Christian Resistance Theory: The Catholic Second Amendment

Another must read by Second Amendment scholar David Kopel.

Scholars of the American Revolution and of the Second Amendment are used to looking at the closest intellectual ancestors of the Founders—especially at John Locke and Algernon Sidney, and also at the many other English authors from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who articulated a right to armed revolution in order to vindicate the natural right of self-defense. Although King George III reportedly denounced the American War of Independence as “a Presbyterian rebellion,” it seems that American principle of justified revolution has very strong Catholic roots. When Pope Gregory launched the Papal Revolution, he had no idea that there was an American continent, let alone that he was unleashing ideas which, after centuries of development, would mature into an American Revolution. One of the values of understanding the debt that the Declaration of Independence and the Second Amendment owe to the Summa Theologica, to Policraticus, and to the other great works of Catholic resistance theory is that we can better understand that the American principles of revolution and the right to arms are not novelties that spontaneously arose in 18th-century America or in 17th-century Great Britain. Rather, they are the natural results of an intellectual tradition that was in many ways far older and broader—and much more Catholic—than the American Founders may have realized.

Comments

[Trent Whalin]

Hey,
I noticed your comment on Augustine and the NPP and that the jury it is still out for you. I have commented on it here before and I am well read in the subject. It seems anyone with a Bible who can read will see that Paul is not merely against ethnocentrism. Let me preface by saying Wright is great in many ways, Jesus, the Resurrection, Exile and the big picture. When it comes to Paul, he is not an exegete so I have no idea why he is touted as one. He finds the big picture in the OT and thinks Paul expounds it in every verse so thats why he believes Paul did not mention what the reformers say he does. His Paul is monochromatic. It should be noted that Dunn, his fellow NPPist (also an Arian so I have no idea why Wright teams up with him) has been backing away from his hardline views while not entirely repudiating NPP. Wright has been similar, however, he thinks justification means 'covenant' and forgiveness as a corollary, the reformed have rightly seen it as the other way around. The npp and its definition of justification seems to reflect the Post Holocaust-politicially-correct-corporate-diversity society so dominant now. No wonder Wright is so highly thought of in American Emergent circles. The more I have read the more I just want to ignore Wright on Paul. Ridderbos has said many of the same things in a more orthodox reformed framework. I don't plan on being a scholar so I might as well read only the best on Paul and Wright falls short of that list.
Let me give you resources that I find most helpful as antidotes to the NPP.
The Gospel of Free Acceptance by Cornelius Venema (he has articles online refuting the NPP)
Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol. 2 ed. Carson, et al. (Technical)
Perspectives Old and New on Paul by Stephen Westerholm (technical but readable)
Justification Reconsidered by Westerholm (100 pgs)
Did Saint Paul Really Say? By Michael Beasley (layman in mind)
Paul and the New Perspective by Seyoon Kim
By Faith Alone ed. Guy Waters, Gary Johnson (layman and scholar)
The New Perspectives on Paul by Guy Waters
Those that try to incorporate some of the good of the NPP:
The Saving Righteousness of God by Michael Bird (technical)
Contours of Pauline theology by Tom Holland

[Trent Whalin]

I forgot to mention David Peterson's book Transformed by God which really brings out the New Covenant yet holds firmly to a forensic and acquittal oriented view of justification.

[Embryo Parson]

Hi Trent. I appreciate these resources, and I have a handful of similar ones in my possession (e.g., Jordan Cooper, The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul and Peter Stuhlmacher Revisiting Paul's Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective. When I said the other day that the "jury was out" for me, I was replying to Roger's comment, "I understand why people reference Paul re the doctrines of grace, but when you read Paul he is referencing the OT all the time on the subject. Paul's only new teaching is that by the resurrection of Jesus, the Gentiles have been included in full with the Jews in the commonwealth of Israel". That sounded a bit like NPP to me, which is why I replied, "Well, if the NPP is right and without need of any revision. The jury's still out on that one for me." As you've noted here on several occasions, Wright himself has revised his position. I recently purchased Paul and the Faithfulness of God since that's his most recent work. At some point in the future I will read and see for myself. I posted a lengthy quotation from Simon Gathercole's review here. My own view as an Anglican is that it isn't a matter of "juridical versus incorporative approaches to Pauline soteriology", but both/and, as you suggest.