Gregg is, as my readers know, an evangelical/fundamentalist Christian who believes the Bible the inerrant, infallible Word of God and a literal 6-day young earth creationist.
While it's not out of the realm of possibilities that I become a self-defining/self-understanding "Christian," even an "orthodox Christian" in the future. I seriously doubt I'll ever become that kind of Christian.
The conversation, of late, I've been having with KOI centers around whether Gregg properly interprets and understands Romans 13 in terms of history and logic. From everything I've studied, according to Gregg's internal hermeneutic, he does. Perhaps one could hold to Gregg's fundamentalist premises and differ in outcome on Romans 13 absoluteness. After all, fundamentalists argue over every letter of TULIP. However, according to Gregg's theological premises, his interpretation is as sound as any other (in a later post, I'm going to explain why Gregg and John Calvin had almost identical understandings).
It's just that it leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths (mine included). It holds, while obedience to government is qualified by "rulers" not making believers affirmatively or by omission sin, submission to government is unqualified. And that includes Hitler, Stalin or whomever.
Such a fundamentalist fatalism is immune to the reductio ad absurdum. Of course, the idea that the vast majority of humanity face eternal misery for not being of God's elect is about as bad a truth as I can imagine (worse than submit to Hitler and Stalin). But again, if that's what the Bible says, that's what it says, as the hermeneutic goes.
I've thought about lately the words of the Apostles and hermeneutics. When Jehovah speaks, it's the first person in the Trinity (according to orthodox hermeneutics). When Jesus speaks, the second person. And when St. Paul in Romans, St. John in Revelation, their words are directed by the Holy Spirit, the 3rd Person in the Trinity.
Therefore, when Paul speaks in Romans, etc. this is the "Word of God," -- eternally binding -- that doesn't get explained away by "context." As Gregg wrote in an earlier post:
You must remember that Paul wrote Romans UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. God knew what Nero was going to do – and inspired Paul to write to those people how they must conduct themselves not just for that day, but when the persecution came. If it was just Paul’s opinion or limited by Paul’s finite understanding, then I wouldn’t give it any more weight than my own thoughts or those of a “wise” man. But it was GOD’s Word to those people – and it wasn’t bound by time constraints because God isn’t bound by time constraints. Paul did not say: “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities until they start doing mean and nasty things.” There are no qualifiers – despite Mayhew’s penchant for adding them. So, no, Nero had not yet begun burning Christians alive or feeding them to animals or nailing them to crosses, but the God Who inspired Paul’s writing knew he was going to. [Italics mine.]
In short, when you read Paul et al. you are getting the 3rd Person in the Trinity -- an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God -- if not writing for Paul, guiding his hand making sure it says everything God wants. That's why Paul's words (and those of the other Apostles) constitute the "Word of God," just as Jesus' and Jehovah's do. In this sense, the words of Paul, St. John, are equal to Jesus' and Jehovah's. They are all "God's Word," depending on which Person in the Trinity does the speaking (or guiding).
THAT'S the hermeneutic from where Gregg comes. And if one believes in it, Gregg's conclusions per Romans 13 stand on solid ground.
However, that's not the only necessarily proper way to interpret the Bible. It could be that Paul had a finite understanding in some parts of the Bible, and in others, was just giving his opinion, which may have been wrong. If one adopts THAT hermeneutic, then Romans 13 isn't as much of a problem.
Jefferson simply disregarded everything Paul said as "corruption."
When Brad Delong first commented at Positive Liberty (after I linked to a posts of his on the matter), he wrote:
I would cut St. Paul considerable slack here. He’s trying to keep his tiny churches scattered across the Mediterranean functioning and making converts so that as many people can be saved before the imminent, really imminent coming of the Kingdom. And he wants to keep some of the Romans alive so that the church in Rome can continue to preach. And if to keep them alive he has to say that it’s God’s will that Nero reigns, and you shouldn’t interfere with God’s will, and throwing your life away on some anti-Nero gesture is interfering with God’s will… well, I can see why he would say that. And I can see how he would say “But I didn’t mean it to go so far” if we generalize from it…
Nino Scalia on the other hand… much less slack. He wants to get to the conclusion that Martin Luther King and other civil disobeyers are not just criminals but sinners. And he rushes to that conclusion so fast he forgets what this country is, or how it was founded.
Yours,
Brad DeLong
Or one could, like Jefferson, argue as Pete Guither does:
First of all, Paul is a putz. He’s not a very good interpreter of Christ’s message to the people, but he’s great at organizing church dogma. Second, he’s in an occupied land sending messages that could be intercepted by the government - of course you throw in some pablum about respecting authority just to be on the safe side.
Finally, its this kind of blind obedience to text instead of to God’s message that ends up causing so much damage in this world.
23 comments:
Jon,
Go back and look at Jim latest comment at Positive Liberty about his view that despite numerous proofs that Frazer's view of Romans 13 is not the only valid biblical interpretation and your agreement with that statement you still write about it in a way that makes it seem like it is. I would agree.
Mayhew argues right from the text and I pointed out this powerful point that refutes the loyalist argument using the text. This is a portion of an old post I did on Mayhew months back.
My set up:
"The following is the crux of his argument against a more absolute interpretation that seeks to argue that people must submit to tyrants no matter what they do":
Mayhew's words:
"For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? “Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office.”
My commentary:
"Mayhew is pointing out the inherent contradiction of what Paul would have to be saying if the more absolutist interpretations are to be believed. To interpret this the way loyalists of that day and Frazer do, one would have to believe that Paul was saying not only did we have to submit to people who were obviously violating clear biblical mandates about the duties and obligations of civil rulers but that we had to pay honor to men who were killing people for their own pleasure!
Thus, unless one believes that honor is due a tyrant then the first verse of Romans 13 can not mean what they say it does. Either submission does not mean what they say it does or what we are to submit to means something different than what they say it does. In other words, if Frazer and the loyalists are wrong then Paul would seem to be talking about the institution of government in general and not tyrants."
I think he is absolutely right and uses nothing but the text. He is stating that the FULL CONTEXT of the verse bring light to the first part that Frazer likes to quote. I have also pointed out at numerous times, and Brad tried to point out today in quoting Deuteronomy 17 and Rutherford's case for resisting tyrants, is that other arguments STRAIGHT FROM THE BIBLE ARE VALID REFUTATIONS OF THE FRAZER POSITION.
Context does not always mean cafeteria Christianity. It means that even if Paul's word are from the Holy Spirit here that the interpretation must line up with the rest of scripture. It some places is seems to and in other places it does not. Reasonable people can disagree and both still be completely biblical theologically.
The other problem is that it seems that you do not allow that there are two valid Christian interpretations historically either. This seems to be based on what I think is your wrong understanding I pointed to above. Even if Frazer theory was the dominant one for arguments sake that does not mean it was the only one worthy of being called historically Christian. Does it?
As I stated in the other post below. I would love to move on from Romans 13 to Deuteronomy and Rutherford's arguments but until it is stipulated that there are two theologically valid interpretations that come directly from the text and two historically valid Christian interpretations then I have no idea how we can. Do you dispute either of the two claims above?
If not then this is a mute point. If you do then I would ask for a clear cut theological and historical reason why in your own words not Frazer's.
Jon stated:
"Gregg Frazer spent a great deal of time debating my co-blogger King of Ireland on Romans 13, and of late, I've taken to defending Gregg's hermeneutic, not because I believe it personally, but simply on its internally coherent logical grounds."
Re-read what Mayhew says, puts aside Frazer's whole theme for a minute, and tell me that it makes logical sense to pay honor to a ruler even if he is a tyrant. If not then logic would tell one that Frazer's supposed superior logic based on the first part of the verse that seems to ignore the context given it by the second part of the verse is not logic at all.
There are two camps here and both present logic straight from the text. His logic is also flawed when he says the obedience and submission are not both absolute even thought he "Holy Spirit" in another epistle used some else to pen that submission and obedience are both due. The latter verse seems to point to a little different definition of submission that Gregg comes up with.
Gregg gets frustrated with me not because I do not listen to his arguments. I do. He gets upset because I do not defer to his supposed superior logic as others do.
Brad DeLong's attack on Justice Scalia via Martin Luther King, was unfair and just plain silly.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/12/romans-13-justice-scalia-and-brad.html
Neither was repeating DeLong's attack here necessary, Jon.
As for you, Jin, not being a fundamentalist Christian yourself, arguing that Gregg Frazer's fundamentalism is the proper lens through which to view religion and the Founding, well it just doesn't add up.
It's bad enough he drags his theology into the study of history, but for you to drag his theology in, well, this is a history blog.
Uncle! Mercy! Please! Back to history. You or Gregg Frazer have no right as historians to tell the Founders their Christian theology was wrong. They don't care, and neither does history.
