Saturday, July 25, 2009

Mayhew, Locke, and Political Theology of The Founding Era Pulpits

This post will resume my quest to respond to some of the arguments of Dr. Gregg Frazer regarding Romans 13. Nonetheless, in an attempt to more align my thoughts with the unique character and format of this blog I have modified my quest that was stated in my last post to attempting to explain why many Clergy at the time of the Revolution:

1) Did not believe that the Declaration of Independence was rebellion against God.
2) Believed that the Bible seemed to uphold the duty of the Christian to submit to theinstitution of government but also allowed(and perhaps demanded)resistance to tyranny in certain circumstances. 3) Validated the THEOLOGICAL and philosophical ideas on government of Shaftesberry and Locke in their pulpits; whether they mentioned them by name or not or agreed with their views on salvation or not.

The sermon that has been the center of this dialogue is the most famous of this period: "Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Government Powers." It was preached by a man named Jonathan Mayhew and his core theme was that "rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." For this to be true then the more absolute interpretations of Romans 13 and the extreme doctrines that came with them had to be proven wrong. In short, Mayhew was out to disprove the interpretations of the Bible that lead to the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings."

The following is the crux of his argument against a more absolute interpretation that seeks to argue that people must submit to tyrants no matter what they do:

"For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? “Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office.”

Mayhew is pointing out the inherent contradiction of what Paul would have to be saying if the more absolutist interpretations are to be believed. To interpret this the way loyalists of that day and Frazer do, one would have to believe that Paul was saying not only did we have to submit to people who were obviously violating clear biblical mandates about the duties and obligations of civil rulers but that we had to pay honor to men who were killing people for their own pleasure! Thus, unless one believes that honor is due a tyrant then the first verse of Romans 13 can not mean what they say it does. Either submission does not mean what they say it does or what we are to submit to means something different than what they say it does. In other words, if Frazer and the loyalists are wrong then Paul would seem to be talking about the institution of government in general and not tyrants.

Another sermon of the era, preached by a man named Abraham Keteltas, seems to shed more light on the thoughts of the time on this matter. It was called "God Arising and Pleading His People's Cause." It more or less was stating that God was with the people of the Revolution and was pleading their cause because it was his cause. One would probably ask, If God ordains all authority and the leaders are his anointed then how could the fight of the common people to secure their rights from a King be God's cause?

I think Keteltas sheds great light on this with this excerpt:

"God commanded the Israelites, saying, ye shall not oppress one another. Leviticus 25, 14–17. When the ten tribes had revolted from Rehoboam, because of oppression, and when Rehoboam and Judah went out to fight against them to bring them back to subjection, God sent his prophet to Rehoboam and Judah, saying, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren! 1 Kings 12, 24. God declared to Abraham, I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee. See also 1. Chron. 16, 22, compared with Psalm 105, 15, where Jehovah is represented, saying, touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm: i.e. God’s anointed people, and not kings, because it is said in the preceeding verse, he suffered no man to do them wrong, yea,he reproved kings for their sake.

If this is to be believed, then God's anointed people can be kings and common folk alike. This would seem to indicate that what God ordained to be submitted to was something different than a tyrant King and possibly just the institution of government itself intimated before.

This brings me to a question that gives us insight into the reasoning behind the Frazer/Loyalist argument:

"If Romans 13 does not mandate subjection to wicked, ungodly, tyrannical rulers -- what sense did it make to the addressees of the letter? What sense did it make to those for whom the letter was written and to whom it was sent -- Christians living under Nero?"

Since this is not a new debate and to bring this discussion into line with the history of this debate lets allow for the fact that Frazer is not just questioning my theologicaland philosophical line of reasoning when it comes to government. He is questioning a line of reasoning that goes back to Locke, Shaftsberry, and possibly some of thescholastics. I put theological in bold face because it seems that most want to read Locke's Second Treatise and ignore his First Treatise. The first is filled with biblical arguments against the Divine Right of Kings and the second is his philosophical views that are grounded in his theology. Thus, if true, this line of reasoning that Frazer questions is based on a theological argument not a non-theological enlightenment one. In other words, Frazer and company will have to answer the question and stop changing the subject by calling everyone who disagrees with them "Theistic Rationalists."

Thus, I will attempt to answer this question as one who is a modern heir to the theological line of reasoning that Locke and others applied to civil government. With that said, a simple look at the History answers Frazer's question. According to several sources I read, Paul wrote Romans in either 54 AD or 56 AD. Since Nero took office in 54 AD it would seem like this question/argument would destroy the whole "Paul wasreferring to good government/institution of government line of reasoning" thatMayhew and company used. As I mulled this over yesterday I assumed that Frazer knew his history so I began to doubt Mayhew's whole line of reasoning.

However, after many hours of reciting story after story in the Bible that would seem to contradict the loyalist/Frazer absolute interpretation, I decided to check the history this morning. As it turns out, this is either a foolish question by Frazer or there is something about the History of this I do not know. If it is the former then this is really a non-question because Nero did not start his persecution until around 64 AD or at least 8 years after Romans was written. Simply, one of Frazer's strongest arguments turns out to be paper thin. Nero's persecution seems to have no bearing at all on what Paul wrote which leaves the door open for the argument that says that Paul was talking about submission to the institution of government in general not to unconditionally to tyrants.

