Frazer's Hermeneutic And the History of Orthodox Christian Political Theology

With Editorial Suggestions by Jonathan Rowe

My last few posts argued American Founding era political theology created a "Big Tent of Diverse Interests" that allowed various Christian factions of the country to put aside the doctrinal differences that privately divided them and embrace political ideas that publiclyunited them.

This post continues in that vein.

I stressed that two God terms in the Declaration of Independence were added by the Continental Congress to appeal to Calvinists. This, I think, strengthened the connection between the political-theology of the DOI and Calvinistic notions of interposition.

Then, to better inform myself on the matter, I just carefully read the exchange between Jim Babka and Gregg Frazer that was part of "Romans 13 round 1." You will see Babka and I, for the most part, agree on Romans 13 & Christian history. We stress how Dr. Frazer downplays the later Calvinists (not necessarily Calvin himself) like Rutherford whose teachings on "interposition" transition into those of the Declaration of Independence.

Calvin, Ponnet, and Deposing Tyrants

Jon Rowe stated the following in his last post about Romans 13:


"Another authentic expression of orthodox Trinitarian political theology is that Romans 13 gives guidelines for rulers, but ultimately demands submission to government no matter WHO is in power, even if pagan tyrants. This was Calvin's position. Arguably this was St. Paul's position when he told believers to submit to the pagan psychopath Nero. Thus revolt -- whether to Clinton, Obama, Reagan, GW or GHW Bush, Stalin or Hitler -- is forbidden. But godly rulers, once in power, are free to enact biblically influenced laws, for instance the burning of heretics at the stake. "


This seems to state that Calvin taught that to revolt against a tyrant was forbidden with NO exceptions.  If that is in fact what Jon is stating here he is completely mistaken.  The following is Calvin's own words:


"I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings, (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians."(bold is mine)

John Calvin and Jim Babka on the "Doctrine of Interposition"

In my last series of posts I have been trying to shift the frame of discussion from focusing on which people of the founding era were or were not Christian to which ideas of the founding era were or were not Christian.  I have also tried to narrow down the topic to how the ideas of the founding era helped or hindered our progression toward the modern world. I attempted to accomplish this within the frame of discussion of a series of essays at "Cato Unbound" on that topic.  In addition, I have pushed to make this relevant to the present by examining this in the light of how studying these "Second Wave" ideas can help position us as a nation to catch the Alvin Toffler's "Third Wave".  The two questions I have posed are:


Which Christian ideas, if any, helped bring us into the modern world?

And

Which Christian ideas, if any, helped try to derail us from progressing toward the modern world?

Thank You Dr. Frazer

I decided to do one final post in my response to Dr. Gregg Frazer to thank him and release him from this discussion. As I read over his response to some posts I made last Summer, I realized that we were starting to become redundant and covering ground that has already been fairly well covered. The idea of a blog like this is to promote debate that helps frame a topic for others to read about and comment on. I think that has occurred and most people who have read our exchanges know clearly where each of us stands on Romans 13 and submission to authority. I think this is important to a history blog in that our two positions more or less represent the two positions that have been argued about in Christendom for thousands of years including the time of the American Revolution.

I was going to respond in detail to Dr. Frazer but said about all I wanted to say in the comments section of Jon's post. I maintain the story of Othniel in Judges 3 clearly shows that submission is not absolute. Why would God give his Spirit to someone to rebel against a King that God had directly sent to have authority over Israel if rebellion is always wrong? I have heard Frazer's counter argument and do not buy it.

I think he takes a verse like Romans 13 that is difficult to interpret and should only be used to support other verses at best and makes it the key verse in his argument. Any argument someone makes from the full context of the Bible is refuted with him stating that Romans 13 says clearly what he thinks the text says and that is the end all. That fact is that there are other ways to interpret that verse using the text. Mayhew and Locke do this effectively I feel. I think Locke's interpretation is the most reasonable one I have heard. If anyone missed it I posted on it in August.

Anyway, I think my final comment on Jon's post sums up well my thoughts on this whole exchange and Frazer's bias:

"Frazer stated:

"If the God Who tells us to be subject withdraws that authority and changes that message, then our responsibility changes."

Translation:(Mine)

Submission to authority is not absolute.


Gregg, you cannot say for sure that Othniel had that revelation or Washington did not. You are right when you say that Hitler claimed this too. The North and the South both stated that God was on their side in the Civil War. England and the Colonies both said God was with them in the Revolutionary War.

