Monday, June 14, 2010

Locke's Creed

I found the following from 1996 -- Paul Sigmund, of Princeton, reviewing John Marshall, of Johns Hopkins on John Locke. The significance of the review is both Sigmund and Marshall are preeminent Locke scholars. I have had the good fortune to meet and chat with Dr. Sigmund. What I am going to reproduce from the review is what I discussed with him. Locke's Christology means nothing to the overwhelming majority of folks. So when I asked Dr. Sigmund whether he thought Locke believed in the Arian or Socinian heresies, he seemed genuinely happy to meet another relatively rare fellow traveler who takes an interest in such matters.

With that, here is the passage:

For theologians, the most interesting parts of the book are those that examine Locke's beliefs on original sin, the atonement, and the divinity of Christ. Locke always claimed to be a member of the Church of England. He believed that the Scriptures were divinely inspired, wrote a commentary on the Pauline epistles, and received the sacrament at his residence when he could no longer attend church services. Yet as early as 1680 he wrote in his journal that a just God could not condemn men for sins they had not committed, and he repeatedly questioned the doctrine of original sin. Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but to show us the way to eternal life. In turn, this undermined one of the arguments for the divinity of Christ, that an infinite satisfaction was required to atone for an offense to an infinite being. Locke never explicitly denied Christ's divinity, but M. assembles evidence, such as Locke's commentaries on the opening of the Gospel of John, which seem to amount to such a denial. Locke insisted he was not a "Socinian," i.e. Unitarian, but associated with Unitarians and read many Socinian books. He was sympathetic with the latitudinarian wing of Anglicanism but, according to M., parted company with them on the question of the Trinity.

50 comments:

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

Locke certainly believed in the sinfulness of man. But as I have stated before he believed that we were still capable of doing good in this world. This was not a new idea. Aquinas talked about it a lot.

Trintity or not is irrelevant to a discussion of the combination of the natural law concept of the equality of men being grounded in the biblical concept of imago dei and that idea being the core of the most foundational phrase of the Declaration of Independence. One could call it the founding phrase.

Any reading of Locke's commentaries by someone who understands Christian theology would show that Locke was no enlightenment figure. Not the way that people try to use him today. Some think he was a closet Richard Dawkins. That is preposterous.

The fact that most who discuss these matters, including Ed Brayton, have no idea that self evident is not an Enlightenment term is deeply sad to me.


I think the whole controversy can be summed up in that people for generations were trying to pass the founders and Locke off as deists and Barton and others came along and attempted to destroy this. People used their stuff on the other side to try and imply they were a bunch of evangelicals and now people like you are trying to destroy this.

My issue is that terms like Theistic Rationalist are used by the radical secularists the same way that "Christian" is used by Barton and others. In other words, Theistic Rationalist can be a deceptive term. Not that Gregg intended to do that. But that is how others use it.

continued...

Tom Van Dyke said...

I've been pretty much writing the same things, since that's what Locke's writings say.

HOWEVER, once again this is the tall weeds of modern scholarship, and the attempt to penetrate the private heart instead of the public man, the latter being the historian's only concern.

For as the review states

Yet as early as 1680 he wrote in his journal that a just God could not condemn men for sins they had not committed...

In Locke's private journal. Indeed, because Locke makes no explicit case for Jesus dying for our sins, etc., the Bishop of Worcester [?] accuses him of non-Trintarianism. Locke's slippery reply is that he wrote nothing to deny the Trinity. True enough---he glossed over the topic completely.

But this gloss tells us of the public Locke, who was understood by the vast majority [Trinitarians] as Trinitarian, precisely the way Locke planned it.

Further, the question of the Trinity has nothing to do with political philosophy, how we should deal with the concerns of this world. It's a moot point.

Locke does praise Christianity above the pagan philosophers in Reasonableness for giving a clear picture of the afterlife, and since Locke adds a "lawgiver" [God] as necessary to natural law, the "future state of rewards and punishments," the restraining force on man's actions, is in place in his Christianized political philosophy.

Further, he puts "revelation," the Bible, as true and of divine origin. The political philosophy, then, has no conflict with even the most orthodox Christianity.

I also agree with the author that Locke despaired of everyday people arriving at natural law and true morality by reason alone: he writes that we might as well expect a farmer or a milkmaid to be a perfect mathematician. [I paraphrase, I can't find the quote.] Hence God sends Jesus and scripture to man.

However, in finding the "real Locke," the scholars lose the Locke of the Founders. When Heinrich Rommen writes in the 1930s:

“Locke substitutes for the traditional idea of the natural law as an order of human affairs, as a moral reflex of the metaphysical order of the universe revealed to human reason in the creation as God’s will, the conception of natural law as a rather nominalistic symbol for a catalog or bundle of individual rights that stem from individual self-interest.”

he is accurate as a scholar of the "real Locke," but as seen through European eyes. American eyes saw him as the first case, part of the tradition of "natural law as an order of human affairs, as a moral reflex of the metaphysical order of the universe revealed to human reason in the creation as God’s will."

One need only read American Founders James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton to see this. Unfortunately, philosophy scholars are interested in the Great Thinkers, not mere men like Wilson, Hamilton, and the rest of the Founders beyond, say, Jefferson.

Missing the genius of the Founding completely.

More here on Rommen, and, following, folks like Leo Strauss and other modern scholars who view the Founding through Enlightenment eyes:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/readinglists/print/129-ian_dunois_s_natural_law

King of Ireland said...

That is why I think the discussion about the influence of ideas is more germane. We essentially agree about the influences on the founding. The rub is that I feel you credit the Enlightenment as the main influence wrongly and believe that Christian ideas were the main influence.

Locke is central to this debate. He and Aquinas may have differed over some things but his ideas more closely resemble the ideas Aquinas than the real secularist(perhaps Atheist) Enlightenment figures.

I think the late scholastics show us an evolution in Thomistic thought that made it more modern. I know their is no solid connection between them and Locke but they looked at the world in much the same way.

King of Ireland said...

"Further, the question of the Trinity has nothing to do with political philosophy, how we should deal with the concerns of this world. It's a moot point."

One that it seems Jon must at some point address or concede.

Jonathan Rowe said...

But this gloss tells us of the public Locke, who was understood by the vast majority [Trinitarians] as Trinitarian, precisely the way Locke planned it.

Locke had no choice. Denying the Trinity was an executable offense at the time.

Jonathan Rowe said...

At the time the Trinity DID have something to do with political philosophy: Denying the Trinity, as noted above was an executable offense. Likewise "Christian Nations" made covenants to the Triune God.

Now, a number of Trinitarians did end up cooperating with secret unitarians Locke, Newton, Milton on the matter, but the main contributions unitarians made to Enlightenment era political philosophy is throwing covenants to the Triune God out the window.

The fact that Tom would write something like "the Trinity has nothing to do with political philosophy," itself reflects a post Lockean, post Newtownian Enlightenment way of thought.

Tom Van Dyke said...

You didn't argue your own point, though, Jon.

Regardless, Locke was perceived as Trinitarian, and his political philosophy fit fine with Trinitarianism. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

"Covenant with God" reads the same as "covenant with the Triune God." "Triune" is unnecessary. The God of Abraham, of the Old Testament, works just as well. You would have to argue to the contrary.

However, it appears to me that the failure of theocracy in Puritan New England---for practical reasons---makes "the Enlightenment" superfluous in the discussion. Covenantal government was not in the cards, except perhaps at the state level, since there would be no national agreement due to the proliferation of sects.

Natural law is the core question, and as argued above, modern scholars use the "real" Locke to understand the Founding merely in modern "social contract" terms. This is the political philosophy problem, above and beyond this rather exclusive focus on trinitarianism.

King of Ireland said...

"Covenantal government was not in the cards, except perhaps at the state level"

A point so often ignored. Also in line with the founding ideal of more localized government.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I argued my point. I didn't argue whatever point it is that you wanted me to argue.

Jonathan Rowe said...

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

According to Trinitarian thought, the difference between Jesus being an infinite God and a finite created creature (even if the first of creation and 2nd most powerful being in the Universe) is an INFINITE difference.

So we are talking about the difference between no difference and infinite difference.

Wow that's a pretty big gulf between us.

King of Ireland said...

"Natural law is the core question, and as argued above, modern scholars use the "real" Locke to understand the Founding merely in modern "social contract" terms"

And when they do so they completely leave out the fact that the foundations of this were the Christian covenant theory at the base of Aquinas and Bellarmine's right to revolt. Locke certainly based his on imago dei which in and of itself is a type of convenant with God in the general non sectarian sense.

