Charles J. Reid on Brian Tierney Part 3- From American Creation

Hello My Name Is Gratian And I Think I Have Something To Add To This Discussion

Hello again American Creation family! I hope you all remember me in that I do not think I have posted here since Summer. This was due to the time consuming re-launching of my real estate business after it turned out that the oil had not ruined the part of the Gulf Coast I live in forever after all. Anyway, I am going to dive in and pick up right where I left off: Charles J. Reid's review of Brian Tierney's book, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law 1150 to 1625. Before doing so, I think it wise to summarize where we were in the discussion 4 months ago, the first two parts in this series, and the concept of a "zone of autonomy" being at the core of the Christian argument for natural rights.

Four months ago we were involved in a debate over my challenge to the idea articulated by Ed Brayton, Gregg Frazer, and Jon Rowe that, "that the Bible nowhere speaks to the concept of unalienable rights, especially an unalienable right to religious and political liberty." I pointed to the work of Brian Tierney and his contention that the pre-Aquinas development of Canon Law heavily impacted the evolution of the Western Legal Tradition which in turn had great influence on our founding era idea of natural rights. Then I followed that general overview of Reid's book review with a post that began to sort through some of the details. I started with Reid's brief summary of the contributions of Justian, Gratian, and the "decretists" as he follows Tieney's account of the evolution of the idea of natural rights.

The "decretists" were the Canonists that sifted through the works of Gratian per Justinian and attempted to address some of the inherent contradictions they saw in his work. In the process they began to articulate a coherent case for natural rights that I think is summed up best by Rufius,

Rufinus began, "'a certain force instilled in every human creature by nature to do good and avoid the opposite.' ' This force, he continued, "'consists in three things, commands, prohibitions, and demonstrations. . . . It cannot be detracted from at all as regards the commands and prohibitions . .. but it can be as regards the demonstrations, which nature not command or forbid but shows to be good."'

The "demonstrations" alluded to above are actions that the Bible neither commands nor prohibits and leaves to each man's own discretion as to whether "nature" shows it to be "good". It is my contention that our discussions of the differences between "Classically Conservative" vs. "Classically Liberal", "Enlightenment" vs. "Christendom", and "French Revolution" vs. "American Revolution" should all start with the question of, "Liberty" or "License" per Locke via Hooker.

Thus, my question to Brayton, Rowe, Frazer, is how we can even begin to have this conversation about the "Christian" idea of rights until we enlarge the historical discussion to include the men I have mentioned above and their contributions to the Western Legal Tradition?

Theistic Rationalism: Is it a Theological or Historical Term? II

In the comments section of a recent post by Jon Rowe Dr. Gregg Frazer stated the following:

"So, my statement stands irrespective of Tom's claim that unitarians, who worshiped an entirely different god than did Christians, were Christians."

To which I responded:

"I see a lot of Calvinists state this but find it absurd. If they are worshipping the God of Exodus 34:5-7 then that is the God of the Bible. Do you maintain that Jews that had no concept of the Trinity were worshipping a different God? "

This is an interesting theological debate but it is just that: theological. Why does it come up at all in a conversation about the use of the term Theistic Rationalism? I would have to propose because it is a theological and not a historical term. Not to mention one built on a rather extreme view of who is, and is not, worshipping the God of the Bible.

Theistic Rationalism: Is it a Theological or Historical Term?

A recent post by Jon Rowe quoted Dr. Gregg Frazer as stating the following:

"[Eighth, Mr. Knapton accuses me of “unintended sophistry” in pointing out that the theistic rationalists did not believe that Jesus was God and he suggests that there was “a strain of Christian thought” which taught that Jesus was subordinate to God. Methinks the sophistry is one the other foot, however. Mr. Knapton refers, apparently, to the Arian or Socinian heresies, which the church had declared to be heresies — and not Christian doctrine — centuries before. On page 10 of my dissertation, I have a chart which outlines the basic core beliefs of the Christian denominations in 18th century America as expressed in their own creeds, confessions, and catechisms. Every Christian denomination in 18th century America affirmed the deity of Christ and the Trinity as basic core "Christian beliefs. Mr. Knapton’s suggestion might appeal to groups which came along later and who CLAIMED to be Christians, such as Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses; but it doesn’t stand up to 18th century scrutiny. There were, of course, those who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity (including the theistic rationalists), but they were considered “infidels” by 18th-century Christians."

Tom Van Dyke responded in the comments section with the following:

"'Every Christian denomination in 18th century America affirmed the deity of Christ and the Trinity as basic core Christian beliefs.'

Except the Christian unitarians.

