Montesquieu wrote "Spirit of the Laws"...so, that might have been what the person you are dealing with was referring to.
So, FWIW: it is perfectly OK to reason from Scriptural principles as our Founders did. The Genesis 9 passage mentioned "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man." contains the principle of man being created in the image of God and our nation is designed on that concept.
FWIW: lawlessness is a major issue throughout history, and in fact, mankind can be divided into the honest and lawless. The latter use many justifications, in being "I am obeying the Spirit" or "I am following a higher law" etc...but its still lawlessness...
God speed..sorry for any misunderstanding.
Posted by Sapient on 10/03 at 04:33 AM | #
Sapien, someone previously sounded off about the Spirit of the Law versus the Letter of the Law and ended it with the idea that this was what the Bible said. Perhaps it was you who originally said it. Anyway, I merely commented that the verbage referenced as coming from the Bible was not found in the Bible.
As for why you comment on this, I am mystified -- unless it was you who said that spiel came from the Bible. No matter, it is not found in the Bible and, as I inferred in a previous comment, it is similar to the old saying that "every tub will sit on its own bottom" as high-sounding and actually was posed as meaning that everyone is responsible for him/herself before God. But it is not in the Bible in so many words.
What comes next is that it seems that I must reiterate that your comments are somehow disjointed sufficiently that I am not following you. I asked for clarification and failed to receive it. Therefore, consider the discussion closed for this I do.
Posted by NoCrud on 10/02 at 10:29 PM | #
It is indeed VITAL to know the "rivers" of truth that run through the Bible...aka doctrines.
Further, interpretation requires that we use exegesis rather than eisegesis...only the former is consistent with sound hermeneutics.
As you said, no one is at liberty to pull a verse out of context, twist it, so that it says whatever they way...that is eisegesis.
As for the rest, I will need you to explain your use of the phrase about "the spirit" and the "letter" of the Law and how that applied to your original comment.
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson
Posted by Sapient on 10/02 at 09:31 PM | #
LizMN RE your comment on 10/02 at 08:26 PM
CORRECTIMUNDO... Could not have said it better.
Posted by NoCrud on 10/02 at 09:18 PM | #
Sapient, you have yet to disclose anything that I did not already know. However, I see it useful to acquaint those who have not studied the Bible as extensively as apparently you have. Again, though, it is not enough to pull a verse here and there to establish a jumping-off point. Remember, Jesus argued with the supposed experts in the temple and they were impressed.
Everyone has a specific interest in the Bible and, in some cases, some have a non-specific interest in that they know everything equally unwell. Best be well-read in either the elements or the whole which really means well-read in all the elements. One theologian took off eight years to write a book: The Bible Digest. It is considered a very good book and is much like a commentary but the man was already a recognized Bible expert and it still took him eight years to write that book. Everyone who has studied the Bible (and not just parrot information from some lecturer or another book) will tell you that they are not the expert on the Bible regardless of being so acclaimed by others impressed with words, vocabulary or even a memorized segment of the Bible. One man had memorized whole chapters and some books of the Bible. Admirable. Others, who actually know more about the meaning, the meaning, the meaning of the Bible are much more impressive in their Bible knowledge but while they can find passages, they carry notebooks to find references and depend on where to turn the page to find a verse.
Maybe you wonder what I'm saying. Therefore, let me spell it out for you. I am not impressed by those who draw lines in the sand to mark off lines of attack and defense where there is no battle. Therefore, please inform me what you actually propose to mean so I can grasp it by its meaty import.
Posted by NoCrud on 10/02 at 09:03 PM | #
I understand the "lawful use of the law"....and that is what we are talking about here.
You might start with a look at Gen 9:6, which is where government was instituted.
Romans 13, where Paul writes that we are to submit to governing authorities.
Also, if interest, is 1 Cor 14:33..."God is not the author of confusion..." translating the greek word akatastasia...disorder, tumult, revolution, anarchy.
You will also find in 2 Thes 2 a discussion of "the mystery of lawlessness..." and will find that the Holy Spirit is working specifically to arrest its development.
Hope that helps.
Posted by Sapient on 10/02 at 08:30 PM | #
There are other important positions that Rubio could hold, such as Secretary of State. Anyway, Rubio is NOT a candidate so it's not important right now.
Let's focus on the people who ARE candidates.
Keep in mind that they are all saying positive things about what they will do as president. But will any of the presidential candidates be willing to step forward and expose all of the fraud that is being done at the expense of the American citizen/taxpayer?
Nothing else will matter until the fraudulent "circus" in Washington is exposed and corrected. We must discard the people who created it -- and discard the candidates who will not expose the fraud and correct it.
Time to take out the trash and drain the cesspool of those who conspired against the U.S. Constitution and the United States of America if we are going to restore our constitutional republic!
Posted by LizMN on 10/02 at 08:26 PM | #
Sapient, apparently you are not award that the "letter of the law comment I made was in response to another comment that may have been taken off the comment queue. Therefore, you may not see the full, contextual scene for my response.
I'll have to go back and reread Roman 13 to see what you mean by the Bible definition of anarchy. I do know, however, that many do not understand the purpose of Romans in establishing that God sees Jew and non-Jew (Greek) in the same way as seen in Romans 10:12 which is bracketed by the "whosoever" verses, 11 and 13. Unless one reads the Bible with understanding, in context and it its entirety, it is easy to up pull a verse here and there to support notions that are not actually addressed by the Bible passage.
Posted by NoCrud on 10/02 at 08:16 PM | #
Obama’s ineligibility: Marco Rubio can’t be President or Vice President
Posted by Lawrence Sellin on Sep 20, 2011 at 08:38 PM
Like Obama, he is not eligible for the Presidency or the Vice Presidency because he is not a natural born citizen
The critical issue for the 2012 election is whether or not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall perish from the earth.
The US Government has been hijacked by a self-serving, permanent political class, which considers itself above the law and elections as bothersome formalities temporarily interrupting their plundering of the nation’s wealth.More...
Post a Comment on: Obama’s ineligibility: Marco Rubio can’t be President or Vice President
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Next entries comments: “We Stand With Gibson” Rally planned in Tennessee
Previous entries comments: Intimidation: Obama’s Dept. of Labor To Supply Replacement Worker’s Names, Addresses to Union Thugs
Note from the Editor:
This section is for comments from readers of canadafreepress.com.
Please don't assume that Canada Free Press agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand.
Most Shared CFP stories
Tweets by @canadafreepress
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 2013 the individual authors.
Site Copyright 2013 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement