because Calvin is credited with bringing the doctrine of total depravity "front and center." Whether he should be credited over Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas is up for discussion, as these men taught the same stuff... with some reservations on Aquinas. Nevertheless, modern evangelicals are largely biblically illiterate, have a soft view of the depravity of man, and thus are suckers for the view that we should look for "godly men" rather than focus on being a nation of law.
Neither will help if we are a society determined to be depraved, but the rule of law provides a better defense against tyrants, as it restrains the so called "good"men like GW Bush, as well as the socialists. Further, because of the universal sinfulness of men, it is real foolishness to put your trust in men.
I was not trying to set up Geneva (a theonomic church/state entity) as the ideal at all. Rather, I was bemoaning the shallow view of the depravity of men and the consequent foolishness of the evangelicals who ignore their own bibles in attempting to hammer out a philosophy of political activism. Therefore "where is Calvin when you need him most?"
We can talk about whether the incident with Servetus (which I brought up, btw) is an anomaly or an indication of the tyrannical nature of Jean Calvin at another time. It is not germane to the issue at hand, which is whether or not men should be trusted to rule, or all men should be expected to submit to law. I thought we settled that issue with LEX REX vs the Divine Right of Kings.
Actually I think the "front and center" issue was simply the Reformist response the the 5 points of the Remonstrance. Calvin never put his theology into any 5 point acronym.
We can talk about whether the incident with Servetus (which I brought up, btw) is an anomaly or an indication of the tyrannical nature of Jean Calvin at another time. It is not germane to the issue at hand, which is whether or not men should be trusted to rule, or all men should be expected to submit to law. I thought we settled that issue with LEX REX vs the Divine Right of Kings.
When you mention it in that context, I think it is highly relevant, i.e., you have a godly man in a position of political power, who used that political power to eliminate someone with whom he had a theological disagreement. Certainly Servetus was a condemned man in most countries of the west, but Calvin had made his intentions known about wanting to have Servetus executed even before he came to town. Thus the tendency of even good men to be tyrants when given the power of the state is "front and center" (as you say) in the Servetus example.
BTW, I do believe that the founders strongly suggested that we need "godly men" to rule over us and thus they instituted the electoral college in order to assure that the President was elected as a consensus among communities rather than by the public at large. Undoubtedly they felt that wise men chosen from within the communities would be more likely to choose a godly and wise man as president since the tendency among the masses is to elect a king (as was represented by the Israelites insistence upon having a "King" like the heathen nations).