embed/jesuswordsonly
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Wiki Activity
14edd76594
jesuswordsonly/Calvin and Founding of America.html

644 lines
25 KiB
HTML
Raw Normal View History

initial backup of github.com/jesuswordsonly/jesuswordsonly.github.io
2023-08-31 11:16:13 +00:00
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="content-type">
<title>Calvin and Founding of America</title>
</head>
<body style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 192, 146);" alink="#000099" link="#000099" vlink="#990099">
<h1 class="Heading1">Did Calvin Found America? What Were The Religious Scruples of the Founding Fathers?</h1>
<div>
<h2 class="Heading2">
Introduction</h2>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Those who believe that there is no free-will, such as Calvinists, have
never promoted that there are God-given liberties that no human
government can infringe. There are, however, many Calvinists who
fantasize that they should be given the lion's share credit for the
American Revolution. These claims are ridiculous. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
In 1776, true Calvinists could not support any kind of revolt from the
King of England's rule in the colonies. Calvin insisted that a
Christian owed unjust rulers a duty of obedience unless the ruler
sought to prevent the true worship of God. (Calvin's Institutes
4.20.30-1.)<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930317" class="footnote">
1</a>
Because in the colonies no such prohibition was present, true Calvinists could not support any kind of revolt. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
John Zubly (1724-1781) was a Calvinist preacher and delegate from
Georgia in the Continental Congress. Based upon Calvinist doctrine, he
resisted any kind of independence from Britain.<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930334" class="footnote">
2</a>
This call was heeded by the majority of Calvinists. Despite the
presence in the Colonies of significant numbers in the Calvinist
denominations (e.g., Puritan, Presbyterian and Congregational), they
are virtually invisible among the signers of the Declaration of
Independence in 1776, the Constitution of 1789, and the First Congress.<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930374" class="footnote">
3</a>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<h2 class="Heading2">
Calvinist Fantasies About A Calvinist-Driven American Revolution</h2>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Despite the statistical evidence, Loraine Boettner in his <span style="font-style: italic;">Calvinism in History: Calvinism in America</span><a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930352" class="footnote">
4</a>
wishes to give the lion's share of responsibility for the American
Revolution to Calvinists. He, in fact, says it was a "Presbyterian"
revolution. However, this is a&nbsp;clearly exaggerated analysis. Most of the `proof' is based on
loose-statements by British enemies of the young colonies. They liked
to blame Calvinists precisely because of the sour-reputation of
Calvinists and their reputation as dissenters in England to the Crown.
By asserting the Revolutionists were Calvinists, the British
authorities could besmirch our Revolution with the bad taint of
Calvinism and make it also appear it was a sedition extension by
domestic opponents of the Crown in England. Boettern then relies upon
historians who then rely upon these weak second-hand claims to weave a
story that is wholly unrealistic. Yet, based on such sketchy evidence,
Boettner makes the following extraordinarily baseless claim: "History
is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of
Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism." Then, Boettner
quotes the most preposterous claim of all by Ranke, a scholar, who
said: "John Calvin was the virtual founder of America."<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930427" class="footnote">
5</a>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<h2 class="Heading2">
Reality: Calvinism Inspires Tyrannical Behavior</h2>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
One of the most important lessons of the Servetus Affair, and the
aftermath at Geneva, is about the origin of tyrannical behavior. Those
who believe in there being no free will, whether Calvinists or
materialists, will have no reason to resist making themselves tyrants.
