-joachim-zubly-on-romans-13.html<br /><br />Let's help out Dr. Hall if we can. We have people around here who hit the books and just don't spot off. If he's largely right, the remaining Tories, then, would pretty much be those born in England, and/or presumably of the Church of England, who were bound by oath of sacred office to obey the king. [Trading one pope for another, more or less, but that's a different discussion.]<br /><br />Otherwise, I think Hall is raising a key point not uncongenial to your own, K of I. The Calvinists in America had no theological problem with Romans 13---it was a question already asked and answered in Britain's civil wars of the 1600s.<br /><br />In fact, there's much historical proof that the British considered America's revolution a Presbyterian thing. [Not Calvin himself, but led almost exclusively by Calvin's spawn! What went wrong?]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com