"Rational Christianity": A Contribution of Medieval Political Thought

In his last post Brad Hart quoted Montesquieu as saying:

"When the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced the Protestant, and those of the south adhered still to the Catholic. The reason is plain: the people of the north have, and will for ever have, a spirit of liberty and independence, which the people of the south have not; and therefore a religion which has no visible head is more agreeable to the independence of the climate than that which has one. In the countries themselves where the Protestant religion became established, the revolutions were made pursuant to the several plans of political government. Luther having great princes on his side would never have been able to make them relish an ecclesiastical authority that had no exterior pre-eminence; while Calvin, having to do with people who lived under republican governments, or with obscure citizens in monarchies, might very well avoid establishing dignities and preferments."

This article here provides a different narrative. One that at a certain time in my life I would have totally opposed but now tentatively agree with. It is the narrative of a "spirit of liberty" within certain strains in the Catholicism:

"It will suffice for our purpose to consult, in detail, but two Catholic churchmen who stand out as leading lights for all time. The one is representative of medieval learning and thought, the other stood on the threshold of the medieval and modern world.

Frazer's Hermeneutic And the History of Orthodox Christian Political Theology

With Editorial Suggestions by Jonathan Rowe

My last few posts argued American Founding era political theology created a "Big Tent of Diverse Interests" that allowed various Christian factions of the country to put aside the doctrinal differences that privately divided them and embrace political ideas that publiclyunited them.

This post continues in that vein.

I stressed that two God terms in the Declaration of Independence were added by the Continental Congress to appeal to Calvinists. This, I think, strengthened the connection between the political-theology of the DOI and Calvinistic notions of interposition.

Then, to better inform myself on the matter, I just carefully read the exchange between Jim Babka and Gregg Frazer that was part of "Romans 13 round 1." You will see Babka and I, for the most part, agree on Romans 13 & Christian history. We stress how Dr. Frazer downplays the later Calvinists (not necessarily Calvin himself) like Rutherford whose teachings on "interposition" transition into those of the Declaration of Independence.

John Calvin and Jim Babka on the "Doctrine of Interposition"

In my last series of posts I have been trying to shift the frame of discussion from focusing on which people of the founding era were or were not Christian to which ideas of the founding era were or were not Christian.  I have also tried to narrow down the topic to how the ideas of the founding era helped or hindered our progression toward the modern world. I attempted to accomplish this within the frame of discussion of a series of essays at "Cato Unbound" on that topic.  In addition, I have pushed to make this relevant to the present by examining this in the light of how studying these "Second Wave" ideas can help position us as a nation to catch the Alvin Toffler's "Third Wave".  The two questions I have posed are:


Which Christian ideas, if any, helped bring us into the modern world?

And

Which Christian ideas, if any, helped try to derail us from progressing toward the modern world?

Latest American Creation Post

The following is the second part of my last post but also is in response to Jon Rowe's great post about some of my thoughts about Christianity:When I first started commenting on Ed Brayton's blog people blasted me hard because some of what I was saying sounded like Conservative Christianity. Once they realized I was different it stopped. Why do so many like Ed Brayton and Jon Rowe rail against the Christian Right? 


They feel that many of the backwards people that are associated with it are trying to derail progress toward the next step in creating a modern world. I think they now see that some of us "Christians" are with them. I think what many of them fail to see is that there were many "Rational Christians" at the time of the Founding that fought the good fight for progress in their day. Those that fail to see this want to label the American Revolution as a "secular" event. I think they do this at their, and possibly our, own peril.



For the record, I do think it is important to understand what a "Christian" is, or was, to see the impact Christianity had, or did not have, on bringing us into the modern world. But I think the real questions that will put this "Christian Nation" debate into its proper frame are:



Which Christian ideas, if any, helped bring us into the modern world?



And



Which Christian ideas, if any, helped try to derail us from progressing toward the modern world?



I think that these ideas can be broken down into two general different views of God. One is the "Augustine view" and the other I like to call the "Locke view".



I think the Augustinian influenced Christian ideas are based on a view of God as not being concerned with the material world, sees man as totally depraved, and arbitrarily decides who goes to heaven and hell. Those whose ideas are shaped by that view will usually tell people that God really wants us humans to very little here because "His Kingdom is not of this world." I think the the Locke influenced Christian ideas are based on a view of God as being concerned with the material world and emphasizing the value of man, even though we are tainted by sin, because man is made in His image. Those whose ideas are shaped by this view of God usually tell people that God cares about the here and now just as much as heaven or hell because, "Jesus asked the Father to bring heaven to earth."



It was the same thing when Neo-Confucians took over China from the Buddhists. It had become a "Dark Age" because so many of the Buddhists became convinced that the material world was evil and the key to life was to escape it. The Neo-Confucians(I read most of this is a HS textbook so this is a broad but I think true statement) said that this world did matter and the key to happiness is to participate in it. This shift in thinking gradually led to a "golden age" in China that was written about by Marco Polo.



I think we see the same shift of thought that leads to a "golden age" in Western Civilization during the Enlightenment. If one looks at the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment I think the biggest thing that changed was hope that man could create a better world and be "happy". For some it was a secular world. For others this meant God's "Millenial Kingdom" coming to earth. Marx spoke of a Utopia. Modern "New Agers" are looking for a "New Age". Hitler was trying to take man to our next evolution. I think we also see the effects of this shift in thought much earlier in both the French and American Revolution. Jefferson wrote about this strange idea of the "pursuit of happiness" that found no place in the world of the "Divine Right of Kings" where all that mattered was obeying him to "please" God.



