tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post115958122556689799..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1159746108928696572006-10-01T19:41:00.000-04:002006-10-01T19:41:00.000-04:00Great comments. I didn't know that about Wesley.Ul...Great comments. I didn't know that about Wesley.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, regarding Romans 13 and the right to revolt, like other important moral issues -- slavery, and religious liberty -- one could argue that the Bible gives no definite answer and orthodox Christians have been on both sides of the debate and have quoted Scripture to justify their positions.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1159691213140401902006-10-01T04:26:00.000-04:002006-10-01T04:26:00.000-04:00OnlookersSince Mr Rowe has attacked me by name I w...Onlookers<BR/><BR/>Since Mr Rowe has attacked me by name I will observe here that <A HREF="http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Government_under_God.htm#key" REL="nofollow">the understanding of the meaning of Rom 13 that I have used</A> is in fact of longstanding importance in biblical studies [the [proto-unitarians etc were simply echoing longstanding covenant theology in the American colonies]. Through the associated doctrine of interposition by lower magistrates, it played a crucial role in the Bible-based reformation theory of Government and revolution to depose tyrants. The 2nd paragraph of the US DOI aptly summarises the steps in the process, and was written by interposing magistrates to justify their action. <A HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20040611174550/http://capo.org/premise/96/aug/p960810.html" REL="nofollow">Bamberg's comments</A> on this are well worth consulting.<BR/><BR/>Further to this, Mr Rowe has subtly misrepresented my positions in his summary dismissal, as can be seen by comparison with my online note <A HREF="http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Government_under_God.htm#librts" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003143.html" REL="nofollow">the current thread at EO</A>. My point is that biblical Christianity should not be automatically regarded as an enemy of liberty as it materially contributed to its rise, starting with <A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm" REL="nofollow">Vindicae</A> [1579] and flowing on through the US fonding and to the wider world. I have explicitly denied that this was the sole stream that so contributed, and mark the distinction between those who were Christians and those who were influenced by the biblical worldview. Biblical Christianity is of course the enemy of <I>licence</I>, an easily confused counterfeit of liberty.<BR/><BR/>Next, Mr Rowe fails to recognise [though it was pointed out to him] that Nero had TWO distinct phases to his reign, [1] while he was under the tutelage of Seneca and [2] after he dismissed him. It is during the last that the tyranny emerged and -- as I noted in the discussion in the EO thread in which it came up -- it led the Roman peole to hold him a mad and dangerous tyrant and to overthrow him, circa 68. Of the first phase, <A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10752c.htm" REL="nofollow">the Catholic Encyclopedia</A> aptly notes: <I>The first years of Nero's reign, under the direction of Burrus and Seneca, the real holders of power, were auspicious in every way. A series of regulations either abrogated or lessened the hardships of direct taxation, the arbitrariness of legislation and provincial administration, so that Rome and the empire were delighted, and the first five years of Nero's government were accounted the happiest of all time, regarded by Trajan as the best of the imperial era.</I><BR/><BR/>Paul wrote Romans in 57 AD, in the former phase of Nero's reign, and is not on record as to the reign of Caligula. In Rpm 13 he laid out the general principle of government that it is God's institution to do good tot he community and to defend it from evildoers [v 4], and should be honoured as such. <BR/><BR/>As a Hebrew, who then went on to cite Moshe in vv 8 - 10, he was plainly aware that God opposes oppression and tyranny, and therefore empowered that worthy to lead a revolution that overthrew the tyrant, then went on to institute new Government based on explicit covenant with God as a nation under God with appropriate institutions for such. The core principle of the resulting law was that one should love one's neighbour as oneself, and such love, as Paul observed, will do no harm. '<BR/><BR/>This last is of course exactly <A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps02_j1-1.htm" REL="nofollow">what Justinian picked up on</A> in his Corpus Juris as the foundation stone for law and justice. <BR/><BR/>I will cross-post at <A HREF="http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">my own blog</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1159643855598269912006-09-30T15:17:00.000-04:002006-09-30T15:17:00.000-04:00As for Romans 13, it comes down to whether you bel...As for Romans 13, it comes down to whether you believe our submission should be to the INSTITUTION of government or to the INDIVIDUALS who happen to occupy the institutional offices. Obviously, there is no distinction so long as the individuals in government are acting according to the lawful bounds and purposes of government. But what if a person illegally seizes power? Must Christians immediately switch their allegiance to such a tyrant?Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1159643713428769752006-09-30T15:15:00.000-04:002006-09-30T15:15:00.000-04:00Citing context is entirely appropriate. You seem t...Citing context is entirely appropriate. You seem to argue that fundamentalists or literalists must (by logical necessity) accept every verse literally....as a stand-alone proposition. That is NOT fundamentalism. <BR/><BR/>Most fundamentalists believe the Bible should be interpreted 1) according to a historical-grammatical framework (read: context), and 2) under the illumination of the Holy Spirit.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1159637903677755912006-09-30T13:38:00.000-04:002006-09-30T13:38:00.000-04:00It is worth noting that support for the American R...It is worth noting that support for the American Revolution was common among orthodox Christians, including Calvinists. Most prominent among orthodox Christian signatories of the Declaration of Independence was John Witherspoon. Even in England, John Wesley originally supported the American Revolution for rational and Biblical reasons; he later reversed his position, causing much damage to his Methodist movement in this country. In Scotland, Calvinist thinkers(using rational methodology) such as Thomas Reid deemed the Revolution to be justified.<BR/><BR/>It is probably fair to say that many prominent orthodox scholars of the era placed as much weight on Reason as on Scripture. At times, Jefferson's anger at Calvinists looks like the heat of a family squabble. Their metaphysics differed greatly, but the methods a(nd most conclusions) were very similar.<BR/><BR/>Wesley's positions on the Revolution were rooted at least as deeply in reason as in revelation (which included reference to Romans 13). He changed his mind, not due to a closer reading of Romans 13, but due to an emprical conclusion that the English colonial government was not really terribly oppressive.<BR/><BR/>It seems unlikely that modern Fundamentalists would approve of any of the prominent Christians of the Enlightenment. But then, very few people are happy with a thorough examination of the views and methods of their intellectual heros.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com