Chauncy acted like Jefferson, cutting out entire portions of text. What is worse for him, is the words he cut out were words Jesus used.
The only way Chauncy, Rush, or any other universalist can be right, which they aren't, is to go to the Greek, and look up the correct translation of the word "everlasting" in Mat 25:41 and 46:...
He then goes on to explain why the Bible actually teaches eternal damnation for the unsaved.
Chauncy like Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin (and others) was both theologically unitarian and universalist. However, unlike Jefferson, Adams and Franklin, Chauncy was never, as far yet uncovered, so frank in his admission that the Bible is errant and fallible and that man's reason must sometimes trump what the Bible teaches. Chauncy claimed that the Bible itself, properly understood, vindicates universal salvation.
Something similar could be said of the many unitarian and trinitarian preachers who argued the pro-revolt position of Romans 13. They all held reason/natural law in high regard. They also professed high regard for the scriptures. They also cited pagans from classical antiquity (like Aristotle and Cicero) and sometimes modern non-Christian Enlightenment figures like Voltaire as authority.
Though while they championed a "reasoned" interpretation of the Bible, I have never seen the patriotic preachers so frankly declare the Bible is fallible and man's reason must trump its text when necessary, as Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin did. Yet, scholars have neither uncovered nor examined their private letters as meticulously as we have Jefferson's, J. Adams' and Franklin's. There might be some smoking guns yet to be discovered.
As I've noted before, Romans 13 was never too much of a problem for Jefferson as that was part of the Bible that didn't survive his razor. Everything St. Paul said, Jefferson wrote off as "corruption," not divinely inspired.
But again, we must ask, regardless of what the patriotic preachers said they did (i.e., Chauncy claiming that the Bible itself vindicates universal salvation), in point of fact were Chauncy et al. ACTING like Jefferson with his razor when they denied the Trinity, denied eternal damnation and declared a right to revolt against tyrants in the face of Romans 13? Dr. Gregg Frazer seems to think so. And I've witnessed many evangelicals who would LIKE to think America was founded as a "Christian Nation" likewise react this way (i.e., anyone who argues against the trinity or eternal damnation is substituting reason for the Bible's text).
Dr. Frazer categorizes any claim that argues for 1) unitarianism, 2) universal salvation, and 3) a right to revolt against tyrants as "reasoning trumping revelation." So while the many unitarians and universalists of the Founding era as a whole have not left evidence of frank admissions like those we see coming from Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin, in their private letters -- that man's reason trumps a fallible Bible -- if we add up all of the figures who asserted 1), 2), and 3) we get lots and lots of "reason trumping revelation" from the Founding era. This is why Gregg terms "theistic rationalism" as the PREVAILING political theology of the American Founding. It doesn't matter WHAT a majority believed in. It matters what prevailed.
His thesis shows lots of Trinitarians like John Witherspoon (and I might add Benjamin Rush; Frazer's thesis deals with Witherspoon, not Rush) as pushing forth this "theistic rationalist" project that was not authentically "Christian." When Witherspoon, for instance, argued salvation, he was an orthodox Calvinist. But when he taught politics to his students at Princeton and argued for a right to revolt, Witherspoon argued Locke, the Scottish Enlightenment, and what man discovers from "reason," not the Bible.
Likewise Rush, an orthodox Trinitarian, like the unitarian Chauncy claimed the Bible vindicated universal salvation. However I've investigated Rush's hermeneutic in detail. It's not proof texting an infallible Bible; rather it's a much more "liberal" or "cafeteria" hermeneutic that abstracts general principles from the "spirit" of the Bible and uses them to supplant prooftexts! In other words, while Rush might CLAIM to argue the Bible, to many who hold to the "orthodox" position on eternal damnation, he's actually uses discoveries of man's reason to supplant what the Bible teaches. Or at least, "orthodox Christians" of today, especially of the evangelical or fundamentalist bent, can in good faith claim this is what Rush, Chauncy, Witherspoon, the key Founders, the patriotic preachers did.
Hopefully this will clarify Dr. Gregg Frazer's assertion that "theistic rationalism" which posits "reason trumps revelation" when the two appear to conflict was the prevailing political theology of the American Founding.
6 comments:
Jon stated:
"His thesis shows lots of Trinitarians like John Witherspoon (and I might add Benjamin Rush; Frazer's thesis deals with Witherspoon, not Rush) as pushing forth this "theistic rationalist" project that was not authentically "Christian." When Witherpsoon, for instance, argued salvation, he was an orthodox Calvinist. But when he taught politics to his students at Princeton and argued for a right to revolt, Witherspoon argued Locke, the Scottish Enlightenment, and what man discovers from "reason," not the Bible.