King of Ireland said...

"According to Trinitarian thought, the difference between Jesus being an infinite God and a finite created creature (even if the first of creation and 2nd most powerful being in the Universe) is an INFINITE difference."

Only in the matters of sotierology. All one needs for political philosophy is the God of the Old Testament. That is the exact thing that allowed trinitarians, deists, and unitarians to covenant together. You yourself state that the Trinitarians had no problem doing this. It was a big tent.

I think this goes back to your article about Locke and "Christian Deists" one did not have to have the correct sotierlogical view to be included in the base line agreements about the role of God in the founding.

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

What the founders, Aquinas, and Locke believed about God and politics was about 90% the same and can all be classified easily within a pretty big stream of Christian thought. It seems that you are trying to take the 10 % that they did not agree on and make it a wedge issue. It does not float by the simple fact that they themselves did not make it a wedge issue.

There are some huge holes in my education and I am not entirely sure what a straw man argument is but from what I can gather you are making one.

And to prove it you are skating on the edge of what you accuse Barton of trying to do by using the term theistic rationalism the same way they use Christian.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Yes, you're talking theology and the blog is about history and political philosophy.

2nd most powerful being in the Universe

Moreover, this is not what "Trinity" or "Triune" means. God is One.

What we have is what Locke said, and speculation [however informed, and with which I tend to agree] about what Locke didn't say.

What Locke said was taken by the Founders as an endorsement of natural law as the source of unalienable rights, given by a "lawgiver," [God], and further, that Jesus and thereby scripture were given to man directly from God.

This is the "pretty big gulf" between the Locke of the Founders and the "true" Locke of the moderns, who reduce the Founding theology to philosophy, that of mere self-interested "social contract."

Jonathan Rowe said...

KOI:

I agree with a lot -- not everything -- but a lot of what you and Tom write. I think you have a tendency to fire your gun and make arguments before it is carefully loaded. Tom more carefully loads his guns.

However, what dumbfounds me about these discussions is that both you are Tom are -- at least as I see it -- quintessential men of the Enlightenment.

Yet for some reason that term makes you recoil.

I think most of us understand just as all Christianities are not alike all Enlightenments are not alike either.

But I see the points that both of you wish to stress as quintessential Scottish-English Enlightenment dogma.

Jonathan Rowe said...

2nd most powerful being in the Universe

Moreover, this is not what "Trinity" or "Triune" means. God is One.


You didn't read me carefully enough. Or perhaps the problem was with my lack of clarification. I was actually thinking back to a quote from (I think) Timothy Dwight (or some other orthodox figure) arguing against unitarianism.

He noted even Arianism -- which holds Jesus the first born of creation and 2nd most powerful being in the universe -- which is closer to Trinitarianism than other forms of unitarianism and Deism is infinitely distant from Trinitarianism.

Perhaps I will look for that quote and post it to the front page.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Yes, you're talking theology and the blog is about history and political philosophy.

Tom you keep on trying to define the parameters of this blog so as to make your arguments more likely to win.

You can get away with that with other folks, but not me.

This blog is interdisciplinary. Theology along with history, politics, and some law and philosophy as well.

Tom Van Dyke said...

One point of order, Joe---the Declaration makes clear that governments are "instituted among men." There is a lesser point about "covenant" in the sense that God gives sovereignty to the people, who give it to their government; however, this is not necessary for a normative understanding of the Founding [although it does speak to the right to revolt when the king became a tyrant].

King of Ireland said...

"However, what dumbfounds me about these discussions is that both you are Tom are -- at least as I see it -- quintessential men of the Enlightenment.

Yet for some reason that term makes you recoil."

Go look at how people who cannot give you a rational definition of what a human is and what to talk about human rights at Dispatches(that is tame compared with the PZ Myers crowd) use the term Enlightenment and you will see why. It is the same problem you have with Barton using the word "Christian" when describing Washington. Those that do not understand the complexities involved run with it to mean that he was Evangelical and would support some of the more Conservative views on modern political issues when you would not have. At least not all of them.

King of Ireland said...

"One point of order, Joe---the Declaration makes clear that governments are "instituted among men." There is a lesser point about "covenant" in the sense that God gives sovereignty to the people, who give it to their government"

This is right in line with Lockean and Thomist thinking in my view.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Fine, Jon. But you must characterize the Trinity properly, and further need to show why the God of the Old Testament doesn't do the job just as well.

Since it is the same God.

"...for your Jeh-vah is our Jeh-vah & your G-d of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is our G-d."---John Adams to M. Noah

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

The reason I have Goldstone's essay at the heart of my series of posts is because I do respect the Enlightenment. That is the part that did not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Which is what the crowd I am talking about above wants to do.

King of Ireland said...

"Tom you keep on trying to define the parameters of this blog so as to make your arguments more likely to win."

I tend to agree with this but only to a point. If this turned into a debate about the truth of the trinity this blog would fall apart. Theology is only relevant if it relevant to the history. Theology class is Theology class. History class is History class. But both subjects are a big part of the other class.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Tom,

I think that quote makes my point. The sentiment that J. Adams expressed there was a quintessential enlightenment notion, just as is KOI's idea that Jews, Trinitarians, unitarians and some deistically minded Providentialists can get together, ecumenically, and rely on a lowest common denominator God as a foundation for rights.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Instead of a debate about the Trinity (which at bottom contains unexplainable mysteries) why not about what famous figures THOUGHT about the Trinity and how that affected their politics.

Things like Trinitarian tests, covenants, and restrictions on speech seem fair game. As are quotations from notable Trinitarians as to why the Trinity is important in defining their faith.

The pattern I note (still to some extent today) is that it's the TRINITARIANS who say this is a central defining aspect of Christianity, if you don't believe it, you are damned, not a "real Christian" or perhaps not even entitled the label "Christian."

It was the unitarians who said, let's sweep it under the rug, it's not really and important issue. We can all be "good Christians" despite our differences on the issue.

Again, it's You GUYS are arguing almost EXACTLY like the Enlightenment unitarians of the Founding and early 19th Century. You are men of the Enlightenment.

Tom Van Dyke said...

quintessential enlightenment notion, just as is KOI's idea that Jews, Trinitarians, unitarians and some deistically minded Providentialists can get together, ecumenically, and rely on a lowest common denominator God as a foundation for rights.

Absolutely agree. However, is that an Enlightenment notion? That's the core issue.

For what you describe, rights coming from God, is a "natural law" notion. That's why I quoted Rommen [who was used as a source by Strauss].

Rommen puts Locke firmly in with the philosophical moderns, not with the God-friendly Scottish Enlightenment. The end result is that Locke [and thereby the American Founding] is based on self-interested "social contract."

It's sort of the same argument you make against Lillback's hermeneutic---If Locke believed x [self-interested social contract], and the Founders believed Locke, therefore the Founding is based on self-interested social contract.

That parses, doesn't it?

Modernity---and "Enlightenment" is used interchangeably in common usage---isn't friendly to a God-given natural law, or even a natural law atall.

[For the sake of clarity in language, I'd simply argue that when most folks think of "Scottish" and "Enlightenment," they think of David Hume, who is not a theist. We know better, but Thomas Reid is not on the radar of even many scholars.]

King of Ireland said...

"Absolutely agree. However, is that an Enlightenment notion? That's the core issue."

I would concur.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Again, it's You GUYS are arguing almost EXACTLY like the Enlightenment unitarians of the Founding and early 19th Century. You are men of the Enlightenment.

Well, Jon, this is exactly where Samuel Pufendorf comes in. A Lutheran of the 17th century, he was no unitarian.


http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=288&id=691&option=com_content&task=view

King of Ireland said...

"Instead of a debate about the Trinity (which at bottom contains unexplainable mysteries) why not about what famous figures THOUGHT about the Trinity and how that affected their politics."

I think it is too narrow in scope to really answer the larger questions about the founding political theology. Again, the founding phrase is biblical at its core.

I also would like you to respond to my comments on how theistic rationalist muddies the waters just as bad as Barton using the word "Christian" with no explanation of the nuances. This is the core area of our disagreement.

King of Ireland said...

"The end result is that Locke [and thereby the American Founding] is based on self-interested "social contract."


I have been doing a lot of reading of Aquinas and what people have written about him. His notion of rights is seems is not from a selfish perspective but a giving one. In other words, rights were not to be claimed in a positive sense but deference to one's neighbor is to be shown in the negative sense.

I was arrested recently for "breach of peace" because some guy heard me cuss in public and complained. It turns out that the law does state that in Florida but it is gray. The question is if his right not to be offended trumps my right to free speech. I say no and the Supreme Court agrees with me. I think the law is an old morality law.

