By Filings on
Bible, Theology & Philosophy
Book Reviews
Post-liberal Integralism
Political Philosophy
Noahic Covenant

“Almost the entirety of the book hinges on whether the reader accepts VanDrunen’s …thesis: the ‘Noahic covenant’ of Genesis 8:21–9:17 is the foundational principle of any Christian political theology.” - Ehrett

Discussion

Thu, 09/10/20

My comment at Patheos…

How does the universality of the Noahic Cov. depend on one’s view of the scope of the Flood? In general, though arguments from silence tend to be weak ones, there are times when silence is quite significant: as in when a covenant is being established and no boundaries are set as to what individuals or peoples are included (whereas, in the case of Mosaic, there clearly are such boundaries). So what appears to be ‘argument from silence’ may actually be ‘argument from the nature of a covenant.’
But it’s not like the world as a whole is un-referenced in the covenant. There is a promise not to destroy “the world” with a flood, is there not? … but, having not read the book, maybe VanDrunen needed to better articulate his case for the scope of the Noahic Cov. I get the impression its nonuniversality was kind of decided beforehand in your [Ehrett’s] case? VanDrunen perhaps assumes readers are more open to that idea or that it’s already a settled view on their part (I would be in that audience.)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Fri, 09/11/20

I tried reading the article you posted Aaron. I have ad blockers active. I got the “pay $0.99 or disable your ad blocker” message. I left the site. Looks like Patheos is looking to make money like they are some kind of news site.