As for you, Jin, not being a fundamentalist Christian yourself, arguing that Gregg Frazer's fundamentalism is the proper lens through which to view religion and the Founding, well it just doesn't add up.
That was not the point of the post. The point was to note that KOI accused Gregg of getting history wrong or otherwise making some kind of error in logic, given what the facts really are. I argued, simply, given Gregg's heremeneutic (again, one in which I do not agree), Gregg's position rests on solid grounds and the difference between Gregg and KOI on their personal position of Romans 13 are hermeneutical. KOI has argued Gregg's position is not a good, on a personal level. That's fine. Gregg would argue, on a personal level universal salvation is bad, because it's not biblical. My own personal belief is Gregg's/fundamentalists belief on salvation is horrific. But that doesn't make it something that hasn't been firmly entrenched in the history of orthodoxy, complete with a rich biblical hermeneutic defense of the doctrine.
Now, it may well be that the leading lights of the Founding didn't hold to a hermeneutic like Gregg's (what he admits and what you, I and KOI would agree). Therefore, what I posted is valuable in that it gives a better sense of how the political theology of the American Founding -- whatever we properly term it -- views the Bible.
St. Paul's and the other Apostles' words as recorded in the Bible directed by the Holy Spirit, third person in the Trinity does not represent the political theology of the American Founding.
Fundamentalists and other "orthodox" believe when Paul and the other Apostles spoke, it was on the same level as Jesus' Words because Jesus was the 2nd Person in the Trinity and the Apostles were guided by the 3rd. It's all God speaking, whether First, Second, or Third Person in the Trinity.
Now, we can argue whether what I put in bold discusses sound theology or how to categorize said theology; what's important is that we agree of what is written in bold for clarity's sake.
That's why my post was valuable.
Tom,
It's bad enough he drags his theology into the study of history, but for you to drag his theology in, well, this is a history blog.
You know better than this because it's been pointed out to you numerous times before. Frazer does have his PERSONAL theological point of view which he defends when prompted, but, for his thesis argues HISTORY. The following is HISTORY on Romans 13, not Frazer's personal theology:
Basing a revolutionary teaching on the scriptural authority of chapter 13 of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans must rank as one of the greatest ironies in the history of political thought. This passage...served as the touchstone for passive obedience and unconditional submission from Augustine and Gregory to Luther and Calvin....The medieval church fathers as well as the reformers and counter-reformers of the sixteenth century all invoked this doctrine in denouncing disobedience and resistance to civil authorities.
-- Steven Dworetz, The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution, p. 155, quoted in Frazer, The Political Theology of the American Founding, p. 358.
Jon,
Interposition is RESISTANCE. These guys are reading Calvin wrong!
KOI,
I'm going to get to Calvin soon; but no, that's not what Calvin says. He was very clear in "Institutes." If anything the "living Calvinism" of Rutherford et al. turned it into something like that. But that was not Calvin's position.
Jon,
If there is one exception then by definition it is not absolute.
Who is Steven Dworetz? Why should we care?
We make our own arguments around here, Jon. Even the estimable Gordon Wood doesn't get a free pass.
Nobody denies that Romans 13 was used by asswipe clergy to stay in favor with the political regime, whether it was the divine right of kings in Britain in the 1600s or in pre-revolutionary France [as yr pal Mr. Kuznicki recently argued]. It even happened during Hitler.
But that theological argument did not win the day in the 1600s, the 1700s, or in the 20th century.
In fact, if you look at medieval history, it was the king who had to scrape and bow to the Church, not the other way around.
Christ, I've always hated medieval history. Boring and irrelevant. But as I wizen up, I realize that was the Founders' milieu. They knew every bit of it because for them it was recent history.
See England's King Henry II,
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Henry_II_and_Thomas_a_Becket.htm
in the late 1100s, doing penance prescribed by the Pope for murdering Richard Burton.
Divine Right of Kings, my ass.
ass wipes? That made my night.
I'll try one more time:
Mayhew's "logical" argument doesn't stand up because the presupposition on which it is based is faulty.
He begins with this presupposition: "Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore ...." BUT THE TEXT DOES NOT SAY THAT RULERS ARE BOUND TO CONSULT THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE GOOD OF SOCIETY! That isn't in the text. It is one of MANY examples of Mayhew reading things into the text that ARE NOT THERE.
As to whether it is "logical" to honor a ruler ordained by God BECAUSE HE WAS ORDAINED BY GOD (which IS what Paul says) despite the fact that one does not like what he does, that is a different kind of "logic" than Jon is talking about. That is a personal logic based on one's preferences. Jon is talking about logical consistency.