My entire point to you is that SOMEONE WHO IS EMPHATICALLY SURE THAT GOD IS ON THEIR SIDE IS WRONG in each of these cases. This should humble us and cause us to be willing to re-evaluate our positions all the time. I would say this is especially true for those like you that come to the debate table with a laundry list of assumptions based on deep biases. I stipulate to none of your Calvinist assumptions and to be taken serious by non-believers you must stop assuming that you PHD gives you that right.

That is how it comes off even if it is not your intention. Tom is essentially neutral in this discussion between me and you and he keeps pointing this out to you as well. You assume that your position on Romans 13 is the correct one and that taints your historical look. In other words, you have a dog in that fight and cannot be totally objective."

With that thought I end this exchange, thank Dr. Frazer for all his time, retract my statement that he was hiding in a cave afraid to respond(some manipulation to get him to come back because I think he adds a lot when he comments on this blog), and allow him the final Calvinist word that I think sums up the biased assumptions that Frazer comes with to the debate table when discussing what the Bible and Romans 13 say about submission to authority:(he is quoting me here and then saying he does not agree)

"You say 'Just because something happens does not mean God intended it to be that way.' Here’s where we just fundamentally disagree."

I really do thank you Dr. Frazer and do respect the fact that you took the time to respond to my thoughts. You are now released from this discussion unless you wish to continue though I do not think it would be productive personally.

Final Response to Gregg Frazer

This post will be the last in my series of posts that seek to answer some questions that Gregg Frazer asked me about my interpretation of Romans 13. In an attempt to guide this discussion away from the political theologies of Frazer and myself toward a discussion of the political theologies of the framers, other founders, clergy, and common people of that day and those that influenced them, I attempted to put this debate in its larger context of the history of the political theology that shaped this time. Frazer's view of Romans 13 is more or less the same as the Loyalist view back then that came from a long line of theology reasoning. My view is more or less that of Jonathan Mayhew and others that followed the line of reasoning handed down by John Locke and the Scholastics. I hope to continue along those lines of discussing the views of each camp and the origins of their line of reasoning by answering the following historical question that was posed by Frazer during our dialogue:

"You said that Washington or the revolutionaries in general were given a mandate by God to rebel (as per a couple of Old Testament examples) -- can you quote a single American revolutionary claiming to have received direct revelation from God telling him to rebel? Or revelation from God affirming that He raised them up as deliverers?"

To answer this question I have to put it into the context of the overall discussion Frazer and I had for clarity. First, let me state that I never stated that Washington, or any other founder, had received a mandate from God. Frazer, responding to many examples I gave him of people in the Bible, said that just because men sinned and rose up against the government and God used it to dispose a King does not mean God was behind that man's sin. Then I cited the example of Othniel from Judges 3 and the undeniable fact that he did this in the power and blessing of God and was no way in sin doing it contrary to Frazer. Frazer alludes to this story in the wording of the question he posed.

In short, the story is about when the people of God cried out because of the oppressor that God had sent against them, how God heard them, and how He raised up Othniel to deliver them:

"The Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD; they forgot the LORD their God and served the Baals and the Asherahs. The anger of the LORD burned against Israel so that he sold them into the hands of Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram Naharaim, to whom the Israelites were subject for eight years. But when they cried out to the LORD, he raised up for them a deliverer, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, who saved them. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him, so that he became Israel's judge and went to war. The LORD gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him. So the land had peace for forty years, until Othniel son of Kenaz died."

We see this pattern over and over again in the Bible: 1) God's people cry out in their oppression or need 2) God hears them 3) God sends a deliverer 4) He goes to war and the hand of God is with him as he leads the people to freedom.

As I quoted this story to Frazer he told me the difference between this story and the founding was that Washington and company did not have a divine command like Othniel. I replied back by asking him who he was to say whether someone had a divine command to do something or not? He replied back with the question I quoted above.

As part of my response, I would like to revisit the sermon I quoted in my last post by Abraham Keteltas. He stated the following in his sermon named "God Arising and Pleading the Cause of His People":

""God commanded the Israelites, saying, ye shall not oppress one another. Leviticus 25, 14–17. When the ten tribes had revolted from Rehoboam, because of oppression, and when Rehoboam and Judah went out to fight against them to bring them back to subjection, God sent his prophet to Rehoboam and Judah, saying, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren! 1 Kings 12, 24. God declared to Abraham, I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee. See also 1. Chron. 16, 22, compared with Psalm 105, 15, where Jehovah is represented, saying, touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm: i.e. God’s anointed people, and not kings, because it is said in the preceeding verse, he suffered no man to do them wrong, yea,he reproved kings for their sake."

