tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post7205051548268077017..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Mark David Hall Responds to D.G.HartBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87023867328217452672013-06-29T07:59:24.811-06:002013-06-29T07:59:24.811-06:00I have finally completed my article on biblical po...I have finally completed my article on biblical political theory and its teaching among Christians during the 1700 years leading up to the revolution. The conclusion that I have come to is that the principles of popular sovereignty, popular election and the right of resistance have been taught by Christians throughout the entirety of their history. The article is available at this link: <a href="http://www.increasinglearning.com/we-the-people.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.increasinglearning.com/we-the-people.html</a> Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9131866186480560022013-06-23T13:29:25.572-06:002013-06-23T13:29:25.572-06:00Cheers, Bill.Cheers, Bill.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71844830957132687132013-06-22T20:06:30.736-06:002013-06-22T20:06:30.736-06:00Just an update to let everyone know that I'm a...Just an update to let everyone know that I'm alive: I am still working on an article on the political theory of the Bible. It's about 75% completed and is currently 12 pages in length. I'm looking forward to some very helpful feedback once I'm done.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56766355580455018282013-06-16T13:54:16.147-06:002013-06-16T13:54:16.147-06:00That's why I prefaced my last remark to wsfort...<i>That's why I prefaced my last remark to wsforten about this theological dispute being beyond the scope of AC.</i><br /><br />Ah, thank you, Lee, I missed that, sorry. Yes, BillF's contributions here are invaluable, but his interest in theology in its own right is indeed beyond the scope of this blog.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3213451081367519302013-06-16T13:52:20.042-06:002013-06-16T13:52:20.042-06:00Via Hall's Sherman book:
http://tinyurl.com/k...Via Hall's Sherman book:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/knsuxk7<br /><br /><br />Thomas Hooker was a leader in the area of government as well. In May of 1638 he was asked to address the General Court of Connecticut which apparently had been given the responsibility of drafting a constitution. It was there he preached his famous sermon on Deuteronomy 1:13: Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you." In this sermon he laid down three doctrines: <br /><br />Doctrine I. That the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance.<br /><br />Doctrine II. That the privilege of election which belongs unto the people must not be exercised according to their humour, but according to the blessed will of God. <br /><br />Doctrine III. That they who have the power to appoint officers and magistrates, it is in their power also to set the bounds of the power and the place unto which they call them."<br /><br /><br />In January 1639 the "Fundamental Orders" were adopted, serving as the constitution of Connecticut. Thomas Hooker's leadership and influence in the final document has been recognized by historians.<br /><br />http://www.intoutreach.org/hooker.htmlTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38802214887929437582013-06-16T13:43:39.946-06:002013-06-16T13:43:39.946-06:00yes TVD I know I know.
That's why I prefaced ...yes TVD I know I know.<br /><br />That's why I prefaced my last remark to wsforten about this theological dispute being beyond the scope of AC. wsforten is going to post his piece on political philosophy at his own website. Maybe we'll take it over there. In the mean time, Guzman's review is up at the other AC--American Conservative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65203477729215171272013-06-16T12:55:41.287-06:002013-06-16T12:55:41.287-06:00IOW, arguing our interpretation of the Bible again...IOW, arguing our interpretation of the Bible against theirs is the sort of thing our "Christian" historians do---but that's not history, it's theology.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60533810156362180142013-06-16T11:56:01.079-06:002013-06-16T11:56:01.079-06:00Lee, how the Founding era viewed the Bible is all ...Lee, how the Founding era viewed the Bible is all that's important. Their argument is that when the people asked for a king, God said OK. God did not install a king without their consent. Sovereignty rested with the people, not the king.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86632000561726199462013-06-16T10:33:30.236-06:002013-06-16T10:33:30.236-06:00Good morning, TVD-
I guess we are separated by de...Good morning, TVD-<br /><br />I guess we are separated by denominational differences, because I am not seeing the sovereignty of the people or consent of the governed in 1 Sam.<br /><br />If they ever had it, they gave it up when Yahweh brought them under his protection in the Mosaic Covenant back in Exodus. <br /><br />The establishment of the monarchy was not an exercise in consent of the governed. They asked for a king and Yahweh gave HIS consent. <br /><br />Then HE chose the king.<br />Then later HE changed his mind and chose a different king.<br />Then HE continued to operate as the power behind the throne, issuing directions, advice, and threats. <br />Then HE finally enforces the sanctions of the covenant by destroying them.<br /><br />Its difficult to see how this really is a rejection of Yahweh as king. But it does provide a good story to later generations of Hebrews about the rise of their monarchy vis-a-vis the Levitical priesthood.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79616560801145886872013-06-16T09:42:52.024-06:002013-06-16T09:42:52.024-06:00Good morning, wsforten:
I'll visit your websi...Good morning, wsforten:<br /><br />I'll visit your website and check out your response and whatever other interesting things that have there.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68877768508989435722013-06-16T07:19:24.867-06:002013-06-16T07:19:24.867-06:00Tom,
But it's not just Jefferson who "sk...Tom,<br /><br />But it's not just Jefferson who "skipped." The other Founders didn't cite Aquinas or cool stuff that was going on during the medieval period either either. Again, whatever thoughts we may have as Jefferson as an outlier (or not), he accurately summed up the zeitgeist with those sources.<br /><br />They did cite Locke and Sidney. And Locke did cite Hooker who traces to Aquinas. And Sidney did briefly invoke the "schoolmen." So that's the connection with the Founders' sources.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35652554383096719842013-06-16T07:15:54.362-06:002013-06-16T07:15:54.362-06:00WS: I'll link to it.WS: I'll link to it.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48599900320601926582013-06-15T22:16:43.246-06:002013-06-15T22:16:43.246-06:00I promised Lee that I would post a response tonigh...I promised Lee that I would post a response tonight, but I'm afraid that I will need to delay that post for a little while. I am gathering together all of my research on the political theory of the Bible, and the developing article is turning out to be much longer than I had anticipated. I'll work on it over the next couple of days and then post it on my website, IncreasingLearning.com. Maybe I can convince Jon or Tom to share a link to it as a separate post at American Creation.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8323227379687245182013-06-15T20:10:46.725-06:002013-06-15T20:10:46.725-06:00Whatever Jefferson's position as an outlier, I...<i>Whatever Jefferson's position as an outlier, I think his summation of the American Revolution as imbibed in “the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.” is accurate.</i><br /><br />Jefferson lies. He skipped 1500 years of Christian/Western thought [and in those 1500 years, they are synonymous].<br /><br />Jefferson also sophistically denied that Christianity was part of English common law, contra Blackstone [and later, SC justice and constitutional scholar Joseph Story.]<br /><br /><i>Well to sum up, I don't see Calvinist resistance in the more revolutionary parts of the DOI. But I do see (if it's a "concession" so be it) it in the parts of the DOI that argue the extant legal case for the colonist doing what they did.</i><br /><br />In the very first comment in this thread, I did uphold DG Hart's objection to MD Hall's assertion that "Reformed thinkers played a major role in developing the idea that an important (but not the only) role of government is to protect natural rights."<br /><br />MD Hall honorably answered Dr. Hart's other challenge about the % of Calvinists, so we hope for further edification.<br /><br />I did point out that Rev. John Witherspoon signed the Declaration, and the "self-evident" truth that rights are God-given and governments are formed to protect them, and Witherspoon went on to chair the 1788 Presbyterian revision of the Westminster Confession [to get rid of the references to the king, etc.].<br /><br />This is not a direct theological link, however, although there is also zero evidence that Calvinists a) deny the existence of natural rights or b) that it's the government's duty and purpose to protect them.<br /><br />Whoever manages to avoid the burden of proof wins the debate, I reckon, although winning a debate by default is not the same as finding the truth. <br /><br />Jonathan Mayhew's famous speech is pretty incoherent to me. He does attempt to argue that honoring Charles I [executed by the Puritan Revolution in 1649] is some sort of infringement on religious liberty. I think it's a sophistic argument, though.<br /><br />More:<br /><br />http://archive.mises.org/6122/mayhews-case-for-revolution/<br /><br />"“There is an essential difference between resisting a tyrant and rebellion¦ King Charles’ government was illegal, and very oppressive¦ therefore, to resist him, was no more rebellion, than to oppose any foreign invader, or any other domestic oppressor.<br /><br />“[King Charles] died an enemy to liberty and the rights of conscience..."<br /><br />But it sure does illustrate that the ghosts of the English civil wars were very much alive in colonial America over 100 years later. Unfortunately, many of our historians begin their studies with America.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44470754602261219932013-06-15T18:55:08.521-06:002013-06-15T18:55:08.521-06:00Mark, thanks for the references on membership and ...Mark, thanks for the references on membership and Calvinism and Locke. It is plausible to argue that Locke was influenced by resistance theory (as was Hobbes), but I'd like to see how Locke's ideas were received by his Calvinist contemporaries. I don't see the Mathers embracing Locke any more than Samuel Rutherford. A secularized Calvinism is one thing. An ecclesial Calvinism is another. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6487009866768139672013-06-15T18:52:11.438-06:002013-06-15T18:52:11.438-06:00One other thing, Dreisbach & I had a brief one...One other thing, Dreisbach & I had a brief one on one private conversation. He said Mayhew didn't explicitly cite Locke in "The Snare Broken." I don't think he cited the Calvinist resisters either. This was back in the day when you could cite other folks ideas without crediting them.<br /><br />He left the notion open that it wasn't Locke but others who may have influenced Mayhew's position.<br /><br />"State of Nature"/Contract & Rights. That's Locke speak as far as I can tell. The Calvinist resisters didn't talk like this. I confess I haven't parsed Mayhew's words close enough. (But perhaps that's a future project we can embark on).