Note, this is, I now understand, an "American" understanding of "orthodoxy" that is synonymous with Trinitarianism or the Nicene Creed. As David Holmes put it in "The Faiths of the Founding Fathers," published by Oxford University Press, "Since the late fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity has been synonymous with orthodox Christianity." (p. 76).
Interestingly, my co-blogger at American Creation, Kristo Miettinen, has alerted me to a "European" understanding of "orthodoxy" as articulated by the late Jaroslav Pelikan:
Volume 1 of Pelikan's "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" is the story of orthodoxy in slightly less than 400 pages ["The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)]". Chapter 7, the final chapter of the volume, is called "The Orthodox Consensus", and brings it all together. The four elements of orthodoxy are christology, mystagogy, anthropology, and ecclesiology, each of which is a developed system settled in the first centuries of the church, the first two in the east, the latter two in the west.
Now, this seems a very interesting understanding of "orthodoxy," one in which I certainly wish to better understand. But for the purposes of my studies, I don't find it useful. For one, it yields strange, albeit interesting results. Calvinists and other sola-scriptura "born-again" Christians, (as far as I understand) do not pass the European "orthodox" test while Anglicans, capital O Orthodox Christians, and Roman Catholics do. The American "born again" Christians are thrown into the "unorthodox" box with Mormons and theological unitarians.
Dr. Gregg Frazer, on the other hand describes the "American" understanding of orthodoxy on page 12 of his PhD thesis which I've reproduced below. As noted, all officially established churches (except the Quakers) adhered to a Trinitarian creed. Frazer breaks American orthodoxy down into 10 points and shows how Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans-Episcopalians, and Roman Catholics all passed the "orthodox Christian" test. Doctrines beyond those 10-points such as the Calvinists' TULIP, being "born again," or the Roman Catholics' "transubstantiation," were all superfluous to "orthodox Christianity." In other words, "orthodox Christianity" is the "genus" of which Calvinism, "born-again Christianity," Roman Catholicism, among others, are "species."
But, the rub, as Frazer informs us, is that the key Founders (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Wilson, Hamilton before his deathbed and many others) believed in only one or two of the 10 point test of "orthodoxy." Thus, America's key Founders were not "orthodox Christians," arguably not "Christians" at all. (Whether the label "Christian" properly applies to them is a matter of debate. If you can believe in only one or two of those tenets and still be a "Christian," then they were "Christians.")
The ten points are listed in the below chart, along with the established churches and their corresponding creeds.
The one point that all key Founders believed in was number 2, a God who is active in human affairs. Some of the key Founders believed in the Resurrection, not of an "Incarnate God," but of the Father doing for the best MAN, or something more than man but not fully God, what He might one day do for all good men, perhaps all men. On the last point, the inspiration of scripture, Frazer argues the key Founders believed the Bible fallible, partially inspired (as opposed to inerrant) and that reason determined which parts of the Bible were inspired. This is certainly what Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin believed. And Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Wilson, and Hamilton (before his deathbed) wrote or otherwise left NOTHING that contradicts this "theistic rationalist" understanding of reason and revelation. In short there is good reason to believe they were "rationalist" in that very sense that Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin unquestionably were.
For instance, I haven't found an explicit statement of James Wilson's where he states "reason trumps revelation." I don't think he could get away with stating that publicly, though I'm sure he privately believed it. And that's because I HAVE found, in his "Works," something that comes close, the most a "respectable" figure would be able to get away with speaking publicly. It is a smoking gun quotation of Wilson's (reproduced in Dr. Frazer's thesis) where he irrefutably stated revelation does not trump reason:
These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense.
That Wilson regarded "reason and the senses" so highly that he thought the Bible could not "supercede" the findings of such demonstrates that his political-theology merits the label "rationalism."
25 comments:
Look, Jon,
This is fallacy. To say that all these denominations were officially Trinitarian says nothing about whom they were willing to include in the Christian community. The views of the "key founders" were consistent with the sense of community then operative. They were firmly in the unorthodox American tradition.
What you need, but fail to provide, is a sense of whom they excluded, and why. Where did they draw the line? You can only find the line by discovering that these over here are inside the line, but those over there are beyond the line.
