Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Frazer Responds to Comments

I posted a note from Dr. Gregg Frazer on my blogs and at American Creation it generated a lively 65 comments. Frazer emailed me this response:

According to the tally, there have been 65 comments in response to my brief post. Clearly, I cannot answer them all. I'd like to make a few brief comments, however.

Kristo: I think Acts 7:55-60 makes it clear that Stephen "counts" under my definition. For the purposes of the historical argument, though, I rely on what 18th century American Christians said Christianity was. It so happens that I agree with the 10 common elements that they affirmed as core doctrines.

Regarding the "key" Founders: I deal with eight, not five; and they represent the three most responsible for writing the Declaration and, arguably, the five most responsible for the content of the Constitution and putting it into effect.

"Majorities" of people simply assent to laws -- they don't frame them. Those who WRITE documents have influence over its content -- not those who merely assent to it. The U.S. Constitution, to which they assented, was "godless" and there was opposition to it on that basis -- but it was ratified anyway. The principles upon which it was based were identified as philosophical and historical (in the convention debates, The Federalist Papers, and their personal correspondence) -- not the Bible or the writings of church fathers/theologians. A number of those principles are non-biblical or even anti-biblical.

As for the Declaration, the fact that we're still arguing about its religious content 232 years later would please and amuse Jefferson. He intentionally wrote it such that everyone could read his own religious beliefs into it and, therefore, all would find it acceptable and supportable. The deist sees what he wants to see, the Jew sees what he wants, the Christian sees what he wants, etc. As theistic rationalists, Jefferson, Adams, & Franklin eschewed particular doctrine as divisive and, consequently, they had no doctrinal "dog in the race," so to speak. So, of course OFT sees Christian content because he wants to and secularists see deist language, etc. Such was the genius of Jefferson.

Jefferson (perhaps my least favorite Founder -- I'd love to leave him out) is important and included because he is most responsible for the content of the Declaration, the nation's formative philosophical document. Several complained in this discussion that TJ was the most aberrant where theology was concerned -- BUT THAT'S MY MAJOR POINT -- HE WASN'T ABERRANT AT ALL. The other seven I write about held fundamentally the same beliefs as Jefferson (Adams even said so).

Mr. Van Dyke: I would be the last person who would want Christianity or Christian influence "scrubbed" from anywhere. I began my project partly to correct the record concerning the Establishment Clause which the Court has butchered since 1947. BUT you can't scrub Christianity from places in which it doesn't exist. AND it does no favor to Christianity (rather, it harms it) when you ascribe the label "Christian" or "Christianity" to people or ideas or documents which are not really Christian. The Gospel becomes corrupted and muddled and the Word of God is tainted by non-biblical influences. It also exalts what God hates: generic, moralizing "religion."

To clarify my lack of desire to "scrub" any Christian influence away, let me say that there certainly were Christians involved in the Founding -- some of whom played important roles. For example, John Jay and Roger Sherman and John Witherspoon were Christians by my definition and by that of 18th century Americans. But they didn't have as much influence on the founding documents as the eight I studied.

As for the state constitution issue: the differences in the state constitutions point up the concerns of the theistic rationalists. There were many religious sects -- even among Protestants (especially among Protestants), so any attempt to establish any one of them on a national basis would have been disastrous and prevented a unified country. The theistic rationalists who were most influential in constructing and implementing the U.S. Constitution were in a perfect position to make a nonsectarian, non-Christian country because they did not adhere to particular (divisive, in their view) Christian doctrines. That is not to say that they didn't want the people to be religious or that they didn't want to promote religion -- they most certainly did. They did not, however, aspire to making a specifically "Christian" country and did not necessarily want the people to be "Christian." They wanted religion and religious people because the result would be a morality that would undergird the nation.

Jon: You were correct to take issue with my superlative concerning their use of "Christ" -- I should have said "almost never" or "very rarely." Turnabout is fair play: I have to take issue with you regarding your claim about the Bible's supposed "ambivalence toward chattel slavery." The form of slavery supported in the Bible is not what you think of as slavery, not the form of slavery practiced in the U.S., and not even the norm of slavery in the ancient world. Slavery in the Mosaic Commonwealth was voluntary and was actually a gracious provision for the poor. One who was economically inept could sell himself into slavery in order to provide for himself and/or his family. He was to be treated as a member of the family and strictly protected against any kind of abuse. There was not even a social stigma against the slave. Slaves were freed from their commitment after six years. In the Jubilee year, all slaves were released -- whether the six years were up or not. They could always be "bought back" at any time by any kinsman for the amount they owed. The kidnapping of persons to sell or use as slaves was a capital crime (Exodus 21:16). One could become a perpetual slave by one's own choice -- otherwise, it was not allowed.