With that said, I think the Enlighenment was a Christian influenced movement if we are going to say Locke started it. I think it produced the two Revolutions mentioned above. One was a secular and perhaps atheist Revolution. The other was Christian in my view. One threw out Locke's theology(See my post from July on Locke) from what I have read. The other seems to me to have kept it.



Whether if we American's kept Locke's political theology is true or not is going to be my thesis as I pursue my master's degree. That is, if the Declaration of Independence was a Christian interposition based on a thread of theology that went from the Scholastics to Hooker(I think it was Hooker)during the English Civil War to Locke and then to the Founders. To do this I will have to research if the Founders were educated in this political theology, understood it, and applied it to the DOI.



I think Gary Amos makes a good case that the ideas behind the Declaration were part of the thread of Christianity I am talking about. What I think he is missing is if the Founders were educated in this political theology. We know that Madison was educated along these lines but he did not really have that much to do with writing the DOI. I guess I am going to find out about the rest as I study this.



In response to the whole discussion about what I like to call "salvation theology", I am not to sure what this has to do with the political theology used to found the nation. I think David Barton got us all of on the wrong track as far as a frame for this discussion. I understand that Jon wants to make sure that Barton does not distort the History to win his modern political battle. I think Jon does a good job at that. But I also think it is time for the frame of this discussion to shift away from Barton and his "lies" and toward the road TVD has been trying to take it for a while. I am convinced it is the right road. I think the central figure is John Locke and his political theology.



For those who are interested in a theological discussion more about salvation, I wrote a blog post Titled "The Myth of Genesis One" on my blog at www.theking25.blogspot.com about the creation story in Genesis being a allegory that those interested can read it if they want to. Since Jon brought it up, I will say here that if I am right about Genesis then all bets are off about dogmatic views of original sin and evolution. Arguments for eternal damnation start to weaken as well. Nonetheless, as Tom has stated many times, this is a History blog. The only reason to bring the theology up is how it relates to the History. But, as I have stated too, History only matters if it can relate to the issues we all struggle through in the here and now.



So, yes I am trying revive Locke's theological case for Libertarian thought. This is because I do believe in a Millenial Reign of Christ. I am not sure what it will look like but I think "liberal democracy" will have a whole lot to do with it. The problem is that what our government is spreading in the name of "liberal democracy" is nothing more than old European statism and it is slowly taking us on our way back to the "serfdom" we were in before the birth of the Modern World that Cato Unbound has been analyzing the origins of and was the subject of the original post by Jon in this exchange. (See Jon's post on Kuzinski's essay below for the link to join the discussion) (Also see Hayek's book titled "The Road to Serfdom")



This return to "serfdom" was exactly the thing that the Revolutionaries in France and America fought to keep from happening. One group threw out the baby with the bathwater and rejected God in the process. That movement fizzled out and ended with the Congress of Vienna. Oh and lest we forget, the European Statism that was re-established at the Congress of Vienna was based on the Augustinian authoritarian view of God that lead to the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings". Those jerks were counting on one thing to keep their collectivist civilization alive:

That all the "serfs" would listen to the Gregg Frazer(I am not saying he supports the Divine Right of Kings because I know he does not I just want people to know why I debate his so hard on this issue) like dogmatic views of Romans 13 and fear burning in hell so much that we would all sit and take it. Not me! How about you?



But, Braytonites, as we fight back lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater and blame God for fools that use his name to enslave people. Lets also keep in mind the two questions I posed to try and re-frame this debate. I challege all the "Cultural Warriors" to come up with answers for these questions:



1. Which Christian Ideas, if any, helped bring us into the modern world?


2. Which Christian Ideas, if any, tried to derail us from progressing toward a modern world?



If the level of discussion is going to be raised where I think it needs to go it is going to take more than reading one book and calling David Barton a "liar" to do this. Dr. Frazer feel free to jump into this if you want as well and help us define what are and are not "Christian Ideas". More to come.....

Thank You Dr. Frazer

I decided to do one final post in my response to Dr. Gregg Frazer to thank him and release him from this discussion. As I read over his response to some posts I made last Summer, I realized that we were starting to become redundant and covering ground that has already been fairly well covered. The idea of a blog like this is to promote debate that helps frame a topic for others to read about and comment on. I think that has occurred and most people who have read our exchanges know clearly where each of us stands on Romans 13 and submission to authority. I think this is important to a history blog in that our two positions more or less represent the two positions that have been argued about in Christendom for thousands of years including the time of the American Revolution.

