Paul’s argumentation in the Book of Romans
is a lesson in law and logic.
Find out why in this week’s Truth in Two (2 min video + full text + an Afterword).
Dr. Mark Eckel is Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University. Support MarkEckel.com (here). Find the MarkEckel.com YouTube Channel (here). Mark is President of The Comenius Institute (website) and interprets culture from a Christian vantage point (1 minute video).
Pictures: Josh Collingwood, Snappy Goat
FULL TEXT
Perhaps you’ve seen his coffee cup reels on Instagram. Nick Freitas is a state delegate from Virginia and can be heard opining about politics, fatherhood, farming, and universal wisdom about any number of subjects. Discussing the reels Freitas does on Instagram I recently remarked, “Someone could teach a course on logic by watching these brief video arguments.
I was thinking of the coffee cup wisdom of Nick Freitas as I was reading Paul’s books of Romans and Galatians. Someone studying law, argumentation, communication or apologetics could learn a great deal about logic from Paul’s flow of though. Indeed, the book of Romans has been used in law schools as a primer on courtroom argumentation. You can find a link to the idea at the end of this Truth in Two. Here is but one of dozens of sept-by-step thinking in Paul’s writing. In Romans ten we hear the importance of evangelism, preaching, and salvation. Paul writes,
“Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
Notice Paul’s declaration: if you call on the name of the Lord you will be saved. He then explains what belief that salvation is based on, how that belief is heard, and how hearing happens through preaching. If you want to learn how to think with coherent consistency, read Paul. You won’t find any coffee cups in Romans but you will discover the universal wisdom from the Only Wise God, in His Word. For the Comenius Institute, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration at Liberty University, personally seeking truth wherever it’s found.
AFTERWORD
For example, here is a document from Harvard Law School using the book of Romans as an example of “Christianity’s contribution to law and legal ideas.” Christian law schools, it is no surprise, greet the teaching of Romans 13:1-7, for instance, with acceptance, appropriating the text for the purposes of interpreting American law. Nor would it be surprising to find a place like Brigham Young University demonstrate the connection between Roman law and the Second (New) Testament. There has been quite a bit of discussion as to unreferenced statements about American law schools using the book of Romans as a whole as a teaching model from Udo Middleman and Leland Ryken. There are many rabbit trails to follow on that discussion board.
However, one of the greatest contributions to American law from its first American edition in 1771, indeed the four volume set was the standard for law schools from its inception, is the famed Blackstone Commentaries. It is necessary to understand that Blackstone himself was a student of The Scriptures, The Book which most influenced him in his contribution to common law. The Declaration of Independence, much less the rest of American jurisprudence, was significantly influenced by the biblical foundations laid by Blackstone. The teaching of the book of Romans on law, its source, human conscience, and individual freedom resounds throughout the Commentaries; his oft quoted line marks early U.S. jurisprudence,
“Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”
American law, at its earliest stages, reflects tenets found in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. As a case in point, Antonin Scalia, in a lecture to a Catholic university said that Paul’s book to the Romans lays a “moral claim to our obedience” as Christians in the practice of law.
[On a side note, Yale Divinity School has a Romans Bible study. I found the articles there to be beneficial.]
Jim sat behind me in high school homeroom. He was an all-county soccer player and at the early age of sixteen, an ardent atheist. I will never forget what he whispered in my ear one morning during announcements.
It took a one sentence interrogation one morning in homeroom to create a thirst for answers to those queries. It was during high school that I found satisfying explanations by reading the published works of Francis Schaeffer. I have read everything Schaeffer had written and continue to scrutinize his writings as if he were penning a personal epistle to me. 
In his book The God Who Is There Schaeffer began to answer the questions people ask with responses outside of humanity. The book assumed that there was no separation between the sacred and secular: all created things are sacred. A person could study anything with a Christian mindset because all of life comes from and is sustained by God. The carpenter builds buildings mirroring the order, the structure of creation. The biologist could discover the mysteries of life because the Creator of life had made human discovery possible. The businessperson could follow financial pathways that might generate blessings for seller and buyer. The list is endless. 
