Sunday, March 22, 2009

On Reason and Revelation

From The Reasonableness of Christianity,
as Delivered in the Scriptures

by John Locke


[Paragraph breaks added for readability.---TVD]

Next to the knowledge of one God; maker of all things; “a clear knowledge of their duty was wanting to mankind.” This part of knowledge, though cultivated with some care by some of the heathen philosophers, yet got little footing among the people.

All men, indeed, under pain of displeasing the gods, were to frequent the temples: every one went to their sacrifices and services: but the priests made it not their business to teach them virtue. If they were diligent in their observations and ceremonies; punctual in their feasts and solemnities, and the tricks of religion; the holy tribe assured them the gods were pleased, and they looked no farther. Few went to the schools of the philosophers to be instructed in their duties, and to know what was good and evil in their actions. The priests sold the better pennyworths, and therefore had all the custom. Lustrations and processions were much easier than a clean conscience, and a steady course of virtue; and an expiatory sacrifice that atoned for the want of it, was much more convenient than a strict and holy life.

No wonder then, that religion was everywhere distinguished from, and preferred to virtue; and that it was dangerous heresy and profaneness to think the contrary. So much virtue as was necessary to hold societies together, and to contribute to the quiet of governments, the civil laws of commonwealths taught, and forced upon men that lived under magistrates.

But these laws being for the most part made by such, who had no other aims but their own power, reached no farther than those things that would serve to tie men together in subjection; or at most were directly to conduce to the prosperity and temporal happiness of any people.

But natural religion, in its full extent, was no-where, that I know, taken care of, by the force of natural reason*. It should seem, by the little that has hitherto been done in it, that it is too hard a task for unassisted reason to establish morality in all its parts, upon its true foundation, with a clear and convincing light. And it is at least a surer and shorter way, to the apprehensions of the vulgar, and mass of mankind, that one manifestly sent from God, and coming with visible authority from him, should, as a king and law-maker, tell them their duties; and require their obedience; than leave it to the long and sometimes intricate deductions of reason, to be made out to them. Such trains of reasoning the greatest part of mankind have neither leisure to weigh; nor, for want of education and use, skill to judge of.

We see how unsuccessful in this the attempts of philosophers were before our Saviour’s time. How short their several systems came of the perfection of a true and complete morality, is very visible.

And if, since that, the christian philosophers have much out-done them: yet we may observe, that the first knowledge of the truths they have added, is owing to revelation: though as soon as they are heard and considered, they are found to be agreeable to reason; and such as can by no means be contradicted. Every one may observe a great many truths, which he receives at first from others, and readily assents to, as consonant to reason, which he would have found it hard, and perhaps beyond his strength, to have discovered himself. Native and original truth is not so easily wrought out of the mine, as we, who have it delivered already dug and fashioned into our hands, are apt to imagine.

And how often at fifty or threescore years old are thinking men told what they wonder how they could miss thinking of? Which yet their own contemplations did not, and possibly never would have helped them to.

Experience shows, that the knowledge of morality, by mere natural light, (how agreeable soever it be to it,) makes but a slow progress, and little advance in the world. And the reason of it is not hard to be found in men’s necessities, passions, vices, and mistaken interests; which turn their thoughts another way: and the designing leaders, as well as following herd, find it not to their purpose to employ much of their meditations this way.

Or whatever else was the cause, it is plain, in fact, that human reason unassisted failed men in its great and proper business of morality. It never from unquestionable principles, by clear deductions, made out an entire body of the “law of nature.”

And he that shall collect all the moral rules of the philosophers, and compare them with those contained in the New Testament, will find them to come short of the morality delivered by our Saviour, and taught by his apostles; a college made up, for the most part, of ignorant, but inspired fishermen.


Full text here.


*See also Kretzmann, N., on Aquinas' Summa contra gentiles on the limits of unassisted reason and natural theology, p. 39 in the text and p. 51 in the PDF.---TVD

75 comments:

Jonathan Rowe said...

Ha. I think you make a great editor of Locke. More later.

Our Founding Truth said...

I have some other statements by Locke, explicitly attacking reason. Secularists by-pass Locke, as he doesn't suit their purposes.

President of Congress Richard Henry Lee said the DOI was based on Locke's teachings, which is another evidence the DOI was hackneyed out by Congress, so says Adams, attacking Jefferson's influence.

Our Founding Truth said...

It [reason] never from unquestionable principles, by clear deductions, made out an entire body of the “law of nature.”>

What do you know Tom, Locke just proved my point that the secularists have been wrong all along; the law of nature is not what's discovered from reason, that's a snowjob put on my Rowe and the secularists, as Locke rebukes their argument right here.

The law of nature is both right reason and revelation, which is the same thing; the law and the Gospel. Now you can see how off track they've been this entire time, even from basic fundamentals as who the law of nature is.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Jim [OFT], it's OK if you don't help me out on this one. But please do take that quote away with the compliments of this blog. Wield it wisely.

;-)

Tom Van Dyke said...


What do you know Tom, Locke just proved my point that the secularists have been wrong all along; the law of nature is not what's discovered from reason, that's a snowjob put on [b]y Rowe and the secularists, as Locke rebukes their argument right here.


And to add, Jim:

"Rowe" is my friend. Civility demands that he is Mr. Rowe to his enemies, Jon or Jonathan to his friends, perhaps "Rowe" to those who are somewhat neutral and scholarly. Jon is kind and he is honest and by the lights of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, he is my friend because he's admirable for those qualities. Jesus would see fit hang out with a guy like Jonathan Rowe and not diss him, of this I'm sure.

So let's take it back a notch. Jonathan Rowe is why both you and I are here, after all, Jim, since we both corresponded with him before we found ourselves gathered at this here blog. Should we question Providence? Seems downright ungrateful, don't you think? Surely Providence didn't send us here to slit each other's throats.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Ha, Jon. I sincerely hope you didn't mean "editor" as a pejorative.