Another argument that Frazer uses against the Lockean style of theological reasoning about civil government is that while there are examples in the Bible of men disobeying authority they should never cross the line into resistance or rebellion. When asked what the difference is because they both seem to be NON-SUBMISSION and a violation of Paul's admonition in Romans 13:1, Frazer responds that submission and obedience are two different things. He states that one can disobey an authority and still submit himself to that authority. He adds that we should only disobey if that authority asks us to do something that God commands us not to do.

The following question was posed as a challenge to me:

"You have not responded to my EVIDENCE for the difference between "subjection" and "obedience." I gave you the Greek meanings of the terms and showed you how they are consciously separated in Titus 3:1. You just keep saying they're the same thing -- do you have any EVIDENCE to support your view?

Titus 3:1 states:

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good.

I have two thoughts on this. The first is that if submission is absolute in Romans 13 then obedience is absolute according to Titus 3:1. In other words, Paul is telling Titus to tell the people to submit to AND obey the authorities. He adds obedience in this passage to the submission in Romans 13. So this verse actually destroys Frazer'sargument that submission is absolute and obedience is conditional. If Romans 13 is absolute then Titus 3:1 has to be as well. Inversely, this would mean that if obedience is conditional then submission must be as well which contradicts Frazer. If I am right there is no way Romans 13 says what he says it means. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Accordingly, we need to look for another explanation.

This brings me to my second thought on this verse. Paul seems to hint at the type of governments he is talking about when he tells the people to be ready to do "good" in their obedience and submission. This seems to go right along with the stream of theological reasoning as handed down by Shaftsberry and Locke that Paul is talking about the institution of government in general should be submitted to and obeyed. How could they possibly be ready to do "good" by carrying out the commands of a lunatic like Hitler? There has to be more than meets the eye to this right?

Well it seems that there is. In fact, I found a copy of Locke paraphrasing Romans on line last night. I think he can answer for himself as Frazer's line of reasoning continues:

"How can the proper interpretation of a passage of Scripture change based on how it is applied or misapplied? Did God not have a particular message? Did He not know what He was saying -- it depends on how people use it? How could the people to whom the message was originally given know what God wants them to do, since they cannot see into the future to see how men misuse the passage?"

Locke:

"And St. Paul had taught them, in his epistle, that all Christians were free from Mosaic Law. Hence corrupt and mistaken men, especially Jewish converts, impatient as we have observed of any heathen dominion might be ready to infer that Christians were exempt from subjection to the laws of heathen governments. This he obviates by telling them that all other governments derived the power they had from God as well as that of the Jews, though they had not the whole frame of their government immediately from him as the Jews had."

I think his thoughts are self explantory but I think it would be helpful to expound on a couple things. First, is that this kind of interpretation would be consistent with the rest of Romans and epistles in general in that they are often written in response to letters from the people with specific questions and usually to deal with some sort of false teaching that was going on. When Locke uses the phrase "impatient as we have observed of any heathen dominion" refering to the Jewish converts, it would seem that he was referencing other parts of the letter. Accordingly, since most of the letter was written to stress that the Jews were no better than the Gentiles(a common theme in Paul's letter) this would seem to jive. Secondly, from other things I have read, it seems that the people he was writing to were mainly Jewish converts.


In response to Frazer, it would seem that the message that God seems to want to convey according to the theology of Locke, Mayhew, Keteltas, is clear and consistent. It is also specific and relevant to the people of that time as Frazer demands it be. They see that God wants all men to submit to and obey the institution of government itself even if one is a Jew and the government of Gentile. It would seem that they all thought this was as simple as Paul validating Gentile government. It might be possible that he was essentially stating that "all governments, not just Jewish ones, are ordained by God." Also, I think that the fact that Romans 13 was misapplied in the "Divine Right of Kings" is important in that often that is the smoking gun that the the theological interpretation behind the philosophical stance is as flawed as the stance itself. This would seem to be whether Frazer thinks this is relevant or not.

I would also state that some of the doctrines least friendly to liberty were constructed on the shaky foundation of theological interpretations that seek to apply a specific exhortation to a specific people at a specific time and make it universal.(Modern Day Domionists) The best example I can give is Paul telling people it is better not to get married in one letter and in a later letter telling windows to get married if they are going to be busy bodies. Either he changed his mind or there are missing pieces we do not understand because he was addressing a specific audience and more than likely specific questions we are not privy to. I think some of his exhortations to women fall into this trap as well when used to make universal dogma. This can be avoided if we look beyond the surface of what the text seems to indicate to the whole counsel of scripture. We have to realize that there is often information left out of the text of the letters because it would be redundant to the people who are receiving the letter. Thus, a possible reason that "including Non-Jewish" was omitted to give context.

Well enough said. I hope I have done a credible job representing the theological and philosophical ideas on government that were passed on from Shaftsberry to Locke and that made it into numerous pulpits in colonial America during the time of the founding. I know that this dialogue kind of turned into what Tom would call a "intramural battle" of competing doctrines at times. However, I do not want people to lose sight of the three most important points that these posts have tried to make:

1. Many of the Christian philosophical ideas on civil government from the Founding Era are grounded in a stream of theology that is taken from the text of the Bible.

2. That this stream of theology and philosophy on civil government preceded the enlightenment.

3. That to state that these preachers' ideas were shaped more by Enlightenment Philosophy than Christian Theology is wrong.