7 comments:

Our Founding Truth said...

Regarding the "key" Founders: I deal with eight, not five; and they represent the three most responsible for writing the Declaration and, arguably, the five most responsible for the content of the Constitution and putting it into effect.>

Who puts something into effect? Not drafters of instruments. The people ratify documents. James Madison explains to you why this is so. If the drafters of instruments is what matters, then their subjective intentions (three or four men) is what matters, and their goes our unalienable rights, and everything else. What matters is what the people think it means: in church, newspapers, state constitutions, etc. Your "key founders" doctrine is easily refuted:

“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security ”

– James Madison (letter to Henry Lee, 25 June 1824)

In no other interpretation other than the ratifiers is acceptable, destroying the living constitution theory.

"Majorities" of people simply assent to laws -- they don't frame them.>

Majorities ratify laws, and put them into effect. Subjective intentions of drafters mean nothing.

The principles upon which it was based were identified as philosophical and historical (in the convention debates, The Federalist Papers, and their personal correspondence) -- not the Bible or the writings of church fathers/theologians.>

Unalienable rights are from man?
The principles behind the Constitution, embodied in the DOI are from man?
That's why you mistakenly believe it's "godless." You don't understand the Constitution is not designed to have principles; it carries out principles already enumerated in the DOI. Samuel Adams explains:

Before the formation of this Constitution..in the declaration of Independence, very
deliberately made by the Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that, "all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." This
declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.

Samuel Adams, TO THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS.
JANUARY 17, 1794.

The DOI hasn't been disannulled because the principles of it are in the Constitution. Those principles are not "godless" but "God given."

As David Barton correctly states:

"The Constitution neither abolished nor replaced what the Declaration had established; it only provided the specific details of how American government would operate under the principles set forth in the Declaration."
Original Intent, p. 248

Jefferson. He intentionally wrote it such that everyone could read his own religious beliefs into it and, therefore, all would find it acceptable and supportable.>

Not even close! The Law of Nature and the Law of Nature's God was first stated by David in Psalm 40, then Paul, Tertullian, Basil, Pufendorf, Hooker, Grotius, Locke, and the framers. Thomas Jefferson's subjective intentions mean nothing, the principles come right out of the Bible through the Reformation, not Thomas Jefferson's mind:

A Short Treatise on Political Power, John Ponet, D.D. (1556) President John Adams credited this Calvinist document as being at the root of the theory of government adopted by the Americans. According to Adams, Ponet's work contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke" including the idea of a three-branched government. (Adams, Works, vol. 6, pg. 4).

So, of course OFT sees Christian content because he wants to and secularists see deist language, etc. Such was the genius of Jefferson.>

I don't need to look for anything, it's all there in the Reformation.

Jefferson (perhaps my least favorite Founder -- I'd love to leave him out) is important and included because he is most responsible for the content of the Declaration>

The above quote proves Jefferson is not responsible for the content. The content came out of the Bible through the Reformation. The people are responsible, not drafters of instruments.

The Gospel becomes corrupted and muddled and the Word of God is tainted by non-biblical influences. It also exalts what God hates: generic, moralizing "religion.">

Are you kidding me? The Law of Nature is right in your face, written by Paul in Romans 2:14-15, and II Corinthinans 3:3.

John Jay and Roger Sherman and John Witherspoon were Christians by my definition and by that of 18th century Americans. But they didn't have as much influence on the founding documents as the eight I studied.>

They're more important than Jefferson. He didn't ratify the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; Witherspoon, and Sherman did, I believe Jay too.

They did not, however, aspire to making a specifically "Christian" country and did not necessarily want the people to be "Christian." They wanted religion and religious people because the result would be a morality that would undergird the nation.>

That's why a person couldn't serve in govt. unless you claimed you were a Christian, and proclaim the Bible inspired. Of course, only secularists believe the Bible is inspired.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Heh.

I love to see how the truth makes you squirm OFT.

If the infallible Bible/principles of orthodox Christianity is true, OFT, then you must, by logical necessity, accept the implications of what Dr. Frazer teaches. By trying to incorporate "Americanism" into your literal interpretation of the Bible you taint the purity of what the Bible teaches and make your "Christian America" case an intellectually indefensible mess.