I quoted 800+ consecutive and unedited words of Locke and provided a link to his full text so people would [hopefully] read it all for themselves in full context.

Unfortunately, in 2009, this age of epistemological nihilism, in which both left and right doubts every source and statement, "editor" carries a sense of someone who seeks to conceal the truth, not bring it to the forefront.

Doubtless you didn't intend your use of "editor" that way, Jon, but I think the 2009 reader would view it as an insult, not a compliment.

Jonathan Rowe said...

No I was speaking literally. I does read much better this way.

Our Founding Truth said...

"Rowe" is my friend. Civility demands that he is Mr. Rowe to his enemies, Jon or Jonathan to his friends, perhaps "Rowe">

Civility? Are you kidding me? The words I've seen on here is crazy. And I wasn't trying to help you, I was pointing out something in Locke's words, that you already spotted it is my bad.

At least I have the humility to admit when I'm wrong. Most of the bloggers on here, could never do that. I don't have a problem with humility, I'm a sinner; it's that simple.

Jon is kind and he is honest?

We all should be honest, I would just like to see him agree with Locke's statement, and give me a little props, as I did shut him down on lonang. He said it was only reason, I proved it was both reason and revelation, as Adams said. Did he ever tell me, "you were right Jim?"

You posted the quote that he's been fighting against this entire time:

John Locke:It never from unquestionable principles, by clear deductions, made out an entire body of the “law of nature.”

That is exactly what James Wilson, and myself have been saying the entire time. I knew it before I ever read Wilson or anyone else. I understood natural law is inside us, and it has to be the same thing as revelation, just from a different oracle.

The law of nature is reason and revelation, unless specifically enumerated, as Blackstone and the framers did in the DOI. (emphasis added)

Our Founding Truth said...

Sorry for rehashing this, but I've been thinking about it a lot. In an earlier post you[Tom] say
"Re natural law, Grotius for one says that if there were no God [wicked the thought!], natural law would still be in force. Ergo, natural law is not dependent on scripture, as it's not even dependent on God.>

I might agree with Grotius if I'm reading him right. If God put the oracle in man and left His Word, there would be no need for God, right? Grotius believed reason is inferior to revelation because once reason is written down, it has to be checked with scripture, and he specifically mentions the scripture, so he can't mean to eliminate the scripture, he must mean we don't need God because we have His Word. The Apostles defered to God's Word, and guess reason too? However, man, without right reason is at enmity with God, which Grotius has to understand. Are you following me or am I making sense?

"It is beyond controversy among all good men, that if the persons in authority command any thing contrary to Natural Law or the Divine Precepts, it is not to be done. For the Apostles, in saying that we must obey God rather than men, appealed to an undoubted rule, written in the minds of all."

-On the Law of War and Peace , p. 165.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, we're getting there. Natural law and revelation are not synonymous. For instance, Christ being God is revelation. [For some anyway---keep in mind that the unitaritans used the Bible itself to argue against the idea.] Further, the "law of nature" is only concerned with this mortal coil, whereas revelation's best purpose is to prepare one for the next world.

So too, James Wilson notes that the scriptures don't cover everything either: reason will have to fill in the gaps.

Now, it's true that Locke says here that reason had not perfected an account of the natural law, that even the ancient philosophers had failed. But his argument may only be practical; he doesn't say it CAN'T be done, and indeed both he and James Wilson indicate that people should keep trying. [See Wilson, Works Book One, Ch. 2]

So when you write
"The law of nature is reason and revelation," Locke seems to be agreeing here, but more out of an observation about the progress of philosophy to that time.

Which still leaves us with the fact that a workable form of natural law at the time of the Founding still depended on revelation to fill in reason's own gaps and insufficiencies. I don't see any other way to read Locke here. I'm not ready to assert that the "law of nature and of nature's God" referred to in the D of I explicitly refers to reason and revelation, but it seems completely consistent with what Locke writes here.

So too, when Locke writes:

But natural religion, in its full extent, was no-where, that I know, taken care of, by the force of natural reason.

the problem of God has not been mastered by reason either. There is no viable "God of the philosophers," at least up to Locke's time. Therefore, it seems that a creator who endows unalienable rights still depends on revelation as a foundation, at least by what Locke says here.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I don't know if Grotius followed the cross-checking method you describe. Certainly others wrote similar stuff. As you can see, he bifurcates natural law and divine precepts.

Actually, the question about Locke and natural law these days is whether he went even further into religion than Grotius!

Our Founding Truth said...

Well, we're getting there. Natural law and revelation are not synonymous. For instance, Christ being God is revelation.>

Well, let's leave salvation out of it, and stick to the moral law, which is what I think the issue is. If natural law and the moral law is the issue, it has to be synonymous, because there's nothing else about it. C.S. Lewis wrote the law of nature is what we determine right from wrong based on the scripture.

So too, James Wilson notes that the scriptures don't cover everything either: reason will have to fill in the gaps.>

Yeah, of course, the Bible isn't a manual on how to fix a car. There are many things is fails to speak about, which reason has to be used.

Locke:"The law of nature is reason and revelation," Locke seems to be agreeing here, but more out of an observation about the progress of philosophy to that time.>

Based on his other writings, he hammers reason, so I'm thinking by itself, it can't do the job, which tells me it's general, anyway.

Which still leaves us with the fact that a workable form of natural law at the time of the Founding still depended on revelation to fill in reason's own gaps and insufficiencies.>

It could be revelation's(sp)gaps. Reason says this, I check it with revelation, I can't find the answer, so I do my best?