After all, all of these churches preached in English and used English Bibles (except maybe for the Lutherans), but that doesn't mean that the English language was part of their minimum theological standard for members of the American Christian community.
So can you identify any sense of exclusion of, e.g., overt (u/U)nitarians, or even overt Christian Deists, from the Christian community? Note that there is plenty of evidence for such exclusion of, e.g., Catholics. Catholics could be tolerated, in some states anyway, but they had to leave certain things behind, especially bishops.
Neither does a lack of orthodoxy mean that you're a "theistic rationalist." That's like saying if it's not a cat, it must be dog.
The term might be fairly used for Jefferson and Adams [and only maybe], but that doesn't make Washington, a Mason, one.
Hamilton is a complete unknown and it's completely unsupportable to claim him for unorthodoxy, and if Madison leaned Unitarian, it must be kept in mind that the unitarians' objection to the Trinity was based on a dissenting interpretation of the Bible, not a rejection of it.
And just because Franklin expressed a single objection to a passage in the Book of Judges, that doesn't justify the leap to "partially inspired," which suggests a rejection of a large part of the Bible, not an objection or two.
This is the problem with terms, especially for such a varied bunch. Washington is not Jefferson.
"So can you identify any sense of exclusion...?"
The sense of exclusion was defined in those creeds themselves. Dr. Frazer argues those who didn't believe in the Trinitarian dogma contained in those creeds were not "Christians" or at least not "real Christians." Again, this is a heavily orthodox centered perspective. But the following from George Washington's OWN minister on GW's systematic avoidance of communion (and thus probably disbelief in the atonement) is instructive:
Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/george_washington_communion.php
Neither does a lack of orthodoxy mean that you're a "theistic rationalist." That's like saying if it's not a cat, it must be dog.
Tom you are going to push me to reproduce more of Dr. Frazer's thesis and I'm not sure whether you are going to like me arguing on behalf of his theory more.
There was a continuum of beliefs. If someone was not an orthodox Christian, we don't then look to left field for explanation and say, well maybe they were Hindoos. What Dr. Frazer's describes as "theistic rationalism" fits nicely to the left of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity and to the right of strict deism. Thus, if someone was NOT an orthodox Christian, it's likely that they believed in the following (reproduced from Dr. Frazer's Claremont article):
Although affiliated with various denominations, the major founders did not typically hold to the beliefs officially espoused by their denominations. Similarly, while Franklin and Jefferson are regularly listed as deists, they did not believe in the fundamental tenets of deism. The key founders shared a common belief which might be called theistic rationalism. Theistic rationalism was a hybrid, mixing elements of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, with rationalism as the predominant element. Accordingly, the founders believed in a benevolent, active, and unitary God who intervenes in human affairs. Consequently, they believed that prayers are heard and effectual. They believed that the key factor in serving God is living a good and moral life, that promotion of morality is central to the value of religion, and that the morality engendered by religion is indispensable to society. Because virtually all religions promote morality, they believed that most religious traditions are valid and lead to the same God.
Though theistic rationalists did not believe that Jesus was God, they considered him a great moral teacher and held a higher view of him than did deists. They believed in a personal after-life in which the wicked will be temporarily punished and the good experience happiness forever. Although they believed that God primarily revealed himself through nature, they believed that some written revelation was legitimate. Finally, while they believed that reason and revelation generally agree with each other, theistic rationalists believed that revelation was designed to complement reason (not vice versa). Reason was the ultimate standard for learning and evaluating truth and for determining legitimate revelation from God.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.394/pub_detail.asp
Now, these FFs thought of themselves as "unitarian Christians" or "rational Christians." If Kristo and others want to term this "Christianity" I don't object to that. Who the Hell am I to say this isn't Christianity? I know our Unitarian-Universalism friends consider this "Christianity." This would also probably pass a Mormon's test for "Christianity."
But from the perspective of historic orthodox Christianity -- or at least for many who argue from this perspective -- this isn't "Christianity" but some other system.
I want us to appreciate that AND I want us to appreciate what exactly it is that these FFs believed.
