Saturday, December 14, 2019

Frazer and Fortenberry's Latests on Romans 13

Both Dr. Gregg Frazer and Bill Fortenberry are evangelical Protestants of the fundamentalist stripe. And one thing such Protestants are good at is disagreeing with one another. With that, check out the links -- audio lectures -- to their most recent comments on Romans 13 and the acceptability of rebelling against government under any circumstances.

Here is Gregg's. Here is Bill's.


Tom Van Dyke said...

I don't sit through videos, but I see Fortenberry got to the Book of Daniel, on which John Calvin also commented, and some say is a Biblical blueprint for civil disobedience, if not by extension rebellion.

When it comes to source texting, you Don't Mess Around with Bill.

Tom Van Dyke said...

pretty much Bill's argument, I think

Further, it is more difficult to draw limits to Calvin’s teaching that public duty must be guided by one’s conscience. Again, Walzer ably summarises the dilemma:

He (Calvin) linked private conscience to public duty in order to produce political activity. As a direct consequence of this, however, he could hardly avoid the admission that such dramatic forms of activity as tyrannicide and prophetic denunciation might well be conscientious and dutiful. Secular order was thus subject to disruption by conscientious men: it was a difficult, even an untenable, position for a theorist whose fundamental teaching was one of discipline and obedience.

Not surprisingly, within a decade Calvin’s disciples had abandoned his refusal to sanction common people rebelling against constituted authorities. This became evident in the Huguenots crisis when the Protestants in France, acting in accordance with the demand of pietas rather than the demand of legality, took up arms to defend themselves in the face of persecuting authorities. Likewise, the English exiles under John Knox engaged in plotting against Queen Mary.

Our Founding Truth said...

Good job Gregg. What u said on exodus 12 shows the ffs were clueless about true liberty, freedom and possibly salvation. Even "the pursuit of happiness" isn't biblical.

Tom Van Dyke said...

"No biblical passage is referenced more frequently in Washington's voluminous papers than the ancient Hebrew blessing and prophetic vision of the New Jerusalem in which every man sits safely "under his vine and under his fig tree" (Micah 4:4; see also 1 Kings 4:25; Zechariah 3:10; and 1 Maccabees 14:12). Washington invoked this image nearly four dozen times during the last half of his life. The image of reposing under one's own vine and fig tree vividly captures the agrarian ideals of simplicity, contentment, domestic tranquility, and self-sufficiency; it is also a metaphor for not only freedom from want and fear but also the right to private property and hospitality."