I'm not ready to assert that the "law of nature and of nature's God" referred to in the D of I explicitly refers to reason and revelation, but it seems completely consistent with what Locke writes here.>

I am for sure, because lonang is a contraction for: the law of nature and the laws of nature's God. They put both reason and revelation in there, specifically, not just reason. The laws has to be the Divine Law, and the Gospel, for the moral law is summed up in the Gospel. Remember a while ago, we thought the golden rule wasn't a part of the Gospel or moral law? I looked it up, and Adams seems to be right, it is in there, and I marked it in my Bible.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, I want to be cautious of overstating what we read here. The "law of nature and of nature's God" refers only to the natural law as discovered by both reason and scripture, although it seems quite clear that Locke is saying that scripture was needed to fill in the gaps left by reason [at that point in history] in puzzling out the natural law.

Which is a big deal, make no mistake, since Locke was apparently universally-praised by the Founders.

But since revelation has been accounted for in deducing "the law of nature," it's far from clear that the D of I formulation of "and of nature's God" is an endorsement of what Grotius refers to as "divine precepts," which we'd think means all that doctrine/dogma stuff. That may be a bridge too far.

As for your assertion that Locke "hammers reason," this certainly doesn't comport with my understanding of the fellow who wrote an Essay on Human Understanding. Indeed, that essay completely opposes any idea that man's moral sense is innate except in its ability to respond to good ideas, like the Gospel, as he says in our featured essay.

Further, examine MR. LOCKE'S REPLY TO THE RIGHT REVEREND THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER’S ANSWER TO HIS LETTER, CONCERNING SOME PASSAGES RELATING TO MR. LOCKE’S ESSAY OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING: IN A LATE DISCOURSE OF HIS LORDSHIP’S, IN VINDICATION OF THE TRINITY, where some holy roller jerk was dogging his ass about being some sort of heretic.

At the end of the reply, Locke explicitly endorses the use of reason to enrich our understanding and appreciation of all the stuff we've been talking about, as well as defend it against the heathens:

"I confess, my lord, I think that there is a great part of the visible, and a great deal more of the yet much larger intellectual world, wherein our poor and weak understandings, in this state, are not capable of knowledge; and this, I think, a great part of mankind agrees with me in. But whether or no my way of certainty by ideas comes short of what it should, on your lordship’s way, with or without ideas, will carry us to clearer and larger degrees of certainty; we shall see, when your lordship pleases to let us know wherein your way of certainty consists. Till then, I think, to avoid scepticism, it is better to have some way of certainty (though it will not lead us to it in every thing) than no way at all."

Reason is good, then, if only as a defense against skepticism [especially if we read skepticism as relativism if not nihilism], which is reason gone bad.

A Summa contra Gentiles, if you will...

;-)

Our Founding Truth said...

As for your assertion that Locke "hammers reason," this certainly doesn't comport with my understanding of the fellow who wrote an Essay on Human Understanding.>

I hear you, but I'm referring to his other writings on reason, such as his first and second vindication, as well as his thoughts on Paul's epistles. Do you know what interpretation he had of Romans 13? The same as mine.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Same as Jonathan Mayhew's? Let it unfold it gently, then. To everything, there is a season. Turn, Turn, Turn.

Jonathan Rowe said...

OFT,

If you proved me wrong about the laws of nature and of nature's God, I would readily admit it. The problem I see with your theory is that you draw conclusions not based on fact, evidence and logic, but on wishful thinking and end up with strange, contrived arguments and definitions of concepts.

The law of nature defines as what man discovers from reason, just as a pizza defines as dough, tomato sauce and cheese.

As John Adams put it:

"To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason."

– John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson’s, “The Founders on Religion,” p. 132.

I believe John Adams before I believe you.

Now, as TVD pointed out, there is also "and of nature's God," and you would have to show that must mean the Bible. To which I reply since "nature" doctrinally defines as what man discovers from reason, this is a DOUBLE reference to reason.

Yes, there are quotations from other Founders & Blackstone saying things like upon reflection we see that reason and revelation perfectly agree with one another and so and so forth. But the bottom line is when making such statements, they ALWAYS use language like "revealed," "scripture," and whatnot when invoking the Bible and comparing it to and describing its relationship with nature discovered by reason. This is what the declaration of independence *does not do.* If the Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin -- the unitarian rationalists who wrote the Declaration of Independence -- intended to invoke revelation alongside reason, they would have said so, but they didn't.

The DOI ignores the Bible. Deal with it.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Also relevant to this discussion is Locke's Second Treatise of government was where America's Founders turned for their idea of the laws of nature and nature's God/state of nature and whatnot.

Here is a link to the relevant passages which barely invokes the Bible at all.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm

Sec. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law.... [Bold mine.]

So LOCKE defines the laws of nature as "reason." 2-0 [J. Adams & Locke.]

Three strikes and you are out.

Our Founding Truth said...

The law of nature defines as what man discovers from reason, just as a pizza defines as dough, tomato sauce and cheese.

As John Adams put it:

"To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.">

We've seen this all before, it doesn't wash anymore.

Jonathan Rowe said...

It's something you have yet to refute or adequately explain. You are trying to argue against 2+2=4. Somehow I don't think you can do it.

All you can show is quotations from other figures saying things like, "but upon reflection, we find that reason and revelation agree and really are the same." But we are talking about DOCTRINE. And as a matter of DOCTRINE "nature" = "discoverable by reason as opposed to revealed by the Bible." Whether that's in "natural law" or "the laws of nature and nature's God."

Our Founding Truth said...

