tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5411045483732909069..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: King Of Ireland, The Problem of Othniel, and Biblical HermeneuticsBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64328147389604690342010-05-03T19:38:59.431-06:002010-05-03T19:38:59.431-06:00"King of Ireland in this sense, operates enti..."King of Ireland in this sense, operates entirely in the tradition of America's Founders who argued rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God, regardless of what you think the Bible says. Regardless of what verses and chapters of the Bible you could throw at them, the Whigs' minds were already made up on the matter.<br /><br />Whether this constitutes "reason trumping revelation" I'll let the readers judge"<br /><br />I am starting to think that reason trumping revelation means someone using reason to refute Frazer's version of what the Bible says in Frazer's mind. <br /><br />I come at this from a former literalists perspective. I was way harsher than Frazer at one point until I started to think outside the narrow box that I was taught to view the bible in.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19617853900899911232010-05-03T08:31:22.064-06:002010-05-03T08:31:22.064-06:00Jon stated:
"Now you may point to other sour...Jon stated:<br /><br />"Now you may point to other sources before and outside of Calvin that have something to do with "resistance." However I don't think these are properly termed "interposition" as that is a Calvinist concept."<br /><br />Others wrote about the same concept. It is based on convenant theory. I am not sure if the Catholics used the same word but they started the whole thing. I think Vindicae is the best one from what I have read about it as far as laying out the whole theory and how it relates to the bible.<br /><br />Thing is that it is not in the Bible. It does not contradict it. In fact, I think flow logically from some things that are in the bible. But it is not in there. <br /><br />I got to go to work we can pick this up later. Maybe I will do a post on Ponet and we can discuss how you think he is different from Locke. He might be. I do not see it but I have not read enough of both to know.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54361303262085119842010-05-03T08:25:43.921-06:002010-05-03T08:25:43.921-06:00Jon stated:
"Gregg doesn't believe any p...Jon stated:<br /><br />"Gregg doesn't believe any part of Genesis is myth. He believes in a different form of Christianity than you do. Because of the differences in premises, I think he knows further discussion with you won't make much progress"<br /><br />It will not on the theology. It turns into a unproductive discussion that is not that germane to this blog. But my objections in my recent post on pure historical. Either Calvin said it or he did not.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8319391324001605062010-05-03T08:23:45.723-06:002010-05-03T08:23:45.723-06:00We may also have a word problem here: Interpositi...We may also have a word problem here: Interposition. That term, as I understand it, started with Calvin in his teachings on Institutes. That's why I've followed Calvin's strict teachings.<br /><br />Now you may point to other sources before and outside of Calvin that have something to do with "resistance." However I don't think these are properly termed "interposition" as that is a Calvinist concept.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44537834866133824812010-05-03T08:22:02.386-06:002010-05-03T08:22:02.386-06:00ME
"Othniel does that by himself. If God endo...ME<br />"Othniel does that by himself. If God endorses these actions as righteous then Romans 13 cannot say what Frazer says it does."<br /><br />Your response:<br />"This is known as a non-sequitur where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise."<br /><br />Why not? His actions clearly go against what Frazer would limit to acceptable under Romans 13. <br /><br />Jon:<br />"I don't see how this is the case. Frazer already noted God can, for his own reasons, give folks special exemptions to rules that otherwise bind universally.<br /><br />In other words:<br /><br />God is promoting rebellion like I stated and you reproduced in your response. This is not room to wiggle of this one. Unless, Frazer breaks with Calvin and says that it is not evident that God commanded Othniel to do what he did. He will state something like just because God raised him up and his spirit was on him it does not mean that God told him to do it.<br /><br />This goes against all logic and theology like this is what the founders and other thinkers rejected for good reason. It was not so much the bible they rejected it but bizarre interpretations of it that were "authoritative".King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15400088760915414522010-05-03T08:18:53.006-06:002010-05-03T08:18:53.006-06:00"No, I have none such problem in that I belie..."No, I have none such problem in that I believe that a good part of Genesis is myth."<br /><br />That's a very important point that I tried to at least allude to in the long post.<br /><br />Gregg doesn't believe any part of Genesis is myth. He believes in a different form of Christianity than you do. Because of the differences in premises, I think he knows further discussion with you won't make much progress.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81474394185161094442010-05-03T08:11:57.614-06:002010-05-03T08:11:57.614-06:00"Rereading his argument, Frazer believes Othn..."Rereading his argument, Frazer believes Othniel was raised up by God to deliver and that was okay because Othniel received specific commands from God to do so while George Washington didn't. Othniel lived during a time when God was revealing to men. George Washington didn't."<br /><br />Where does it say in the Bible that he received revelation from God? It does not. If he did not need it then why did Washington?<br /><br />ME:<br />"He tried to slip out of my trap by saying that Othniel's actions were not neccesarily righteous."<br /><br />Your response:<br /><br />"Did he say that? Or did I say that? I am not as familiar with the Bible as he is. And I'm not as familiar with the tale as you are."<br /><br />Yes he said it. This is my one issue with you on this stuff. You have to read the bible for yourself. I am not saying that from a theological point of view but a historical one. It is a book of history.<br /><br />ME:<br /><br />"But he either has to denounce his hero on this point or lose his entire thesis."