I was going to respond in detail to Dr. Frazer but said about all I wanted to say in the comments section of Jon's post. I maintain the story of Othniel in Judges 3 clearly shows that submission is not absolute. Why would God give his Spirit to someone to rebel against a King that God had directly sent to have authority over Israel if rebellion is always wrong? I have heard Frazer's counter argument and do not buy it.

I think he takes a verse like Romans 13 that is difficult to interpret and should only be used to support other verses at best and makes it the key verse in his argument. Any argument someone makes from the full context of the Bible is refuted with him stating that Romans 13 says clearly what he thinks the text says and that is the end all. That fact is that there are other ways to interpret that verse using the text. Mayhew and Locke do this effectively I feel. I think Locke's interpretation is the most reasonable one I have heard. If anyone missed it I posted on it in August.

Anyway, I think my final comment on Jon's post sums up well my thoughts on this whole exchange and Frazer's bias:

"Frazer stated:

"If the God Who tells us to be subject withdraws that authority and changes that message, then our responsibility changes."

Translation:(Mine)

Submission to authority is not absolute.


Gregg, you cannot say for sure that Othniel had that revelation or Washington did not. You are right when you say that Hitler claimed this too. The North and the South both stated that God was on their side in the Civil War. England and the Colonies both said God was with them in the Revolutionary War.

My entire point to you is that SOMEONE WHO IS EMPHATICALLY SURE THAT GOD IS ON THEIR SIDE IS WRONG in each of these cases. This should humble us and cause us to be willing to re-evaluate our positions all the time. I would say this is especially true for those like you that come to the debate table with a laundry list of assumptions based on deep biases. I stipulate to none of your Calvinist assumptions and to be taken serious by non-believers you must stop assuming that you PHD gives you that right.

That is how it comes off even if it is not your intention. Tom is essentially neutral in this discussion between me and you and he keeps pointing this out to you as well. You assume that your position on Romans 13 is the correct one and that taints your historical look. In other words, you have a dog in that fight and cannot be totally objective."

With that thought I end this exchange, thank Dr. Frazer for all his time, retract my statement that he was hiding in a cave afraid to respond(some manipulation to get him to come back because I think he adds a lot when he comments on this blog), and allow him the final Calvinist word that I think sums up the biased assumptions that Frazer comes with to the debate table when discussing what the Bible and Romans 13 say about submission to authority:(he is quoting me here and then saying he does not agree)

"You say 'Just because something happens does not mean God intended it to be that way.' Here’s where we just fundamentally disagree."

I really do thank you Dr. Frazer and do respect the fact that you took the time to respond to my thoughts. You are now released from this discussion unless you wish to continue though I do not think it would be productive personally.

Final Response to Gregg Frazer

This post will be the last in my series of posts that seek to answer some questions that Gregg Frazer asked me about my interpretation of Romans 13. In an attempt to guide this discussion away from the political theologies of Frazer and myself toward a discussion of the political theologies of the framers, other founders, clergy, and common people of that day and those that influenced them, I attempted to put this debate in its larger context of the history of the political theology that shaped this time. Frazer's view of Romans 13 is more or less the same as the Loyalist view back then that came from a long line of theology reasoning. My view is more or less that of Jonathan Mayhew and others that followed the line of reasoning handed down by John Locke and the Scholastics. I hope to continue along those lines of discussing the views of each camp and the origins of their line of reasoning by answering the following historical question that was posed by Frazer during our dialogue:

"You said that Washington or the revolutionaries in general were given a mandate by God to rebel (as per a couple of Old Testament examples) -- can you quote a single American revolutionary claiming to have received direct revelation from God telling him to rebel? Or revelation from God affirming that He raised them up as deliverers?"

To answer this question I have to put it into the context of the overall discussion Frazer and I had for clarity. First, let me state that I never stated that Washington, or any other founder, had received a mandate from God. Frazer, responding to many examples I gave him of people in the Bible, said that just because men sinned and rose up against the government and God used it to dispose a King does not mean God was behind that man's sin. Then I cited the example of Othniel from Judges 3 and the undeniable fact that he did this in the power and blessing of God and was no way in sin doing it contrary to Frazer. Frazer alludes to this story in the wording of the question he posed.

In short, the story is about when the people of God cried out because of the oppressor that God had sent against them, how God heard them, and how He raised up Othniel to deliver them:

"The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD; they forgot the LORD their God and served the Baals and the Asherahs. The anger of the LORD burned against Israel so that he sold them into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram Naharaim, to whom the Israelites were subject for eight years. But when they cried out to the LORD, he raised up for them a deliverer, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, who saved them. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him, so that he became Israel's judge and went to war. The LORD gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him. So the land had peace for forty years, until Othniel son of Kenaz died."

We see this pattern over and over again in the Bible: 1) God's people cry out in their oppression or need 2) God hears them 3) God sends a deliverer 4) He goes to war and the hand of God is with him as he leads the people to freedom.

As I quoted this story to Frazer he told me the difference between this story and the founding was that Washington and company did not have a divine command like Othniel. I replied back by asking him who he was to say whether someone had a divine command to do something or not? He replied back with the question I quoted above.

