Calvinism and Religous Rights

“The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution was defended in its day on a variety of grounds — with Enlightenment arguments among the most well known. It is no small commentary for this volume, however, that every one of the guarantees in the 1791 Bill Of Rights had already been formulated in the prior two centuries — by Calvinist theologians and jurists among others. Some of these rights were already formulated by Theodore Beza and the French and Scottish resistance fighters of the the later sixteenth century, more by Johannes Althusius and the Dutch constitutionalists at the turn of the seventeenth century, still more by John Milton and the English Puritans in the middle of the seventeenth century, and more yet by the New England Puritans from John Winthrop and Nathaniel Ward in the seventeenth century to Elisha Williams and John Adams in the eighteenth. Moreover, a number of the core ideas of American constitutionalism — popular sovereignty, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, church and state, and more — were also quite fully formulated by Calvinists in the prior two centuries, especially in the Netherlands, England, and New England….The Calvinists wove many strong theological threads into the fabric of early American Constitutionalism.

John Witte Jr.
The Reformation Of Rights; Law, Religion, And Human Rights In Early Modern Calvinism — pg. 31-32

The very idea of an American Nation grew up out of the soil of Calvinistic Christianity. This doesn’t mean that all of the Founding Fathers were Calvinists or Christian. Nor does it mean that those who were Christian were perfectly consistent in their Christianity. What it does mean is that the origin, shape, and trajectory of These United State was Christian and Calvinistic. Even those Founding Fathers who were furthest away from Christian thought had been largely immersed in a cultural milieu wherein they imbibed Christian and Calvinistic political thought categories. Indeed, one can argue that even the Enlightenment arguments stemming from Locke, Rousseau, and others that some used to justify disunion with England were arguments that owed their origin to Christian categories.

In the book quoted from above Witte’s labor is to show how a long history of Calvinistic thinking in political theory by eminent theologians and jurists ended up shaping the West’s jurisprudential self understanding when it comes to the issue of natural religious rights. Witte contends that Reformed political theory eventually became so standard that it became the proverbial water in which Westerner’s swam for centuries.

This thesis runs contrary to much of what we are taught growing up about how the Enlightenment, as crystallized in the French Revolution, yielded to men rights of individual liberty that were unknown due to the stultifying presence of Christian ideas of Monarchy, Aristocratic privilege, and religious establishment. What Witte has done is to uncover the long Christian and Reformed legacy that spoke of the right of men to liberty against tyranny, tracing the story from Calvin’s genesis work on political theory in relation natural religious rights, to Beza’s development in light of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre by Roman Catholic upon the Hugenots, to Althusius development in light of the Dutch Revolt against the Roman Catholic Philip of Spain, to Milton’s work in England during the conflict with King Charles I, and finally to the work of New England Puritan in the Holy Commonwealth. In each successive stage Witte draws out how Calvinistic political theory developed and adapted to the events swirling about and how Calvinist political theory sought to apply Scripture as a means by which men could understand their roles given their times.

In Gratitude

Today I received from Amazon a book from a good friend. The gift made me reflect how fortunate I’ve been when it comes to the generosity of friends and books.

My friend Mark Chambers, my most recent benefactor, has gifted me with many previous volumes that has helped me to grow in my understanding of post-millennialism and covenant theology. My friend Joe Graber, upon getting out of the ministry gave me a large part of his library from which I have yet to make a sizable dent. I have read much of the Rushdoony material that Joe gave me and have profited greatly by it. The friends among the people I have been privileged to pastor have been great at gifting to me book money. The Timmis, Trammell, Martens, Martens, Ehnis, and Bacon families all have seen the importance that their Pastor have the opportunity to be well read and have reached into their own pockets to make sure that I am. My friend Bob Heath recently grabbed some great books out of my arms that I was collecting to purchase and brought them to the sales clerk and paid for them. My friend, Carmon Friedrich, who I have never even met, shipped from California a book on paedo-communion that I immediately devoured. My friend Anthony Lombardi (who doubles as my Father-in-law) upon retiring from the ministry just gave me his whole library.

When I received this most recent unexpected book gift in the mail I was once again overwhelmed at how generous people have been to me. I certainly don’t deserve such kindnesses. I only wish I could consume all this material faster and then have the ability to think more deeply about what I am reading. Further, I pray that I will be given the ability to communicate and articulate in an understandable way what I learn from what I read. I sense such a responsibility to be able to adequately express all that is being impressed upon me through my reading.

To all those who have contributed to my education, I thank you. I don’t deserve your tender ministrations on my behalf. I only ask for your prayers that I might be able to both better absorb my reading and be able to better teach what I’ve learned.

Hastings, Anglo-Saxon Courage & America

“We must fight, whatever may be the danger to us; for what we have to consider is whatever may be the danger to us; for what we have to consider is not whether we shall accept and receive a new lord, as if our king were dead; the case is quite otherwise. The Norman has given our land to his captains, to his knights, to all his people, the greater part of whom have already done homage to him for them; they will all look for their gift if their duke become our king; and he himself is bound to deliver up to them our goods, our wives, and our daughters: all is promised to them beforehand.They come, not only to ruin us, but to ruin our descendants also, and to take from us the country of our ancestors. And what shall we do — whither shall we go, when we have no longer a country?”