He is essentially stating that kings and common people alike can be the anointed of God. Thus, if Kings mess with God's people they will be reproved. Not just the other way around. This seems consistent with the concept in the story about Othniel and deliverance quoted above. Let me reiterate the truth or non-truth of the story is not necessarily relevant to the topic at hand. What is most important is the political theology of those at the founding and those who influenced them. In other words, all that matters for our purposes is if the people of the time believed these types of things happened.

With that said, lets look further into Keteltas' sermon as a narrative of some of the thinking at the time and see if it continues to line up with the concept found in the story of Othniel and deliverance:

"Arise O God! Plead thine own Cause.

Psalm 74, Verse 22.

When David, the inspired penman of this psalm, was greatly distressed, unjustly blam’d on account of the Amalekites invading, spoiling, and burning Ziklag; and carrying away captive the women that were therein, and when the people talked of stoning him on that account, we read, that under these afflicting circumstances,he encouraged himself in the Lord his God. I Sam. 30:6. In this respect, the royal Psalmist exemplified in his conduct, the exercise of every believer. They all fly to God for refuge in time of trouble, and expect comfort and relief from his power and grace, from his glorious perfections and precious promises. The language of their hearts, in any deep distress, is that of Asaph,"

The highlights are mine and were done to emphasis his point about what the people of God do when they feel they are in trouble: they go to God in prayer and expect comfort and relief. The town was burning, things seemed bleak, and David was imploring God to "arise and plead His own cause."

To further understand how Keteltas believed David's welfare was God's cause lets continue on with some more of his words:

"In discoursing on these words I shall endeavor by divine assistance,

I. To shew you what we are to understand by the cause of God.

II. What is meant by his arising and pleading this cause; and what encouragement his people have that he will effectually do it."

This seems to speak for itself so lets see what he is talking about here in regards to number 1:

"I add the welfare of the people, who believe and profess the above mentioned system of divine truths, and practice the righteousness just now describ’d, is the cause of God. They are a society of holy and regenerate souls; trusting in the mercy of God through Christ, conforming the temper of their minds and the tenor of their lives, to the nature, will, and perfections of God; they are represented in Scripture, as a kingdom, of which Jesus Christ is the monarch, as a body, of which the son of God is the head: They are described by St. Peter, as a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, destined to shew forth the praises of him who called them from darkness to his marvellous light:"

This seems that he is describing the welfare of God's people as the cause of God. Then he gives what looks like an orthodox position on who God's people are.

Now let's see what it means for God to actively plead the cause of these people as part of Keteltas describing part 2 above:

"The Hebrew word here translated plead, may be rendered litigate, strove, contend, fight, but being here connected with cause, it is best translated, by the English word plead, a term very familiar to most of us, which signifies an advocate, lawyer, or patron’s arguing, supplicating, interceeding, contending for his client, and representing his case to the best advantage, espousing or patronizing it, or taking it in his own hands and managing it.

Then he goes on to a concrete example:

"There is a remarkable passage in the ensuing chapter, in which God speaks of the injuries done to his people, as if done to himself; he makes their cause his own, and declares that he will plead it. See Jeremiah 51, 33 &c.

Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon hath devoured me, he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with his delicates, he hath cast me out. The violence done to me and to my flesh, be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitant of Zion say; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say, therefore thus saith the Lord, behold I will plead thy cause, and take vengeance for thee:"

This seems to show that Keteltas believed that the Bible taught crushing and devouring God's people was synonymous with crushing and devouring God. The pleading seems to be God's vengeance against the king of Babylon on behalf of his people and their cause. He explains this further in this quote:

"God pleads his own, and his people’s cause by his providence. The whole history of it, from the creation of the world, is a series of wonderful interpositions in behalf of his elect."