As part of my response, I would like to revisit the sermon I quoted in my last post by Abraham Keteltas. He stated the following in his sermon named "God Arising and Pleading the Cause of His People":

""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."

He is essentially stating that kings and common people alike can be the anointed of God. Thus, if Kings mess with God's people they will be reproved. Not just the other way around. This seems consistent with the concept in the story about Othniel and deliverance quoted above. Let me reiterate the truth or non-truth of the story is not necessarily relevant to the topic at hand. What is most important is the political theology of those at the founding and those who influenced them. In other words, all that matters for our purposes is if the people of the time believed these types of things happened.

With that said, lets look further into Keteltas' sermon as a narrative of some of the thinking at the time and see if it continues to line up with the concept found in the story of Othniel and deliverance:

"Arise O God! Plead thine own Cause.

Psalm 74, Verse 22.

When David, the inspired penman of this psalm, was greatly distressed, unjustly blam’d on account of the Amalekites invading, spoiling, and burning Ziklag; and carrying away captive the women that were therein, and when the people talked of stoning him on that account, we read, that under these afflicting circumstances,he encouraged himself in the Lord his God. I Sam. 30:6. In this respect, the royal Psalmist exemplified in his conduct, the exercise of every believer. They all fly to God for refuge in time of trouble, and expect comfort and relief from his power and grace, from his glorious perfections and precious promises. The language of their hearts, in any deep distress, is that of Asaph,"

The highlights are mine and were done to emphasis his point about what the people of God do when they feel they are in trouble: they go to God in prayer and expect comfort and relief. The town was burning, things seemed bleak, and David was imploring God to "arise and plead His own cause."

To further understand how Keteltas believed David's welfare was God's cause lets continue on with some more of his words:

"In discoursing on these words I shall endeavor by divine assistance,

I. To shew you what we are to understand by the cause of God.

II. What is meant by his arising and pleading this cause; and what encouragement his people have that he will effectually do it."

This seems to speak for itself so lets see what he is talking about here in regards to number 1:

"I add the welfare of the people, who believe and profess the above mentioned system of divine truths, and practice the righteousness just now describ’d, is the cause of God. They are a society of holy and regenerate souls; trusting in the mercy of God through Christ, conforming the temper of their minds and the tenor of their lives, to the nature, will, and perfections of God; they are represented in Scripture, as a kingdom, of which Jesus Christ is the monarch, as a body, of which the son of God is the head: They are described by St. Peter, as a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, destined to shew forth the praises of him who called them from darkness to his marvellous light:"

This seems that he is describing the welfare of God's people as the cause of God. Then he gives what looks like an orthodox position on who God's people are.

Now let's see what it means for God to actively plead the cause of these people as part of Keteltas describing part 2 above:

"The Hebrew word here translated plead, may be rendered litigate, strove, contend, fight, but being here connected with cause, it is best translated, by the English word plead, a term very familiar to most of us, which signifies an advocate, lawyer, or patron’s arguing, supplicating, interceeding, contending for his client, and representing his case to the best advantage, espousing or patronizing it, or taking it in his own hands and managing it.

Then he goes on to a concrete example:

"There is a remarkable passage in the ensuing chapter, in which God speaks of the injuries done to his people, as if done to himself; he makes their cause his own, and declares that he will plead it. See Jeremiah 51, 33 &c.

Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon hath devoured me, he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with his delicates, he hath cast me out. The violence done to me and to my flesh, be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitant of Zion say; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say, therefore thus saith the Lord, behold I will plead thy cause, and take vengeance for thee:"

This seems to show that Keteltas believed that the Bible taught crushing and devouring God's people was synonymous with crushing and devouring God. The pleading seems to be God's vengeance against the king of Babylon on behalf of his people and their cause. He explains this further in this quote:

"God pleads his own, and his people’s cause by his providence. The whole history of it, from the creation of the world, is a series of wonderful interpositions in behalf of his elect."

I highlighted "interposition" because it will come up later in regards to God's providence. Keteltas then goes on to list a bunch of examples from the Bible and History that illustrate his point about God intervening on behalf of his people when they are in distress and cry out to him. All of which are consistent with the concept Othniel and deliverance from the story at the beginning of this post. I will quote one as an example:

"Philip the 2d, king of Spain, was on the throne of the most powerful kingdom in the world; he had not only great dominions in Europe, Spain, and Portugal, under his command: but he had the East and West Indies, and the mines of Mexico and Peru. He oppressed the Dutch, and began to abridge their civil and religious liberties; they petitioned for a redress of their grievances; but they were ignominiously styled Geux, that is beggars, and their petitions with the greatest scorn and contempt: whereupon, relying on God, they, although but a handful of men, against a mighty monarchy, rebelled against Spain, under the conduct of the prince of Orange, and at length, after a long, and arduous struggle, were acknowledged by their tyrants, to be free and independent states!"