I part with a quote in response to the charge of number three above from David Barton that I do believe is TRUE:

"While such charges certainly reflect the personal views of these critics, they definitely do not accurately reflect the extended theological debates that occurred at the time of the American Revolution. In fact, contrary to Dr. Cornett's claim that the Founding Fathers turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation of the American Revolution, the topic of civil disobedience and resistance to governing authorities had been a subject of serious theological inquiries for centuries before the Enlightenment. This was especially true during the Reformation, when the subject was directly addressed by theologians such as Frenchman John Calvin, German Martin Luther, Swiss Reformation leader Huldreich Zwingli, and numerous others."

Maybe Barton is right about some things. Oh and least someone try to use the old "they are all Theistic Rationalist" lines of thinking, Ketelas was an orthodox as they come judging by the first half of his sermon that was quoted above. From a lot of the reading I have done about Locke I think he was orthodox and liberal. The trouble most have in reading him is that he separated doctrine regarding salvation(Where at first glance he seems Orthodox)from doctrines on civil affairs.(Where he is obviously Liberal) I think we would be wise to do the same and avoid the pitfall of labeling everyone a "Theistic Rationalist" that disagrees with the loyalist/Frazer line of reasoning.

46 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

Tom would call a "intramural battle" of competing doctrines at times...

No, this well-argued, especially the citations of Locke.

You're not taking sides about what God says Romans 13 means---claiming theological truth, speaking for God---you're only describing the arguments flying around during that era.

Very helpful, and certainly germane.

King of Ireland said...

Tom,

Thanks for the advice. This format is more conducive to this site and appealing to people who make not understand all the theology. Not to mention I learned a lot of stuff I did not know. I am about done with Frazer. I have one more question that is relevant about whether any of the Founding Fathers claimed anything to do with be a deliverer in the mold of some of the Bible characters.

I am going to look at the sermons first and get the pulse of the preachers, weigh the effects on the congregants, and then look at the Founders. Keteltas' sermon about God pleading the cause of the people seems like some evidence that at least the Bible reading folk sensed a Divine mandate. I Also read some allusions to many in Britian warning the King that to work against the colonists was tantamount to rebelling against God based on some of the same type of thinking that Keteltas used.

My hope is to explore what I called the "stream of theological and philosophical ideas on civil government from Aquinas to Locke to our Founding. It will take some doing but I think it will be found to be a solid chain.

Jonathan Rowe said...

The first is that if submission is absolute in Romans 13 then obedience is absolute according to Titus 3:1. In other words, Paul is telling Titus to tell the people to submit to AND obey the authorities. He adds obedience in this passage to the submission in Romans 13. So this verse actually destroys Frazer's argument that submission is absolute and obedience is conditional. If Romans 13 is absolute then Titus 3:1 has to be as well.

King:

This is not right. This is a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitur. The reason why Gregg says submission is absolute but disobedience has one exception is because NOWHERE in the Bible does it say men have a right to "not submit" to government authority. But, Acts 5:29 says obey God rather than man if there is a conflict between the rules of the two. You can UNCONDITIONALLY submit to tyrannical government while obeying God; but you cannot unconditionally obey tyrants insofar as they may directly command a believer to break the rules in the Bible. Indeed Gregg provides compelling evidence that this is exactly what the martyred Apostles did.

You are doing a good job attempting to answer Gregg; but his position, as far as I have seen is logically airtight and the language you use is way too strong to be warranted for those of us who know in detail the rules of philosophical debate.

I think the best you'll ever be able to do is provide a logically airtight alternate to Gregg's logically airtight hermeneutic that holds the Bible teaches submission is unconditional, disobedience has one exception -- when government directly commands you to violate the Bible.

Jonathan Rowe said...

When I wrote: "Indeed Gregg provides compelling evidence that this is exactly what the martyred Apostles did."

I meant compelling evidence that the martyred apostles UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITTED TO THE TYRANNICAL AUTHORITIES who executed them for their disobedience whey the tyrannical leaders instructed them to break God's rules, i.e., stop preaching the Gospel.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I am going to look at the sermons first and get the pulse of the preachers, weigh the effects on the congregants, and then look at the Founders.

Well, King, as long as you stick to the source documents and Biblical arguments that were made in that era, you're on solid ground.

If Titus 3:1 wasn't argued in that era, then you're falling into Dr. Frazer's method, arguing theologically and not historically.

The theology of 2009 is irrelevant, whether used by him or you. But if Biblical arguments---even if made by unitarians---were accepted by orthodox Christians like Samuel Adams as well, then the theological hairsplitting about the Trinity, etc., becomes moot.

You're well positioned to evaluate the material, it seems to me, with a good knowledge of the Bible. You might find resonances of the Bible that would be lost on a secular scholar [as most of them are].

Now, I'm not going to track this down:

In fact, I found a copy of Locke paraphrasing Romans on line last night. I think he can answer for himself as Frazer's line of reasoning continues:

"How can the proper interpretation of a passage of Scripture change based on how it is applied or misapplied? Did God not have a particular message? Did He not know what He was saying -- it depends on how people use it? How could the people to whom the message was originally given know what God wants them to do, since they cannot see into the future to see how men misuse the passage?"


...but a citation is necessary here, for your reader to research the quote in context, since the quote doesn't mention Romans 13 specifically and therefore cannot stand on its own. Locke could be talking about anything here.

If he's not speaking explicitly of Romans here, then the argument is only about Locke's approach to scripture, and is only mildly helpful at best. We're already aware that he writes that reason must be applied to interpreting scripture. This is not news.

King of Ireland said...