I highlighted "interposition" because it will come up later in regards to God's providence. Keteltas then goes on to list a bunch of examples from the Bible and History that illustrate his point about God intervening on behalf of his people when they are in distress and cry out to him. All of which are consistent with the concept Othniel and deliverance from the story at the beginning of this post. I will quote one as an example:

"Philip the 2d, king of Spain, was on the throne of the most powerful kingdom in the world; he had not only great dominions in Europe, Spain, and Portugal, under his command: but he had the East and West Indies, and the mines of Mexico and Peru. He oppressed the Dutch, and began to abridge their civil and religious liberties; they petitioned for a redress of their grievances; but they were ignominiously styled Geux, that is beggars, and their petitions with the greatest scorn and contempt: whereupon, relying on God, they, although but a handful of men, against a mighty monarchy, rebelled against Spain, under the conduct of the prince of Orange, and at length, after a long, and arduous struggle, were acknowledged by their tyrants, to be free and independent states!"

Now lets keep in mind, my agnostic friends, that the issue at hand is not whether this struggle was ended by Divine Providence or circumstances. It is whether the mindset of the people at that time allowed that Divine Providence was possible. With that said, it seems to definitely be the mindset of Keteltas and others who preached similar sermons. It is also consistent with the concept of the story of Othniel and deliverance that I quoted to Frazer. The only thing that remains to answer his question is whether Washington, or anyone else, thought that they were called and used of God in his "interposition" on behalf of his people.

The following quotes were from non-Christian sites and I checked them against the original document from other sites. The first part of the last story was confirmed by the people who put his papers together at the University of Virginia. The second part about the chief was on numerous websites. One was David Barton's so I cannot be 100 percent about its accuracy. Anyway lets hear from George Washington about God's "interposition" on behalf of the Revolutionaries:

1. "As the Cause of our common Country, calls us both to an active and dangerous Duty, I trust that Divine Providence, which wisely orders the Affairs of Men, will enable us to discharge it with Fidelity and Success." -Letter to Jonathan Trumbull, July 18, 1775

2. "I have often thought how much happier I should have been, if, instead of accepting of a command under such circumstances, I had taken my musket on my shoulder and entered the ranks, or, if I could have justified the measure to posterity and my own conscience, had retired to the back country, and lived in a wigwam. If I shall be able to rise superior to these and many other difficulties, which might be enumerated, I shall most religiously believe, that the finger of Providence is in it, to blind the eyes of our enemies." - Letter to John Hancock, January 14, 1776

3. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. -George Washington's First Inaugural Address

4. The commander-in-chief orders the cessation of hostilities between the United States of America and the king of Great Britain to be publicly proclaimed tomorrow at twelve o'clock,...after which the chaplains with the several brigades will render thanks to almighty God for all his mercies, particularly for his overruling the wrath of man to his own glory, and causing the rage of war to cease among the nations.... -General Orders 1783

And the smoking gun:

5. If such talents as I possess have been called into action by great events, and those events have terminated happily for our country, the glory should be ascribed to the manifest interposition of an overruling Providence. -Letter from George Washington to the Reformed Dutch Church, 1789

This last quote would seem particularily interesting considering he believes he was "called into action" which are words used by Christians that feel draw to a divine purpose. It is also telling the he uses the same word "interposition" as Keteltas does when he is describing Divine intervention in the establishment of America. These sentiments are also very much in line with the concept of the story of Othniel and deliverance above.

This last quote is also intriguing because of how it seems to connect perfectly with this story that talks about a battle during the French and Indian War:

Later that evening, this British officer noticed several bullet holes in

his uniform, yet he was unharmed. A few days later he wrote in a letter

to his brother:

"By the all-powerful dispensations of Providence I have been protected

beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets

through my coat, and two horses shot under me yet escaped unhurt, although

death was leveling my companions on every side of me."

Years later, that same British Officer went back to those same

Pennsylvania woods. That same Chief who had fought against this man heard

he was in the region and came a long way to see him. In a face to face

council, the Chief said:

"Listen! [You] will become the chief of nations, and a people

yet unborn will hail [you] as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come

to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who

can never die in battle."

The battle on the Monongahela, part of the French and Indian war, was

fought on July 9, 1755 near Fort Duquesne, now the city of Pittsburgh.

The twenty-three year old officer went on to become the commander in chief

of the Continental Army and the first President of the United States. In

all the years that followed in his long career, this man, George

Washington was never once wounded in Battle."

It makes one wonder if Washington was right and that he had been saved by "dispensations of Divine Providence" to "be called in action" as the instrument of " Almighty God" many years later when "overuling the wrath of man" as King George was defeated. In other words, did he believe he was sent and protected by God to help deliver his countrymen from the hands of their oppressor? It seems he does.