Speaking of logic, how is it logical to argue that a 3-penny tax on tea was tyranny, but running a brutal, militaristic, slave-based empire as an unelected emperor who murdered his stepfather to get into power was not?
Steven Dworetz is a well-respected, published historian who is one of many scholars (Christian and non-Christian alike) who recognize that Calvin's view of Romans 13 was the prevailing view for 1500 years in the church. In other words, it is SOME evidence in support of that view, as opposed to mere opinion being tossed around in favor of the contrary.
No one says that it "won the day" in the American Revolutionary period -- but that's irrelevant to the question of whether it was the prevailing view for 1500 years! [which was the claim -- not that it prevailed in 18th-century America]
As for the "right" as a historian to tell the Founders that their Christian theology was wrong, since when has a historian needed a "right" to make an historical evaluation? To which consulate does one go to get their historian's evaluation visa? For that matter, when did I, as a historian, tell them that they got their Christian theology wrong? AS A HISTORIAN, I simply pointed out that they took a different view than had prevailed in the church (and a different view than did Calvin) -- I didn't say they were wrong.
As an INDIVIDUAL, WHEN ASKED [which I continually am, here] about Christianity and the Bible, I have every right to say that someone is wrong because I am instructed by God to be ready to give a defense of the faith at any time (I Pet. 3:15). [as Paul did on Mars Hill in Acts 17:24-31, for example] It would be unloving to allow someone to go to hell without offering them the truth. Would you let someone do something deadly without telling them that they're wrong?
And I don't drag my theology into the study of history -- perhaps you could give a few examples of when I've done this? My historical argument is -- you still haven't gotten this, I guess -- based on what the 18th-century churches said was proper theology, not what I personally consider to be proper theology.
Except for the churches that didn't, which turned out to be most of 'em.
As an INDIVIDUAL, WHEN ASKED [which I continually am, here] about Christianity and the Bible
I'm not sure that very many do, Gregg. It's not as if your view is all that mysterious.
In fact, if you are asked, I wish people would stop. We don't ask Brad about his Mormonism, and I don't think you'll find a definitive theological statement from me anywhere in our archives.
It's company policy here that we park our "special revelation" at the door, just like the Founders did.
No one says that it "won the day" in the American Revolutionary period -- but that's irrelevant to the question of whether it was the prevailing view for 1500 years! [which was the claim -- not that it prevailed in 18th-century America]
Fine. Nothing controversial there. It's not terribly relevant to the Founding. But do read Aquinas on Romans 13 and you can see the cracks in the absolutist view 500 years before 1776.
What we must keep in mind is that Protestantism rejected central scriptural authority. Luther and Calvin were not popes.
Neither is Calvin all there is to Calvinism.
I've been meaning to get to Peter Grabill's 7-part series on "Thomistic Calvinism." Scroll down a little and the whole series is there.
http://blog.acton.org/archives/author/sgrabill
My goal for this series, as stated in Part 1, was to show that voluntarism and nominalism are not the same thing, that two important Reformed theologians (Peter Martyr Vermigli and Jerome Zanchi) had more than a passing interest in Thomism (or intellectualism as Pope Benedict XVI referred to it in his now famous Regensburg address), and that evangelicals need to revisit their wariness on the capacity of reason to discern moral truth.
...
...while the Reformers famously emphasized Scripture as the ultimate authority for doctrine and Christian living, the modern doctrine of sola scriptura falsely pits the Reformers against the Scholastics on the issue of tradition. Unlike modern Protestants, the Reformers did not pit Scripture and tradition against each other as antithetical sources of authority, even though they did affirm the normative priority of Scripture in theology and ethics. The Reformers also did not play special revelation off against general revelation, as tends to happen today, both were considered legitimate forms of revelation that served distinct roles in theology. This is why the modern Protestant rejection of natural law in favor of supernaturally revealed legal or moral instruction is skewed in relation to the thought of the Reformers.
Our readers are also invited to peruse John Adams and the Calvinist John Ponnet as well as the Calvinist tract Vindiciae contra tyrannos in the below essay:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=27906
Except for the churches that didn't, which turned out to be most of 'em.
You need to futher clarify this assertion.
Not really, Jon. The other side has the burden of proof that the absolutist version of Romans 13 held significant sway.
It also has the problem that Calvinists had been revolting against the crown since the 1600s.
