tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4753528162806920928..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Conquering Tyrants: A Work of the Devil?Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14390156614772953492009-07-21T17:33:56.853-06:002009-07-21T17:33:56.853-06:00Same goes, unless it's an intramural Bible bat...Same goes, unless it's an intramural Bible battle. But I doubt Ed would engage on those terms.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31687269898089866102009-07-21T15:34:01.549-06:002009-07-21T15:34:01.549-06:00I should have said defend instead of prove. That ...I should have said defend instead of prove. That is what I meant.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20376960249316519072009-07-20T17:05:03.621-06:002009-07-20T17:05:03.621-06:00Well, you can't "prove" theology to ...Well, you can't "prove" theology to anyone, especially if they're hostile to it. It's like tryin' to tell a stranger 'bout-a rock-n-roll.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19421789259640749542009-07-19T20:25:14.980-06:002009-07-19T20:25:14.980-06:00It is a little one sided for sure but he has some ...It is a little one sided for sure but he has some good points most of the time. My life goal is to see Frazer go on Ed's blog and try and prove TULIP. I would pay good money to see that!King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55596921036121385002009-07-19T20:14:25.382-06:002009-07-19T20:14:25.382-06:00I checked Ed's record and found him willing to...I checked Ed's record and found him willing to leave room for religious belief, although not very much. But he's OK with me.<br /><br />But I meself would not run a blog with a comments section that permitted such hate and anger and dehumanization of each other. It would embarrass me.<br /><br />And Ed, if you ever read this, that's straightup and I'd say it to your face. But that's also why I'm not a successful blogger and you are. You have the right approach to this, not me.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39399967219662977702009-07-19T19:13:16.197-06:002009-07-19T19:13:16.197-06:00Jon is a great dude. I really like Ed Brayton too...Jon is a great dude. I really like Ed Brayton too. I do not always agree with him but I like him. I know I named him a few times here but I know he is way more level headed then the Braytonites. They trashed Jon one day over nothing. Some of them are outright nasty at times. But if Ed thinks you are reasonable he will call them off. He did it for me more than once because he saw I was sincere.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57429010937432194172009-07-19T18:34:07.767-06:002009-07-19T18:34:07.767-06:00I think the socratic method is working.
So do I, ...<i>I think the socratic method is working.</i><br /><br />So do I, especially since lately we're not butting heads around here over shallow points, and just reciting our roles in the culture war script, lobbing hand grenades in each other's general direction. Oy. Don't think for a moment that I'm not learning something either every day here meself. Socratic dialogues on the internet are rare if not impossible, but we're somehow managing it.<br /><br />But I will say that Jonathan Rowe & I have been having a Socratic dialogue for years publicly on the internet, and it was he who brought me here to this blog so we could continue it. And although he's a cute puppy and a strong tree, any heaven without his sorry ass in it wouldn't be any kind of heaven for me. That's just a fact.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89564304764359327472009-07-19T18:29:27.389-06:002009-07-19T18:29:27.389-06:00Jonathan Rowe is as cute as a puppy, but surely th...<i>Jonathan Rowe is as cute as a puppy, but surely there's more to him than that. I'd like to see him in heaven, and would be sorely disappointed if I didn't.</i><br /><br />Aw shucks. You make me blush. :)Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91250332125845072572009-07-19T17:52:10.387-06:002009-07-19T17:52:10.387-06:00"I'm not finding my education in TULIP ve..."I'm not finding my education in TULIP very esthetically agreeable, I admit, and am beginning to appreciate some of the Brayton crowd's hostility to Christianity if by that we mean TULIP. Jonathan Rowe is as cute as a puppy, but surely there's more to him than that. I'd like to see him in heaven, and would be sorely disappointed if I didn't."<br /><br />This is a vital study if one wants to understand the stream of Christianity to came over from Europe into New England. They were all Calvinists. To convince them that one should stand up and resist he government was a minor miracle. Not so much because of Romans 13 but more because they were so fatalistic about life. If everything is decided before Creation then why bother trying to do anything to stop evil? Is is destined to get you right?