Tom, will back this up, John Adams already said Reason cannot be set up by itself, you lost this Jon, move on:

"Adams seemed satisfied with Middleton's position. The latter charges that Waterland, instead of vindicating the Scriptures, had himself furnished matter for new scandal. ("No revelation can contain anything false, irrational or immoral," Adams asserted.) Middleton accuses Tindal of attempting to abolish Christianity and set up reason as a national religion. ("Abolish Christianity! Set up reason!" Adams snapped: "The authority of reason is not stern enough to keep rebellious appetites and passions in subjection.") Tindal, Middleton contends, betrayed his ignorance of antiquity by magnifying the moderation of pagan governments.
("Deistical cant," Adams reinforced him, adding, "Atheists are the
most cruel persecutors.") The intolerance of this "rational Protestant,"
Middleton jeers, is even worse than Romish popery. ("Deistical
popery," Adams chimed in.)"

- John Adams The Prophets of Progress ZOLTAN HARASZTI Harvard
University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts 1952 Copyright)1952, by the President mid Fellows of Harvard College Distributed in Great Britain by Geoffrey Cumberlege. Oxford University Press London.

Reason cannot be setup by itself, and Adams said it. Here is another battle you lost and fail to show honesty and humility.

Jonathan Rowe said...

You wish I've lost this. I declare victory and command YOU to move on.

That very source Adams sets out reason as the ultimate truth and that it trumps revelation:

D[isney]: The union of all Christians is anticipated, as it has been demonstrated to be the doctrine of Christ, his apostles and evangelists, as also of Moses and the prophets. Nor is it less the language of the religion of nature than of revelation . . .

A[dams]: The human understanding is the first revelation from its maker. From God; from Heaven. Can prophecies, can miracles repeal, annul or contradict that original revelation? Can God himself prove that three are one and one three? The supposition is destructive of the foundation of all human knowledge, and of all distinction between truth and falsehood. [Ibid, p. 297-98.]


The human understanding is reason. You are refuted. Now admit it or drop it.

Our Founding Truth said...

A[dams]: The human understanding is the first revelation from its maker. From God; from Heaven. Can prophecies, can miracles repeal, annul or contradict that original revelation? Can God himself prove that three are one and one three? The supposition is destructive of the foundation of all human knowledge, and of all distinction between truth and falsehood. [Ibid, p. 297-98.]>

Now, you're backpeddling, because this has nothing to do with reason set up as the authority, proving Adams believed reason could not be the authority in the DOI. Adams is talking about the trinity or miracles, not revelation.

Dude, you are backpeddling city. It's funny.

Tom Van Dyke said...

In the quoted Sec. 6 by Locke, since he is saying that liberty is not license, is follows that by "reason" here he means "right reason." What is "right reason?" Can right reason conflict with scripture?

Further, in the featured quote, Locke explicitly says that reason hasn't perfected its understanding of the natural law, and must be supplemented by scripture.

I mean, it says that.

Now, it appears that John Adams says several things; some of them conflict. His annotation "Abolish Christianity! Set up reason!...The authority of reason is not stern enough to keep rebellious appetites and passions in subjection" is in conflict with his previous reification of reason. We must wonder whether the inconsistent thoughts of the unsteady Adams were as widely influentual [or even as well-known] as those of the judicious Mr. Locke.

Neither can "of nature's God" be tossed off as a mere redundancy. It may be just a redundancy, but that would need to be evidenced and argued.

Tom Van Dyke said...

In the quoted Sec. 6 by Locke, since he is saying that liberty is not license, is follows that by "reason" here he means "right reason." What is "right reason?" Can right reason conflict with scripture?

Further, in the featured quote, Locke explicitly says that reason hasn't perfected its understanding of the natural law, and must be supplemented by scripture.

I mean, it says that.

Now, it appears that John Adams says several things; some of them conflict. His annotation "Abolish Christianity! Set up reason!...The authority of reason is not stern enough to keep rebellious appetites and passions in subjection" is in conflict with his previous reification of reason. We must wonder whether the inconsistent thoughts of the unsteady Adams were as widely influentual [or even as well-known] as those of the judicious Mr. Locke.

Neither can "of nature's God" be tossed off as a mere redundancy. It may be just a redundancy, but that would need to be evidenced and argued.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Now, you're backpeddling, because this has nothing to do with reason set up as the authority, proving Adams believed reason could not be the authority in the DOI. Adams is talking about the trinity or miracles, not revelation.

Nope, you are wrong. Read it carefully. Adams talks about the "original revelation" and how nothing in the Bible (miracles and prophesies) can trump it. That original revelation was "reason." Adams was saying regardless of what the Bible says, "reason" proves 1+1+1=3 and he could make that judgment only because REASON trumps the Bible.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Tom, I don't think "of nature's God" is a redundancy, though I do see the double use of "nature" as redundant. I see "of nature's God" to make sure that the "law of nature" as the Founders invoked it was theistic, not atheistic, that God was necessary to make sure it was CLEAR that the law of nature was binding in an "ought" sense.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I think it's also clear from this dialog that the men Dr. Frazer terms the "theistic rationalists" thought reason & revelation BOTH to be necessary and I think it's clear from what J. Adams, Jefferson & Franklin wrote they thought revelation was designed to support the findings of reason, not the other way around (but both ultimately were necessary). Further I think James Wilson's Works are consistent with this understanding; but even if not, that shows that the FFs could form a consensus that reason & revelation both were necessary, but disagreed on what trumped what. Therefore they formed a consensus or lowest common denominator in the DOI. And that consensus ignored the Bible and invoked reason or the law of nature but made sure they attached God to it to make the law of theistically binding.

Everything Witherspoon writes in his Lectures on Moral Philosophy is compatible with this understanding. He admonishes true believers: Don't worry about philosophical discoveries from reason unmoored from the Bible. If we do it right, it will ultimately support biblical findings anyway.

Tom Van Dyke said...

That's a reasonable argument, and it might be fair to say that some Founders saw it that way and others saw it as directly referring to the Bible. The Founding language was a masterpiece of agreeable ambiguity.