I think when we understand the "larger" picture, it makes a lot of sense that, if someone was not an orthodox Trinitarian Christian who believed the Bible infallible and the other 10 tenets listed above, it's likely that they believed in what I quoted above from Dr. Frazer's article.
I'm not sure whether you are going to like me arguing on behalf of his theory more.
You printed some of that before, Jon. Besides, it's too late---you already did a front page post!
What's going on here is trying to shoehorn other Founders' beliefs into those of Adams and Jefferson. It's nonsense, frankly, a completion-backwards principle. Washington is not Jefferson.
From your own evidence, Founding era unitarianism [Madison?] still largely believed Jesus was the Messiah, not just "a great moral teacher."
Jared Sparks, your own source:
"And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles, which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that “the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, ‘that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,’ which if they believed, they should have life.”* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the “sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety,” nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name."
Reason was the ultimate standard for learning and evaluating truth and for determining legitimate revelation from God.
Again, you/he take for a rejection of the Bible what was really difference in interpretation, or the wave of Biblical scholarship that sought to remove errors by consulting the original Greek [et al.] texts.
Where the Bible plainly says x, none had the arrogance [save Jefferson perhaps] to let their reason "trump" it.
Where the Bible plainly says x, none had the arrogance [save Jefferson perhaps] to let their reason "trump" it.
Tom, you are starting to overstate your case by using terms that are too strong (I don't want to see you turn into OFT; God forbid, you argue much better). It was more than just Jefferson it was also J. Adams and Franklin who I've shown did this.
And even if I demonstrated ONLY Jefferson and J. Adams, they still the second and third Presidents of the United States. That means something.
Adams' Sept. 1813 letter to Jefferson was probably the most arrogant statement of "reason trumps revelation" that I could think of. He says even if he stood before God with Moses on Mt. Sinai and God revealed the doctrine of the Trinity there, he and Jefferson still couldn't believe it because man's reason (or the "human understanding") proves 1+1+1 = 3 not 1. It's this "human understanding" that trumps everything including revelation. Even firsthand revelation, not something written in a book, that may have errors.
Dear Sir,
. . . the human Understanding is a revelation from its Maker which can never be disputed or doubted. There can be no Scepticism, Phyrrhonism or Incredulity or Infidelity here. No Prophecies, no Miracles are necessary to prove this celestial communication. This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three; and that one is not three; nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any Prophecy, or the fulfillment of any Prophecy; or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle as We are, from the revelation of nature i.e. natures God that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or Prophecies might frighten us out of our Witts [sic]; might scare us to death; might induce Us to lie; to say that We believe that 2 and 2 make 5. But we should not believe it. We should know the contrary
Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have had courage to deny it. But We could not have believed it.
Yes, you've printed that one before too. It's fine, although as previously noted, one could disbelieve the Trinity through interpretation and not rejection of the Bible. But stipulated as far as Adams goes, but not the rest of the Founders "theistic rationalism" tries to rope in.
So, we're back down to Jefferson and Adams once again, and their post-presidential writings at that. And as we recall, in his days of public life, Jefferson kept his theology concealed enough that supporters like Tunis Wortman could reassure voters that
"...there is not a single passage in the Notes on Virginia, or any of Mr. Jefferson’s writings, repugnant to christianity; but on the contrary, in every respect, favourable to it..."
Jefferson's aChristianity, then, was no threat to the prevailing Christianity, his private beliefs not a factor.
Jon,
To "The sense of exclusion was defined in those creeds themselves" the response is, of course, that the creeds were internal to each denomination. This is the congregational way: theology is localized within congregations; resistance to oppression is collectivized across congregations.
The denominations were exclusive with respect to who could belong to their congregations, but less exclusive with respect to who all they included under the Christian umbrella of nationhood.
Puritans could deal with Unitarians in their midst, and make common cause on all topics that needed coordination above the congregational level. But they wouldn't put up with Catholics, Episcopelians, or generally even Presbyterians.
Well Tom, I think it's time we put Franklin further under the microscope because I think I can claim him as well. That's three very important Founders -- the men who wrote the DOI.