To answer Frazer's question, it seems that I can come up with a quote that a Founder felt called to action by Divine providence to overrule the wrath of the King. This, along with the "step by step" establishment of the new nation would seem to be the happy ending that Keteltas seems to imply is the cause of God, and His people, in his sermon. It all seems perfectly consistent with the concept of people praying and crying out to God in their oppression, God hearing their cries, God sending a deliverer, and that deliverer defying all odds to push back the oppressor and liberate the people from Judges 3. It seems like both Washington and Keteltas thought God's invisible hand a more than plausible explanation for the success of the American Revolution.

And lest anyone say "Washington is not the orthodox Christian that Keteltas described as God's cause", how many times did God raise up a deliverer that was not one of his people? Cyrus come to mind anyone? I am not saying Washington was or was not part of "God's Elect" I am saying he does not have to be to be used, or think he was used, as a deliverer. The Frazer/Loyalist absolute stance on Romans 13 as the infallible word of God is looking worse and worse when other stories in the Bible and, despite what he says, HISTORY seem to contradict it. Locke's interpretation of Romans 13 and his political theology that was at the heart of the Declaration of Independence is looking more and more reasonable, from a biblical perspective, by the moment. No satire needed.

Response to Greg Frazer on Romans 13-Part IV

This post will resume my quest to respond to some of the arguments of Dr. Gregg Frazer regarding Romans 13. Nonetheless, in an attempt to more align my thoughts with the unique character and format of this blog I have modified my quest that was stated in my last post to attempting to explain why many Clergy at the time of the Revolution:

1) Did not believe that the Declaration of Independence was rebellion against God.

2) Believed that the Bible seemed to uphold the duty of the Christian to submit to the institution of government but also allowed(and perhaps demanded)resistance to tyranny in certain circumstances. 3) Validated the THEOLOGICAL and philosophical ideas on government of Shaftesberry and Locke in their pulpits; whether they mentioned them by name or not or agreed with their views on salvation or not.

The sermon that has been the center of this dialogue is the most famous of this period: "Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to Government Powers." It was preached by a man named Jonathan Mayhew and his core theme was that "rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." For this to be true then the more absolute interpretations of Romans 13 and the extreme doctrines that came with them had to be proven wrong. In short, Mayhew was out to disprove the interpretations of the Bible that lead to the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings."

The following is the crux of his argument against a more absolute interpretation that seeks to argue that people must submit to tyrants no matter what they do:

"For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? “Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office.”

Mayhew is pointing out the inherent contradiction of what Paul would have to be saying if the more absolutist interpretations are to be believed. To interpret this the way loyalists of that day and Frazer do, one would have to believe that Paul was saying not only did we have to submit to people who were obviously violating clear biblical mandates about the duties and obligations of civil rulers but that we had to pay honor to men who were killing people for their own pleasure! Thus, unless one believes that honor is due a tyrant then the first verse of Romans 13 can not mean what they say it does. Either submission does not mean what they say it does or what we are to submit to means something different than what they say it does. In other words, if Frazer and the loyalists are wrong then Paul would seem to be talking about the institution of government in general and not tyrants.

Another sermon of the era, preached by a man named Abraham Keteltas, seems to shed more light on the thoughts of the time on this matter. It was called "God Arising and Pleading His People's Cause." It more or less was stating that God was with the people of the Revolution and was pleading their cause because it was his cause. One would probably ask, If God ordains all authority and the leaders are his anointed then how could the fight of the common people to secure their rights from a King be God's cause?

I think Keteltas sheds great light on this with this excerpt:

"God commanded the Israelites, saying, ye shall not oppress one another. Leviticus 25, 14–17. When the ten tribes had revolted from Rehoboam, because of oppression, and when Rehoboam and Judah went out to fight against them to bring them back to subjection, God sent his prophet to Rehoboam and Judah, saying, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren! 1 Kings 12, 24. God declared to Abraham, I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee. See also 1. Chron. 16, 22, compared with Psalm 105, 15, where Jehovah is represented, saying, touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm: i.e. God’s anointed people, and not kings, because it is said in the preceeding verse, he suffered no man to do them wrong, yea, he reproved kings for their sake.

If this is to be believed, then God's anointed people can be kings and common folk alike. This would seem to indicate that what God ordained to be submitted to was something different than a tyrant King and possibly just the institution of government itself intimated before.