Because Calvinism denies free will exists in man at all, true
Calvinists can never imagine by tyrannical behavior that they are
infringing on any God-given inalienable right to freedom of conscience
or thought. This is precisely because without a belief in a free-will,
then how could Calvinists believe a right&nbsp;to free-expression exists? A
right to freedom of religion exists? (This explains Calvin's behavior,
and it explains Fisher Ames' doctrine in 1804 as well, as discussed
below.)</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
As a result, it should not surprise us to find that except for a very
small number, none of the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. were known
Calvinists.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
A website eager to find Calvinists among the Founding Fathers concedes there is scant evidence of their presence:</p>
<p class="Quote">
Despite the prevalence of Calvinism among Colonials, most Founding
Fathers were apparently not identified primarily by the label
`Calvinist.' Among all of the people who were signers of the
Declaration of Independence, signers of the U.S. Constitution, and
members of the very first U.S. Congress and Senate, there is only one
man whose religious affiliation is identified as `Calvinist:' Fisher
Ames.<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=929974" class="footnote">
6</a>
</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
We have a lot to say about Fisher Ames in a short while.<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930298" class="footnote">
7</a>
We will prove that as the lone open Calvinist in the early Congress,
Ames made it clear that he did not share in any of the American values
that shaped the United States Constitution. In 1804, Ames advocated
repealing almost every fundamental liberty of the young nation. He felt
it was an experiment that had run its course. The republic was
teetering upon collapse unless measures identical to those employed in
the Geneva Republic in Calvin's day were quickly put in place.</p>
</div>
<div>
<h2 class="Heading2">
Statistical Studies of&nbsp;Founders' Faith</h2>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
If one examines those who signed the original Constitution, and judge among those whose religious affiliations are known,<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=929993" class="footnote">
8</a>
only five were Presbyterian (Calvinist) and one was Congregationalist
(Calvinist in that era). There was only one Lutheran. The remaining 80%
all belonged to denominations that believed in free will, and hence the
sanctity of freedom of conscience. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
If we move past the&nbsp;Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to the first elected
congress, then the numbers improve to 48. This means 29% of the first
congress belonged to Calvinist denominations.<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930030" class="footnote">
9</a>
Yet, this leaves a significant 71% belonging to Christian denominations which believed in free-will.</p>
<table>
<caption>
<h6 class="TableTitle">
Founding Fathers of Denominations Believing in Free Will</h6>
</caption>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellHeading">
Denomination</p>
</th>
<th rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellHeading">
Number</p>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
Episcopalian</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
17</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
Quaker</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
3</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
Anglican</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
2</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
Methodist</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
2</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
Roman Catholic</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
1</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
Total</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
<p class="CellBody">
25/31 = 80%</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
This is not intended to deprecate the many Presbyterians/Calvinists who
participated in valiant efforts as soldiers and even commanders in our
Revolutionary War. But this evidence proves the spiritual leadership
for the revolution came from Christians of a different stripe. Rather,
what is more fair to say is that the Calvinists in America who desired
to free the U.S. from Britain were numerous although a minority within
the Calvinist churches. They joined the American Revolution because
their motives aligned at significant points with other Christians. For
example, Calvinists had as much interest as anyone in preventing the
Anglican church becoming the official church in the colonies where
religious liberty reigned. Yet, Calvinists, unlike other Christians,
were dreaming of establishing localized Genevas where religion was
forced, mandatory, and rigorously enforced by the judiciary, e.g., as
witnessed at&nbsp;Salem under Winthrop beginning in 1629, etc.<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930039" class="footnote">
10</a>
Thus, the Calvinists of America who supported the revolution did not
aspire to a freedom of religion for all citizens. They did not share
the spirit which animated the overwhelming majority of Christians who
were leading the American Revolution. These other Christians wanted
everyone to enjoy a freedom of religion even from an `enlightened' new
Geneva in America. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Consequently, the predominating Christian spirit in the Revolution came
from Christians who believed in human free will. They wanted freedom
from Calvinist church-and-state marriages as much as from any other
kind of marriage of church-and-state. </p>
</div>
<div>
<h2 class="Heading2">
Proof From Madison Contrasted to Ames</h2>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
The difference between Calvinist Christians and the type of Christian
leading the American Revolution is demonstrable by comparing the views
of the lone self-avowed Calvinist in the early Congress -- Fisher Ames
-- to the views of James Madison. As you may know, Madison was the
actual writer/drafter of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. He is
sometimes called the Father of the Constitution.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
First, we will start with Madison. He
became President in 1809. He was of the stripe of man who regarded the
Christian religion as having been debased when it ever had been
entwined with the civil arm to persecute heretics. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
In 1784,&nbsp;Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious
Assessments his rationale for rejecting laws intended to establish the
Christian religion over other religions. In this speech, he declaimed
against the church-state bond that persecuted heretics in ages past
which resulted in "spiritual tyranny":</p>
<p class="Quote">
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in
all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility
in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."</p>
<p class="Quote">
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on
society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual
tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority;<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930061" class="footnote">
11</a>
on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of
political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the
liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty
may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just
government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930064" class="footnote">
12</a>
</p>
<p class="Quote">
"Such a government will he best supported by protecting every citizen in
the enjoyment of his religion with the same equal hand which protects
his person and his property, -- by neither invading the equal rights of
any sect, nor suffering any sect to invade those of another." </p>
<p class="Quote">
****</p>
<p class="Quote">
"Torrents of blood have spilled in the Old World in consequence of vain
attempts of the secular arm to extinguish religious discord by
prescribing all differences in religious opinion. Time has at length
revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous
policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the
disease.<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930070" class="footnote">"
13</a>
</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
The original purpose of the Founding Fathers in the&nbsp;First Amendment is thus clear. Among other purposes, it was to guard
the state from ever engaging in a Calvinist-scheme of controlling the
religion of man by persecuting heresy using the civil arm of the state.
It is a lesson lost on some prominent Christian voices today like Pat
Robertson.<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930075" class="footnote">
14</a>
</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Instead, Madison wanted a religious liberty which was at total odds
with Calvinist doctrine. It was this spirit at total odds with
Calvinist doctrine which was the fundamental driving force of the
Revolution. The American Revolution was thus not principally made by
those who shared Calvin's values, as Boettner claimed. It was made
primarily by the followers of Christ who saw the crimes of Calvin and
the church over centuries, and never wanted those kind of injustices to
ever be repeated again on the face of this earth. They wanted religious
liberty for everyone.</p>
</div>
<div>
<h2 class="Heading2">
Ames' Calvinist Spirit At Odds With Madison's Constitution</h2>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Fisher Ames, the lone self-professed Calvinist in Congress, in 1804 was
the first member of Congress who sought to undo the civil liberties
against religious establishment. He grounded this on Calvinist
doctrine. This demonstrates two spirits within Christian denominations
were at odds with each other. There was the Christian spirit of men
like Madison who wanted religious toleration of all. And then there was
the Calvinist spirit of men like Ames who lost patience very quickly
with the experiment, and suggested its repeal.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
This is set forth with subtlelty in&nbsp;Ames' 1804 The Dangers of American Liberty.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Ames began this piece, like Calvin would, by smearing the entire nation
he lived in as populated by libertines. Ames argued that the country
was suffering from a "licentiousness fatal to Liberty." As a result of
such decline, Ames claimed there has arisen an "hostility to our
religious institutions."<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930130" class="footnote">
15</a>
Then Ames says the cure is to reverse the course whereby our "religious
institutions" have been "abandoned by our laws." But religion, he said,
is the support of all governments. What should the government do now
that it can see that religion institutions are teetering? Ames said
with the government taking no proactive steps, the only basis to
religious institutions is mere habit. Ames says the only reason why
religious institutions have not yet collapsed was due to the
"tenasciousness of ...even a degenerate people" to their "habits."<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930134" class="footnote">
16</a>
</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Hence, in point one, Ames is arguing in a round-a-bout manner for the
state-establishment of religion, just as at Geneva. It is the only way
the laws no longer abandon the cause of religion, and the force of law
restore the languishing, almost dead state of religion (as Ames saw it).</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Second, Ames will give us a further step to stop this decline. Speaking
just like Calvin, Ames says we must prefer in the appointment of judges
men who "profess the best moral and religious principles...." (Id. at
356.) In other words, legal acumen is not vital. Instead, because if
point one is established (i.e., state support for religious
institutions), now the judge himself must play a role in enforcing
morals and religious values. Hence, Ames says we need judges so trained
in religious and morals to end&nbsp;the "licentiousness" all about us. Thus,
Ames argued, just like Calvin would, that everyone around them is a
Libertines, and the only solution is to empower judges to enforce
morals and religion. To this end, the church would act as watchdogs of
religious and moral principles to feed fresh charges to the judges on a
regular basis. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Third, the paralell to Calvin's doctrine continues as Ames takes aim at
the press writers. Ames clearly expresses that such men deserve to die
for the words they utter. Rather than the Press serving as a tool to
fight tyrrany, Ames says the "press has been the base and venal
instrument of the very men whom it ought to gibbet [i.e., hang] to
universal abhorrhence." (Id., at 357.) Ames means the press writers
should be hanged for the things they say. Ames would bring back
Calvin's persecution of Servetus-like writers as an everyday occurence
had he the chance.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Fourth and finally, Ames would adopt Calvin's view on democracy. Calvin
said history proves that aristocracy and democracy is the best form of
government. (Institutes 4.8.)<a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.html.htm#pgfId=930471" class="footnote">
17</a>
What would Ames say about that?</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Ames said the right to vote improperly belongs now to immoral corrupt
hands who cannot fathom the information necessary to make any informed
decision. "It is in vain, it is indeed childish to say, that an
enlightened people will understand their own affairs." (Works of Fisher
Ames, supra, at 364.) "How are these millions of students to have
access to the means of information?" (Id., at 364.) </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Hence, Ames leaves us to imply only one solution: the right to vote