Tom,

I do not know how to link so I did not. The Locke quote is from his paraphrase on Romans. It is on google books:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=REAAAAAAYAAJ&dq=John+Locke+%2B+Romans&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=rAPfBGI9KJ&sig=mRx6qplsdoDOg6hFIZdmok_oDYc&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

you can link it from here:

http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2008/07/john-locke-on-romans-must-read-this.html

bpabbott said...

King,

Here's a link on how to add links to your comments.

If I understand correctly, the passage is on page 277 of A paraphrase and notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, Romans, and Rphesians. It might help to search the text for "God rejected them" to find specific passage.

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

At the risk of falling into a theological battle(I think Tom is right most of the time that some of these issues are irrelevant to the topic and Frazer's thesis can be proven wrong without getting into them) I would like to know what gives the loyalist/Frazer camp the right to pick one scripture over the other?

In other words, if I was John Locke who saw human rights and liberty in the Bible and was trying to argue Filmer who saw Divine Right and authority, and he pulled out Romans 13 to make his case for absolute submission but left room for disobedience. What keeps me from pulling out Titus 3:1 and saying that both are either absolute or his interpretation of Romans 13 is off?

I will have to look it up, but if Filmer was arguing for the Divine Right of Kings, which Frazer does not, then he may use Titus 3:1 as evidence. In other words, it seems there are three camps:

1. Those that believe submission and obedience are absolute to the tyrant

2. Those who believe that submission is absolute to the tyrant but obedience is conditional

3. Those that would agree with number 2 about obedience and question the absolute submission because it violates reason and other scriptures.

The first camp could use Romans 13 to attempt to establish submission to tyrants. If someone came along and questioned if that submission included absolute obedience they could use Titus 3:1 which adds obedience to the list.

The second camp would have a hard time holding on to submission without giving into obedience. It is the same writer. This is because it opens the second camp up to a charge from the third camp that if submission is absolute according to Paul in Romans 13 then obedience is as well according to Titus 3:1. Thus, camp number two has to drop submission or add obedience to their absolute column.

Since camp #2 will never give up the right to do what Peter did in Acts they have two choices:

1. Drop submission from the absolute list are far as tyrants go

2. Hide and try to eat their cake until someone who knows the Bible from either camp #1 or camp #2 comes along.

To break this down into History will take some time but at first glance(a few articles about Locke and Filmer) it would seem that he and the strict absolutists sought to make religious dissent illegal and tried to use the "Divine Right of Kings" to do it. The second camp sought loyalty to the King but realized the some level of disobedience was needed for conscience issues. The third camp realized that to destroy the first camp they had to reason a response to the first camps interpretation of Romans 13.

Regardless, I think I have laid the groundwork to prove that the third camp existed, were part of a chain of political theology that went back a long way, and was made up of those who had orthodox, nonorthodox, and somewhere in between views on salvation doctrines. The real question is whether the loyalists belonged to the second camp above or the third camp. Does Frazer have any historical evidence that the Loyalists thought obedience was conditional?

It would seem to me that the King would not want Titus 3:1 to come up if the population is biblcially literate. Why? Then Acts 5 comes into play.

Tom,

I think there was a concerted effort to avoid the nuances of these debates by those in authority. Many political and church dogmas that sought to use religion to oppress preyed on biblical illiteracy. That is why I think it helps to look at these nuances Historically and even theologically at times. I know this is a History blog but as I always taught if it has not bearing on the present why study it?

I think the key for Mayhew and company to get people off the fence was to split camps one and two above. The issue to do it with was absolute obedience.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I would like to know what gives the loyalist/Frazer camp the right to pick one scripture over the other?

As an outsider looking in, I'll note that this is what EVERY SINGLE evangelical/fundamentalist, the Bible is the infallible Word of God type does when they construct a hermeneutic.

When fundamentalists argue TULIP is supported by the Bible and a non-Calvinist fundamentalists argue every single letter of TULIP is NOT taught by the Bible, this is what they do.

The point of developing the hermeneutic is to make it as airtight as possible. And I've witnessed smart Calvinist v. non-Calvinist evangelicals do exactly this with TULIP v. non-TULIP.

Gregg has done this with his theory of unlimited submission. Re the TULIP analogy I think the best you'll be able to do with Gregg is become his Dave Hunt to James White. (Google their names and "Calvinism" to see what I mean).

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"because NOWHERE in the Bible does it say men have a right to "not submit" to government authority"

Yes, in general. But I have given you numerous examples in the Old Testament where men disposed Kings in the will of God when they became tyrants. I still have not heard one response to any of these examples.

Can I emphatically say Frazer is wrong? No, most of this is totally debatable and not black and white. Do I think the preponderance of the evidence points to some flaws in his reasoning? Yes. Is my main point, that one's theological view of salvation has nothing to do with his theological political view, valid? Yes.

Tom Van Dyke said...

What keeps me from pulling out Titus 3:1 and saying that both are either absolute or his interpretation of Romans 13 is off?


Knowing the difference between theological history and theology itself. Only the former is relevant in a history discussion.

Filmer's Patriarcha is a nexus: Locke argues against it in his First Treatise, but Filmer is arguing against Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, who represents the scholastic tradition of medieval Christian thought. It's a chain.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Yes, in general. But I have given you numerous examples in the Old Testament where men disposed Kings in the will of God when they became tyrants. I still have not heard one response to any of these examples.

I'll go back and look at what Gregg said in each of those examples. I've seen folks try to argue rebellion in the OT (for instance Moses/Exodus) only to see Gregg explain why it really wasn't revolt.