Now lets keep in mind, my agnostic friends, that the issue at hand is not whether this struggle was ended by Divine Providence or circumstances. It is whether the mindset of the people at that time allowed that Divine Providence was possible. With that said, it seems to definitely be the mindset of Keteltas and others who preached similar sermons. It is also consistent with the concept of the story of Othniel and deliverance that I quoted to Frazer. The only thing that remains to answer his question is whether Washington, or anyone else, thought that they were called and used of God in his "interposition" on behalf of his people.

The following quotes were from non-Christian sites and I checked them against the original document from other sites. The first part of the last story was confirmed by the people who put his papers together at the University of Virginia. The second part about the chief was on numerous websites. One was David Barton's so I cannot be 100 percent about its accuracy. Anyway lets hear from George Washington about God's "interposition" on behalf of the Revolutionaries:

1. "As the Cause of our common Country, calls us both to an active and dangerous Duty, I trust that Divine Providence, which wisely orders the Affairs of Men, will enable us to discharge it with Fidelity and Success." -Letter to Jonathan Trumbull, July 18, 1775

2. "I have often thought how much happier I should have been, if, instead of accepting of a command under such circumstances, I had taken my musket on my shoulder and entered the ranks, or, if I could have justified the measure to posterity and my own conscience, had retired to the back country, and lived in a wigwam. If I shall be able to rise superior to these and many other difficulties, which might be enumerated, I shall most religiously believe, that the finger of Providence is in it, to blind the eyes of our enemies." - Letter to John Hancock, January 14, 1776

3. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. -George Washington's First Inaugural Address

4. The commander-in-chief orders the cessation of hostilities between the United States of America and the king of Great Britain to be publicly proclaimed tomorrow at twelve o'clock,...after which the chaplains with the several brigades will render thanks to almighty God for all his mercies, particularly for his overruling the wrath of man to his own glory, and causing the rage of war to cease among the nations.... -General Orders 1783

And the smoking gun:

5. If such talents as I possess have been called into action by great events, and those events have terminated happily for our country, the glory should be ascribed to the manifest interposition of an overruling Providence. -Letter from George Washington to the Reformed Dutch Church, 1789

This last quote would seem particularily interesting considering he believes he was "called into action" which are words used by Christians that feel draw to a divine purpose. It is also telling the he uses the same word "interposition" as Keteltas does when he is describing Divine intervention in the establishment of America. These sentiments are also very much in line with the concept of the story of Othniel and deliverance above.

This last quote is also intriguing because of how it seems to connect perfectly with this story that talks about a battle during the French and Indian War:

Later that evening, this British officer noticed several bullet holes in

his uniform, yet he was unharmed. A few days later he wrote in a letter

to his brother:

"By the all-powerful dispensations of Providence I have been protected

beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets

through my coat, and two horses shot under me yet escaped unhurt, although

death was leveling my companions on every side of me."

Years later, that same British Officer went back to those same

Pennsylvania woods. That same Chief who had fought against this man heard

he was in the region and came a long way to see him. In a face to face

council, the Chief said:

"Listen! [You] will become the chief of nations, and a people

yet unborn will hail [you] as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come

to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who

can never die in battle."

The battle on the Monongahela, part of the French and Indian war, was

fought on July 9, 1755 near Fort Duquesne, now the city of Pittsburgh.

The twenty-three year old officer went on to become the commander in chief

of the Continental Army and the first President of the United States. In

all the years that followed in his long career, this man, George

Washington was never once wounded in Battle."

It makes one wonder if Washington was right and that he had been saved by "dispensations of Divine Providence" to "be called in action" as the instrument of " Almighty God" many years later when "overuling the wrath of man" as King George was defeated. In other words, did he believe he was sent and protected by God to help deliver his countrymen from the hands of their oppressor? It seems he does.

To answer Frazer's question, it seems that I can come up with a quote that a Founder felt called to action by Divine providence to overrule the wrath of the King. This, along with the "step by step" establishment of the new nation would seem to be the happy ending that Keteltas seems to imply is the cause of God, and His people, in his sermon. It all seems perfectly consistent with the concept of people praying and crying out to God in their oppression, God hearing their cries, God sending a deliverer, and that deliverer defying all odds to push back the oppressor and liberate the people from Judges 3. It seems like both Washington and Keteltas thought God's invisible hand a more than plausible explanation for the success of the American Revolution.

And lest anyone say "Washington is not the orthodox Christian that Keteltas described as God's cause", how many times did God raise up a deliverer that was not one of his people? Cyrus come to mind anyone? I am not saying Washington was or was not part of "God's Elect" I am saying he does not have to be to be used, or think he was used, as a deliverer. The Frazer/Loyalist absolute stance on Romans 13 as the infallible word of God is looking worse and worse when other stories in the Bible and, despite what he says, HISTORY seem to contradict it. Locke's interpretation of Romans 13 and his political theology that was at the heart of the Declaration of Independence is looking more and more reasonable, from a biblical perspective, by the moment. No satire needed.