Still, we're still left with Locke saying we need scripture to perfect our understanding of the natural law, as well as my previous point that Locke says reason hadn't perfected "natural theology" either, meaning that scripture was still required for their underlying theism.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jon, you have to be wrong, there's no way around it. Adams is directly referring to a national religion of a nation, for us, that is the DOI:

Adams asserted.) Middleton accuses Tindal of attempting to abolish Christianity and set up reason as a national religion. ("Abolish Christianity! Set up reason!" Adams snapped: "The authority of reason is not stern enough to keep rebellious appetites and passions in subjection.") Tindal, Middleton contends, betrayed his ignorance of antiquity by magnifying the moderation of pagan governments.

You are twisting the meanings for your own agenda.

Our Founding Truth said...

Everything Witherspoon writes in his Lectures on Moral Philosophy is compatible with this understanding.>

You can't drag an orthodox Christian into your false theory either. I have many quotes of Witherspoon attacking reason, just as Locke.

Jonathan Rowe said...

OFT,

I don't have to be wrong, because I am not. John Adams rejected strict anti-Christian Deism that relied on reason alone and "abolished" Christianity. That's still not inconsisent with the "theistic rationalist" position that thought reason & revelation both necessary but that reason trumped revelation. You don't see this because you don't want to see it and otherwise don't understand rule of philosophical logic necessary for these debates.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I will drag Witherspoon in because I am properly reporting on what his "Lectures on Moral Philosophy" teach. They teach moral duty as discovered by "reason" as distinct from "revelation." It's right there on the first page of the book. Witherspoon was a philosophical rationalist.

Our Founding Truth said...

I don't have to be wrong, because I am not. John Adams rejected strict anti-Christian Deism that relied on reason alone and "abolished" Christianity. That's still not inconsisent with the "theistic rationalist" position that thought reason & revelation both necessary but that reason trumped revelation. You don't see this because you don't want to see it and otherwise don't understand rule of philosophical logic necessary for these debates.>

You can't understand Adams did not leave reason alone, so revelation is a part of the law of nature. Do you understand that?

Tom Van Dyke said...

They teach moral duty as discovered by "reason" as distinct from "revelation." It's right there on the first page of the book. Witherspoon was a philosophical rationalist.

Then so was Thomas Aquinas, as his theory of "general revelation" [to all men] makes the same claim about reason discovering the existence of natural law and of moral duty. Moreover, in Summa contra Gentiles, he argues for the existence of God and the "reasonableness of Christianity" without resorting to the Bible as proof.

"Theistic rationalist," therefore, can apply to orthodox and heterodox Christians alike, and tells us next to nothing.

Our Founding Truth said...

The debate is not what Adams believed, that is irrelevant to the discussion, although you(Jon) continue to promote this flawed agenda.

It's as clear as day, Adams believed a nation could not be based on reason alone, end of story:

"("No revelation can contain anything false, irrational or immoral," Adams asserted.) Middleton accuses Tindal of attempting to abolish Christianity and set up reason as a national religion. ("Abolish Christianity! Set up reason!" Adams snapped: "The authority of reason is not stern enough to keep rebellious appetites and passions in subjection.")"

- John Adams The Prophets of Progress ZOLTAN HARASZTI Harvard
University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts 1952 Copyright)1952, by the President mid Fellows of Harvard College Distributed in Great Britain by Geoffrey Cumberlege. Oxford University Press London.

What's the date on this Jon?

Our Founding Truth said...

By the way Jon, how did 18th century unitarians, like Adams, determine salvation? Was he arminian, calvinist? Did they believe faith saved a person, or doing good works?

Jonathan Rowe said...

"It's as clear as day, Adams believed a nation could not be based on reason alone, end of story:

Again you demonstrate your inability to grasp philosophical arguments. You engage in the logical fallacy known as a "straw man." I never argued Adams said the nation was based on "reason alone," just that Adams believed reason served as the ultimate trump. He did and that makes him a rationalist.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Adams believed men were saved by their good works and consequently, all good men are "Christians." He believed the bad would suffer temporary punishment only and then eventually be redeemed. He was an 18th century unitarian-universalist Christian.

Our Founding Truth said...

I never argued Adams said the nation was based on "reason alone," just that Adams believed reason served as the ultimate trump. He did and that makes him a rationalist.>

Then why did you fail to acknowledge lonang in the DOI is not just reason?

Tom Van Dyke said...

Adams believed reason served as the ultimate trump.

Yet again, we put the theology of the Founding into the hands of John Adams [the other is always Jefferson], using his private letters and often conflicting statements.

In doing so, we push aside the other dozens of Founders, as well as John Locke, the subject of the OP. Oy.

Our Founding Truth said...

Adams believed men were saved by their good works and consequently, all good men are "Christians." He believed the bad would suffer temporary punishment only and then eventually be redeemed. He was an 18th century unitarian-universalist Christian.>

That's interesting. Do you have any of his words, or anything else substantial from his contemporaries to support that assertion? I want to make sure we know that's what unitarians believed salvation was; like early works on unitarianism.

Jonathan Rowe said...

LONANG is just reason. It leaves "revelation" alone. It doesn't reject revelation but consigns it to the realm of private conscience. They had to do that, they felt, because they were conflicted on the proper relationship between reason & revelation AND how the Bible properly doctrinally interprets.

As TVD noted, LONANG is "ambiguous." If you and some FFs would object to "reason" trumps revelation, other FFs, like Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin and many others, would object to the notion that the Bible is infallible and that whatever it says must trump the findings of man's reason. So they left the Bible alone. I don't think however, they would have wanted America to digress into "reason only" Thomas Paine style deism. However, I think the plain meaning of the DOI could indeed and did indeed digress into that as it did in France. The Deists in France with their "cult of the Supreme Being" thought they were following the DOI and the text of the DOI certainly supported the French Revolution.