It appears that the Revolution was disproportionately Presbyterian; indeed, it was the Anglican ministers who had sworn fealty to the King who had a much more theologically precarious position.
Gregg stated:
"He begins with this presupposition: "Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore ...." BUT THE TEXT DOES NOT SAY THAT RULERS ARE BOUND TO CONSULT THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE GOOD OF SOCIETY! That isn't in the text. It is one of MANY examples of Mayhew reading things into the text that ARE NOT THERE."
Yea he got from other parts of the Bible that say that Gregg. Romans 13 is not the only verse in the Bible that has anything to say about government. You argument hangs on an obscure hard to interpret verse in a hard to interpret book of the Bible that is missing at least have of the dialogue. Should it overrule other parts of the Bible that tell Kings not be be tyrants or they will get whacked?
Gregg also stated:
"As to whether it is "logical" to honor a ruler ordained by God BECAUSE HE WAS ORDAINED BY GOD (which IS what Paul says) despite the fact that one does not like what he does, that is a different kind of "logic" than Jon is talking about. That is a personal logic based on one's preferences. Jon is talking about logical consistency."
You think it is logical to honor and tyrant? So by that standard I need to honor Hitler? Submit to out of reverence to God so the jerk looks like and idiot for killing me and it serves the greater good. Obey for the same reason, maybe. Honor, not a chance. If God did want me to do that I would tell him no. Of course I do not ever believe that he would tell me to honor someone who killed six million people.
As far as Nero goes I do not read the verse the way you do so if he would have started trying to burn me I would either go through the system to get elected and then take him out or just take him out. I am not sure which one I believe more wise yet. But I am leaning toward Interposition because it creates less chaos.
If I do read it your way at the time that Paul wrote it I would not care because he had not really done anything yet. I am sure it was not well know at the time that he killed to get to the thrown. Anyway, Interposition requires a long train of abuses which could have never occurred in three years.
Gregg stated:
"AS A HISTORIAN, I simply pointed out that they took a different view than had prevailed in the church (and a different view than did Calvin) -- I didn't say they were wrong."
You say they are wrong all the time. When does the Historian hat come off because I think you need to make it more clear?
Tom stated:
"In fact, if you are asked, I wish people would stop. We don't ask Brad about his Mormonism, and I don't think you'll find a definitive theological statement from me anywhere in our archives."
Tom,
If asked I think people are okay sharing or not sharing.
I think the problem is that Jon presents Gregg's historical arguments along with his personal views in the same post often. The line gets blurred and it gets confusing. I for one honestly thought Greg was denying the historical validity of other interpretations based on what has been relayed. It seems he does not.
It comes across as he is stating that anyone that took this view of Romans was some sort of Enlightenment figure. What he actually said to Jim was that they left the what he considers to be the teachings of Calvin for unitarianism of arminianism. The second of which I think most Calvinist would still say are saved or whatever. I would add that it seems that he is stating just on that issue not on all.
I think what I would like to ask him is what ideas that made it into the Declaration he thinks are tainted? I cannot imagine any Christian would have a problem with Imago Dei and love of neighbor as self making it in via Locke as you quoted today. As the dialogue shifts from personal beliefs to historical ideas his stance my become more clear.
I for one never really intend to ask him. When Jon brings up things I think are out of balance I feel that I have to provide another Christian viewpoint. I think this would go smoother and we could learn a lot more from Gregg if we did stick to the history and not get his personal theology mixed into as much. Though I do think it fair that is comes up sometimes. If people choose that is.
Tom stated:
"It also has the problem that Calvinists had been revolting against the crown since the 1600s."
Ponnet was 1560 I think.
Tom,
You say "Except for the churches that didn't, which turned out to be most of 'em." I am referring to the FOUR LARGEST denominations in 18th-century America, representing more than 2000 churches, according to Ronald Hoffman & Peter Albert in "Religion in a Revolutionary Age" (Univ. Press of Virginia, 1994). What is your source for saying that "most" "didn't?"
You say "Neither is Calvin all there is to Calvinism." I've never said so. There were, at the time of the Revolution, hundreds of churches who DID care what Calvin (and the prevailing church view for centuries) had to say and THAT'S WHY MAYHEW'S WORK WAS SO IMPORTANT. It provided an excuse for people whose inclination was to rebel, but who had been taught not to.
This is why Mayhew entitled his sermon/essay "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers" -- BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PREVAILING VIEW WHICH HAD BEEN TAUGHT TO HIS AUDIENCE. He didn't entitle it "A Discourse on Romans 13" or "An Interpretation of Romans 13" -- he addressed the specific subject of interest to his audience.