One could also note that Romans 13 trumps all of the OT examples.

J said...

The hereditary basis of the monarchy-- and of Filmer's monarchist propaganda--- offended the Framers as much or more than it offended Locke (and let's not forget Locke's influence on Voltaire, Rousseau, and the french revolutionaries).

Locke realized that no one --king or priest--could trace his descent from Adam (interesting, many muslim leaders now attempt the same argument via descent from the Prophet).

Filmer didn't really have an argument, at least not one based in history or Reason. So he resorted to dogma, as did Luther arguably--for all that supposed protestant tolerance, Luther had no problem justifying king authority when revolution reared its ugly head (and I think he applauded Munzer's execution, didn't he).

Obviously the Framers were united in opposition against the supposed divine right--and that included even the conservative sorts such as Hamilton (who discusses the issue somewhere in Fed. papers).

Locke's points contra-Filmer also show a certain skepticism in regards to supposed Biblical inerrancy or the problems of historical accuracy. Hume will develop this idea with his own arguments against inerrancy in the essay on miracles, which however unsettling to some believers still counts as a rather important document.

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

It is not just two camps of thought. It is three. The Frazer loyalist camp is not positioned well. But even if he is right he still cannot dismiss the third camp's Political Theology based on the Theology on salvation issues. It is a red herring. His real goal is for Christians to ignore political theology in favor of salvation theology. So at best he has an alernative political theology point of view that is Christian. Not the only one! Thought not one that is strong based on what I have stated in the post.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Hume's would be a theological argument, J. On the whole, the Founders accepted miracles and so did Locke, and that is the historical concern.

Jonathan Rowe said...

King,

I don't know ANYONE in camp 1 because the Bible says obey God not man when the two conflict and the very first tyrants tried to get the Apostles to stop preaching the Gospel for which they were executed. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible understands this.

In his thesis and arguments Frazer has made it clear that "saved" that is orthodox Trinitarian Christians (like John Witherspoon) could accept the "rationalist" position on Romans 13. His argument is simply that Locke's/Mayhew's POV is not biblical but rationalist.

Tom Van Dyke said...

And the only way that is true is if we accept Dr. Frazer's theology in order to interpret history.

That is an improper mix of the theology and history.

Jonathan Rowe said...

We are at the crossroads of theology, history and politics.

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"I think the best you'll ever be able to do is provide a logically airtight alternate to Gregg's logically airtight hermeneutic that holds the Bible teaches submission is unconditional, disobedience has one exception -- when government directly commands you to violate the Bible."

Some of the sermons I read outright stated that obeying a tyrant is a violation of the Bible in that it is not loving your neighbor.

But again Titus 3:1 says disobedience has no exceptions if you pair it with Romans 13. SInce it is the same author and gives more light on an interpretation then why would you not? In other words, if both are taken literally you lose the right to disobey with your hermaneutic. Thus, the only option if you want to keep the right to disobey is to change the meaning of what you are submitting to. The only logical choice is that authorities means authority in general.

This is the argument that it seems Mayhew and Locke were making. It is just a legimate, possible, and Christian as the Frazer/Loyalist argument. If not more. It would seem to push them off the fence and into the Divine Right camp or the no Divine Right camp. Even though I call it the Frazer/Loyalist argument I am not sure his position even existed back then. Maybe it was just the two camps? Does he have any evidence that his position existed?

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"I meant compelling evidence that the martyred apostles UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITTED TO THE TYRANNICAL AUTHORITIES who executed them for their disobedience whey the tyrannical leaders instructed them to break God's rules, i.e., stop preaching the Gospel."

That is one witness. In that the reason to do this is to be a witness to unbelievers. Is not the Bonhoffer story of resisting Hitler another witness? When it comes to self the passivist doctrine may have a point. When it comes to staying silent while Hitler kills Jews I cannot see that as loving my neighbor or a good witness. In fact, one of the charges against German Christians that supported Hitler was there passive stance toward the extermination of the Jews.

It gets back to Ecclesiates 3:1. There is a time for everything. BOTH are valid Christian biblical options with support from example. BOTH have been debated throughout Church history.

J said...

On the whole, the Founders accepted miracles.

Again, the ACsters assume the truth of that assertion, but a cursory reading of some quotes from the leading Founders will provide ample evidence for doubting the accuracy of that assertion. Some of the more conservative calvinist sorts may have agreed to biblical inerrancy, including the reports of miracles in scripture. Jefferson did not, however, nor did Franklin (recall his essay on Dissenters). Madison generally agreed with Jeff. in regards to religious matters (or a-religious). Adams was no biblical literalist either. Washington rarely if ever attended church, and was a high-ranking freemason. You're not discussing the founding of the southern bapists, or even the presbyterians here.

Hume did not offer a theological argument in his essay on miracles. He was making a philosophical argument against literal readings of scripture, making use of evidentiary reasoning.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Again, the ACsters assume the truth of that assertion, but a cursory reading of some quotes from the leading Founders will provide ample evidence for doubting the accuracy of that assertion.

I don't necessarily assume the truth of this. I DO think that most of the Founders, especially the "key Founders" tried to reconcile an active interventionist Providence with "reason/the laws of nature/science." And that basically equated with a God who manipulated contingencies not someone who violated the laws of nature. For instance George Washington thought it was a miracle that he was shot and four or so bullets missed him and were caught in his coat (kinda like that scene in Pulp Fiction).