Where is his evidence of this? What type of reason was he talking about? Was it intuitive reason or discursive reason? Why does what he believed or did not believe in the realm of salvation issues relevant to his political theology? Why would he need to even go outside of scripture to have an equally valid interpretation of Romans 13 like Locke did? Finally, why does it matter if what Jefferson believed is comparision to whether the ideas he used in the Declaration of Independence were part of a stream of historical Christian thought?
What one believed about heaven and hell is irrelevant to this whole debate in my opinion. Those are not the ideas that went into the DOI and possibly the Constitution. It was the law of nature(which to Aquinas and Company meant the first revelation given to man i.e. a moral code) and the law of God meaning the ten commandments. It is the reason found in the former that all so called revelation should be checked by.
Witherspoon is a great example of someone who had conservative beliefs in regards to salvation and liberal views in regards to political theology. It shows clearly the difference and distinction that needs to be made.
Jon stated:
"In other words to many who hold the "orthodox" position on eternal damnation, while Rush might CLAIM to be arguing Bible, he's actually using discoveries of man's reason to supplant what the Bible teaches. Or at least, "orthodox Christians" of today, "
The "proof texts" are nothing more than one groups interpretation of what the Bible teaches they are not infallibly what the Bible teaches. I have taken the same general approach that Rush uses to refute Frazer on Romans 13. My entire argument is from the Bible. So is Locke's. Like I said in the last post, I think Locke's is actually a better hermeneutic because is takes into account the entire discussion in Romans up to that point and puts the verse in context.
KOI,
Your argument for Romans 13/revolt may be "entirely from the Bible" (I haven't yet dissected it as I have Locke's) but Locke's from what I have seen, is not.
Locke "found" a right to revolt against tyrants in "nature" using his "reason" unaided by scripture. THEN AFTER DOING SUCH WITH THE ANSWER ALREADY DETERMINED, he explained why Romans 13 really doesn't mean men can't revolt against tyrants in all cases.
Jon stated:
"Locke "found" a right to revolt against tyrants in "nature" using his "reason" unaided by scripture. THEN AFTER DOING SUCH WITH THE ANSWER ALREADY DETERMINED, he explained why Romans 13 really doesn't mean men can't revolt against tyrants in all cases."
Since Locke was more than likely talking about intuitive reason that is God given to man at creation, he is checking one interpretations claim of revelation and checking it with this type of reason that is from God(General Revelation as I understand it) and then rejecting it. In other words, if Locke did believe in two types of reason as Hooker and Aquinas did, he is not saying that reason(discursive i.e. reason in the normal sense of thinking on our own apart from God) trumps revelation.
Anyway, once he rejected the interpretation with intuitive reason from God then crafted his interpretation from the Bible. His interpretation is still from the Bible.
Locke "found" a right to revolt against tyrants in "nature" using his "reason" unaided by scripture.
Yes, but Locke also felt the New Testament itself provided some justification for his rights philosophy, and general anti-monarchist message. In his discussion of Paul/Romans 13 Locke insists Christianity is Liberty, and that Romans 13 is not meant to be taken literally.
"Reason" is another problematic word anyway. I think Locke wanted to suggest his concepts of natural law were rational--it's reasonable to respect another's right to his property, even in a state of nature, and to expect that others' respect your own right. But those rights are not axiomatic or
logically necessary--unless one of the ACsters would care to prove that.
Hobbes had suggested rights and values were not really about "Reason" as relating to Aristotelian logic, but concerned self-interest--and in that I think he's sort of correct; reason being used sort of colloquially or instrumentally to mean, not via revelation, but calculated, to one's best advantage.
The Founders were probably drawn to Locke (rather than Hobbes, or Hume, or other machiavellian sorts) because they felt there was some objectivity to the natural law bits in Locke's 2nd Treatise, which they could also relate to religion in some manner, however vague (though I suspect the Federalists did not agree. Adams and Hamilton want republicanism to protect against the possibility of rule via "democratic" mobs. The Federalists loved the judiciary and executive branches, not the legislative).
Really, Ms Sotomayer, given her statism and bureaucratic aspects might be called a federalist, or leftist-federalist, though I sort of doubt Adams and Co would have approved...then neither would the Jeffersonians, who at times were not opposed to quoting the Jacobins. Magistrates were of course 2nd estate--in ancien regime France-- and probably more hated than the nobility, and among the first to face the guillotine. Locke himself had no love for magistrates (Rousseau himself praised Locke at times).
Post a Comment