English Chieftains Response To
William The Conqueror’s Surrender Terms Before The Battle Of Hastings

Chronicled by Augustin Thierry

History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes and Its Consequences in England, Scotland, Ireland and On the Continent Part One (Paperback)

When William the Conqueror’s spokesman laid down the terms of surrender before the English court those English nobles realized that they only had two choices. They could one one hand die fighting to defend their liberties as Saxons or on the other hand they could surrender and willingly consign themselves and their descendants to Norman slavery for generations. They decided to fight — and fight they did like men realizing that defeat meant not only personal loss but the loss of all that their fathers had handed them as well as the loss of all that they could ever bequeath to their descendants.

The Norman’s likewise fought like possessed men. Like, the Saxon, they realized that the Battle of Hastings was one in which there could be no peaceful surrender. With the channel at their back there was no returning home. Flight in battle would only mean later being hunted down like wild game by righteously offended Saxons.

And so Christian men of honor on both sides fought for their King, their Fathers and their children. In the end, Harold’s Saxon troops, exhausted from only recently defeating the invading Norse Army of King Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge in the North, were themselves defeated. The Saxon King Harold along with his brothers Gurth, and Leofwine were killed at Hastings with the bodies of a great host of their own thanes, knights, and peasants as well as 25% of the invading force laying dead and dying about them.

The battle waged from the early morning well into the evening hours. The Saxon line held until it was broken by Saxon soldiers pursuing what was thought to be Norman retreat. The Normans, however, had used retreat as a ruse to draw the Saxon soldiers from their impenetrable defenses and once the Saxon soldiers had broken their defensive phalanx the Normans turned and breached the Saxon lines, eventually reaching and decimating the house and Nobles of King Harold, as well as the already brutally injured King Himself.

Edward Shepherd Creasy in his book, ‘Fifteen Decisive Battles Of The Western World’ insists that the victory of William the Conqueror though a trial for the Saxon people, in the long run beneficently shaped the West, if only because the oppression that the Anglo-Normans brought upon the Anglo-Saxons was eliminated and the two people made one by their coming together to establish the English liberties by signing the Magna Carta at Runnymede.

For our purposes I want to refer back to the quote with which we began. I pray daily that we alive in this country might be able to summon the Anglo courage to fight, realizing like they did long ago that a refusal to fight means the loss of our country, our heritage, and our ability to pass on a Christian way of thinking and living to our posterity. Our misfortune is that we don’t see the alternatives as starkly as the Anglos of old did. We don’t have an armed host encamped against us and so we think that we have options besides those Anglos in the 11th century. We fail to realize the traitors in our midst who would sell out our country to an unarmed immigrant host in hope of handing us over to globalist overlords. Just as much as the Normans at Hastings these Globalist have promised our land to their captains, to their knights, and to all their people. Should this fascist alliance of Global Corporatism & Statist Politicians succeed in their treachery and should we as Americans refuse to fight, as the Anglo-Saxons did, our goods, our wives, and our daughters will be forfeit to their wicked designs. This Fascist alliance of Republicans, Democrats and Globalists Mega Corportists not only intend to ruin us, but to ruin our descendants also, and to take from us the country of our ancestors. And what shall we do — whither shall we go, when we have no longer a country?

If we are to lose all of this then let us lose it like the brave Anglo-Saxons against William the Conqueror — let us lose it fighting to the last man, woman and child.

Obama Baby

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama

Well, in today’s rapid news cycle this is already old news but I just heard this today and couldn’t resist commenting on it.

I’m just going to go through what I see here in the order I see it.

First, ‘I got two daughters?’

Never mind.

Second, he is going to ‘teach them morals and values’ while at the same time ‘giving them information’ on how his daughters can be immoral girls when they decide to reject the values that he teaches them. If Barack is going to teach his daughters ‘morals and values’ while at the same time ‘giving them information’ on how to best violate what they have been taught isn’t the giving to them information on how best to violate the morals and values they have been taught a moral and a value they are being taught?

Third, notice how sex outside of marriage is just a ‘mistake’ — you know, kind of like putting more sugar in the cake batter then the recipe called for, or setting your alarm clock an hour earlier then what you really wanted.

Fourth, Barack says that babies are a punishment. It is not a wonder that the guy has never met an abortion restriction that he likes. If babies are punishment then by all means let us kill them off in every way we can.

Fifth, having babies and being infected with an STD are considered parallel punishments. Indeed, getting pregnant might be less of a punishment for their ‘mistake’ then being infected with STD since it is easier to get rid of the baby punishment then some STD punishments.

Sixth, I think this confirms that if B. Hussein Obama is Islamic, he is only nominally Islamic. I don’t think a full fledge Muslim would give the information on how to have ‘mistake free sex’ to his young teenage daughters. I think we are going to give up this idea that he is a closet Muslim and be satisfied with the fact that he is a Black Nationalist Marxist.

I’ve been over and over this issue with Government educators but,

1.)Outside of marriage there is no such thing as ‘mistake free sex.’

2.)When you teach children how to have ‘mistake free sex’ you are teaching them to have sex. You cannot consistently, on the one hand, say something is inadvisable (that’s the strongest language Government educators will use about sex) and on the other hand teach someone how to most effectively do that which is inadvisable.