Calvin and America

[A.Joseph]

This may have to get held over till tomorrow. I always knew Jefferson was not a fan of Calvin. I’m not familiar with this author, but I like how this article lays out (in my interpretation) whether our lesser magistrates act as Calvinists or Jeffersonians, which reveals why our WCF seems so inapplicable in these areas I believe. https://mereorthodoxy.com/john-calvin-thomas-jefferson/

 

[A.Joseph]

As far as the WCF is concerned. Could somebody clarify the author’s conclusion here, thanks!

“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.”

The comments of one
hoosier_bob at the end of article are also interesting and I wonder if somebody can speak to that as well.

 

[A.Joseph]

This is fascinating. How do us Calvinists cope with an American system of free thought based in Jeffersonian progressivism with (il)logical conclusions that have led us where we find ourselves today? How do we maintain the American values we hold dear when they’ve ultimately turned on us? This is the fatal outcome of a type of freedom facilitated by men ’living’ in spiritual bondage.

“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. “The great object of Jacobinism,” he warned after Jefferson defeated John Adams, “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.”

Dwight bewailed the advent of Jeffersonian politics and opined that the United States had “now reached the consummation of democratic blessedness. We have a country governed by blockheads and knaves.” He despaired that “the ties of marriage with all its felicities” had been “severed and destroyed” by the coming Republican order. “Our wives and daughters are thrown into the stews; our children are cast into the world from the breast and forgotten.” The very structure of the family seemed under attack. “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?”[2]

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.”

 

[Solparvus]

This'll give you a clue as to why Jefferson would not like Westminster Christianity. The first except is Chapter 23 of the original Westminster Confession. The second is the 1789 amendment of the Westminster.

In summary, the original makes the true and pure worship of God a civil interest for the magistrate. The amended makes the government a nursing father of the church, yet they can hardly act as a nursing father in the Scriptural sense.

Original

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

Amended

iii. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

 

[A.Joseph]

But also the author says Jefferson would be more troubled with
“Calvinist political theology”

The changes made to the Westminster Confession in 1789 took the last serious teeth out of Calvinist political theology.

I guess we are talking Geneva here?

This'll give you a clue as to why Jefferson would not like Westminster Christianity. The first except is Chapter 23 of the original Westminster Confession. The second is the 1789 amendment of the Westminster.

In summary, the original makes the true and pure worship of God a civil interest for the magistrate. The amended makes the government a nursing father of the church, yet they can hardly act as a nursing father in the Scriptural sense.

Original

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

Amended

iii. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

 

[Solparvus]

But also the author says Jefferson would be more troubled with
“Calvinist political theology”

The changes made to the Westminster Confession in 1789 took the last serious teeth out of Calvinist political theology.

I guess we are talking Geneva here?

I got my quote for the 1789 from Reformation21. I'd be nervous too if I were President Jefferson.

http://www.reformation21.org/confession/2013/06/chapter-23-1.php

The idea of the revisions was to prevent a state church.

I wonder, when the revised forbids "the least interference", does this forbid countenancing as well? That is, put funds towards pastors and churches and missions? Sounds like flat-out mandated neutrality.

 

[RamistThomist]

How do us Calvinists cope with an American system of free thought based in Jeffersonian progressivism with (il)logical conclusions that have led us where we find ourselves today? How do we maintain the American values we hold dear when they’ve ultimately turned on us? This is the fatal outcome of a type of freedom facilitated by men ’living’ in spiritual bondage.

We Calvinists offer prayers, intercessions, giving of thanks for those in office. That's a start. In short, there isn't much "boots on the ground" type things we can do.

 

[A.Joseph]

We Calvinists offer prayers, intercessions, giving of thanks for those in office. That's a start. In short, there isn't much "boots on the ground" type things we can do.

Yeah, we’re not gonna have much influence in the cultural sense, but more importantly, hopefully we will be left alone (and able to maintain our personal witness and missionary outreach undeterred).

 

[A.Joseph]

But it sounds like Jefferson was only truly concerned with the Original WCF. It seems like he would (or should) ultimately feel less threatened by the revised portion, don’t you agree?

I got my quote for the 1789 from Reformation21. I'd be nervous too if I were President Jefferson.

http://www.reformation21.org/confession/2013/06/chapter-23-1.php

The idea of the revisions was to prevent a state church.

I wonder, when the revised forbids "the least interference", does this forbid countenancing as well? That is, put funds towards pastors and churches and missions? Sounds like flat-out mandated neutrality.

 

[Solparvus]

But it sounds like Jefferson was only truly concerned with the Original WCF. It seems like he would (or should) ultimately feel less threatened by the revised portion, don’t you agree?

My post wasn't clear, but agreed. President Jefferson had reason to fear the original. And by disarming the government it helped ensure his doctrine got ahold. It worked. The northeast is heavily Unitarian to this day, and dreadfully ungodly.

 

[RamistThomist]

Yeah, we’re not gonna have much influence in the cultural sense, but more importantly, hopefully we will be left alone (and able to maintain our personal witness and missionary outreach undeterred).

The Deep State won't leave us alone (or any godly American).

 

[jwithnell]

But it sounds like Jefferson was only truly concerned with the Original WCF. It seems like he would (or should) ultimately feel less threatened by the revised portion, don’t you agree?

Jefferson sliced whole passages out of the holy scriptures to rewrite them according to his own will. He could not reconcile his enlightenment thinking with the scriptures, so the Bible had to give way. Now compare that to how the WCF handles the scriptures and see how odd it is to try to reconcile the WCF with Jefferson.

 

[A.Joseph]

I love the language of the Original, why must we capitulate to and accommodate unbelief? or a neutral view? The skeptic and the public official may be better off if our expectations remain Godly.
Too much capitulation to Godlessness and unnatural order is a drain on Christian virtue outside the Church which ultimately finds it way in, and is at least as problematic as an unholy alliance between church and state. Both are equally detrimental and both have ushered in our current church/state.

 

[A.Joseph]

“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.”


Wonder if Jefferson even read Calvin? I don’t recognize his caricature.

“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.”

 

[Solparvus]

I love the language of the Original, why must we capitulate to and accommodate unbelief? or a neutral view? The skeptic and the public official may be better off if our expectations remain Godly.
Too much capitulation to Godlessness and unnatural order is a drain on Christian virtue outside the Church which ultimately finds it way in, and is at least as problematic as an unholy alliance between church and state. Both are equally detrimental and both have ushered in our current church/state.

One part of the unacceptance is understandable. Particular groups have gotten the bad end of the deal, such as early American Baptists (though not the only ones). It's understandable and right that you don't want the godly whipped by the minister of God. Events like the witch trials are utterly chilling, and for good cause.

In another part, it's more that we just assume that church and state should never have a thing to do with one another, and that any alliance can only work in a theocracy. And that each time it's been tried, only bad has come of it, or the church grew lazy and fat when Christianity became fashionable because of state sanction, and that the church does better and grows more pure when it is resisted by the government rather yjan endorsed. Others see such a view like found in Ch 23 as akin to the church ruling through the government, or advancing a wrong model of the spread of Christ's kingdom, or a wrong model of discipleship.

I would agree with you on government capitulation to godlessness. Marriage is down the tubes, and we are 60,000,000 babies in the hole for judgment. But if we are content to go without governors who fear God, neither will be reversed.