<br /><br />Since NE is where the Revolution started this was a major hurdle. I think one could make a case that TJ had to right the DOI the way he did to induce them. It is perhaps the greatest philosophical/theological(God does not want us to sit back and take this) argument against tyranny by supposed divine sanction of all time. I have no proof to offer of this but I think it likely was a neccesity. <br /><br />I am going to try and read up on the things you suggested. I will finish up with Frazer because I said I would(I hate it that many tune out too because it is like to scientist talking using science jargon and know one even knows what they are talking about) and then maybe do some posts on that line of reasoning. <br /><br />I am so excited. I set out to understand this stuff two years ago and feel I have made great progress answering some of the questions I came into this study with. The problem is that it only opens up more questions. I want to go grad or law school but I am starting to wonder if learning it on my own might be better?King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25758830080663763192009-07-19T17:37:34.864-06:002009-07-19T17:37:34.864-06:00"But you can't prove American/Western lib..."But you can't prove American/Western liberal-constitutional-republican-democracy sola scriptura, no way. "<br /><br />I think you guys are so used to the Barton's and others like him and their claims you guys think everyone thinks that way. I stated on this thread about 20 comments back that I do not believe this and think it it is not true.<br /><br />Last week on the Barton and Providence Foundation thread I said that that was one of the stretches in their otherwise benign teaching as far as Biblical principles being integrated into society. I stated before that I see very little proscriptive info in the Bible on church government let alone civil.<br /><br />I believe that this is to attempt to cut down on the dogmatic institutions that become stale when the forget about the principles they were instituted on and deify their particular choose for form and structure. I could be wrong but it seems plausible to me. It takes us into yours and Jon's posts from today. <br /><br />I think the socratic method is working. I think we are headed down the right track and asking some real good questions. Your post was pure brilliance. I really mean that. You said so much with so few words. It really spoke to me. I cannot say that has happened that often. I am still not clear on all you are talking about but it is getting clearer.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57635424807492262602009-07-19T16:06:14.240-06:002009-07-19T16:06:14.240-06:00Are you saying I should find some sermons similar ...<i>Are you saying I should find some sermons similar to Mayhew and dissect them and use them to prove the point I am trying to make? I can go for that.</i><br /><br />Absolutely I am. In fact, exploring the Aquinas-Bellarmine-Filmer-Locke-Elisha Williams/Jonathan Mayhew nexus would teach me and all of us something, and would make a strong point. And I don't think you can make a convincing case for Christianity without it.<br /><br />Because TULIP---if you & I have it right---is a drag. I tend to think of Jonathan Rowe as a person, not a tree or a puppy.<br /><br />I'm not finding my education in TULIP very esthetically agreeable, I admit, and am beginning to appreciate some of the Brayton crowd's hostility to Christianity if by that we mean TULIP. Jonathan Rowe is as cute as a puppy, but surely there's more to him than that. I'd like to see him in heaven, and would be sorely disappointed if I didn't.<br /><br />Thx, King. I'm certainly learning from this. I guess that's why we all hang out here together.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6293795543509697182009-07-19T15:42:09.161-06:002009-07-19T15:42:09.161-06:00Well, King, I think one can argue Christianity as ...Well, King, I think one can argue Christianity as the true source of "humanism" and human rights and liberty and all that other stuff. It can be done for 1776 or for 2009 by looking at the 2000-year body of Christian thought.<br /><br />But you can't prove American/Western liberal-constitutional-republican-democracy <i>sola scriptura</i>, no way. You can't even convince folks who believe the Bible is inerrantly true of that. You can't convince Ed Brayton, who's infinitely more fair-minded than his jackal pack.<br /><br />You can't even convince me, and I'm a receptive audience. I've seen the arguments and I think they suck.<br /><br />You need to bring some heavyweight firepower to the dance, like <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maritain/" rel="nofollow">Jacques Maritain</a>, not to quote him authoritatively, but to find some giants to stand on the shoulders of, and go from there.<br /><br />This discussion has been developing since the dawn of man, 6000 years ago or so.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26812743131846634222009-07-19T15:30:10.274-06:002009-07-19T15:30:10.274-06:00Tom stated:
"Put another way, King, if you h...Tom stated:<br /><br />"Put another way, King, if you have Founder X making Biblical Argument Y for liberty or rebellion, that's relevant. But to uncover Biblical Argument Y in 2009 isn't "religion and the Founding," the expressed purpose of this blog."<br /><br />I have seen you state that before the others. I also noticed when I began to read the older posts that you are the only one whoever says it. I am not saying you are wrong but this who discussion months back started about Mayhew's sermon. I reference that in almost every post I have made or Jon has linked. Frazer is saying he is wrong and not a Christian I am saying he is mostly right and is more than likely a Christian. That is the whole context. <br /><br />Are you saying I should find some sermons simliar to Mayhew and dissect them and use them to prove the point I am trying to make? I can go for that.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48299460157400643602009-07-19T15:22:10.010-06:002009-07-19T15:22:10.010-06:00Tom,
You have Tulip right!Tom,<br /><br />You have Tulip right!King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34296144896296441492009-07-19T15:20:15.120-06:002009-07-19T15:20:15.120-06:00Jon,
I think you did what I did:
Read it for you...Jon,<br /><br />I think you did what I did:<br /><br />Read it for yourself and come to your own conclusions. The contradictions I think are easily explained by the scripture that states that there is a time and a season for everything under the sun. <br /><br />I believe in absolute truth as a abstract concept. I believe in morals. I am also humble enough to understand I cannot know either perfectly. I think the fundie tends to substitute his church doctrine as absolute truth. It turns people. <br /><br />Anyway, great discussion. I need to process all this too.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67876342646864737502009-07-19T15:15:06.434-06:002009-07-19T15:15:06.434-06:00If I have TULIP right, Jon, you were damned before...If I have TULIP right, Jon, you were damned before you were born. You're just here to take up space, I guess, sort of like a puppy or a tree.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35614238703127886702009-07-19T15:14:17.198-06:002009-07-19T15:14:17.198-06:00Tom stated:
"So the reason you're gettin...Tom stated:<br /><br />"So the reason you're getting no takers is that only you and folks like Gregg Frazer care one way or the other."<br /><br />It is History in that you have to have an understanding of the ideas to discuss them. If someone wanted to start a blog on the Industrial Revolution in America and the subject of socialism came up would it not be important to know what the founder of socialism actually wrote? <br /><br /> In other words, some group could come along now and say that Labor Unions were the key to establishing the leisure time for modern workers. Someone else could come along say they were all a bunch of socialist Marxists and disptute that thesis. They say nothing about the thesis they just try to label them Marxists. <br /><br />Unfortunately, to even get to talk about the actual thesis you spend a lot of time trying to refute the Marxist label. The only way to do it is to go back and see what Marx taught and where the Unions applied it or not. Once that matter is settled then those who were frightened away by the Marx label can actually listen to the merit of the Thesis that Labor Unions helped bring about the leisure time for the modern worker.<br /><br />I see your point maybe it is just better to say that Socialism has nothing to do with it and move on supporting the Thesis. <br /><br />What I do think this proves is that some of the secular types that want to say things like:<br /><br />The Bible has no concept of individual rights<br /><br />should think twice before saying it if they do not have a clue what he Bible actually says. They are no better than Barton or the guy who wants to tell the school system what to teach in Biology class that does not understand the Biology textbook. If they cannot back it up then it should not be said. Quoting Frazer and others is not knowing for yourself. How would one who does not understand(proven by the fact that they tune out when the deeper and complex issues inherent in a discussion like this come up) know if Frazer is right or not?<br /><br />Do you suggest I drop answering his questions except for the one about whether any of the Founders sensed a divine commission to deliver the people from a tyrant? I do not want to leave people out either but I want them to know that Frazer is not the only person who knows the Bible and his theory is not the only one in Christendom. If you read this blog and Ed's enough one may come to that conclusion.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86737673708294529332009-07-19T15:00:38.843-06:002009-07-19T15:00:38.843-06:00KOI,
You've said a lot and I don't have t...KOI,<br /><br />You've said a lot and I don't have the time right now to reply to everything. I'll try to slowly digest it. From my perspective I hover between a) believing Frazer's interpretation is just the right literal interpretation of the Bible, and b) seeing Frazer's interpretation as not unlike TULIP. Those who believe in TULIP will make unequivocal assertions like "the Bible teaches TULIP." But I know non-Calvinist fundamentalists who will react with assertions like every single letter in TULIP is NOT taught by the Bible.<br /><br />Even Frazer believes in TULI not TULIP.<br /><br />That's one of my issues with accepting the Bible as absolute, inerrant TRUTH. There are hundreds if not thousands of apparent contradictions in the Bible. But a smart man yielding a hermeneutic like Frazer can iron them all out and make the Bible seem without contradiction. But then we are left with hundreds if not thousands of "interpretations" of the contradictionless Bible that contradict one another.<br /><br />And that's not even to speak of the notion that maybe some parts of the Bible really are NOT divinely inspired, but contain errors or just the opinions of men.<br /><br />So what the Hell is a non-believer like me supposed to believe? It's only my soul that is on the line.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45723888248925812582009-07-19T14:55:29.034-06:002009-07-19T14:55:29.034-06:00Put another way, King, if you have Founder X makin...Put another way, King, if you have Founder X making Biblical Argument Y for liberty or rebellion, that's relevant. But to uncover Biblical Argument Y in 2009 isn't "religion and the Founding," the expressed purpose of this blog.<br /><br />BTW, Locke's <i>First Treatise</i> is a rebuttal of Sir Robert Filmer's <i>Patriarcha</i>, which rebuts Robert Cardinal Bellarmine's <i>De Laicis</i>. That's an interesting chain, and highly relevant. I think you'd find plenty of raw meat in exploring it.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33838715879374042252009-07-19T14:47:37.035-06:002009-07-19T14:47:37.035-06:00Jon,
