Posts: 1,906
Joined: September 2001
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,376
Posts56,576
Members992
| |
Most Online4,295 May 22nd, 2026
|
|
|
#58730
Sat Oct 07, 2023 9:13 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,047 Likes: 285
Head Honcho
|
OP
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,047 Likes: 285 |
I am personally disappointed that there haven't been any mention or question(s) concerning this month's 'Article of the Month'; "Submission to Rulers" by one of the giants of the faith, Jonathan Edwards. How many discussions have appeared here on this board plus doubtless between believers elsewhere concerning the demands of governments to be obeyed without question during the Covid19 fiasco? This was particularly an issue for the visible church and professing believers. Some of those discussions were "hot", even to the point that disciplinary actions mere taken against those who believed that those mandates had no weight of authority over the church. Such opinions continue to this day and some are being ostracized for their stand.
Even much of what was being promulgated by governments and health 'authorities' which has now been openly and undisputedly proven to be false and even fabricated which now is known to have been detrimental to our health, particularly to children are still being believed to be true. So, with another alleged 'variant' is forthcoming throughout the world, this divisive issue will once again come to the forefront. Do you think, after reading Edwards' article, that your personal view has been changed, challenged or confirmed? And how strong will you act on your personal view which you think is biblically sound? Would you be willing to risk your job, career, tenure, etc., by refusing to obey government mandates? If you are a citizen of the U.S. will you stand on not only the ultimate authority of God's Word and that which the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the government has no authority to rule over the Church and its gathering for worship?
2 Timothy 1:7 (KJV) 7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 706 Likes: 21
Old Hand
|
Old Hand
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 706 Likes: 21 |
I think a good starting point would be to consider Biblical Antithesis in every context, all times and all spheres. For further reflection: https://reformedforum.org/what-is-the-antithesis/https://mereorthodoxy.com/john-calvin-thomas-jeffersonThis is why I think research regarding the spirit of the age is vitally important. Thomas Jefferson is an important figure. His motivations were probably not our motivations. This goes back to the anthesis. What motivated the son-in-law of Edwards to speak this way of Jefferson? “The great object of Jacobinism” “both in its political and moral revolution, is to destroy every trace of civilization in the world, and to force mankind back into a savage state.” “now reached the consummation of democratic blessedness. We have a country governed by blockheads and knaves.” “the ties of marriage with all its felicities” “severed and destroyed” “Our wives and daughters are thrown into the stews; our children are cast into the world from the breast and forgotten.” “Filial piety is extinguished, and our surnames, the only mark of distinction among families, are abolished. Can the imagination paint anything more dreadful on this side of hell?” In his time and context, what did he know that we may be oblivious of? The reason I mention this, is many are hesitant to even consider that the powers and principalities have ill intent…. Like really bad. Yes, the government is not your friend and does not serve your master…. Expect the worst.
Last edited by Anthony C.; Sat Oct 07, 2023 6:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 706 Likes: 21
Old Hand
|
Old Hand
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 706 Likes: 21 |
Interesting fault lines considered between 1. RCC moral establishment 2. a more guarded, sober view of humanity & governance-Calvinism 3. and an almost default form of religious humanism (beyond a mere conception of well-ordered natural law?) as promoted by Thomas Jefferson (practically popularized by Charles Finney?) in America…. Increasingly there is a cartoonish rendering of Protestant political thought that associates Protestantism with a liberal historical trajectory, and Roman Catholicism—or at least “liturgy”—with conservatism. The truth is far more complicated. In the Early Republic, Calvinism, not Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism, appeared to Jefferson to be the religious persuasion most at odds with liberalism.[1] Since his election in 1800, Jefferson believed that Calvinists represented a return to European conservatism. The prospect of Calvinists—Congregationalists in New England, Presbyterians in the Middle Atlantic and South, and a smattering of evangelical Anglicans—exercising civil, political, or social influence in federal politics horrified the Deistic Virginian. His later embrace of Unitarianism in fact allowed him to continue his loathing of historic Christian teaching like the Trinity that he found so essential to Calvinism. Both Deists and Unitarians found the divinity of Christ and associated doctrines–the Virgin birth and the Incarnation–revolting. Jefferson’s fear of the Calvinists was not without reason. The orthodox scions of New England Puritanism, far from being individualists or liberals, remained traditional conservative into the nineteenth century. Timothy Dwight IV, son-in-law of Jonathan Edwards, president of Yale College, and a staunchly conservative Calvinist, saw Jefferson’s election as the advent of French revolutionary Jacobinism in the North American republic. … Dwight bewailed the advent of Jeffersonian politics and opined that the United States … Jefferson scoffed at Calvinist intransigence. He hated Calvin for many reasons, but he held an especially impassioned loathing for the French