This brings me to a question that gives us insight into the reasoning behind the Frazer/Loyalist argument:

"If Romans 13 does not mandate subjection to wicked, ungodly, tyrannical rulers -- what sense did it make to the addressees of the letter? What sense did it make to those for whom the letter was written and to whom it was sent -- Christians living under Nero?"

Since this is not a new debate and to bring this discussion into line with the history of this debate lets allow for the fact that Frazer is not just questioning my theological and philosophical line of reasoning when it comes to government. He is questioning a line of reasoning that goes back to Locke, Shaftsberry, and possibly some of the scholastics. I put theological in bold face because it seems that most want to read Locke's Second Treatise and ignore his First Treatise. The first is filled with biblical arguments against the Divine Right of Kings and the second is his philosophical views that are grounded in his theology. Thus, if true, this line of reasoning that Frazer questions is based on a theological argument not a non-theological enlightenment one. In other words, Frazer and company will have to answer the question and stop changing the subject by calling everyone who disagrees with them "Theistic Rationalists."

Thus, I will attempt to answer this question as one who is a modern heir to the theological line of reasoning that Locke and others applied to civil government. With that said, a simple look at the History answers Frazer's question. According to several sources I read, Paul wrote Romans in either 54 AD or 56 AD. Since Nero took office in 54 AD it would seem like this question/argument would destroy the whole "Paul was referring to good government/institution of government line of reasoning" that Mayhew and company used. As I mulled this over yesterday I assumed that Frazer knew his history so I began to doubt Mayhew's whole line of reasoning.

However, after many hours of reciting story after story in the Bible that would seem to contradict the loyalist/Frazer absolute interpretation, I decided to check the history this morning. As it turns out, this is either a foolish question by Frazer or there is something about the History of this I do not know. If it is the former then this is really a non-question because Nero did not start his persecution until around 64 AD or at least 8 years after Romans was written. Simply, one of Frazer's strongest arguments turns out to be paper thin. Nero's persecution seems to have no bearing at all on what Paul wrote which leaves the door open for the argument that says that Paul was talking about submission to the institution of government in general not to unconditionally to tyrants.

Another argument that Frazer uses against the Lockean style of theological reasoning about civil government is that while there are examples in the Bible of men disobeying authority they should never cross the line into resistance or rebellion. When asked what the difference is because they both seem to be NON-SUBMISSION and a violation of Paul's admonition in Romans 13:1, Frazer responds that submission and obedience are two different things. He states that one can disobey an authority and still submit himself to that authority. He adds that we should only disobey if that authority asks us to do something that God commands us not to do.

The following question was posed as a challenge to me:

"You have not responded to my EVIDENCE for the difference between "subjection" and "obedience." I gave you the Greek meanings of the terms and showed you how they are consciously separated in Titus 3:1. You just keep saying they're the same thing -- do you have any EVIDENCE to support your view?

Titus 3:1 states:

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good.

I have two thoughts on this. The first is that if submission is absolute in Romans 13 then obedience is absolute according to Titus 3:1. In other words, Paul is telling Titus to tell the people to submit to AND obey the authorities. He adds obedience in this passage to the submission in Romans 13. So this verse actually destroys Frazer's argument that submission is absolute and obedience is conditional. If Romans 13 is absolute then Titus 3:1 has to be as well. Inversely, this would mean that if obedience is conditional then submission must be as well which contradicts Frazer. If I am right there is no way Romans 13 says what he says it means. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Accordingly, we need to look for another explanation.

This brings me to my second thought on this verse. Paul seems to hint at the type of governments he is talking about when he tells the people to be ready to do "good" in their obedience and submission. This seems to go right along with the stream of theological reasoning as handed down by Shaftsberry and Locke that Paul is talking about the institution government in general should be submitted to and obeyed. How could they possibly be ready to do "good" by carry out the commands of a lunatic like Hitler? There has to be more than meets the eye to this right?

Well it seems that there is. In fact, I found a copy of Locke paraphrasing Romans on line last night. I think he can answer for himself as Frazer's line of reasoning continues:

"How can the proper interpretation of a passage of Scripture change based on how it is applied or misapplied? Did God not have a particular message? Did He not know what He was saying -- it depends on how people use it? How could the people to whom the message was originally given know what God wants them to do, since they cannot see into the future to see how men misuse the passage?"

