tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post8771565522598816713..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Gregg Frazer Reviews Daniel Dreisbach's Book on the Bible and the American FoundingBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20962773946463506372018-04-21T13:54:47.966-06:002018-04-21T13:54:47.966-06:00Dreisbach obviously had to explain the interpretat...<i>Dreisbach obviously had to explain the interpretation of passages used to promote the American Revolution, but a truly biblical analysis of this issue would seem to require addressing the problems and inconsistencies inherent in rejecting the literal, direct interpretation in its historical and biblical context.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, once again we are obliged to accept Dr. Gregg Frazer's religious beliefs [Protestant fundamentalism] in order to accept his read of history. "Truly biblical" is a fraught term. Who decides?<br /><br />That the Bible should or must be interpreted literally in a modern Protestant [fundamentalist] innovation. "Christian thought" has at least since John of Salisbury's <i>Policraticus</i> in 1159 relied on "interpretations" of the Bible.<br /><br />"The <i>Policraticus</i> has more light to shed on the issues of 1688 and 1789 than either the Republic of Plato or the Politics of Aristotle."<br /><br /><br />http://constitution.org/salisbury/policrat456.htm<br /><br />Unfortunately, many of our Protestant friends--and secular ones as well--are unfamiliar [or unconcerned] with anything before the Reformation and the Enlightenment respectively. However, the Protestant milieu of the Founding era could not help but be steeped in that ["Catholic"] tradition, even when not consciously aware of it. Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com