Not only does everything come from and belong to God, but God has spoken to humans. He is There and He is Not Silent was the second book that altered my approach to life. It is one thing to believe the Bible, to read it, to hear The Book preached, and find comfort in Scripture’s pages. It is altogether something else to understand how God’s Word addresses the concerns of everyone everywhere. Schaeffer wrote on the arts, the environment, politics, history, science, interacting with all of culture. I began to see that the Bible did not sit on a shelf by itself but Scripture both identified human needs and gave a solution to them. I can hear myself in classrooms over four decades of teaching recalling Schaeffer’s story of the Alpine hiker lost in a snowstorm on the side of a mountain. 
Schaeffer’s stories sustained both my teaching and my approach to teaching. Susan Schaeffer Macaulay’s book How to Be Your Own Selfish Pig was a staple in my courses: the only book outside of the Bible that was required reading in my classes. Schaeffer’s daughter distilled her father’s brilliant insights and pages of his stories culled from his books into a book that could be understood by junior high students. I learned that the greatest teaching method was the simplicity of the compare-contrast model Schaeffer used repeatedly. My classes became accustomed to looking for similarities and differences between two points of view. 
I found myself developing curricula influenced by the Schaefferian twin tenets of God’s Person and God’s Word. Two of my published curricula – Let God Be God and Timeless Truth – are premised on God’s person and His communication to humanity. Students had to invest time in the Bible’s claims about God from His point of view. Then they had to evaluate competing truth sources with The Source. Schaeffer’s view that people should be confronted by true Truth was based on the idea that there are many so-called “truths” which must be evaluated by the claims of Hebraic-Christian teaching. Based on the teaching of Scripture, students practiced that people must decide for themselves what and why they believe. Forcing one’s viewpoint on another was not only coercive but unloving. 
It was Schaeffer’s loving attitude that prompted me to bring people with very different points of view into my classroom instruction. I wanted my students to hear directly from others what they believed and why they believed it. Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, or thoroughgoing heathens were heard inside my classroom. Local DJs from community radio stations were brought to class so students could discuss sexuality in music. Physicians were invited to panel discussions on medical ethics. Psychologists who believed humans are animals were asked to speak. 
Schaeffer himself held open-ended conversations with anyone about anything. I was being molded into an interdisciplinarian. The multi-faceted engagement with all subjects directed my thinking to engage whatever cultural issues my peaked student interest. Teenagers would ask me to listen to the latest CD so I could discuss the lyrics with them. I never turned down such an opportunity. I wanted young minds to understand that no matter what question or problem they faced, anything could be interpreted with a biblical mindset. Movies became a central focus in my teaching. I was realizing that investment in the visual world would train young people to filter the story with Christian thought. Showing movie clips or full-length feature films in my classes revealed to students that they could enjoy what Hollywood produced while not being led away by the erroneous viewpoints. 
Of course, once I think about Christian interpretation of film – I wrote a book about the Christian practice of film review – my mind immediately goes to reading. I dropped by my science colleagues’ classroom one day to discuss Steven Hawkins A Brief History of Time with her. My teacher friend asked why I was reading Hawking’s work as a theologian. “I believe my role as a theologian is to evaluate everything in God’s world,” I said. Opening to the earliest pages I pointed out Hawking’s assumptions and how his baseline ideas were the beginning of his scientific analysis. From the 1980’s I analyzed writings about artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, euthanasia, environmentalism, gender studies, popular music, philosophy, history, technology, and so much more. How was it that I was reading outside of my theological discipline? 
My interest in and interpretation of culture was born of a Schaefferian interdisciplinary mindset. I paid attention to all things. My teaching took on an “’All’ means all and that’s all ‘all’ means” perspective. Study of Scripture continually exposed the phrase “all” throughout the pages of Holy Writ. Prophets proclaimed the apologetics of Moses in Deuteronomy 4:6 that following all God’s statutes would be “wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples.” Apostles preached the cultural apologetics of Paul in 2 Corinthians 10:5, “We take every thought captive to Christ.” 
