Was Calvin the first political pluralist? by: John
It has been rightly said that John Calvin was the real founding father of America. But it may not be in the sense that most of us would wish.
It seems to me that Calvin is exhibiting some of the traits of a political pluralist in Chapter XX. If John Calvin was America's true founding father, then I think this chapter must bear some responsibility for the spirit of relativism and lawlessness that prevails in American government today.
It is hard for me to distinguish what Calvin says in this chapter from situation ethics. He advocates "positive law," "law of nations", "natural law," and an undefined "law of love" over the Law of Moses in the civil realm. The footnotes -- apparently not written by Calvin -- state that "Calvin wholly rejects the notion of a theocracy based on the judicial laws of the Old Testament." If that is what Calvin is saying, then I believe it is a very big problem. "Theos" means "God" and "cracy" means "rule". Calvin would then be rejecting the "rule of God" in civil government.
Greg Bahnson once preached a sermon entitled "The Day The Reformation Died", referring as I recall to this particular teaching of the Reformers. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that and I'll do some further checking.
I don't have much familiarity with Calvin's "Commentaries." Does anybody know if he said anything in the commentaries that would moderate or balance what he said here. If I'm missing something please let me know. I can't help but think that it is this habitual replacing of the Law of God with the law of man that lies at the heart of our political/cultural woes. If it is a problem, I think we need to identify it as such in order to avoid repeating it in the future.
Jan 15, 2009 Rating
Calvin vs. Calvin by: dwoods
Thank you for your comment, John. You raise some good points. There does indeed seem to be some contradiction in Calvin's doctrine of civil government. Why does he uphold the law of God so strongly in some points, yet seem to deny its application today. Hopefully other visitors will be able to shed some light.
Jan 15, 2009 Rating
The Old Testament Today by: NTiminskas
I would argue that Old Testament Law was primarily instituted for the Theocratic Nation of Israel, and was effectively halted in A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed. This is why Jesus said to the Jews, ?Behold, your house is left to you desolate.?
This doesn?t, however, mean that Old Testament Law is irrelevant to modern Christians: the moral Law of God is immutable. As to the ceremonial and civil portions of the Law, not only do they instruct us as to the Will of Our Heavenly Father, but, in conjunction with and interpreted by New Testament Grace, they serve as the only possible foundation upon which to structure a society on this earth.
Jan 15, 2009 Rating
Not Under The Law by: degregory
The trouble with any nation being a "Christian" nation lies in the fact that any nation must have laws, and the temptation is to take the laws of the Old Testament and implement them across the board into American law.
That simply will not work, since Paul's extremely clear teaching in Galatians is that we are not only not under the Law of Moses, but that we (having been crucified with Christ and raised to new life in the Spirit) are not under law as a principle of life.
If any reader doubts this interpretation of Galatians I invite him (or her) to correspond with me, since the Greek makes it absolutely clear, as do other texts in other books. The true believer is NOT UNDER LAW, for the simple reason that the governing aspect of his new life is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Thus, any NATION that attempts to make laws, and then enforce them, and then call itself Christian, is in direct violation of the clear teaching of the Spirit of God via Paul.
Two further observations:
1. Our nation has experienced a glorious political freedom that has justly been the model of the world. The balance of powers in the Constitution HAD EVERYONE AGREED TO THAT BALANCE AND NOT TRIED TO SUBVERT IT, was a magnificent thing.
2. The weakness in our country is written right into the words "of the people." So long as the people were godly and maintained that godliness in their private and public lives, God honored that righteousness by maintaining peace in the land. But as the people were subverted from that righteousness by deceptive teaching and unscrupulous political forces that hated liberty to begin with, as people began to lust after material things rather than desire godliness, then (and it was a very slow and unobtrusive process, very, very difficult to track and measure) then, since the government is "of the people" their representatives began to reflect their own perverted values.
The fault, however, is not in the Constitution, but rather in the people themselves. This is also, however, the place where the true salvation of God must start. True salvation can never come from the government, no matter how limited and just. It MUST come from within, from a realization of one's essential inadequacy to measure up to God's holy standards, and a resulting change of attitude (true repentance) leading to a change of life.
Returning to the subject of Patrick Henry, however, I just wonder what Mr. Henry would have put in place of the Constitution. A government in the hands of religious leaders would have resulted in just as much of a disaster as it did in the days of Jesus himself. The early religious history of the United States reveals so much schism and near hatred of other factions that I marvel that histories call it "Christian."
Jan 15, 2009 Rating
Natural Law vs. Biblical Law by: leper watachman
Tyranny is defined as rule without authority. When ever Man rules outside of the Biblical civil law as revealed in the Bible, he is tyrannical. There is nothing kinder, more just, more practically effective in producing peace, responsibility, freedom, and prosperity that keeping and publishing the law of God. Since He is Creator, He has all authority. The same law is binding on each nation today, as was on the nations of pre-Joshua Canaan, as was on Israel. Natural Law is the distorted echo of the ?law written on their hearts? that still bears a resemblance to the Biblical law.
Jan 15, 2009 Rating
Hard To Argue Against Theonomy by: DMH
Of course, I agree that the moral law never changes. The ceremonial was abolished when Christ fulfilled it with his atoning death. Regarding the civil law, it seems to me that it is really an application of the moral law to everyday situations.
I do not consider myself a theonomist, but I am definitely intrigued by their argument. I have yet to find a convincing argument from those opposed to Theonomy. Why are God?s laws for the governing of a nation not applicable to us today?
There were many changes from Old to New Testament, but do we have the right to make the determination that something that God forbade is now acceptable unless He said that it is now alright, or vice versa?
Jan 19, 2009 Rating
Calvin's Position Was Strong, But Statement Of It Weak by: leper watchman
I will stick with my evaluation that Calvin, in the main, (especially from what I hear about his Deut. commentaries) would have defended a theonomic position, even if the cultural, temporal, judicial details defined for Israel, (and it was never clear what particular examples he was suggesting) may not be the 'right' thing to do in every country, in every time, and under every government organization.
Nevertheless, the Christian taxpayer, (there were no 'voters' in his day, apparently) and magistrate could still be able to construct, from a whole-Bible view, details of crime and punishment. These definitions would be true to the law of love, the 10 commandments, the conscience/law-written-on-heart, and so-called, natural law.
I believe if Calvin had lived in quieter, more mature times, he would have had definite, and very good, opinions about what the laws should be, in detail, based not least on a study of the DETAILS of the case law applications in the Pentateuch, History books, and prophets.
Is he weak, and does he open the door for the independent, rational man to say? That is the view that "we can determine for ourselves what is good and evil" -- yes I believe he does.
I think some folks forget themselves in a vain desire to cast away "their cords" from us (Ps 2), that our will, and mind, and brain are all FALLEN, and can't be counted on, except by constant reference to the verbal detail of the Word of God and, philosophically, the Character of God.