By the way I can give you Frazer's argum...Jon,<br /><br />By the way I can give you Frazer's argument about how Othiel in Judges 3 is different. He will state that he had a divine command from God to rebel. What he cannot refute it that David, Daniel, and the three Hebrew boys had a Divine command from God not to rebel. Thus, illustrating my point that there is a time and a season for everything under the sun. <br /><br />As far as your example of the expert that did not know what Romans 13 said, I think this is a good example of what I have found with church people. They are given things to believe as kids and never really question. Some do go on to do research at a high level and become experts. But they become experts on their doctrine not the overall counsel of the Bible. <br /><br />Someone like me can never see it the first 26 years of life and have no assumptions that hinder me. This allows me to tackle for truth. I learned what I learned by reading it everyday for about 8 years. I wrote pamplets and books. I also took what I knew into the real world and talked to regular people that challenged me and asked good questions. When I got stumped I did not whine and run away like almost all the rest I knew. I would go back and look at it and either change my mind or strengthen my argument. I find that I know more than almost any pastor I talk with as far as the breadth of the Bible. I know that sounds arrogant but it is actually sad to me and something I am embarrassed about as a Christian.<br /><br />I think I was able to do this because I had not tradition to be loyal to . I wanted to seek truth. I was just telling someone today that most people on Ed's site that discuss these matters seem to be from fundie families, have rejected it, and are so bitter they cannot see a good argument from someone like David Barton even if it is good. They are blind. One guy even tried to equate Palin with Hitler and gave her passing off a Barton quote mistakenly as evidence of this. <br /><br />Real blind spots. I was telling the same person that since you have no ax to grind either way you are more objective and truth seeking. It is obvious. I think that is the difference between you and Ed personally. He was born into it and seems to have an ax to grind with them. It hurts him though in that he paints everything blue and loses people that might otherwise agree with him.<br /><br />In short, I would depend on Frazer less. He does not know as much as he thinks. When I called him on it he got mad and ran away. I hate to keep harping on it but it is the idealist in me that was hoping I could have an intelligent debate with a traditional Christian that did not get mad when confronted and run away. This is not the first time this has happened and I am not the first person it has happened to. It is the rule. I am hoping to find the exception.<br /><br />Until I do three scholars will be on the Liberal side of the Texas school board's choice to Social Studies standards and 3 pastors will be on the conservative side. This makes me an idiot before I even speak because I get associated with them.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32843091737286634702009-07-19T14:45:13.464-06:002009-07-19T14:45:13.464-06:00What is an intramural Bible battle? I also am not ...<i><br />What is an intramural Bible battle? I also am not personally as worried about who won out as I am about what the truth behind what they believed is.</i><br /><br />By that I mean that anyone who doesn't accept the Bible doesn't care, because to them, none of it is "truth." Therefore, such discussions are not only academic, they're moot.<br /><br />I'm not interested in excluding such folks from the discussion and indeed it's not a discussion without them, so anything that excludes them I consider irrelevant. This is a history blog, and for our purposes, a secular one. We can speak of how the Founders understood the Bible, but not whether those understandings were true or false.<br /><br />We cannot even speak meaningfully of whether or not God exists, only of the Founders' perception of Him.<br /><br />So the reason you're getting no takers is that only you and folks like Gregg Frazer care one way or the other.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62351751920753230502009-07-19T14:36:58.309-06:002009-07-19T14:36:58.309-06:00My counterargument rests on expanding "wrong&...My counterargument rests on expanding "wrong" views of scripture from Romans 13 even to the Trinity. As long as the Bible is seen as unique Divine Writ, that's socio-historically recognizably [Judeo]-Christian. I can't state it any clearer. I'd likewise point out to Christians who want to push that envelope that Trinitarianism played no part in the Founding principles except as an intramural bone of contention between various Christians [often fueled by those troublemakers, the clergy]. A footnote to our history.<br /><br />As for the rising encroachment by government on the individual conscience on "[pro-]life" issues, I imagine I'll get to it as that envelope gets pushed in the coming days. It's on my radar, and will become the cutting edge of religion-state issues if trends continue.<br /><br />By my religio-political barometer, it doesn't matter if one's religious conscience is informed by sola scriptura or by right reason and natural law. It all counts.