Response to Greg Frazer on Romans 13-Part II

About three weeks ago I wrote a long post on the subject of Romans 13 as a response to Dr. Greg Frazer's comments that he left on the blog "American Creation" titled "Response to Gregg Frazer on Romans 13". It was linked to a post on that site and a good dialogue ensued between him, Tom Van Dyke, Jon Rowe, and I. I think it has generated three posts and over 200 comments up to date. For anyone who would be interested, the title of the first post is "Frazer Responds to King of Ireland Again" and the second is "Frazer KOI Dialogue Continues". One is from May 2009 and the other is from June, 2009. The original post where Frazer responded to my comments is from May 2009 as well. The address is americancreation.blogspot.com.

With all that stated, my next posts will be dedicated to answering some very good questions that Dr. Frazer has asked me to address to support my contention that a reasoned interpretation of Romans 13 leaves room for the right of "revolution" under certain circumstances. More specifically, I contend that the American "Revolution" was not in conflict with my interpretation of the Bible. Though I do object to the term revolution and prefer to look at it as a "liberation". But I digress.

To summarize briefly, I replied to Jon Rowe's use of Dr. Frazer's interpretation of Romans 13 with the example of Moses liberating Israel from the control of Egypt. He responded with several comments and questions that I replied to in my last post. This spurred a back and forth that resulted in the two posts on "American Creation" cited above. In that exchange, many ideas were addressed and bantered about.

Unfortunately, I think we all lost track of what we were talking about and became overwhelmed with sheer volume of complex issues associated with these debates.

After realizing that Dr. Frazer was accurate in his assessment that we were beginning to just talk past each other, I agreed to have him ask me 7 questions and I would respond. Hopefully this will create a good frame for enlightened discussion about Romans 13 and the role of its interpretation in the American Revolution.

My response will be constructed in many separate posts. This will allow me to address each question thoroughly and separately. After these various responses I will post on some ideas that will hopefully crystallize the argument I started from Romans 12 about overcoming evil with good in the last post. Nonetheless, out of sincere respect for the amount of time that Dr. Frazer has dedicated to responding to my thoughts I want to use these posts to respond in kind before I continue outlining my own thoughts. I hope these posts answer his questions even if we disagree. My response to his first question will be separated into two posts. One will be philosophical and the other biblical. The following is part 1 of my response to the first question he asked me:

Dr. Frazer stated:

"You are upset that my view of Romans 13 seems to favor those with the "bigger guns" and you question the legitimacy of regimes founded or maintained thusly. The United States and the current governments of Japan and Germany were established as a result of wars--established by those with "bigger guns." The U.S. expanded itself by wiping out Indian tribes and taking over the land on which they lived. Do you question the legitimacy of these governments? If not, why is my position unreasonable in this regard?"

My response is:

First of all I am not upset about anything. I am simply, not convinced by your interpretation and the manner in which you use it to support your overall thesis. This is in large degree based on the lack of application with your theory. I asked you several hypothetical questions in an attempt to allow you to mesh the two and you responded to a few. I am still not convinced. I guess I can best answer this by restating the original question and then giving my take.

I went back and looked at the dialogue from Jon's post labeled "Frazer Responds to King of Ireland Again" and it seems my original question was: What is "legitimate authority." You responded that all authority is legitimate. This was in the context whether a tribal leader who was conquered by Montezuma and his people should submit to him and fight against the invaders or submit to Montezuma and go against his own people. You called the tribal leader a "lower magistrate". I call him someone who got conquered against his will by some bully with bigger guns. Both parties are authorities. Which one should be submitted to was my question?

I would say it is impossible to submit to both in that the orders conflict. So by definition "all" authority is not legitimate. This same verse was quoted to me by a missions leader that wanted to sit home in comfort while I did all the hard work. We had a new "elder" at the church who was a jerk and he was telling me that I had to submit to him because all authority is from God and in His sovereign will God brought me to that church. He threatened to bring me home because I questioned the sanity of this man and eventually did when I refused to endorse this idiot.

I asked him what kept me from calling myself the authority and telling them that I was part of the "all" which meant that they had to obey me based on the fact that I was DOING what they liked to talk about. I am not sure he ever got the point. It all comes down to who we can believe is really a legitimate authority. The "elder" turned out to be such a moron that most of the church left over him being placed in a position of authority. Was he a legitimate authority just because some "apostle" who turned out to be a cult leader told all of us we had to recognize him as such? What does "all" mean in regards to authority?

As far as the verses from Romans 13 in question, I think the "all" is qualified by the phrase "ordained by God". Can we just change the words "legitimate authority" to "ordained authority" for the sake of this discussion? If so, ordained seems to mean appointed in the original Greek. The "appointed authority" would be a simpler way of putting it.