And -- again -- I've only presented part of Dr. Frazer's argument. He explains the importance of their private heterodoxy and the ocnnection to the principles in the DOI and US Constitution. For one, the utter non-sectarianism (or as you would put it -- "ecumenism") that transcended the Trinity and other thorny theological issues Frazer sees as the result of the key FF's radical indifference on theological specifics. I think you've noted something along those lines as well.
If the orthodox were in charge, Frazer argues (and I agree) and their theology was "evident" in the DOI and the Constitution, then we'd see those 10 points written into the documents or in some way expressed as "political theology" but we don't. We might have, for instance as Gary North argues, a covenant in the US Constitution to a Triune God. But instead we get Art. VI, Cl. 3. That's the effect of their heterodoxy on the "public" Founding.
Puritans could deal with Unitarians in their midst, and make common cause on all topics that needed coordination above the congregational level.
Kristo,
From what I've seen is that the unitarians tended to be drawn disproportionately from the well educated and elite, and as such disproportionately were ministers. Yet, the "Congregations" in the mid-1700s tended to have BOTH unitarians AND Calvinist-Trinitarians. The unitarian ministers threaded the needed by simply not talking about the Trinity and cognate orthodox doctrines. That placated the "orthodox" for a while but eventually they caught on (as unitarianism became more "out") and they actively disfellowed themselves from the unitarians. That's around the time -- early 19th Century -- when the Congregations officially became "Unitarian" with a capital U.
Kristo,
Re your first point, let me note I made a concession that whether this qualifies as "Christianity" depends on the perspective from which one looks. I think there certainly is a strong case to be made that Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin, Madison, Washington were "Christians" because they thought of themselves as "Christians."
However, I've also demonstrated evidence from the Founding era (and it exists today as well) of the "orthodox" defining those who are not orthodox out of the definition of "Christianity." I think theirs is a fair perspective as well.
Jon,
There will always be gadfly commenters, even in the founding era. Their existence and expressions of opinion at the level of mere correspondence is meaningless. It is civic tolerance, not individual approval, that matters.
Standards for banishment, and other such examples of collective action to define the community identity (the nation), show where the boundaries of the civic religion were.
Full-throated atheism (as opposed to mere heathenism) was outside the civic religion, as was full-throated Catholicism (an American Catholicism, adapted to the spirit of the place, was tolerated in some states but not all).
There is no comparison between attitudes in Massachusetts towards Unitarianism or Christian Deism, and attitudes towards Catholicism (popery). One was tolerated, the other was not.
PS
It is an argument for another day, but the Unitarian and Deist (or rationalist or whatever) elites were fighting a rearguard action by the time of the Revolution; the newest and most alarming trend in elite opinion in Boston and Philadelphia in the Revolutionary era was the growth of...
Orthodoxy. My Kind.
This was quite likely an accelerating factor for the Revolutionary mood; time to cut ties to Britain before they send over a bishop. In the end, it failed, in that the Revolution provided just the sort of atmosphere where the old coercion no longer worked, and the orthodox (of every kind) started to exercise their freedom of religion, for the first time in America.
Well Kristo, if those "gadflies" happened to be important theological figures, I think that counts for something.
I also think you don't fully understand how the (American) orthodox interacted with the Christian-Deist/Unitarians. They were united under lowest common denominator talk of "Providence" AND formal "Christian" worship.
It was not "safe" for these very elite influential Christian-Deists/Unitarians to be "out" among the "orthodox" precisely because the orthodox would actively disfellow themselves from these heretics. Many of the American orthodox tried to sniff out these heretics, making the Christian-Deists/Unitarians on constant guard. The Christian-Deists/Unitarians were "out" to one another and shared their secrets in their private letters and met it clubs like the Club For Honest Whigs that included Priestley, Price, Franklin and others. Christian-Deism/Unitarianism became more "out" only after the rights of liberty of conscience became more fully established in America. And indeed, these heretics played an extremely role in bringing the rights of conscience to America (to be fair "orthodox Trinitarian" dissidents like the Baptists did as well).
I have concluded one reason why Priestley, Price, Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin and company were so fervent on religious liberty matters was to make it safer for them to "come out" as unitarians.