But there was no fragmentation in Schaeffer’s thinking, as diverse as his interests were. The very name of my personal website, “warp and woof,” bears the stamp of my mentor’s thinking. Everything is sacred and should be understood as the tapestry of the Godhead’s work. The phrase “warp and woof” comes from the textile industry; vertical and horizontal threads make up fabric. So was born in my thought process the importance of the biblical doctrine of coherence, manifest in my every written and verbal teaching. I view my students as whole people, not simply brains to be filled with content. Young people are bombarded with many pressures that consume their persons. It behooves me as their professor to care for their needs giving them space and grace in classroom performance. Part of my acceptance of students as whole persons is to be as excited about their academic endeavors as they are. Whether they want to study chemistry or the latest science fiction thriller, I applaud their interests as if they were my own. 
Coherence prompted me as much as I could to synthesize other disciplines within my own. Soon after I began to teach full time, I changed the name of my classes from “Bible” to “Christian Life and World Studies.” An acronym was birthed: CLAWS. The title of the course signified to all that “everything is theological,” a sign that hung on my office door for years. The sacredness of all life, the Scriptural interpretation of all the world had been woven into my person, it was the fabric of my teaching. My classes and I did not just study “the image of God” but the image of God in art. For instance, projects included interpreting the worldview of impressionism as we viewed Pissarro’s “Red Rooves.” We cared for the vocation of the homemaker as much as the businessperson while we studied God’s view of work. Criticism of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary concepts that promoted racism were attacked for their anti-human perspective. No matter what theology we studied, sociology was brought under the microscope. 
Even now former students contact me with notes of encouragement. They thank me for what they refer to as “your imprint on my life.” I am humbled by such wonderful generosity. The saving work of Christ in my life has transformed my person. And the Lord used Francis Schaeffer to disciple me, to mold my thinking, writing, and teaching, which left his imprint on me. Visitors to our home see the thousands of books on my shelves which explore hundreds of topics. I am an interdisciplinarian because of Francis Schaeffer. Movie lovers are brought to our theater room to watch and discuss film. Schaeffer’s influence permeates the light on the screen. Groups that ask me to speak hear my passion for everything from A to Z all because of the biblical approach I learned from Schaeffer’s books. 
If I heard my atheist friend’s question today, I would be prepared to discuss my fellow student’s obvious bent toward naturalism. But Schaeffer’s influence on me would have prompted an approach of questioning rather than debating. Francis Schaeffer’s imprint on my life first left its mark on my thinking, my acumen, my interest in the whole of life. Schaeffer’s words then molded my care for people; not for intellectual combat but for academic curiosity, knowing it is The Spirit’s job to transform others, not mine. 
My teaching principles have stayed with students over decades, having heard my repetitious plea, “Don’t believe anything I tell you but go back to Scripture to see if it’s so.” They knew we did not study “Eckel-ology” but biblical theology. Something obvious in the life and work of Francis Schaeffer was his compassion for the next generation. 
Politico offers a nuanced approach
So, how a law is used to bring charges against a person convicted of a crime has a prosecutorial motive. University of South Carolina law professor Wadie Said, explains what may be obvious to the public.
How words such as “terrorism” are used to describe the actions of alleged perpetrators has judicial motive. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mona Sedky made the declaration, “January 6th was an act of domestic terrorism.” 
A good number of the populace probably holds out for judicial blindfolds when it comes to actual courtroom decisions. “Lady Justice” statues, from the days of Rome through today, suggest a moral force within judicial systems. People desire the ideals of justice but know, even in the case of the riot at The Capitol on January 6th, 2021, that human motives in adjudicating cases can be unsure at best, impure at worst. Everyone makes judgments. 
First 
Permanent things necessitate temporal things are not so important. Dr. Mark Eckel is president of The Comenius Institute. He has been teaching and writing over 40 years.
My friend, Terry McIntosh is a very well-read historian. When he and I talk, there is always a stack of a dozen different history books next to him that he is reading all at once. One of our consistent discussion points is the problem of authoritarianism in its various forms. One day he explained what happens to extremist groups which seem to be on opposite sides of a controversy. “Take any glass.” Terry began, “Place your index fingers on either side of the glass, showing opposite positions.” I was intrigued, Terry continued, “It doesn’t matter if we are talking about fascism or communism, far-right or far-left politics. Your group may be on the opposite side of the glass, but as your group becomes more extreme, whether to the right or left, eventually your fingers meet at the same place.” Terry concluded with a simple statement, “As all perspectives become more extreme, they lead to the same place, authoritarianism.”