So let's ask the question again in these terms: Who is the "appointed authority" in the case of the poor Aztec that would want to obey God and submit to God's "appointed authority"? Is it Montezuma the conqueror or the poor tribal leader? One tells him to submit to the great King and the other tells him to resist and be loyal to his tribe. Who does he submit to? Who is the "appointed authority"?

Personally, I would take your advice(in one comment) about what to do when there are two kings who claim authority. I would pray, meditate on the Bible, and try to reason an understanding of what God wanted me to do.(Your words) But if I was the Aztec I would have to apply "right" reason based on nature and conscience(Romans 2)since I would not have a Bible and if I did I would not be able to read it.

What would nature and conscience tell him about authority? I think Locke has it right and he should only consent if it secures him the greatest amount of liberty. Since this never happened under Montezuma he would be best served to fight off the invader and fight along with his tribe to be free from oppression. Just because Montezuma claims authority does not mean this is "appointed authority". Or does it?

Accordingly, I think we both can see that not all who claim authority are appointed by God. I would hope you would concede this point. I would also add that part of "right" reason, in my mind, would include giving legitimacy to "claimed" authority that actually had the consent of the governed as I alluded to above.

Despite what you say, these are not rare and isolated incidents. Many nations of people claim their own sovereignty but are not recognized because they do not have enough power to make it happen. Many of these peoples are Christians(Karen people of Thailand among others). Who gets to say which borders on a map should be recognized? Is it always so crystal clear as you make it seem according to your interpretation of Romans 13?

Anyway, my advice to the Navajo would stand unless I became convinced that somehow the conquering tribe had been sent by God and was appointed to conquer as part of judgement against that people. This would be His way of purging evil and in alignment with Romans 13 and consistent with the rest of scripture.

My issue with you is that it seems to me that you assume judgement due to the some perceived evil of the conquered people. Thus, my contention that your theory seems to imply that whoever wins a battle over sovereignty(bigger guns) is by default the "appointed authority". I think this is what you are talking about when you allude to these governments being "established."

Taken to its logical collusion it would seem to equally state: The loser of the battle for sovereignty(war) is assumed to have offended God and should be deemed evil and worthy of the "judgement" of being conquered. You even seem to admit this, to at least some degree, when you state(in a comment) that this is usually the norm in the establishment of governments.

This brings us to a natural bridge to the meat of your question about the sovereignty of the United States, Japan, Germany, and Native Americans and the fact that "bigger guns" decided who was able to enforce their view of sovereignty. Since I would like to keep this post as short as possible and still respond to your questions in a thorough manner I will just respond in regards to the Native Americans.

This will also tie in well with my whole Aztec, Cortes, and human rights scenario that we went back and forth on in the comments section at American Creation that I have briefly mentioned here. To sway away from theory and drift toward ideas in practice I would like narrow it down further to the Navajos because I have actually worked among them.

Actually, I do question the legitimacy of the United States government to rule over a group that never has consented to that rule. They were a sovereign nation of people invaded by another sovereign nation. To this day a real Navajo only grudgingly gives an ascent to what our government tells them to do. They have a Tibetan type of autonomy but what does that really mean? It is certainly not sovereignty in their own affairs. Their story is a story that has been repeated throughout history: A people of a different language, culture, and traditions invades a sovereign people and uses the persistent threat of force to maintain control.

Unless, we assume that it is God's judgement that the United States of America conquered and ruled over the Navajo simply because we had "bigger guns" I would like have their consent before I would tell them to submit to the "appointed authority" of the United States government. Some might say that the treaties they were beaten into signing provide this consent but I would counter that treaties signed at gun point are dubious at best.

Nonetheless, I turn the question back to you. You assert that the fact that these AUTHORITIES EMERGED PROVES THEIR LEGITIMACY; that they are "appointed authority." Based on what? Why would you assume it is God's will for the United States to use "bigger guns" to rape a people of their culture and amputate their spirit? If so why would God do that? Was it judgement? How would you know? If it is not judgement then how is this legitimate?

I think it gets down to your disdain for the "pagan" Navajo that has no interest in God and thus is deserving of judgement based on Romans 3 right? This is a huge leap in my view. Thinking like this led to the mass murder of millions of Native Americans. It is the spirit of Cortes at it's worst. But back to that discussion at a later date.....

So who does the Navajo submit to: the tribal leader or the President of the conquerors? Why? You stated the the Aztecs were not under the authority of Cortes right? Then why would the Navajos be under the authority of the United States government upon invasion then let alone hundreds of years later now? Does consent play any part in these decisions?

I would say yes and question whether the United States government is the "appointed authority" sent by God to rule over the Navajos. Though I do think that God has used this injustice for some good the same way he used Joseph's brothers, I do not think it makes it right nor His will. Just because something happens does not mean God intended it to be that way.

Well that is the first part of my response to your first question. I had to split this up into two posts because it was getting far to long. The second post will deal with the same question from a biblical point of view ending with something interesting I found in 1 Peter 3 that you quoted to me. I look forward to your response to my ideas expressed here....