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25624894146873853972009-07-19T14:25:34.720-06:002009-07-19T14:25:34.720-06:00I see no takers, including Frazer, that want to re...I see no takers, including Frazer, that want to refute my examples of rebellion against authorities that clearly had the blessing of God?<br /><br />Tom stated:<br /><br />"If George Washington had claimed to be sent from God to deliver the Americans from the British, you'd have a better case."<br /><br />I do not think it has to be that specific. You state all the time that the key founder argument has weaknesses because it ignores the thoughts of the people at the time. With that said, I do plan to study up and see if there were some who were for the Declaration because they saw it as a Moses or Othiel type answer for a deliverer. If I was a betting man I would be there is. I also bet if I find the quotes Frazer will say they are not "Christians". A nice out for him if proven wrong.<br /><br />That is question 3 he asked me about finding someone who felt a divine assignment to help deliver the people from tyranny. I do remember reading some Washington quotes about his but it was in a Peter Marshall type book so I do not trust it. <br /><br />What is an intramural Bible battle? I also am not personally as worried about who won out as I am about what the truth behind what they believed is. My greatest pet peeve is people that run around citing other peoples arguments that do not even understand the arguments. Religious Righters do it all the time.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65457486874089822212009-07-19T13:42:35.881-06:002009-07-19T13:42:35.881-06:00However, his secondary argument seems to be that n...<i>However, his secondary argument seems to be that no real Christian could accept the D of I, or revolution contra Romans 13.</i><br /><br />Not exactly; he understand that real Christians (those who believe in the orthodox fundamentals) did accept the DOI. But I think his point was they were either misled, ignorant or made an error.<br /><br />Romans 13 isn't one of the central tenets that define Christianity. Again, the Bible is a big complicated book and most smart Christians aren't spiritually "discerned" in EVERYTHING it says.<br /><br />I'll give you a case in point: The keynote speaker at the James Madison Programs' natural law/religious liberty conference -- a leading young Roman Catholic natural law scholar who has co-authored with Robert P. George gave a lecture on the natural right to conscience relating to certain government actions that require one to violate his conscience. I think it dealt mainly in the context of government health care workers who are asked to perform abortions or do things that would destroy a fertilized egg.<br /><br />I asked him how his vision squared with Romans 13. His response was, "what does that passage in the Bible say again?"Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78274511144575849102009-07-19T13:02:17.357-06:002009-07-19T13:02:17.357-06:00Well, Dr. Frazer's primary argument is that th...Well, Dr. Frazer's primary argument is that this can't have been a Christian nation because the "top" half-dozen Founders didn't accept the Trinity and the Atonement, and no real Christian rejects that.<br /><br />However, his secondary argument seems to be that no real Christian could accept the D of I, or revolution contra Romans 13.<br /><br />This line of argument suits secular opponents of the Christian Nation thesis just fine, and so they employ it.<br /><br />My own counterargument is even if one interpreted Romans 13 as permitting rebellion again tyrants, or that the Bible doesn't explicitly command belief in the Trinity [see <a href="http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=30" rel="nofollow">The 100 Scriptural Arguments for the Unitarian Faith</a>], as long as the Founding era largely accepted the Bible in some fashion as the unique word of God, as Holy Writ, then it was recognizably [Judeo-]Christian for socio-historical purposes.<br /><br />That's it in a nutshell, and why my counterargument starts with Romans 13 and not the Trinity, where Gregg and Jonathan prefer to start.<br /><br />As to whether Judges 3 justifies revolution, such stuff is an intramural Bible battle, and not of interest to socio-history. If George Washington had claimed to be sent from God to deliver the Americans from the British, you'd have a better case.<br /><br />But I'm confident that the Biblical arguments were hashed and rehashed to a much deeper degree during Britain's Civil War of the 1600s, which culminated in the end of the Glorious Revolution and the crowning of William and Mary under the authority of parliament.<br /><br />Locke's <i>First Treatise</i> was in refutation of Sir Robert Filmer's defense of the Divine Right of Kings, <i>Patriarcha</i> and <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=u3I6XbQIYQMC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=patriarcha+first+treatise&source=bl&ots=1d1u0CjK4f&sig=_Z7dub_YQNBfK3jcmNIoGwHoRac&hl=en&ei=T2xjSsXxBYHWsQPZ16Fn&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7" rel="nofollow">that's a good place to start</a>.<br /><br />I've been meaning to get to it, but socio-historically speaking I'm a lot less interested in the exchange of Biblical arguments than in who won.<br /><br />[Locke won, as did the unfortunately dead Algernon Sidney, who used many of the same papists' natural law arguments.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com