I debated one guy who interpreted the scenario as the bullets going THROUGH George Washington, but that is precisely the kind of "miracles" the FFs were NOT likely to believe in.

Moses parting the Red Sea? I don't think we could say the FFs as a whole or even a consensus bought this.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Franklin actually believed in the turning of water into wine at Cana as a "rational miracle." He also believed in the resurrection of his body.

King of Ireland said...

I stated:

"What keeps me from pulling out Titus 3:1 and saying that both are either absolute or his interpretation of Romans 13 is off?"

Tom stated:


"Knowing the difference between theological history and theology itself. Only the former is relevant in a history discussion."

Filmer's Patriarcha is a nexus: Locke argues against it in his First Treatise, but Filmer is arguing against Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, who represents the scholastic tradition of medieval Christian thought. It's a chain."

Tom agree with you to a point but we do not understand the nuances of the positions we cannot study the history correctly. We tend to put people into general camps that they do not belong to and exclude others who do belong.

I also reiterate that if it has no bearing on the present then why study it. In other words, what is the point of knowing all this if we do not see how it helps shape the same debates we are having today. If we do not discuss the theology then will people like us in the future be able to do the studies we are doing now of us and our ideas.

Like or not this blog is more than a history blog. It seeks to define a period of history in order to bring a proper definition to modern debates. There is a balance for sure. If the chain is going to continue though we need to have these discussions. Maybe this is not the place but if someone does not stand up and refute Frazer's ability to claim his view of Romans 13 as the only one it will become the only view and what Mayhew and company were trying to do will become lost in the dust bins of history.

As we see with modern Germany, this can have dire consequences. Hitler seems to have gone around and instructed all preachers to preach the Frazer loyalist view of Romans 13. In short when the other view is not presented we end up with quotes like this from Jon:

"I'll go back and look at what Gregg said in each of those examples. I've seen folks try to argue rebellion in the OT (for instance Moses/Exodus) only to see Gregg explain why it really wasn't revolt.

One could also note that Romans 13 trumps all of the OT examples."

It is Frazer's version of Romans 13 not Romans 13! His historically loyalist view becomes the "biblical view" by default. It happen then and is beginning to happen now. I think this is part of what Barton fights against. I did not agree with his politics but he is right on some things.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Some of the sermons I read outright stated that obeying a tyrant is a violation of the Bible in that it is not loving your neighbor.

That's what the sermons say; that's not what the Bible says.

But again Titus 3:1 says disobedience has no exceptions if you pair it with Romans 13.

Titus 3:1 says no exceptions. However other parts of the Bible directly contradict a "no exceptions" reading of Titus 3. Again, I notice hundreds if not thousands of contradictions in the Bible. And along come smart fellows like Gregg to "smooth them out" via a constructed hermeneutic.

"SInce it is the same author and gives more light on an interpretation then why would you not?"

On a personal matter, I might because I dig the whole "let's take certain passages in the Bible with a grain of salt approach." However that's not Gregg's or OFT's approach, i.e., the approach of fundamentalists.

In other words, if both are taken literally you lose the right to disobey with your hermaneutic.

You can't take Titus 3 in an absolute sense or else the Bible contradicts itself.

Thus, the only option if you want to keep the right to disobey is to change the meaning of what you are submitting to. The only logical choice is that authorities means authority in general.

I think you CAN interpret the Bible this way, but as a logical necessity, it is not a "MUST." Gregg's notion that submission is absolute/disobedience permitted only when necessary to obey God doesn't have a logical flaw in its internal argument.

Does he have any evidence that his position existed?

Yes Calvin's Institutes. All of the loyalist sermons.

Jonathan Rowe said...

When it comes to staying silent while Hitler kills Jews I cannot see that as loving my neighbor or a good witness. In fact, one of the charges against German Christians that supported Hitler was there passive stance toward the extermination of the Jews.

I agree that this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But that's the whole point of fundamentalism is that the Bible may be bad news indeed, but if it's the Truth, it's the Truth. I'm referring specifically to the fundamentalist idea of Hell and that most of the world is going there. That's as bad as any pro-submit to Hitler understanding of Romans 13 I can think of.

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"His argument is simply that Locke's/Mayhew's POV is not biblical but rationalist."

He is wrong. Keteltas had the same theological view on civil govenment and got it right from the Bible. Read the sermon he goes right from salvation message into a political one. There is a difference.

Jon also stated:

"I don't know ANYONE in camp 1 because the Bible says obey God not man when the two conflict and the very first tyrants tried to get the Apostles to stop preaching the Gospel for which they were executed. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible understands this."

What about all the kings who forbid dissenting preachers? This was really the whole issue both in Britain and here. It was more about religious freedom than political. They sought the latter to ensure the former against camp #1 and the state church theologians that tried to promulgate the Divine Right of Kings. They argued that the people had to submit and obey. I am not sure they even saw the distinction that Frazer makes between the two. I do not think Mayhew did either.

I plan to read Filmer to back up what I am saying but I think he would more than likely be in camp #1 based on what it seems he was trying to do.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Frazer and MacArthur are clear that preaching the Word of God is non-negotiable, no matter WHAT the government says. They idolize William Tyndale but would note that he submitted to authority and though morally wrong, the government that executed him for translating the Bible was within its God ordained Romans 13 power to do so.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Re Keteltas I'll have to do research on it; but Locke and Mayhew though they held the Bible (including Romans 13) divine, first "found" the right to rebel against tyrants in "nature" via "reason" and then interpreted Romans 13 accordingly.