Brad Hart said...

OFT:

I think you might be contradicting yourself here. When you state that "The people ratify documents," you are playing right into Dr. Frazer's hand. That's exactly his point. The people...er...the delegates who accepted the Constitution as law, gave their stamp of approval to a document that was drafted predominantly by rationalists.

Now, if I understand you right, you are arguing that the people accepted the Constitution based on their perception of the document? If that were so then why did so many Christian zealots argue so vehemently AGAINST the Constitution as it had been drafted? That simply doesn't make any sense.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Mr. Hart presents a good argument that must be explored further---the "zealot" opposition to the Constitution.

However Mr. Goswick [OFT] especially in the first half of his rebuttal, makes points that if not irrefutable, require refutation, as they are completely valid counterarguments to Dr. Frazer's thesis.

I also share the main objection, that the religious-political landscape of the Founding can be reduced to [the often private] thoughts of a half-dozen or so "key" Founders. This is a needless reductionism, like saying the Mona Lisa is a painting of a woman with a lot of brown in it.

Further, although he protests his definition of "Christianity" is of the 1700s American stripe, Dr. Frazer confesses he is appropriating the definition and understanding of "Christian" to his own purposes as a self-proclaimed evangelical. He casts everything outside it in his own idiosyncratic term of "theistic rationalist," which I regard as nonsense because of its limited scope, and worse, vagueness.

I believe Mr. Goswick is once again playing by the rules of this blog and indeed of scholarly inquiry---"in the zone" as previously noted---although it's best to leave the name of David Barton out of any and all arguments for reasons we need not restate. On the whole, OFT has upped his game, and if he has a checkered past on this blog or any other, the arguments he makes right now are our only concern.

That James Madison [surely one of the "key" Founders] himself explicitly elevates acceptance and ratification of the Founding documents---the common understanding of what America was agreeing to---

“I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.”

This is a piece of evidence that stands completely athwart the "key" Founders thesis.

The Smoking Gun.

As it comes from the so-called Father of the Constitution himself, a "theistic rationalist" in Dr. Frazer's American cosmology, one of the "key" Founders, it must be addressed, refuted and destroyed before the "key" Founders method has any life atall.

The original document, the source document, may be found here:

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18240625_lee.htm

"And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders..."---Madison, ibid, June 25, 1824

Perhaps an argument for the "Living Constitution," but not one endorsed by its "key" Framer.

[As Dr. Frazer's reply contains what I consider a questionable assertion in most every sentence, I suppose I'll have to write a full-length rebuttal at some point. Mr. Goswick's "key" argument is insurmountable unless it is somehow surmounted.]

Our Founding Truth said...

If the infallible Bible/principles of orthodox Christianity is true, OFT, then you must, by logical necessity, accept the implications of what Dr. Frazer teaches. By trying to incorporate "Americanism" into your literal interpretation of the Bible you taint the purity of what the Bible teaches and make your "Christian America" case an intellectually indefensible mess.>

Frazer is wrong on everything, and I'm not implying "Americanism" into anything.

The people...er...the delegates who accepted the Constitution as law, gave their stamp of approval to a document that was drafted predominantly by rationalists.>

Even if this is a correct, which it isn't, you'd still be wrong, because it's not what the subjective intentions are, but what the majority believes, and they were orthodox. Adams, as my earlier quotes prove, was unitarian, not rationalist.

If that were so then why did so many Christian zealots argue so vehemently AGAINST the Constitution as it had been drafted? That simply doesn't make any sense.>

The hardcore Christians didn't like it (Constitution), because it specifically didn't mention God, or Jesus.

Our Founding Truth said...

If that were so then why did so many Christian zealots argue so vehemently AGAINST the Constitution as it had been drafted? That simply doesn't make any sense.>

The hardcore Christians didn't like it (Constitution), because it specifically didn't mention God, or Jesus.>

Those who were upset that a secular constitution was ratified, didn't fully understood what Republicanism is. The framers left religion to the states, and some states were very hard-core Christian in their wording.

Our Founding Truth said...

Even Thomas Jefferson rejected this "key founders" doctrine:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us 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 [emphasis mine]."
to William Johnson, June 12, 1823,

The people pass laws, because law is a public act. Subjective intentions mean nothing. The great principles the framers used to form our nation, they borrowed from Christian Church Fathers, and Christian Philosophers, mostly from the Protestant Reformation, taken from the Bible.