<br /><br />Your response:<br /><br />"This is a false choice, I don't see why Frazer has to denounce Calvin. And even if he had to, he would and still be able to make his point."<br /><br />His thesis is that the founding political theology is not Christian so you are right. I should have stated that you lose a good part of your thesis that the founders had to turn to enlightenment thinking to find "resistance theories". A large part of this argument is based on the influence of Calvin. He contradicts himself and is not reliable.<br /><br />Your argument, it seems to me, is like saying because Cain and Able were excused from the prohibition on brother sister incest, it's okay for me to marry my sister (actually I know of at least one public brother sister couple who argues the Bible validates their relationship for that very reason)."<br /><br />No, I have none such problem in that I believe that a good part of Genesis is myth. Myth in that it is much like oral history that is exaggerated to prove a point. I have not studied it much but if Hebrew history is anything like Greek at the time then I am sure even in the historical books a lot is left out and simplified. I know in Greek history it is hard to separate the myth from the truth at times.<br /><br />Ed's friend Henry Neufeld writes a lot on this stuff. This is where the inerrantists mess up. <br /><br />With that stated, the story of Othniel gives great weight to a Locke like interpretation of Romans 13 over a Frazer one. THIS IS DONE USING THE BIBLE NOT IGNORING IT AS YOU SAY.<br /><br />"I know you took issue with me putting a lot on the table in my past post. And I did probably talk about some things I could have left out"<br /><br />I enjoy the discussion on all of it. I just do not want to get off the topic of interposition or cloud it with all the other stuff. It is an important point in weighing the importance of Christian ideas on the founding. If Calvin is your only evidence against the DOI being an interposition then you are in trouble.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2518429484480200272010-05-03T06:42:52.263-06:002010-05-03T06:42:52.263-06:00"Frazer can be refuted using nothing but the ..."Frazer can be refuted using nothing but the bible."<br /><br />You didn't refute him. At best you offer an alternative plausible explanation.<br /><br />"Othniel does that by himself. If God endorses these actions as righteous then Romans 13 cannot say what Frazer says it does."<br /><br />This is known as a non-sequitur where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.<br /><br />I know you took issue with me putting a lot on the table in my past post. And I did probably talk about some things I could have left out. However, much of what I wrote DID INDEED relate to this very point. The Bible, on its face, appears to contradict itself OVER AND OVER AND OVER again until you get some smart theologian who does his best to smooth out the contradicts and come forth with norms. I think Frazer does a very good job doing that with Romans 13 and the other text. But perhaps you smooth out the apparent contradictions differently.<br /><br />So then that means we are in TULIP land where evangelicals who believe the Bible inerrant, infallible and contractionless argue over every single point of TULIP because there are texts that seem to go different ways on all of those points.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67778863630509496812010-05-03T06:37:13.306-06:002010-05-03T06:37:13.306-06:00"I would have to ask him if he agrees with Ca..."I would have to ask him if he agrees with Calvin that Othniel's actions were righteous. If so then his whole Romans 13 argument is toast."<br /><br />I don't see how this is the case. Frazer already noted God can, for his own reasons, give folks special exemptions to rules that otherwise bind universally.<br /><br />Your argument, it seems to me, is like saying because Cain and Able were excused from the prohibition on brother sister incest, it's okay for me to marry my sister (actually I know of at least one public brother sister couple who argues the Bible validates their relationship for that very reason).<br /><br />"He tried to slip out of my trap by saying that Othniel's actions were not neccesarily righteous."<br /><br />Did he say that? Or did I say that? I am not as familiar with the Bible as he is. And I'm not as familiar with the tale as you are. <br /><br />Rereading his argument, Frazer believes Othniel was raised up by God to deliver and that was okay because Othniel received specific commands from God to do so while George Washington didn't. Othniel lived during a time when God was revealing to men. George Washington didn't.<br /><br />"But he either has to denounce his hero on this point or lose his entire thesis."<br /><br />This is a false choice, I don't see why Frazer has to denounce Calvin. And even if he had to, he would and still be able to make his point.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47763398795342334552010-05-02T23:35:29.346-06:002010-05-02T23:35:29.346-06:00"King of Ireland in this sense, operates enti..."King of Ireland in this sense, operates entirely in the tradition of America's Founders who argued rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God, regardless of what you think the Bible says."<br /><br />This is not at all what I believe. In fact, I used to share Frazer's interpretation of Romans 13 possibly harsher. It was through reading and studying other parts of the bible that I realized my interpretation was wrong. <br /><br />Frazer can be refuted using nothing but the bible. Othniel does that by himself. If God endorses these actions as righteous then Romans 13 cannot say what Frazer says it does.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4187647519677873432010-05-02T22:16:10.202-06:002010-05-02T22:16:10.202-06:00"And, contrary to KOI's assertion that Dr..."And, contrary to KOI's assertion that Dr. Frazer refuses to answer his Othniel claim, Gregg has done so repeatedly"<br /><br />He has answered me but not convincingly. That is more of a theological discussion not that germane to this blog. I would have to ask him if he agrees with Calvin that Othniel's actions were righteous. If so then his whole Romans 13 argument is toast. He tried to slip out of my trap by saying that Othniel's actions were not neccesarily righteous. But he either has to denounce his hero on this point or lose his entire thesis. Calvinism had evolved a great deal in regards to its teaching on resisting tyrants long before the enlightenment. For crying out loud Ponet was Calvin's contemporary!King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.com