tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4433397139721687085..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Romans 13, Justice Scalia, and Brad DeLongBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30095140328506202832016-02-13T18:11:29.009-07:002016-02-13T18:11:29.009-07:00Just a note that Nero's reign began in 54, and...Just a note that Nero's reign began in 54, and Romans is, I think, dated to around 57...<br /><br />Brad DeLongbradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04548019979157668776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78568491806995391492010-03-15T16:02:06.301-06:002010-03-15T16:02:06.301-06:00Oh, and while we're on the topic of ill-though...Oh, and while we're on the topic of ill-thought-out theology...<br /><br />"...unless you're a confessing Christian of some sort..."<br /><br />It's tough to see how one can follow the words of Christ, and yet publicly proclaim such. Matthew 6 in general comes to mind.<br /><br />But also this hypothetical: Imagine it's judgement day. You're before the throne. And you say, "Lord -- I'm a Christian!"<br /><br />And a voice comes down from on high: "NO, YOU'RE NOT!"<br /><br />Who wins that discussion?<br /><br />Play it the other way -- "Lord -- I'm not a Christian!"<br /><br />"YES, YOU ARE!"<br /><br />Again, who wins?<br /><br />It matters not one whit whether one is a "confessing Christian" or not -- or at least, not unless you're in the habit of second-guessing God.<br /><br />Again, good luck with that.Laszlo Toth, Jr.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87489310242196568632010-03-15T15:52:15.986-06:002010-03-15T15:52:15.986-06:00I would think the problem here is one of thinking ...I would think the problem here is one of thinking Saul of Tarsus speaks in any way for sincere followers of Jesus Christ.<br /><br />As Christ said in Matthew 24:24, "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." <br /><br />Given the number of times Saul directly contradicts Christ, it's hard to see how anyone can follow Christ and Saul at the same time... Let alone elevate the words of Saul above the words of Christ, as happens so often. We are enjoined to judge not, but... I wish people with such a point of view the best of luck, come judgement day.<br /><br />As for Mr. Scalia, I'd be more persuaded he's interested in the modest role of a judge who is bound by law if there were any demonstrable times he's claimed he disagreed with the Founders (or precedent), but felt he had to follow them anyway. As near as I can tell from the evidence available, he merely picks and chooses so the Founders *remarkably* concur with his own personal desires anyway.<br /><br />To imagine such a position is "conservative" and not judicial activism of the most rank sort... Is not unlike picturing a world where even "the very elect" may be deceived.Laszlo Toth, Jr.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18896407115568277762010-03-04T21:45:58.139-07:002010-03-04T21:45:58.139-07:00Heh. Dr. DeLong. The only thing I'll apologi...Heh. Dr. DeLong. The only thing I'll apologize for is cleaning your clock. Your race-baiting on Scalia is what's out of line here and now I've set it straight.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87769310971033242212010-03-04T18:59:47.125-07:002010-03-04T18:59:47.125-07:00I would appreciate it if you would talk to Tom Van...I would appreciate it if you would talk to Tom Van Dyke about how to behave in polite company...<br /><br />The founders' interpretation of Romans 13 was definitely not Scalia's. Scalia, you will note, uses Romans 13 as a weapon against the idea of civil disobedience--his point is that, because the powers that be are ordained of God, someone like Martin Luther King Jr. who disobeys the rulers' commands is not just a criminal but a sinner.<br /><br />John Adams's interpretation of the Bible (and John Locke's!) is, needless to say, very, very different. Theirs is the traditional interpretation of Romans 13 on this continent. Scalia's, by contrast, is one we find in pre-1860 sermons by slaveholders to their slaves, but rarely elsewhere...bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04548019979157668776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54239907831119299172009-12-24T17:35:19.340-07:002009-12-24T17:35:19.340-07:00I mean that Brad has no right to tell Christians h...I mean that Brad has no right to tell Christians how they must read Romans 13.<br /><br />In fact, in a historical discussion, nobody has the right to insist any one interpretation is "correct." The Founders came up with their own, and that's our only concern. Scalia merely reports that it has been America's history to consider obeying the law to have religious implications.<br /><br />As for the rest of my post, it appears Dr. DeLong has no objections to my objections to his own post.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9383124581973436712009-12-24T16:18:03.398-07:002009-12-24T16:18:03.398-07:00KOI mischaracterizes what brad wrote -
brad - &q...KOI mischaracterizes what brad wrote - <br /><br />brad - <i>"You do understand that the 'powers that be that are ordained of God' that St. Paul <b>commands</b> the Christians of Rome to obey is the Emperor Nero..."</i><br /><br />This is true regardless of when Romans was written unless Paul was silent on this or repudiated it after the writing. If I were to quibble it would be with the term "commands" as I don't think Paul was in a position to command but rather to persuade. <br /><br />TVD, <br /><br />As I was pondering what KOI had said and considering the response I just posted, I read your comment, "...unless you're a confessing Christian of some sort, Brad, it's not appropriate for you to advise Christians on what they should understand about the Bible." to which my comment was directed. Brad was making a temporal point, right or wrong, and not giving advise. This, to me, sounded as if you were saying that commenting on Christian/Biblical themes/facts without being a professing Christian was off limits. <br /><br />If this is the case then I couldn't disagree more and a lot of founding literature is going to have to be taken off the table. If I read you wrong then my apologies.