Reformer’s throaty trinitarianism and the doctrine of election. Calvin, in Jefferson’s reading of history, represented the clearest intellectual successor to the medieval Christian order he despised. He compared what he called the “simple” doctrines of Jesus—his phrase for Unitarianism—with “the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.” Jefferson objected to the mysticism and anti-rationalism of Calvinism. He believed that Calvin was an enemy to reason. Jefferson despised the Calvinist obsession with the incomprehensible nature of the divine. He called Athanasius and Calvin “impious dogmatists” and “false shepherds.” Athanasius’ and Calvin’s “blasphemies” drove “thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him.” If the doctrines of Jesus had been preached “always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.” Jefferson rejoiced “that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving.” That genuine doctrine was Unitarianism, and Jefferson trusted “that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian. But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor.” Calvinism, Jefferson feared, heralded the reclamation of the medieval imagination that he believed benighted the world for one thousand years.[3] Jefferson need not have worried about Virginia. The changes made to the Westminster Confession in 1789 took the last serious teeth out of Calvinist political theology, and most serious Protestants in the Commonwealth saw disestablishment as prudential, if not good. New Englanders and the occasional Carolinian remained more circumspect. Ultimately, however, all forms of western Christianity struggled to define their relationship to liberalism. There were and are Calvinist conservatives and Calvinist liberals, Anglican conservatives and Anglican liberals, as well as Roman Catholic conservatives and Roman Catholic liberals. But in a time such as our own when Protestantism is seen as being inherently liberal and Catholicism as the only refuge for Christians who see catastrophic problems with the classical liberal order, it is worth remembering this history. History is far more complicated than we realize, and we might avoid contrived and ultimately ahistorical insinuations about other faith traditions by taking the time to read them in charity and sobriety.
Footnotes Jefferson, of course, was hardly the only Enlightenment philosopher to feel this way: Recall that Rousseau, tired of the conservative Calvinistic Geneva traveled to progressive Paris to interact with enlightenment luminaries, which in the 1770s consisted mostly of heterodox or apostate Roman Catholics. ↑ Henry Adams, History of the United States During the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 1, 225 ↑ Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Waterhouse, 19 July 1822 in Paul Leicester Ford Ed., Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 10., 221 ↑”
Last edited by Anthony C.; Mon Oct 09, 2023 1:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 706 Likes: 21
Old Hand
|
Old Hand
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 706 Likes: 21 |
Pilgrim, not to derail or get off topic, but could you direct me to any articles regarding Calvin’s 2nd - civil use of the law as a means to curb & punish evil? I would assume all laws should be measured against this standard and properly enforced (with no respect to persons) accordingly. Another reason why transparency is vital so we can properly gauge and measure these things (even under the guise of an “emergency.”)
Last edited by Anthony C.; Mon Oct 09, 2023 3:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,047 Likes: 285
Head Honcho
|
OP
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,047 Likes: 285 |
Sorry, I can't direct you on that matter re: Calvin... from memory. I'm thinking that what you are looking for might be/should be in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion". 
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,047 Likes: 285
Head Honcho
|
OP
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,047 Likes: 285 |
In his time and context, what did he know that we may be oblivious of?
The reason I mention this, is many are hesitant to even consider that the powers and principalities have ill intent…. Like really bad. Yes, the government is not your friend and does not serve your master…. Expect the worst. 1. IF by "we" you are referring to the contemporary masses among whom we live, then that would be what every true biblical Calvinist knows... the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt, who can comprehend it? In short, it is appropriately named, "Total Depravity", which if not restrained in the natural man externally by the sovereign providence of the Holy Spirit, it would result in Hell personified. 2. True, true... government is run by idiots who are intellectually gifted and appointed by God to punish those less wicked than they. That is why, Edwards and others among whom I can be included, believe that Romans 13 does not teach that all men are bound to give unfeigned, unrestricted and full obedience to the "powers that be". Certainly, the disciples were quite aware of what Paul, by inspiration wrote, which is the will of God in regard to government's power and authority. Often they refused to comply to the 'law' which came to them by rulers. And Paul, by example, refused to barter the truth for freedom but rather he obeyed God rather than men when man's law contradicted God's perfect law. The history of the Reformed Faith has always taught that Christians are to refuse any/all men who require what God has forbidden. And, contrariwise, Christians are to obey God against what any/all men have forbidden. This includes even when rulers in the Church are guilty of failing to rule by God's commandments and distort discipline of members.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
210
guests, and
40
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|