<br /><br />Though I know Simeon Howard (Mayhew's successor) did use those Locke terms. And I'm pretty sure Witherspoon used those Locke terms as well.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26258841849999977112013-06-15T18:35:39.572-06:002013-06-15T18:35:39.572-06:00Well to sum up, I don't see Calvinist resistan...Well to sum up, I don't see Calvinist resistance in the more revolutionary parts of the DOI. But I do see (if it's a "concession" so be it) it in the parts of the DOI that argue the extant legal case for the colonist doing what they did.<br /><br />Whatever Jefferson's position as an outlier, I think his summation of the American Revolution as imbibed in “the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.” is accurate.<br /><br />You posted this:<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/06/algernon-sidney-and-classic-natural.html<br /><br />I think we could do much more. What were Sidney's views on religion and government. What was his affiliation and views?Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81405922301425531362013-06-15T18:25:40.266-06:002013-06-15T18:25:40.266-06:00It's also interesting to trace the lineage of ...It's also interesting to trace the lineage of ideas. Roger Williams was a kind of Baptist (he was a fundie sect unto himself really). And he did, I think, influence Baptists contemporaries of America's Founders like Backus. Yet, Williams who coined "Separation of Church and State" had no identifiable influence of Jefferson (or other notable Founders). He did, I believe influence (the unitarian) Whig James Burgh who in turn influenced Jefferson. That's how you get from Williams to Jefferson. Through Burgh.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65614324353259526952013-06-15T18:05:18.088-06:002013-06-15T18:05:18.088-06:00Is Nalson quoting Calvin? And if so, does that quo...<i>Is Nalson quoting Calvin? And if so, does that quotation appear in Calvin's authenticated works?</i><br /><br />Dunno. Our visiting Calvinists are very unhelpful when it comes to anything Calvin that challenges their Romans 13/Two Kingdoms theology. And when people such as Mark David Hall have the calvinistic goods, all they do is deny it's "true" Calvinism--even when it's Calvin himself!<br /><br />The problem is that only Calvinists seem to study Calvin, and they ain't tellin'.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54934773666140399702013-06-15T17:34:38.487-06:002013-06-15T17:34:38.487-06:00Is Nalson quoting Calvin? And if so, does that quo...Is Nalson quoting Calvin? And if so, does that quotation appear in Calvin's authenticated works?<br /><br />Who is this Nalson guy anyway? How did he influence anyone?<br /><br />If we are looking for non-Lockean sources, maybe we should look to someone who actually influenced the Founders like Algernon Sidney.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77957279726592394172013-06-15T16:54:52.462-06:002013-06-15T16:54:52.462-06:00Jon, you really need to read Mr. Forten's link...Jon, you really need to read Mr. Forten's link to Nalson's "The common interest of king and people"<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=zmAKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA201#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />citing Calvin that men being corrupt, it's more safe to have "reins of government committed to more hands than one" [p. 204] and that the Calvinists' principles are "anti-Monarchal."<br /><br />I don't think arguing Gregg Frazer second-hand is a good method. It's like watching fundies play duelling Bible verses and the context teeters this way and that.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22367468059736294452013-06-15T14:40:12.247-06:002013-06-15T14:40:12.247-06:00It actually addresses a related point if you view ...It actually addresses a related point if you view political liberty and republicanism as related concepts.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16860077780400118392013-06-15T14:29:43.609-06:002013-06-15T14:29:43.609-06:00Jon, that frazer passage addresses something other...Jon, that frazer passage addresses something other than the point here, which is that God gave the people their sovereignty, to be ruled by God or by a king---their choice.<br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28966799968600818912013-06-15T14:17:18.562-06:002013-06-15T14:17:18.562-06:00Here is Gregg Frazer on the "republican"...Here is Gregg Frazer on the "republican" argument for King Saul etc.<br /><br />"....Regarding I Samuel 8...the primary point is that Israel rejected God as their king and that any human regime which follows will inherently be inferior. Second, a warning about kings is not equivalent to support for political liberty. Before this time, Israel was ruled by a series of judges and before that by Moses. All of them, like the first two kings to follow, were appointed by God – not expressions of political liberty. The reason rule by the kings would be worse was that they had rejected God – not because they would lose political liberty. They had no less political liberty under the kings than they did under Moses. In fact, they ended up with more “liberty” (in the libertarian sense) under the kings because the kings abandoned the Law of God which regulated every aspect of their lives! As Jonathan Boucher pointed out, God does not express concern about political liberty in the Bible. God is concerned about spiritual liberty – freedom from the bonds of sin."<br /><br />http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2008/11/babka-v.html<br />Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39576052629895515532013-06-15T14:12:32.002-06:002013-06-15T14:12:32.002-06:00I still would like to see the notion that sovereig...I still would like to see the notion that sovereignty vests in people in the words from one of those Calvinist resisters.<br />Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.com