I'd certainly agree with that, Jon, and I don't think there's much disagreement from almost all quarters. Christian unitarianism certainly had no small influence.
Although we should keep in mind that Priestley and Price weren't even Americans let alone Founders, and that Benjamin Rush advised Price to damp down his anti-Trinitarianism as it was harmful to his arguments for religious freedom.
We should also note that most of the griping over orthodoxy came from clerics, who are in the business of such things. We have previously largely agreed around here that a significant feature of the Founding was its anti-clericalism.
Further, the Protestant angle rejected acceptance of large bodies of dogma and authoritarianism in theology, both as a theological matter and as a practical matter, since no one sect held a majority.
Which speaks to Dr. Frazer's negative inferences, that we should have found more religion, if not covantism in the Founding documents.
As for the D of I, Jefferson had one reference to God, Franklin added another, and the Congress added two more. We don't quote the Continental Congress much around here, but their proclamations were chockful of not just religious imagery, but plenty of references to Jesus Christ hisself.
As for the US Constitution, Supreme Court justice and seminal constitutional scholar Joesph Story pointed out the obvious: since New York's and especially Virginia's laws forbade such things, they couldn't have ratified the Constitution if it were rife with God-talk.
However, we return again to federalism, which consistently [inevitably!] gets lost in our discussion. The US Constitution had no say over how religious the individual states wanted to be. Joseph Story explicitly wrote that religion was left to the states.
To discuss the Founding only in terms of the US Constitution and to ignore federalism is to tell only part of the tale.
Hey Kristo, am I distorting Wilson's words?
Wilson:These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense.
Looking at Wilson's words in context show the scriptures as the subject.
Right reason [Wilson's moral sense], comes from scripture. How can the scriptures not supercede morality when it gives the morality? Wilson gives the answer:
"In compassion to the imperfection[of reason] of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, Preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws, by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from himself. This revelation is contained in the holy scriptures. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin, and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually.
..One superiour advantage the precepts delivered in the sacred oracles clearly possess. They are, of all, the most explicit and the most certain. A publick minister, judging from what he knows of the interests, views, and designs of the state, which he represents, may take his resolutions and measures, in many cases, with confidence and safety; and may presume, with great probability, how the state itself would act. But if, besides this general knowledge, and these presumptions highly probable, he was furnished also with particular instructions for the regulation of his conduct; would he not naturally observe and govern himself by both rules? In cases, where his instructions are clear and positive, there would be an end of all farther deliberation. In other cases, where his instructions are silent, he would supply them by his general knowledge, and by the information, which he could collect from other quarters, concerning the counsels and systems of the commonwealth. Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick. But whoever expects to find, in them, particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another...These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense. The information with regard to our duties and obligations, drawn from these different sources, ought not to run in unconnected and diminished channels. [bold face mine]
-Wilson, Works.
Wilson is clear. Reason and the moral sense only take precedence where the Bible is silent. Wilson believed scripture superior to the conscience.
Right reason [Wilson's moral sense], comes from scripture.
Jim, your argument is rounding out, and your quotes from Wilson are apt, and you should hold onto them.
But my understanding of Wilson's "moral sense" is that it's a "third thing," not scripture, not reason, but that that incorruptible thing in man that responds to the scriptures and understands the natural law when his [corruptible] reason would prefer not to.
[He differs from Locke on this---Locke would not believe in a "moral sense," see his "Essay on Human Understanding."]
Wilson is clear. Reason and the moral sense only take precedence where the Bible is silent. Wilson believed scripture superior to the conscience.
No Wilson is not clear. He's the furthest thing from clear on this point. This is how you WANT to understand the passage, not what Wilson ACTUALLY says.
Tom may be right that the moral sense is a third thing. So we have reason and the moral sense on one side and scripture on the other. Wilson holds that reason and the moral sense AND scripture are incomplete, all (I won't say both) necessary and incomplete without the other. And he ends with a money quote saying that scripture doesn't "supercede" reason and the moral sense. The most charitable interpretation for your side is that it's a wash: scripture is "even" with "reason and the moral sense."