should be restricted so only an informed elite can vote and elect from
their own elite members, i.e., an aristocracy. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
Thus, Ames, as the lone open Calvinist in the early Congress, reminds
us what Calvinists truly believed back then. They shared no agenda in
common with the majority on issues of free-will, freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right of universal
suffrage. Ames shows us the heart of the Calvinists would have been,
had they been the leaders of the Revolution, to restore the tyrannical
regime at Geneva under Calvin. In fact, it can be truly said that no
principles of liberty in any government was more antithetical to
Calvinist political values than the original United States of America
and its Constitution.</p>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="footnotes">
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
1.</span>&nbsp;This flows logically from Calvin's belief that God is sovereign over evil, and directs it. (See <a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20Fathers.#13355" class="XRef">
</a>
et seq.) Thus, to seek to overthrow an unjust ruler is to contravene the sovereign will of God.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
2.</span>&nbsp;"John Joachim Zubly," Wikipedia.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
3.</span>&nbsp;See <a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.#19283" class="XRef">
See Statistical Studies of Founders' Faith</a>
et seq.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
4.</span>&nbsp;http://graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=70%7C%7C868 (accesed 6/8/08)</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
5.</span>&nbsp;Quoted without citation in Egbert Watson Smith, The Creed of Presbyterians (Baker &amp; Taylor Co., 1901) at 119.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
6.</span>&nbsp;"Famous Calvinists," http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_calvin.html (accessed 6/5/08).</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
7.</span>&nbsp;See <a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20FathersHTML.#18542" class="XRef">
See Ames' Calvinist Spirit At Odds With Madison's Constitution</a>
.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
8.</span>&nbsp;http://www.bizforum.org/FFR.htm (accessed 6/8/08).</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
9.</span>&nbsp;http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_calvin.html (accessed 6/8/08).</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
10.</span>&nbsp;"John Calvin's system was the archetype of Winthrop's. In youth,
Winthrop studied carefully the works of John Calvin." John A. Taylor,
British Monarchy, English Church Establishment, and Civil Liberty
(Greenwood Publishing, 1993) at 34.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
11.</span>&nbsp;It seems most likely that Madison here is specifically referring to Calvin's role in the Servetus Affair.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
12.</span>&nbsp;William Cabell Rives, History of the Life and Times of James Madison
(1859) at 637, top para. and bottom para. However, Calvinists persist
in seeing in Madison "echoes of Calvin." But the idea of
checks-and-balances because of human proclivity to evil is based on
history, and not a religious doctrine of human depravity. </p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
13.</span>&nbsp;William Cabell Rives, History of the Life and Times of James Madison (1859) at 638.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
14.</span>&nbsp;While I strongly admire the spiritual work of Pat Robertson, I find it
troubling he says the "separation of church and state" is a "lie of the
left," and Christians must "work together .... [to win] back control of
the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70
years." (Pat Roberston, Pat Robertson Perspective (Fall 1991).) Since
70 years ago, there was no official religion in the USA, I therefore
doubt Pat means what this quote sounds like. But Pat is wrong
factually. Our founders did understand the First Amendment to create a
wall of separation. How that was originally meant and how it is often
defined has diverged, and therein lies the problem. See <a href="file:///C:/Servetus/Appendix%20on%20Founding%20Fathers.#18701" class="XRef">
</a>
and accompanying text.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
15.</span>&nbsp;Ames, "Fisher Ames 1758-1808: The Dangers of American Liberty," in
Charles S. Hyneman, American Political Writing During the Founding Era:
1760-1805 (1983) vol. 2; Works of Fisher Ames (Little Brown, 1854) at
345, 356.</p>
<p class="Footnote">
Ames is an excellent writer, filled with brilliant wit. When Fisher
Ames talks about the dangers of democracy, as distinct from a
republican form of government, he is excellent. Yet, he saw the USA as
overcome by "democratic licentiousness" (Id., at 348), and that some of
the experiment had to be reversed.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
16.</span>&nbsp;Works of Fisher Ames (Little Brown, 1854) at 356.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
17.</span>&nbsp;However, Calvin said that Scripture supports that obedience should only
be given "one man" to "whose will all others are subjected."
(Institutes 4.7.) </p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink