Because Samuel West's 1776 Election Sermon featured so prominently in a number of recent American Creation posts (and in Jeff Morrison's paper on the political theology of the Declaration of Independence, also discussed in said posts), I thought I'd refer back to a post I did where I noted Dr. Gregg Frazer discusses West and his sermon in detail in his PhD thesis and sees it not as "Christian" principles preached from the Founding era pulpit, but theistic rationalist principles.
Samuel West was also a unitarian, not a Calvinistic Christian. That's one of the deficiencies of Morrison's paper. He seems to view Rev. West as orthodox. But it's understandable. West doesn't talk about his unitarianism in that sermon. And the Congregational Church where he preached had, or likely had, numerous Calvinists. Indeed, few understand that unitarian ministers in Founding era New England Congregational Churches placated the Calvinists by refusing to preach on the Trinity and other orthodox doctrines.
This was a Lockean solution, indeed a Lockean lowest-common-denominator of what it means to be a "Christian." Jesus is some kind of divinely special Messiah and Savior of Mankind. That was Locke's test for what it means to be a "Christian." "Divinely special" could mean fully divine Himself (2nd Person in the Trinity), some type of created and subordinate divine being (this is Arianism where Jesus is the first created being, more divinely powerful than the top archangel but inferior to his creator God the Father) or 100% man but on a uniquely divine mission, sent by the Father (this is Socinianism).
Indeed, Locke likely was a unitarian (his orthodox critics so accused him of being for positing an LCD understanding of Christianity that refused to distinguish between Trinitarianism and unitarianism) and West's sermon preaches Locke, heavily.
Samuel West's sermon is also heavy on the natural law/reason as trumping truth discovery. While he doesn't come out and say the Bible is fallible and man's reason trumps, he does say that revelation, in order to be true, MUST meet the test of reason. That was "right revelation." That is, TRUTH, like that men have an unalienable right to revolt against tyrants, is ascertainable from reason/nature alone. Indeed that's the first place men SHOULD look for metaphysical truth. Once found, go back to the Bible and MAKE the Bible fit with what man already discovered from reason, even if we have to conclude that the Apostles when they spoke were joking and didn't really mean what they said. That was West's hermeneutic, how he approached scripture, and especially Romans 13.
(Ready my original post; this is no shit. West claims that St. Paul may have been joking in Romans 13.)
26 comments:
John,
After I read Morrison's paper I went and read some about West. It would seem that he may have been a unitarian and was most certainly Arminian. But the fact that the sermons of Witherspoon and other Calvinist preachers so closely resemble West's really makes your point mute.
Bringing in a discussion about personal beliefs just clouds the water. If one reads the first sentences of Locke's Second Treatise he will see the law summed up in Love of God, love of oneself because he is the workmanship of God made in His image, and love for neighbor out of respect that he is God's workmanship too.
This is rooted in the Judeo-Christian idea of "all men are created equal". If you can find other "Theists" that believe in all three parts of the concept then we can use the term "Theistic Rationalist". Do Muslims believe in this? Did American Indians believe in this when they talked about the Great Spirit? Did the Egytians believe in this when they talked about a Creator?
Frazer attempts to deflate the Big Tent by focusing on the private things that divided them not on the public things that they agreed on.
But the fact that the sermons of Witherspoon and other Calvinist preachers so closely resemble West's really makes your point mute.
Not exactly; we could flip this as Frazer does. He notes, in his thesis, on Christology/salvation issues, Witherspoon was an orthodox Calvinist. But on political-governmental teachings, Witherspoon's schizophrenia emerges: That is, Witherspoon becomes as man of the (Scottish) Enlightenment and posits a Lockean rationalistic point of view that was mainly posited by unitarians. Frazer reads Witherspoon's words closely and shows how Witherspoon himself flirted with unitarianism. Though, I note, never as explicitly as John Jay (one of the poster boys for orthodox Trinitarian FFs) did.
Yes, it must be kept in mind that West's [and others'] congregations were chockful of Calvinists. Unitarianism didn't split off until after the Founding. Anything West said needed to pass Calvinist muster, and Jeff Morrison argues that it did.
Neither does the Trinity have anything to do with the issue at hand.
________
West: "A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture..."
Rowe: What does he mean by this? What "revelation[s], pretending to be from God?" Things written in the Bible? Or perhaps a-biblical theories, doctrines, or interpretations added by priests and rulers.
Clearly, in the context, it's the latter, since West is talking about advisors, older and wiser folks, "But these advisers could claim no authority to compel or to use any forcible measures to oblige any one to comply with their direction or advice."
Now, one would think he's alluding to the doctrine of the Trinity here, but his rejection of it is a rejection of ecclesiastical dogma, not the Bible itself.
While he doesn't come out and say the Bible is fallible and man's reason trumps...
Perhaps because that's not what he believed, and it's improper to suppose he did.
_________
Jesus is some kind of divinely special Messiah and Savior of Mankind. That was Locke's test for what it means to be a "Christian."
Does Locke say that? I happen to agree, but was unaware he said the same thing.
Does Locke say that? I happen to agree, but was unaware he said the same thing.
That's the whole message of Locke's "Reasonableness of Christianity"! That to be a Christian means Jesus is Messiah, nothing more (NO further clarification on Christology). That's why Locke was termed a "Socinian" and "heretic" by his orthodox critics who read the work. This isn't your innovation; it's Lockes.
While he doesn't come out and say the Bible is fallible and man's reason trumps...
And maybe it's proper for folks like Gregg to assume it WAS what he thought when he writes things like St. Paul may have been joking in Romans 13, if XYZ logical construction of the text determines Paul was saying "submit to Nero."
I'm not interested in what "folks like Gregg" think. This is a history blog.
The Bible has been "interpreted" since the early days of the church. This link
http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp
shows that the literal truth of the creation story has been challenged for 2000 years by men like Augustine.
What "people like Gregg" think about creation [literal, 6 days] is as irrelevant as their view of the Founding.
Tom stated:
"Neither does the Trinity have anything to do with the issue at hand."
Agreed!
Jon stated:
" he writes things like St. Paul may have been joking in Romans 13, if XYZ logical construction of the text determines Paul was saying "submit to Nero."
Jon, the whole submit to Nero thing as got to stop. Romans was written 8 to 10 years before Nero persecuted anyone. This was perhaps Frazer's best point and it turned out to be an embarrassment that he will not even live up to. I checked this out in two minutes. The information is easy to get a hold of and he did not bother to even check. He should take it out of his thesis asap and you should stop repeating this. It is simply not accurate.
Emperor Nero: succeeded to Roman throne on 13 October 54, died 9 June 68.
Dating the Book of Romans (from Wiki):
The precise time at which it was written is not mentioned in the epistle, but it was obviously written when the collection for Jerusalem had been assembled and Paul was about to "go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints", that is, at the close of his second visit to Greece, during the winter preceding his last visit to that city (Rom 15:25; cf. Acts 19:21; (Rom 20:2-3, 20:16; 1 Cor 16:1-4). The majority of scholars writing on Romans propose the letter was written in late 55/early 56 or late 56/early 57.[9] Early 58 and early 55 both have some support.
Seems to fit the chronology perfectly, KOI. I'd be interested to know which sources you used to conclude that this "simply is not accurate."
I guess the key to this would be finding out when Nero started killing Christians. My understanding is that he didn't start until after the great fire of A.D. 64. Perhaps that does fit with what you are saying, KOI. I just don't know.
I'm not very interested in this, but the wiki sez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero#Great_Fire_of_Rome
that the Great Fire of Rome of 64 AD is what turned Nero against the Christians, as he needed a scapegoat for the disaster.
This seems to support K of I's timeline.
I will try to dig it up but it is not when Nero was on the throne that is relevant to Gregg's point. It is when he started persecuting Christians. Unless, I am mistaken it was a good ten years after he took office.
Brad and Tom,
I did not see your two comments before I posted mine but that is exactly what I read.
Like Tom, I am not very interested in this either but I did remember something I read from Frazer that I believe clarifies his position on the Nero thing. J.Rowe posted this (from Frazer). Here's the link:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/10/gregg-frazers-latest-response-to-king.html
He wrote this back in October:
Re the Nero issue:
The flexibility of people holding your position on Romans 13 (especially as it applies to the American situation) never ceases to amaze me. In one sentence, you can justify a revolution against a “tyrant” for imposing a $1 per year tax to pay for a war which protected those people; in the next, you can with a straight face assert that a Roman emperor who drained every Roman of every cent to build extragant palaces for himself was not a tyrant. In one sentence, you can demand CONSENT as the only legitimate basis for government; in the next you can defend a Roman emperor as legitimate and not meeting the standard of tyranny that, of course, an English king met. While Nero had not yet begun specifically persecuting the Christians, he was hardly elected and hardly “consulted the public welfare and the good of society” by your and Mayhew’s standard!
You must remember that Paul wrote Romans UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. God knew what Nero was going to do – and inspired Paul to write to those people how they must conduct themselves not just for that day, but when the persecution came. If it was just Paul’s opinion or limited by Paul’s finite understanding, then I wouldn’t give it any more weight than my own thoughts or those of a “wise” man. But it was GOD’s Word to those people – and it wasn’t bound by time constraints because God isn’t bound by time constraints. Paul did not say: “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities until they start doing mean and nasty things.” There are no qualifiers – despite Mayhew’s penchant for adding them. So, no, Nero had not yet begun burning Christians alive or feeding them to animals or nailing them to crosses, but the God Who inspired Paul’s writing knew he was going to.
So I guess what Frazer says is that God knew what Nero was GOING to do. Maybe that clarifies things a bit.
Excellent point Brad.
God knew what Nero was going to do – and inspired Paul to write to those people how they must conduct themselves not just for that day, but when the persecution came.
That's one interpretation. There are others, equally valid since we can't ask God.
Brad stated about Frazer:
"So I guess what Frazer says is that God knew what Nero was GOING to do. Maybe that clarifies things a bit.'
No it does not. He makes a claim as a Historican with credentials and gets called on its historical inaccuracy and gives a theological opinion as proof of his correctness? That is crap. I am glad you found this I remembered it but did not know where to look. I might add this this is a crummy theological claim too. Why not have Paul prophesy it what was to come so people would be warned and also know what was happening and how to react when it happened like Jesus did about the fall of Jerusalem.
And just in case he tries to wiggle out of it by saying prophecy was over lets remember that Paul received prophecies more than once for himself in the book of Acts.
Frazer actually agrees with me:
So, no, Nero had not yet begun burning Christians alive or feeding them to animals or nailing them to crosses, but the God Who inspired Paul’s writing knew he was going to."
The Nero point is mute and except for those who believe Frazer's silly cop out. The point of using the whole Nero thing is to say that Paul was telling the people at the time this was written to submit to a persecuting tyrant. This claim has no teeth and needs to stop being used.
You guys call out Barton who is not a PHD and Professor for less than this garbage. You cannot state a historical fact and then when exposed to its silly error that could have easily been verified by checking the facts claim your theological opinion of what you think Paul was trying to do. Can you?
No KOI,
Frazer quite clearly stated his logic and you didn't mute it.
The problem -- perhaps what needs to be brought out more -- is you & Frazer have different theological premises. According to his, the interpretation he writes re Nero makes 100% sense.
If on the other hand the Holy Spirit (3rd person in a omnipotent Godhead) DIDN'T inspire Paul to write what he did (perhaps Paul was inspired in a more "general" sense, whatever that might mean) your interpretation makes sense.
Jon,
He cannot claim a historical fact that makes it out that Nero was persecuting Christians and when Paul tells them to submit to someone burning them that this is evidence that Paul would say the same thing about Hitler and when he dating is off claim some crap about states that Paul was writing to the people that this would happen to in the future.
That is nonsense. Even if God did not to supposedly do that through Paul he could not know that God was doing it so Paul did not have that in mind when he wrote it.
He already has is using an obscure verse with all the other issues I have already stated about that and now this.
Personally and not historically not only do I think his interpretation of Romans 13 is crap and believe I proved that in our debates, especially when I use the same story about Othniel as Calvin did in the same context, I am appalled as someone who was a somewhat of a Christian minister, extremely biblically literate, somewhat trained in the arena history in general, and fairly well read in the arena of Christian History, at his insistence that his view is the only view and his penchant to claim "rationalist tainting" for those who do not share those views.
Why can't he just say that both views are possible? Reasonable people disagree on the issue. i think my view is right but I cannot say for sure his is wrong with any type of infallibility. It is the dogmatism that makes me wonder if Pinky is right about him having so much to lose he cannot see this whole thing straight.
I think he is out to defend his narrow view of even Calvinism than to seek to find any kind of historical truth. His stance reminds me of stories of Peter and others not wanting to eat with the gentiles because they thought they were spritually unclean. It is like the "blind pharisees" covering their eyes and running into lamp posts because they did not even want to get close to looking at a woman because it may taint them.
I am not saying that Gregg does not want to be around certain people that is not my point. I am saying he is so concerned about not tainting his beliefs with "rationalism" that he is straining out a nat and swallowing a camel half the time. He is missing the forrest trying by focusing on one branch.
I travelled and saw about every kind of Protestant Orthodox church one could find. They all had essentially the same beliefs, even more narrow than Frazer's ten point test. The one thing they all had in common was the penchant to say that others that differed on minor points of doctrine were endanger of hell.
It is the same crap that ruined Europe and the Founders rejected in setting up the Big Tent. It is not so much what Frazer says that worries me is it the attitude in which it comes across. I have seen it and know it well. It is perpetuated by being in a "Christian sect" bubble and group think. What else would make a group of people that agree on so much that turns off most of the country and be seen as outsiders as just alike to damn each other to hell over trivial maters?
I know that is more opinion and beliefs than we want to get into around here most of the time but that is how I feel. I think for good reason. It is my goal for you that you move past his thesis and spend some more time and some of the absolutely brilliant insights you have on this topic. I especially enjoy the legal aspects you bring into the mix. But to each his own.
my sentence about Paul above should say 'even if God did want to do what through Paul"
By the way lest anyone think I am bashing Gregg Frazer the person I am not. Nor am I throwing stones in a glass house. The only reason I know about these "bubbles" is because I was in one. Could not question anything. I was the same way too. If someone questioned something I thought I was right about I just ignored it. It is hard to explain but you can be so right you are wrong if that means anything.
So to Gregg the person I do have a lot of respect because he does spend a lot of time stating his views with us here and is good enough to do that. I actually have grown to like the guy. But I do have some concerns with Dr. Frazer the Historian. There is a difference and I hope people can see that when I comment like this.
I deeply regret spreading dogmatic views that I had because of things I was taught not to question less one lose his faith. I am saddened when I see it in others. Of course I could be seeing things that are not there and am open to being wrong.
Like I said before, KOI I really don't care enough about this issue to dive that deep into it. I just quoted the comment from Frazer because I thought it might clear things up. That's all. Whether or not he needs to be "called out" like we do with Barton is for others to decide.
He cannot claim a historical fact that makes it out that Nero was persecuting Christians and when Paul tells them to submit to someone burning them that this is evidence that Paul would say the same thing about Hitler and when he dating is off claim some crap about states that Paul was writing to the people that this would happen to in the future.
He doesn't do this. He does make a theological claim about Romans 13 and submission. When he makes his historical claim -- relying on the work of very distinguished historians and political scientists -- he simply accurately reports that the position for which he argues was historically dominant. That is, until the age of revolution.
Jon stated:
"Samuel West's sermon is also heavy on the natural law/reason as trumping truth discovery. While he doesn't come out and say the Bible is fallible and man's reason trumps, he does say that revelation, in order to be true, MUST meet the test of reason. That was "right revelation." That is, TRUTH, like that men have an unalienable right to revolt against tyrants, is ascertainable from reason/nature alone."
My understanding is that Aquinas got natural law from Romans 1:19-20. It clearly states there that things about God are "revealed through what has been made." I am not sure if this teaching survived all the way to Locke or not but most of what I have read in the two Treatises would seem to point to that. If that is true then he is saying that reason aided by general revelation trumps dumb ass interpretations of the Bible.
I guess the best place to look is look is what he says in his commentary on Romans. I will get back to you. When are you going to post on Calvin? I want to do the one I started with Frazer's quote in his debate with Babka and give a biblical interpretation of the argument Calvin is making about judgement and removal of kings and how God uses people in that process. If I have it right a lot of the reasoning he uses there fits well with the post I did on George Washington being a deliverer. I probably should read up on Sparta and some of the other things he references to make sure I am reading him right so it could take a while. Let me know if this would work better before or after what you plan on sharing.
I went and looked up what Locke said in his commentaries and it is hard to tell what he is exactly saying. He does imply by my reading that he believes in the revealed law of God. Some that would be special revelation. His definition of reason is hard to differentiate to either side. Much more difficult is to ascertain if he thought reason unaided by general revelation trumped special revelation.
My take just from reading his First Treatise alone, is that Locke believed the Bible to be inspired because he quoted from it so much. He definitely states he believed in creation and a literal Adam and Eve.
I am kind of hoping that you and Tom debate this one again. I learned a lot the last time you guys went at it.
Jon,
To get back to the Declaration, Morrison's main point is that the language in the last two references to God are Calvinistic. Since Witherspoon and the other gentleman he quotes from used the same language I think his point stands. Supreme Judge of the Earth was a saying of Mr. Jonathan Edwards himself. So do you think these two God references we Calvinistic additions by the Continental Congress or not?
Post a Comment