Since I try to live by the axiom of loving my neighbor as myself I put most things in this vein when I evaluate my behavior. If he would have asked me not to cuss I probably would have differed to him. But I am not going to plead guilty because I offended him and would never press the charge against someone. I think it is selfish.

This is a simple case that outlines all this. Many modern Evangelicals want to no cursing laws but it is from a selfish perspective and thus a violation of the Thomist view of rights. At least as to how I read it.

In other words the moral thing to do would be to love your neighbor enough to give him the room to be himself and cuss. It would also to refrain if asked.

King of Ireland said...

continued...

IF modern secularists would use this argument from CHRISTIAN thought, at least how I read Aquinas, against the religious right it would be more effective. Instead, we have the culture wars and arguments over Romans 13 and the Trinity.

King of Ireland said...

To win a game of chest at some point you have to venture into the other persons side of the board. Those at Dispatches and PZ Myers refuse to learn enough about Christian thought to do that. It is a shame because the more authoritarian streams of Christianity that disturb them can be defeated using the very same instrument they use:

The Bible. They have the Aquinas and Locke Christianity to use to defeat the Augustian and Calvinist Christianity but refuse to do it because they wrap it all into one nice strawman to knock down.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I was arrested recently for "breach of peace" because some guy heard me cuss in public and complained.

I find that hard to believe, Joe. You seem like such a mellow fellow.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Jon, my problem here is that if "natural law" is the core Founding political theology---and we don't seem to dispute it is, at least around here---then if the Enlightenment can be both pro-natural law and anti-natural law, we can subtract it from both sides of the equation, leaving it a constant, but not decisive in the equation.

So too, if both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Christianity both supported natural law, that's a constant, too, and can be subtracted.

x = y is the same as

x +1 = y+ 1

I hate using math in philosophy, but this illustrates the point.
______________

Instead of a debate about the Trinity (which at bottom contains unexplainable mysteries) why not about what famous figures THOUGHT about the Trinity and how that affected their politics.

That's all I was ever suggesting. There will be some divergence. Is it an essential divergence, I dunno. That's what you need to illustrate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Dwight_IV

would be a fine study. However, even though he's probably closest to today's religious right, we should resist slapping a label on him.

As Joe touched on, then we start arguing labels instead of Timothy Dwight. But it would be interesting to compare his influence to say, that of Joseph Priestly, who gets far more cyberink around here.

Brad Hart said...

This is a great post, Jon! As a Mormon (who considers himself a Christian) I see no problem with Locke's questioning the doctrines of Original Sin, the Trinity, etc. and still calling himself a Christian. Hell, myself and others do the same every day. But your point that this flies in the face of orthodoxy is important because it reveals the fact that Christianity was not (and is still not) as cut and dry as people want it to be.

As for the "Enlightenment," "Imago Dei," "Theistic Rationalist" arguments, well, you know how I just LOOOOOVE arguing over semantics! =) Locke calling himself a Christian is good enough for me, so long as people can recognize the FACT that his Christianity didn't accept many of the traditional orthodox Christian teachings.

Yeah, I know, very elementary comment here. I just don't want to get drawn into another semantics debate. Your argument is sound. Locke was not "orthodox" but was still "Christian." And as a fellow non-orthodox Christian I can fully accept that. I think the question now is how did Locke's non-orthodoxy play out.

King of Ireland said...

"I find that hard to believe, Joe. You seem like such a mellow fellow."

Until some police officer tries to violate my rights that is. This was the culmination of a few month running debate about the Constitution meaning something or not with the police force here. Their final word was trumping up charges to lock me out. Sad but true condition in Southwest Florida.

King of Ireland said...

"Yeah, I know, very elementary comment here. I just don't want to get drawn into another semantics debate."

Then you dhould have very few problems with David Barton. What he says is essentially true overall the problem you guys have is how it is used. Which is fine and I agree with you. But Frazer's argument(not by his own doing) is used to do the same thing on the other side and no one has a problem with it.

Brad,

You personally do not seem to have an agenda, or at least not one I can detect. But those who do profit from simplying things for their side and muddying the waters on the other side. Words have meaning.

BUT I do think it is good to simply things when we can for sure. I know I am contradicting myself but I see both sides. This is a complex issue.

bpabbott said...