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52162041454956029792009-12-23T12:25:46.618-07:002009-12-23T12:25:46.618-07:00I don't think you're characterizing what I...I don't think you're characterizing what I wrote properly, JRB. I would not tell a Muslim what the Quran requires him to believe. I'm sure you wouldn't either.<br /><br />And I engaged Brad's point substantively, with the example of Locke, who disagreed with Brad's interpretation of Romans 13.<br /><br />As did the Founders.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78605179968587759802009-12-23T10:39:44.544-07:002009-12-23T10:39:44.544-07:00TVD - Ummm, unless you're a confessing Christi...TVD - <i>Ummm, unless you're a confessing Christian of some sort, Brad, it's not appropriate for you to advise Christians on what they should understand about the Bible.</i><br /><br />Really? Nice way to intellectually engage.<br /><br />But then maybe this might be a starting point for what is and isn't a "Christian idea." Is a Christian idea whatever is held by a professing Christian of some sort? Do non-professing Christians have a right to comment on Christian ideas, or is it confined to the club members only? Do professing Christians of some sort have a right to intrude upon the ideas of non-professing Christian ideas or the ideas of professing Christians of another sort? Can a non-professing Christian exist? Can non-Christians of other faiths, let's say monotheistic faiths for simplicity, comment upon the ideas of professing Christians of this sort or that? Of course we all know that atheists should just shut the hell up anyway and then burn in a lake of fire for eternity - so they're excluded from participation on general principles. Can a Christian idea obtain a patent or copyright protection to help us clarify who has rights to whose/what ideas? What would be the criteria? Do angels really dance upon the heads of pins? Have I violated the firewall by asking? Can I have a Catholic friend ask for me or should it be a Baptist friend?jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81235089275023856592009-12-23T00:43:46.078-07:002009-12-23T00:43:46.078-07:00Thx for commenting, Dr. DeLong---Brad.
The body o...Thx for commenting, Dr. DeLong---Brad.<br /><br />The body of my post remains unmolested. It was unfair to both men to pit Dr. King against Justice Scalia, for my stated reasons, and their stated reasons.<br /><br />And no, Christian thought isn't as inflexible and dunderheaded as some would prefer it to be.<br /><br />You may examine Locke's elegant argument re Romans 13 in his <i>A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul</i>, which he was working on at the very close of his life.<br /><br />The "Christian" idea that Romans 13 might not demand enduring evil rulers like Nero dates back to at least the 12th century.<br /><br />But nice to hear from you---sincerely. Should you be honestly interested in exploring the truth of this matter, stick around.<br /><br />In the meantime:<br /><br /><i>Ummm...<br /><br />You do understand that the "powers that be that are ordained of God" that St. Paul commands the Christians of Rome to obey is the Emperor Nero, don't you?<br /><br />Brad DeLong</i><br /><br />Ummm, unless you're a confessing Christian of some sort, Brad, it's not appropriate for you to advise Christians on what they should understand about the Bible. I'm sure you don't aspire to be some sort of pope.<br /><br />And even if you were, Christians of good conscience might validly disagree. I hope you'll rethink your post linked here.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84367949754474335342009-12-22T18:43:19.914-07:002009-12-22T18:43:19.914-07:00Tom,
Good post, I think you are right about the c...Tom,<br /><br />Good post, I think you are right about the context here. I do think he should emphasize the other half of Adams prayer that contains the Locke and Mayhew interpretation of Romans 13 when he talks about revolution. It would keep people from misquoting him. <br /><br />I was reading Locke today and he talks just like Scalia when it comes to capital punishment. I also found exactly what he means when he talks about natural law in his first treatise that no one reads. It is absolutely not any close to what a Deist would say.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61760616176842543302009-12-22T18:37:03.730-07:002009-12-22T18:37:03.730-07:00It might have been 8-10 I do not remember the exac...It might have been 8-10 I do not remember the exact dates.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59629493786829262622009-12-22T18:35:43.402-07:002009-12-22T18:35:43.402-07:00Mr. Delong,
"You do understand that the &quo...Mr. Delong,<br /><br />"You do understand that the "powers that be that are ordained of God" that St. Paul commands the Christians of Rome to obey is the Emperor Nero, don't you?"<br /><br />That one has been tried here before. In fact, it is the best argument for the dogmatic Romans 13 crowd. So much so I was sitting up one morning as I was debating Gregg Frazer on this site and was beginning to do a post that he must be right. <br /><br />I decided to check him on his history just in case he did not check on the dates. Well, Romans was written at least 10 years before Nero started to persecute Christians. So this is actually a pathetic argument for those that are too lazy to do a 2 minute check(that is all it took me to find the answer) and read things for themselves rather than repeat arguments of others.<br /><br />No offense to you I do not even know you but I am honestly tired of hearing this horrible argument repeated over and over again. It simply makes no sense at all given that Nero had not done anything to Christians at the time of writing. <br /><br />With that said, welcome to the discussion. This has been hashed through according to Jon Rowe 3 times now. I have read a lot of good insights.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25003282005913915962009-12-22T17:16:49.315-07:002009-12-22T17:16:49.315-07:00Ummm...
You do understand that the "powers t...Ummm...<br /><br />You do understand that the "powers that be that are ordained of God" that St. Paul commands the Christians of Rome to obey is the Emperor Nero, don't you?<br /><br />Brad DeLongbradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04548019979157668776noreply@blogger.com