Our Founding Truth said...

LONANG is just reason. It leaves "revelation" alone. It doesn't reject revelation but consigns it to the realm of private conscience. They had to do that, they felt, because they were conflicted on the proper relationship between reason & revelation AND how the Bible properly doctrinally interprets.>

Too bad that's not what Adams says for your sake. Sorry to change the subject, did you find anything on unitarianism and it's salvation by works, maybe you have something handy?

Tom Van Dyke said...

LONANG is just reason.

That's just not so, Jon, at least according to Locke here.

As for the French Rights of Man, the statement that "Law is the expression of the general will" is completely at odds with natural law, as well as contra James Wilson, who writes that both natural law and revelation are expressions of God's will [and "flow from the same adorable source"].

Jonathan Rowe said...

Okay. LONANG is just what "reason" discovers, perhaps with certain "inputs" (that again "reason" was supposed to be able to either discover or confirm) like there is an overriding Providence who will one day reward good and punish evil.

Locke is important. But I find the writings of "Lockeans" Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin to be even MORE important because they wrote the DOI.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"Too bad that's not what Adams says for your sake."

It is what he says here, or at least how he defines the "law of nature."

John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson’s, “The Founders on Religion,” p. 132.

The problem here is we are talking the FFs comprehensive philosophies and trying to read them into the "LONANG," which again is a logical fallacy. I don't think Jefferson, J. Adams, or Franklin meant to write in their exact view of reason v. revelation into the LONANG which was man's reason trumps revelation as the ultimate authority, that the Bible is partially inspired and reason determined the valid parts. They just left it alone.

I don't see anything offered by OFT or anyone else to convince me "and of nature's God" necessarily means the Bible. And if it did, then, what pray tell, is it telling us about the Bible? That it's infallible? That it's partially inspired? That it doesn't matter whether it's infallible or partially inspired? These are the questions the other side has to answer. And I can refute in one second any notion that LONANG refers to an infallible, full inspired Bible that relegates reason as inferior. One thing LONANG does NOT mean is that. Because its authors rejected THAT.

Our Founding Truth said...

I don't see anything offered by OFT or anyone else to convince me "and of nature's God" necessarily means the Bible.>

You're reading it wrong, again. It's "The Law of Nature[reason] and the Laws[Bible] of Nature's God.

That it doesn't matter whether it's infallible or partially inspired? These are the questions the other side has to answer. And I can refute in one second any notion that LONANG refers to an infallible, full inspired Bible that relegates reason as inferior. One thing LONANG does NOT mean is that. Because its authors rejected THAT.>

Please do. Do you have anything on Adams' unitarianism handy, I've found some good info on that, I want to check.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Their public writings. Locke's writings were public and universally influential and admired.

We see Locke saying here that revelation was necessary to understand the natural law, at least at that time. To counterargue that, we need your chosen Founders saying publicly that they didn't. Then we need some from the larger group of Founders agreeing with that.

We have Jefferson and perhaps Adams saying privately such things, but that is by no means definitive. [And Adams is a jumble.]

If their private feelings were widespread, we should see them from other sources, which we seldom do. Keep in mind that the non-Trinitarian unitarians still quoted the Bible as authority, and even your favorite theological renegade Joseph Priestley believed in the Resurrection.

Jonathan Rowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Rowe said...

It's "The Law of Nature[reason] and the Laws[Bible] of Nature's God.

That's not their brackets. That's YOUR brackets. They could have said "laws of nature and laws of revelation" and you'd be right. Or they could have said "laws of nature and of Jehovah," and you'd be right. But they didn't. They said "Nature's God." They invoked God in naturalistic, not biblical terms. Re Tom's point about private v. public; this was a way that these private heterodox unitarians slipped in something -- what they could. That's why their private heterodox thoughts are relevant. If they were biblical Christians, and intended the DOI to be more of a biblical document, they would have used biblical terms i.e., laws of revelation, Jehovah God and could have even quoted verses chapters of scripture. Then the DOI would be the document OFT wants it to be. But it's not.

Tom Van Dyke said...

It's "The Law of Nature[reason] and the Laws[Bible] of Nature's God.

That's not their brackets. That's YOUR brackets.


Bad habit, OFT. Please stop. I addressed above this attempt to shove that argument down the readers' throats.

Jon, now you're into the Gary North "the 'key' Founders pulled a fast one" argument. Ugh. Your "key" Founders once again get whittled down to Adams and Jefferson's private letters, most from after they left public life.
According to this book [p. 102]

http://books.google.com/books?id=9es9WWz8Ac8C&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=robert+livingston+christian+declaration+of+independence&source=bl&ots=dTRhP77tZ3&sig=_K5KFi7PAs4KbNAaXQoEgPN27rA&hl=en&ei=emLJSfTMF6CSsQOnlPTqBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA102,M1

Jefferson's original draft included only "nature's God." Franklin added "creator,", but Congress itself added "Supreme Judge of the World" and "Divine Providence," indicating that whatever Jefferson was up to, the Congress wanted more God in the Declaration.

But once again, Jefferson and Adams [with a guest appearance from Franklin] have pushed everyone else of the Founding off center stage, as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, I fear.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Here is Adams' assertion that all good men are Christians:

“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”

– To Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.

Here he is on universalism:

“I believe too in a future state of rewards and punishments too; but not eternal.”

– To Francis van der Kemp, July 13, 1815.

There's more.

Our Founding Truth said...

It's "The Law of Nature[reason] and the Laws[Bible] of Nature's God.

That's not their brackets. That's YOUR brackets.

