As TVD writes, Mark Noll is a liberal, which would preclude him from being an evangelical Christian. Christian orthodoxy and liberalism are mutually exclusive. Evangelical, from The Evangel, is doctrine, theology, essential doctrines of the historic faith, proclaiming the Gospel, from the beginning of the church. If Noll is a liberal, most likely, he rejects parts of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. These reflect the person of Jesus Christ and are clearly enumerated in scripture, including the tri-unity of the Godhead and Deity of Christ; Jn 1:1-3,14; 8:58, 5:19, 10:30, Rom 9:5, found nearly in every book of the New Testament. In fact, the early church fathers (Tertullian, Polycarp, Clement) adhered to the Trinitarian Godhead.
In the review mentioned, the author makes the comparison between biblical exegesis and resistance and republicanism. However, many Christian men believed resistance is biblically correct. The same can be said of republicanism without the new testament making declaratory statements against it. Did not the great minds of the church agree Israel was a republic? Did not Calvin and Farel form Geneva a republic beloved to reformers all over Europe and England? Did not Viret, Peter Martyr and Beza teach at Calvin's Academy (adored by Thomas Jefferson himself) Exodus 18? The messiah did not physically reign over Israel as king and neither did Moses. In that given situation, how was Israel a theocracy? Moses did not rule for God; the Torah was the authority and the power spread out among the most wise. Moses and Joshua were consulted only for the most serious circumstances or where the Lord would actually consult them. The Monarchy happened later on and God did not intervene in the people's sinful request for a king.
Marian exiles, Lutheran Torgau and Magdeburg Declarations? Some Waldensians believed in resistance 100 years before the Lutherans. Who did these Waldensians fight against? The author writing against Noll, Prof. Moots, believes Noll's ideal biblicists are the Puritans, yet that is hardly something to brag about. The Puritans made many serious errors, some even deadly; not to mention their errors about the Sabbath that carried over into the founding. One man esteems one day above another, another esteems everyday alike. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. The exaltation of the Sabbath replaces Grace. In fact, God removed the Sabbath in Hosea 2:11, so it is not binding at all, but Christ is the Sabbath. He is the rest for His church, completing the work the Old Testament was a shadow of.
The reviewer attacks Noll for believing the Revolution was a departure of proper bible exegesis. However, Calvin gave no proof he rejected interposition, rather, the evidence supports he and the reformers approved it and spread the doctrine more thoroughly by Beza and others. Romans 13 says "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities." Not following unbiblical orders is still subject to the governing authorities.
Romans 13 does not teach unconditional obedience like Moots claims, and pacifism refers to rebellion, which I would like to see anyone defend from the New Testament. Yes, the left obviously would condone rebellion from Romans 13 as TVD says, if they even read it. On the contrary, David Barton, his allies, and the Republican party in general would support rebellion in the DOI wholeheartedly. I have read Barton quote John Jay and others supporting rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God, but those are sinful man's words, not God's words. Better to abide by the scripture.
Why would Noll attempt to use the Enlightenment to support Calvinist resistance theory? If Noll is a liberal, is not Fea is to the left of him?