Locke:

"And St. Paul had taught them, in his epistle, that all Christians were free from Mosaic Law. Hence corrupt and mistaken men, especially Jewish converts, impatient as we have observed of any heathen dominion might be ready to infer that Christians were exempt from subjection to the laws of heathen governments. This he obviates by telling them that all other governments derived the power they had from God as well as that of the Jews, though they had not the whole frame of their government immediately from him as the Jews had."

I think his thoughts are self explantory but I think it would be helpful to expound on a couple things. First, is that this kind of interpretation would be consistent with the rest of Romans and epistles in general in that they are often written in response to letters from the people with specific questions and usually to deal with some sort of false teaching that was going on. When Locke uses the phrase "impatient as we have observed of any heathen dominion" refering to the Jewish converts, it would seem that he was referencing other parts of the letter. Accordingly, since most of the letter was written to stress that the Jews were no better than the Gentiles(a common theme in Paul's letter) this would seem to jive. Secondly, from other things I have read, it seems that the people he was writing to were mainly Jewish converts.

In response to Frazer, it would seem that the message that God seems to want to convey according to the theology of Locke, Mayhew, Keteltas, is clear and consistent. It is also specific and relevant to the people of that time as Frazer demands it be. They see that God wants all men to submit to and obey the institution of government itself even if one is a Jew and the government of Gentile. It would seem that they all thought this was as simple as Paul validating Gentile government. It might be possible that he was essentially stating that "all governments, not just Jewish ones, are ordained by God." Also, I think that the fact that Romans 13 was misapplied in the "Divine Right of Kings" is important in that often that is the smoking gun that the the theological interpretation behind the philosophical stance is as flawed as the stance itself. This would seem to be whether Frazer thinks this is relevant or not.

I would also state that some of the doctrines least friendly to liberty were constructed on the shaky foundation of theological interpretations that seek to apply a specific exhortation to a specific people at a specific time and make it universal.(Modern Day Domionists) The best example I can give is Paul telling people it is better not to get married in one letter and in a later letter telling windows to get married if they are going to be busy bodies. Either he changed his mind or there are missing pieces we do not understand because he was addressing a specific audience and more than likely specific questions we are not privy to. I think some of his exhortations to women fall into this trap as well when used to make universal dogma. This can be avoided if we look beyond the surface of what the text seems to indicate to the whole counsel of scripture. We have to realize that there is often information left out of the text of the letters because it would be redundant to the people who are receiving the letter. Thus, a possible reason that "including Non-Jewish" was omitted to give context.

Well enough said. I hope I have done a credible job representing the theological and philosophical ideas on government that were passed on from Shaftsberry to Locke and that made it into numerous pulpits in colonial America during the time of the founding. I know that this dialogue kind of turned into what Tom would call a "intramural battle" of competing doctrines at times. However, I do not want people to lose sight of the three most important points that these posts have tried to make:

1. Many of the Christian philosophical ideas on civil government from the Founding Era are grounded in a stream of theology that is taken from the text of the Bible.

2. That this stream of theology and philosophy on civil government preceded the enlightenment.

3. That to state that these preachers' ideas were shaped more by Enlightenment Philosophy than Christian Theology is wrong.

I part with a quote in response to the charge of number three above from David Barton that I do believe is TRUE:

"While such charges certainly reflect the personal views of these critics, they definitely do not accurately reflect the extended theological debates that occurred at the time of the American Revolution. In fact, contrary to Dr. Cornett's claim that the Founding Fathers turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation of the American Revolution, the topic of civil disobedience and resistance to governing authorities had been a subject of serious theological inquiries for centuries before the Enlightenment. This was especially true during the Reformation, when the subject was directly addressed by theologians such as Frenchman John Calvin, German Martin Luther, Swiss Reformation leader Huldreich Zwingli, and numerous others."

Maybe Barton is right about some things. Oh and least someone try to use the old "they are all Theistic Rationalist" lines of thinking, Ketelas was an orthodox as they come judging by the first half of his sermon that was quoted above. From a lot of the reading I have done about Locke I think he was orthodox and liberal. The trouble most have in reading him is that he separated doctrine regarding salvation(Where at first glance he seems Orthodox)from doctrines on civil affairs.(Where he is obviously Liberal) I think we would be wise to do the same and avoid the pitfall of labeling everyone a "Theistic Rationalist" that disagrees with the loyalist/Frazer line of reasoning.