Bad habit, OFT. Please stop. I addressed above this attempt to shove that argument down the readers' throats.>

Parentheses are the authors' words, brackets are inserted for clarification. Name a reputable scholar that would argue lonang isn't what I said it is? Laws cannot be physical laws, why would they put in physical laws and ignore the Divine Law? They didn't.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Here is Adams on how the purpose of Christianity is to make men good, not necessarily save them through Christ's atonement.

“…the design of Christianity was not to make men good Riddle Solvers or good mystery mongers, but good men, good magestrates and good Subjects….”

– John Adams, Dairy, Feb. 18, 1756

George Washington says something similar:

“While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally to be expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives and the beneficence of their actions; for no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.

“I desire you to accept my acknowledgments for your laudable endeavours to render men sober, honest, and good Citizens, and the obedient subjects of a lawful government.”

– George Washington, Letter to General Assembly of Presbyterian Churches, May 1789.


And that matches perfectly with what Jefferson believed:

“My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.”

– Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, May 15, 1819.


And with what Franklin believed:

“Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher. Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one….Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means.”

– Benjamin Franklin, “Dialogue between Two Presbyterians,” April 10, 1735.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Name a reputable scholar that would argue lonang isn't what I said it is?

Practically every single expert in the scholarly community!

Jonathan Rowe said...

Here's what one scholar David J. Voelker (Departments of Humanistic Studies and History, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay) says about LONANG.

http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html

Jefferson believed most aspects of the creator could not be known. He rejected revealed religion because revealed religion suggests a violation of the laws of nature. For revelation or any miracle to occur, the laws of nature would necessarily be broken. Jefferson did not accept this violation of natural laws. He attributed to God only such qualities as reason suggested. "He described God as perfect and good, but otherwise did not attempt an analysis of the nature of God."[14] Also in a letter to Adams, Jefferson said, "Of the nature of this being [God] we know nothing."[15]

Although Jefferson never gave a label to his set of beliefs, they are consistent with the ideas of deism, a general religious orientation developed during the Enlightenment. Jefferson, being a non-sectarian, did not subordinate his beliefs to any label. He once said, "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion...or in anything else."[16]

Deism was not actually a formal religion, but rather was a label used loosely to describe certain religious views. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word deist was used negatively during Jefferson's lifetime.[17] The label was often applied to freethinkers like Jefferson as a slander rather than as a precise description. Thus the deist label is not highly specific. Deists were characterized by a belief in God as a creator and "believed only those Christian doctrines that could meet the test of reason."[18] Deists did not believe in miracles, revealed religion, the authority of the clergy, or the divinity of Jesus. Like Jefferson they "regarded ethics, not faith, as the essence of religion."[19]

"Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways. That Jefferson included God in the "Declaration of Independence" is very significant because it helped lay the foundation for a civil religion in America. Paul Johnson addressed the civil religion begun by the founders in his article, "The Almost-Chosen People,"[20] saying that the United States was unique because all religious beliefs were respected. People were more concerned with "moral conduct rather than dogma." So Jefferson helped create a society in which different religions could coexist peacefully because of the emphasis on morality over specific belief.[21]


This is what the "respectable" scholars in the academy believe. They are clearly to the secular left of what I've been presenting here.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Here is Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University,...

http://hnn.us/articles/9144.html

Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?

It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.

Do you really want more from "expert scholars"?

Our Founding Truth said...

None of your stuff on salvation by works will work. I mean something from Adams on salvation, or from Channing on his unitarianism.

Our Founding Truth said...

"Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways.>

Give me a break! Dude, what's happened to you? You buy that?

Nature's God was the deist's God.>

Again, you know this is false, so why are you posting it? Your knowledge is receding rather than progressing. Sorry I asked about unitarianism.

bpabbott said...

Regading Adam's opinion on Reason, Revelation and the Founding of our Nation, quite a bit may be understood from his A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

"Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians."
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

Notice Adams mentions principles of nature, reason, morality, and the Christian religion. His use of these terms implies that he understand them to be consistent and complimentary, but different. His words, do state the the framing of the government was contrived by the use of reason and the senses ... no mention of revelation is made.

Jonathan Rowe said...

“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”

I've already given you something from Adams on salvation, saying all good men are Christians means you are saved by being good.

But if you want more. Here Adams utterly mocks the idea that God consigns non-Christians to Hell.

"Now, my Friend, can Prophecies, or miracles convince You, or Me, that infinite Benevolence, Wisdom and Power, created and preserves, for a time, innumerable millions to make them miserable forever; for his own Glory? Wretch! What is his Glory? Is he ambitious? Does he want promotion? Is he vain? Tickled with Adulation? Exulting and tryumphing in his Power and the Sweetness of his Vengence? Pardon me, my Maker, for these aweful Questions. My Answer to them is always ready: I believe no such Things. My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exultation in my own existence, 'tho but an Atom, a Molecule Organique, in the Universe; are my religion. Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistick! Ye Athanasian Divines, if You will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the account is ballanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in My Sense of the Word." -- letter to Thomas Jefferson, 14 September 1813

"Athanasian" is codeword for "Trinitarian." Adams recognized that Trinitarians in general and Calvinists in particular didn't consider him a real Christian. And THEY were the ones who argued you had to be an orthodox Christian or you'd burn forever, clearly something Adams didn't believe.

Jonathan Rowe said...

OFT,

I wrote that to show you what the consensus was among the scholarly experts to whom you appealed when you asked: "Name a reputable scholar that would argue lonang isn't what I said it is?"

Those were two of many reputable scholars in the academy who argue a secular-deist view of the Founding.

Jonathan Rowe said...

But once again, Jefferson and Adams [with a guest appearance from Franklin] have pushed everyone else of the Founding off center stage, as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, I fear.