You say "It appears that the Revolution was disproportionately Presbyterian" -- yes, and they needed an excuse to overcome what the Bible said and what Calvin had taught. Again, THAT'S WHY MAYHEW'S WORK WAS SO IMPORTANT. They didn't read Aquinas and would instinctively reject what Catholics taught, anyway.
And, by the way, for the sake of clarity, Aquinas did not clearly justify revolution, either. You keep using him as the personification of the pro-rebellion view -- but his view is nuanced and debatable. Certainly much more so than Calvin's.
KOI,
You say "he got from other parts of the Bible that say that" -- no, he didn't. If you think so, tell me which other verses Mayhew quotes in the message. I just re-read it and couldn't find any.
Rather, he constantly says (over and over) "that which is HERE said;" "the apostle HERE enforces;" "the apostle HERE speaks of;" and "that according to the tenor of the apostle's argument IN THIS PASSAGE." When he does not refer to the passage, it is to say "the only REASON" or "the only RATIONAL ground;" or the "RATIONAL hope of redress." He appeals to what is "equally EVIDENT" and "the law of REASON."
As to the specific argument that we should only obey "for this reason, that he [king] rules for the public welfare," Mayhew follows with "which is the only argument THE APOSTLE makes use of" -- not a reference to some other portion of the Bible. He follows that up with "If we calmly consider the nature of the thing itself" and an appeal to "common sense" -- not to the Bible.
In other words, he does what you're suggesting: make your own reason overrule what the Bible clearly says because what it says does not seem TO YOU to be reasonable.
By that standard, many have found themselves opposed to what God wants and those who obeyed despite apparent irrationality (such as Gideon and Moses and Abraham) would have been failures if they'd preferred their own flawed reason to the command of God. Indeed, we are told in I Corinthians 1 & 2 that the things of God often appear to be foolishness to those who don't believe. For example: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." [I Cor. 2:14]
KOI,
As for "Should it overrule other parts of the Bible that tell Kings not be be tyrants or they will get whacked?": kings are, indeed, told to be righteous, BUT WE ARE NEVER TOLD TO REMOVE THEM. Rather, the warning of God is that HE will remove them. If they get "whacked," it is by God Himself or by His chosen instrument or by God using the wickedness of men -- it is not up to us to make that determination or take it upon ourselves. The Bible never says that it is.
As for "You think it is logical to honor and tyrant?": here's another case of you ignoring what I said -- and what you JUST QUOTED from me!!! This is why I get frustrated! What I implied was that it is logical to "honor a ruler ordained by God BECAUSE HE WAS ORDAINED BY GOD (which IS what Paul says) despite the fact that one does not like what he does."
Since God is the source of logic and since He holds me accountable for obedience to Him: by definition, it is logical to honor someone God tells me to honor for the reason He tells me to honor him. Whether or not I like the person or agree with him or consider him a tyrant or an angel is irrelevant to the reason I'm to honor him -- which is, as Paul says, because his authority comes from God and is ordained by God and God tells me that he is due honor from me because of his position.
As for "If God did want me to do that I would tell him no": He did and you just did.
Of Nero, an unelected, absolutist, militaristic, imperialistic emperor heading a society based on slave labor, you say: "he had not really done anything yet." I love it, but I'm afraid Mayhew might have a few bones to pick with you -- Locke, too.
At least you and I have come to the agreement that George III was certainly no tyrant. So, we're making some minor progress.
KOI,
As for what ideas in the Declaration I think are "tainted," I have no idea what you mean by that. I've never used such a word for any part of the DOI and I don't know what you mean by it.
I don't see either Imago Dei or loving one's neighbor as oneself in the DOI -- and I've never heard anyone suggest such things. You are quite right that Christians would not object to them being there, though, if they were.
Again, my view of the Declaration is that Jefferson and the committee artfully wrote it in language that would be acceptable to any/all religious persuasions -- that would offend no one and in language such that everyone could read into it his/her own preferences. So, Christians read Christian ideas into it and secularists read secularist ideas into it, etc. Jews and Catholics are just as happy with it as protestants and deists and secularists. The only ones left uncomfortable are atheists -- but there were precious few of them in 18th-century America and they kept a low profile.
As theistic rationalists, Jefferson et al. were in a perfect position to craft such language, as they had no doctrinal dog in the fight and could personally relate to a universalist view of God.
Post a Comment