Jonathan Rowe said...

The whole point of Frazer/MacArthur isn't that it is a good thing to be a tyrant, but that leaders are accountable to God, not the people for their actions. Believers should submit to all governments including tyrants and a just God will repay the tyrant for the injustice that he or she does.

King of Ireland said...

J stated:

"The hereditary basis of the monarchy-- and of Filmer's monarchist propaganda--- offended the Framers as much or more than it offended Locke (and let's not forget Locke's influence on Voltaire, Rousseau, and the french revolutionaries). "

I intentionally used the sermons of the founding as the back drop to this post and did not mention a single framer. Why? I think we lose the history of the common people and their thoughts when we focus on 5 "Framers" and how they saw things. While they commented on religious matters most of what I read shows me that they did not have a good grasp on the theology of the day. Like modern politicians they used it when they thought they could and ignored it when they thought they could.

The Constitution starts with We The People. I am more worried about what they had to say. I think we can gain some insight on that by looking at the sermons on politics. In other words, I am attempting to reframe this entire discussion. I think it needs to happen to get to the bottom of the questions that this blog sets out to answer.

So any reference to the Founders is really off topic for this post. Unless it relates to how their views were shaped by these sermons or the people who preached them.

Jonathan Rowe said...

As we see with modern Germany, this can have dire consequences. Hitler seems to have gone around and instructed all preachers to preach the Frazer loyalist view of Romans 13.

Again I think the whole point of fundamentalism is that it is immune from the reductio ad absurdum argument of "look at the bad consequences." This whole issue can be solved if we say the entire Bible should be viewed as inspired in a "general sense," but not necessarily inerrant or infallible. If I become a Christian it will probably be THAT kind of Christian.

It is Frazer's version of Romans 13 not Romans 13! His historically loyalist view becomes the "biblical view" by default.

If you can back it up with an intelligent hermeneutic, I think Gregg is entitled to say "the Bible teaches X," just like an intelligent Calvinist is entitled to assert "the Bible teaches TULIP" and an intelligent Arminian is entitled to dispute that.

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"Titus 3:1 says no exceptions. However other parts of the Bible directly contradict a "no exceptions" reading of Titus 3."

That is the whole point! There are parts of the Bible that contradict the Frazer/Loyalist reading of Romans 13. So either it is a contradiciton or it means something other than they say it means.

I explained this when I talked about Lockes notes on Romans 13:1. There are contradictions. Paul did it with the whole marriage thing. To say everything Paul says in inerrant is foolish. He is obviously giving an opinion at times because he states it. Other times it could be easily inferred that he is giving his opinion.

Other times the contradiction on exists because the interpretation is flawed. I think the whole Jewish convert theme that Locke brought up is the most reasonable one I have heard. It makes sense to me. It is an infallable interpretation? No! Is there such a thing? No! Much of it is debatable. It is like the whole evolution thing. No honest Christian can say for sure that the earth is 6,000 years old. They cannot there is a gap in there that could mean anything. It is debatable.

I hope this is clear. Simply, if something contradicts it is a good sign that the interpretation is wrong. I said this months ago and Frazer laughed. I think he under estimated my knowledge of the Bible and got arrogant. He ain't looking so good right now.

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"That's what the sermons say; that's not what the Bible says."

Says who? Can you back this up? In other words, can you prove that their political theology is not from the Bible? You are starting to sound like a dogmatic evangelical.

:)

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"I agree that this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But that's the whole point of fundamentalism is that the Bible may be bad news indeed, but if it's the Truth, it's the Truth."

They are wrong in doing this at times. But it does not mean that all do it. This argument from loving one neighbor is valid. So is the submitting to a tyrant as a witness to others and dying. It is personal choice though. I do not think it is commanded. I think that is where people see contradicitions and throw it out. I see them and thank God that he respects me enough to give me a choice.

Choice it anti-thetical to Calvinists. That is why the Mayhew interpretation is seen as not valid. As you stated the Mayhew way of looking at it is not a must but neither is Frazers. I think it was one of your posts that quoted the Calvinist stating that to believe in rights one had to become an Arminian. I had studied both some and found this statement eye opening and bizarre. Seems like propaganda to me.

J said...

So now the thesis has changed to the early American citizens were nearly all conservative christians, trinitarians, calvinists? First off, you would be hard pressed to prove that. I doubt you could even establish what ratio of early Americans attended church--you might be somewhat accurate in regards to say New England and the more civilized areas, though even early on the unitarians and Emersonian types were quite powerful.

Out on the frontier, down south, on plantations, near the natives, I doubt that they were all god-fearing calvinists. Many were rebels, buccaneer types, outlaws even (as were leaders such as Burr--another framer not quite in the biblethumper camp). America was not just a reiteration of puritan England or presbyterian scotland. For that matter the evangelical, Baptist types now current are mostly a product of the Reconstruction--I wager even the old presbyterian moralists would not have approved of 'em. Either way, the claim would be difficult to substantiate.

Jonathan Rowe said...

There are parts of the Bible that contradict the Frazer/Loyalist reading of Romans 13. So either it is a contradiciton or it means something other than they say it means.

Not exactly. Parts of the Bible appear to contradict themselves. I've seen Frazer and others explain them away. It's all very sophisticated. However I don't think it's POSSIBLE to have an absolute, no exceptions understanding of Titus 3 without the Bible contradicting itself. The same thing cannot be said of Frazer's view of Romans 13.

There are contradictions. Paul did it with the whole marriage thing. To say everything Paul says in inerrant is foolish. He is obviously giving an opinion at times because he states it. Other times it could be easily inferred that he is giving his opinion.

I have no personal problem whatsoever with this approach to the Bible. However we are dealing with a different set of rules than what Gregg deals with. His rules say the Bible does not contradict itself ANYWHERE and that every word of it including EVERY word that came out of Paul's mouth was written by the Holy Spirit.

If we ditch that approach, yes of course Romans 13 doesn't stand in the way of revolt against tyrants.

Jonathan Rowe said...

So now the thesis has changed to the early American citizens were nearly all conservative christians, trinitarians, calvinists?

I don't know if Tom would endorse this assertion. But I certainly don't. I try to get most evangelicals who might be sympathetic to the "Christian Nation" thesis to understand that according to the Bible nominal, that is unregenerate Christians will not only always be with them in any place and time, but arguably will be statistically dominant. And this includes Founding era America.

I think what Jefferson understood to be "unitarianism" might be a sophisticated version of the "nominal Christianity" that dominates America today and arguably during the Founding era. People who believe in God, call themselves Christians but are unsure on matters like Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, eternal damnation, infallibility of the Bible.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Actually the quote was the idea of "democracy" or republican self government was more in line with Arminianism than Calvinism. For man to rule himself places more confidence in his nature than Calvinism gives.

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"You can't take Titus 3 in an absolute sense or else the Bible contradicts itself."

How easily can this be said of Romans 13 as well! The best solution seems to be to realize that Locke was probably right. It makes the most sense. There is an art to reading the Epistles. So do not even consider them inspired. I am open to that. It is a lot of opinion giving for sure.

It is also dangerous to base doctrine on them because if they are answering specific questions from a letter we have no idea what the other side of the dialogue is saying that would bring context. It is by no means an exact science and I would not use anything from an epistle to say that it TRUMPs other parts of the Bible that the story is pretty clear.

I think many of the so called "Theistic Rationalists" looked at it this way. They may have believe in inerrancy but they did believe the Bible was inspired. Inerrancy and sola scriptura are non sense. What did people do for revelation before the Bible? Or those who do not have one today?

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"The whole point of Frazer/MacArthur isn't that it is a good thing to be a tyrant, but that leaders are accountable to God, not the people for their actions"

Yea they are above the law. It goes along good with the Divine Right of Kings. Keteltas hits this head on with his point about Kings being disposed because they touched God annoited.

As far as Mayhew using reason to figure this out I have no issue with it. I did too. I used to believe the Frazer/Loyalist argument. I tried to apply it practically and began to see it must be wrong. This is what took me to scripture where I found most of my answers. Frazer seems anti-intellectual. I bet he has a problem with Aquinas as well.

King of Ireland said...

J,

That is not what I said. I do think that it was the majority in some regions for sure based on the Great Awakening. What I am trying to show is that the key founder argument only goes so far.

I am also trying to say that theology about salvation is irrelevant to a discussion about politcal theology. In short, I think Mayhews sentiments were pretty indicative of the time.

I guess I am trying to look at the theology more than the philosophy. Not that the latter is not important. There are people who disagreed theologically on civil government that agreed philosophically. I just think we need to understand the nuances and history of both. Philosophy and the key founders wins out most of the time on this blog in my opinion.

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"However I don't think it's POSSIBLE to have an absolute, no exceptions understanding of Titus 3 without the Bible contradicting itself. The same thing cannot be said of Frazer's view of Romans 13."

Why not? Both are written by the same man for seemingly the same purpose. If submission is absolute then obedience is. If not then there has to be another explanation. The loyalist that seeks to keep his right to disobey contradicts himself.

Explain this further maybe I am missing something. I gave you numerous example in the Bible where some one took out a King and God approved of it. How is that not a contradiction to the a Loyalist interpretation? How is the loving my neighbor not a contradiction to it?

Frazer blew it when he did not research Nero's persecution and when he used Titus 3:1 to refute a really good argument I had about that there is no difference between rebellion and disobedience.

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"If we ditch that approach, yes of course Romans 13 doesn't stand in the way of revolt against tyrants."

This is the feeling at the core of the chain of theology Tom has alluded to and this post is about. It is just different approaches to the Bible. It is not orthodox or liberal. It is just different.

I think this is what Tom has been trying to tell you for a while. I think it helped seeing the Theology of it that is why I went through all this. Frazer approach is not the "orthodox or evangelical approach" by default.

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"Actually the quote was the idea of "democracy" or republican self government was more in line with Arminianism than Calvinism. For man to rule himself places more confidence in his nature than Calvinism gives."

Thus the core of the Frazer/Loyalist world view. I think many people had to overcome TULIP to join in the Revolution. It may have been the invasion of Unitarian thought but it is probably more like the "Emergent" movement today that is trying to invade the tradiitional conservative churces. They agree on a lot but differ on approach.

J,

I agree with you about the rest of the country. Although the Awakening hit the Frontier as well. But I should really say I am looking at the Upper NE where the dissenters were found. A key region for the Revolution and the idea that shaped it.

King of Ireland said...

By the way I see that no one responded to the Barton quote? I would also like to know where Frazer is? Or Mac Arthur for that matter? They need to respond to what he said it was directed to their charges. So was what I wrote.