I know Tom, but it's not me that's doing it. They were the brightest lights. They managed to become the 2nd and 3rd Presidents and are on our currency. I didn't make them the "key Founders"; I came into this game with them already standing as such.

Our Founding Truth said...

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)>

Ben, the context of this is to show those guys weren't inspired, you follow?

I wrote that to show you what the consensus was among the scholarly experts to whom you appealed when you asked: "Name a reputable scholar that would argue lonang isn't what I said it is?"

Those were two of many reputable scholars in the academy who argue a secular-deist view of the Founding.>

I know, but we both know they are incorrect, that's why I said that.

“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”

I've already given you something from Adams on salvation, saying all good men are Christians means you are saved by being good.>

Ok, cool. I can work with that. I'm going to check out Channing's manual on unitarianism. I think he spelled out their theology, right, salvation, etc?

Jonathan Rowe said...

Yes, Channing was most certainly one of the biggies in Unitarianism.

Our Founding Truth said...

Didn't he write something on their theology? Do you have it anywhere? That should say how unitarians were saved.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I know Tom, but it's not me that's doing it. They were the brightest lights. They managed to become the 2nd and 3rd Presidents and are on our currency. I didn't make them the "key Founders"; I came into this game with them already standing as such.

As noted, if their views were widespread, we could make the case without them. Instead, without their private writings, we have little else in their direction.

The insertion by Congress of 2 additional references to God is a prime example. There is no reply to that.

But now you set your Adams snare, and OFT happily walked into it. Bye bye John Locke.

Jonathan Rowe said...

We aren't done with Locke. He's not going away. We also need to study more what the "key" Founders (and non-key Founders) wrote about him.

Our Founding Truth said...

But now you set your Adams snare, and OFT happily walked into it. Bye bye John Locke.>

Adams abolishing reason by itself, as a national religion does it for me. I'll stand by that any day.

I've found some good stuff on unitarian salvation; sorry it's off this lonang track, but it's relevant for me down the line.

bpabbott said...

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)>

OFT: Ben, the context of this is to show those guys weren't inspired, you follow?

I agree. They were not inspired and Adams agrees ... but now I'm confused. I was under the impressin that *you* did think the founding was divinely inspired.

OFT: I wrote that to show you what the consensus was among the scholarly experts to whom you appealed when you asked: "Name a reputable scholar that would argue lonang isn't what I said it is?"

ahhh ... *not* me!

bpabbott said...

Tom: "As noted, if their views were widespread, we could make the case without them. Instead, without their private writings, we have little else in their direction."

How would you make any case about the enfluence of the founders faith on the founding without their private writings?

That their public writing differ, indicates that even these powerful and wise men, who we all owe a debt, were in fear of what might become of them if society were to understand the true nature of their religious convictions.

Tom Van Dyke said...


How would you make any case about the enfluence of the founders faith on the founding without their private writings?


Surely you jest, Ben. In fact pains were taken to conceal them, and by his defenders, deny what people suspected [accurately] was Jefferson's private theology when he was running for president. That's what's most significant.

And let's keep in mind most of their letters we use as "proof" of this or that heterodoxy come after they left public life, and in the case of the "Jefferson Bible," it was only published after his death!


That their public writing differ[s], indicates that even these powerful and wise men, [to] who[m] we all owe a debt, were in fear of what might become of them if society were to understand the true nature of their religious convictions.


Exactly. But what may have became of these men is quite simple---they wouldn't have been elected president, especially Jefferson. [See that Willson sermon Jon often refers to.] What this indicates is that their private theologies had no bearing on the actualities of the Founding, but were "parked at the door."

[Although as an aside to OFT, since "and of nature's God" originates with Jefferson himself, we might reasonably assume that he at least didn't have the Gospels in mind, although the Continental Congress that approved the D of I might have read it as such.]

JR: "We aren't done with Locke. He's not going away. We also need to study more what the "key" Founders (and non-key Founders) wrote about him."

Absolutely. This certainly beats the Adams-Jefferson method, which obliges us to ignore far too much other evidence. I'm confident in asserting that the thoughts of John Locke are quoted far more extensively in the Founding era than those of John Adams.

In fact, I can't remember seeing John Adams quoted by anybody. He was the George HW Bush of his era, vice-president under a great man, and winner of only a single term as president on his own before being defeated going for his second. Although he was a significant figure in starting the revolution itself, the best we can say about John Adams and the Founding is that he was there.

As for Locke, even the stridently orthodox Samuel Adams was familiar with him and praised him, as did James Wilson, perhaps the best thinker and most learned man of the entire Founding milieu.

It seems a certainty that both men were familiar with Locke's "The Reasonableness of Christianity," which is why I thought we should pick through it a bit.

bpabbott said...

Ben: How would you make any case about the influence of the founders faith on the founding without their private writings?

Tom: Surely you jest, Ben.

Actually, I'm genuinely serious.

Regarding the roll the founders' faith played in their actions, my personal perspective is that the truth is central and the perception they projected is superfluous.

Our Founding Truth said...

[Although as an aside to OFT, since "and of nature's God" originates with Jefferson himself, we might reasonably assume that he at least didn't have the Gospels in mind, although the Continental Congress that approved the D of I might have read it as such.]>

Did Jefferson originate lonang? That is a good question. If, to him, the law of nature is reason, the LAWS of Nature's God, must be God's Laws, and they aren't physical laws. I know for a fact the laws of Nature's God is revelation, because Samuel Adams says so in Rights of the Colonists. I would bet everyone else believed the same.

Tom, You may be right about the framers and Locke. Even Richard Henry Lee, who was President of Congress said it was his principles in the DOI.

Our Founding Truth said...

Even Richard Henry Lee, who was President of Congress said it was his principles in the DOI.>

Well, they are God's principles, but some of them come from Locke's pen.