Something else OFT, and the rest of us, need to focus on more
But whoever expects to find, in them, particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil. [Bold mine.]
Now Wilson says nice things about the Bible and this might be compatible with orthodox Christian theology, but it seems the furthest thing from the kind of Sola Scriptura proof texting the Bible kind of Christianity which I see OFT and his kind following. D. James Kennedy would never say something like that.
The Bible was employed "not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty...."?!?
And then:
They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men,...
Right there what OFT conveniently put in ellipses Wilson lets the cat out of the bag. "The rights of men" are not biblical, but found from somewhere else: Reason and the moral sense. Read your Bibles with that premise in mind. Don't expect to necessary find natural rights from the Bible alone. First assume they exist in human nature and then look to the Bible for corroboration.
Wilson is NOT saying the Bible is incomplete in the sense that it doesn't tell you how to fix a car, but rather incomplete in what it teaches about MORALS and GOVERNMENT.
This sounds like Jim Babka's theology or in some way like the Thomism of Roman Catholicsm, not the "born again" kind of fundamentalism that is taught in the churches that OFT attends.
Jon:Wilson holds that reason and the moral sense AND scripture are incomplete, all (I won't say both) necessary and incomplete without the other. And he ends with a money quote saying that scripture doesn't "supercede" reason and the moral sense.
I believe the words speak for themselves. The scriptures are supreme and supereminently authentick, where they speak, and with right reason to take over after that.
The Bible was employed "not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty...."?!?>
They are old rules to me as well. The law is eternal.
Wilson is NOT saying the Bible is incomplete in the sense that it doesn't tell you how to fix a car, but rather incomplete in what it teaches about MORALS and GOVERNMENT.>
This appears consistent with orthodox Christianity, and from every book I've read on the Protestant Reformers. Some actions of morality, such as what Wilson notes, is not covered by the Bible.
But my understanding of Wilson's "moral sense" is that it's a "third thing,">
I don't quite see it like that.
Wilson holds that reason and the moral sense AND scripture are incomplete,>
Wilson seems not to be referring to salvation, but of practical actions in daily life.
I believe the words speak for themselves. The scriptures are supreme and supereminently authentick, where they speak, and with right reason to take over after that.
Except Wilson doesn't say that. What he actually says is:
These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense. The information with regard to our duties and obligations, drawn from these different sources, ought not to run in unconnected and diminished channels.
He also says in other places that reason is God's first revelation to man. Revelation is secondary. Wilson's works plainy speak that reason and the moral sense take the primary role, revelation's role is to take a back seat or second place.
"Secondary" is an odd term, conflating timeliness and importance.
Revelation as scripture doesn't come into being until 1000 BC or so. However, if God talked to Adam, Noah and Abraham, we could count that as revelation.
Regardless, Plato and Aristotle had no revelation, yet used either reason or moral sense to begin to derive natural law.
The question is whether scripture completes natural law, in a way that reason could not. Certainly, Locke and Wilson argue that to that point in history, reason did not, and a merciful God sent the Bible along.
But if revelation completes reason---and it seems these guys argue that it does---then "secondary" isn't the right term.
For it's argued that Jesus [hence, the New Testament] fulfills the Law, by incorporating it. The NT is not thought of as "secondary."
"Subsumes" is the operative concept here.
Tom:But if revelation completes reason---and it seems these guys argue that it does---then "secondary" isn't the right term.
I commented on this on the other post. Wilson seems to say "secondary" refers to position, not priority.
OFT,
Sorry for not seeing this sooner.
I don't think Wilson is saying scripture supercedes conscience, but rather that it repeats what conscience should already know.
This is consistent with a Reformation idea of conscience, that true conscience is our response to the Word and therefore always to be obeyed, but that it is also a growing thing which can be incomplete.
Think of your conscience as your collection of scripture memory verses, only on moral topics, and not remembered verbally but in some sense intuitively. For most of us, we cannot remember everything, but we carry around with us a selection that we have come to know. These things we can use without opening a Bible or otherwise referencing the Word.
In this sense, scripture does not supercede our conscience (our "memory" of scripture); it confirms (and grows) it.
Post a Comment