Re: " Until some police officer tries to violate my rights that is."

Hmmm ... do you imply that the cussing was directed toward the police officer?

King of Ireland said...

" I see no problem with Locke's questioning the doctrines of Original Sin, the Trinity, etc. and still calling himself a Christian. Hell, myself and others do the same every day."

For the record so do I.

King of Ireland said...

"Hmmm ... do you imply that the cussing was directed toward the police officer?"

No just in front of them. Long story. They are bad down here but I definitely did not handle it the right way. You can actually call a police officer anything you want and they cannot arrest you. It is only if they find a drunk guy to complain that it offended him and press charges.

I brought this up to illustrate a point about loving neighbor and the law. My situation with the law made me think about the foundations of the law and how far we have strayed today in some areas. I think if you read all of what I said that it introduces perhaps a different "Christian" morality than we are presented with today.

Tom Van Dyke said...

This is getting a little wack.

If "turn the other cheek" means anything, it means "do not escalate," in fact do the reverse.
____________

For the record, it may have been unclear [since I was writing as if mine were to be the first comment], that I agree with everything in Jon's original essay about Locke's probable personal theology. It agrees with my own reading of Locke; I don't look for an orthodox Christian or even a Christian, I just attempt to take him as he understands himself.

To me, the evasions of Trinitarianism are clear; on the other hand, I was surprised with him re-inserting a "lawgiver" into natural law when Suarez and Nrotius had argued natural law without one.

Also, that Locke rejected the ability of philosophy and "natural theology" to convey the power of moral truth to your everyday person, that it was necessary [or a mercy] that God sent the Gospel to man in the form of Jesus.

Locke isn't sentimental toward classical philosophy, nor does he compose a new "modern" philosophical crafting of Christianity ala Immanuel Kant.

Leo Strauss and "Persecution and the Art of Writing," esoteric writing, where the author intentionally misleads or omits---this method is very useful in reading Locke.

If Locke were a Trinitarian, knowing how precarious anti-Trinitarianism was in his time, he certainly would have done some riffing on the Trinity to dispel all doubt.

But he did not, likely because he could not. Didn't believe in it.

However, the first thing to keep in mind is that he clearly wanted to be "misunderstood" as a Trinitarian, an orthodox Christian.

There also remains the possibility that he wanted to be seen as "cool" by the "cool" crowd, the non-Trinitarians, and so didn't thump Trinity for that reason, since it's "mysterious" and not logical or philosophical.

A less likely possibility I admit, but he was able to make his case on philosophical grounds, with the exceptions of admitting that God is a reality and the scriptures hold divine truth.

The fact that the "true" Locke still remains in dispute today indicates that the Founders could read him---if they chose, and they did, like Sam Adams---as Trinitarian with no sullying of Locke's message, since the Trinity was not essential to his political philosophy.

And non-Trinitarians like Jefferson glommed onto him, too. For Locke, mission accomplished, roped in the both the orthodox and the "cool guys," via

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18012590/LEO-STRAUSS-ON-A-FORGOTTEN-KIND-OF-WRITING

King of Ireland said...

Lockes Notes on Romans 3:24:

"For it is to God we are redeemed, by the death of Christ"

He does seem to do a little dancing around verse 23 that states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and says some things about the method of payment i.e. atonement but the part I quoted here seems to be clear and this is a pretty good definition of atonement.

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

Based on the direct quote from Locke above I wonder where you come up with this:

"Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but to show us the way to eternal life"

You might be able to make a case that he did not believe in original sin. But he did believe we needed to be redeemed.(This is where he gets confusing as to what the difference is) I will have to read this entire commentary again and see if I can figure out what he is saying about the price paid for sins. It is a bit confusing but he is more orthodox than most would think.

By the way, if Genesis 1-3 is myth in the oral history sense as I believe then original sin and how it is taught take on new meaning. I do not want to confuse things but I can see where Locke would believe in the need for redemption and the death of Christ and not necessarily believe in original sin. He most certainly did not believe in total depravity.

I guess I am saying that its seems that many of the Locke experts did not read his commentary on Romans. Romans is the gospel in a nut shell. His thoughts on this book give great insight into his personal theological beliefs.

King of Ireland said...

I went back to Romans 5:12 in his notes and it seems fairly clear that he only believes that mortality was imputed to mankind not death in the sense of seperation from God in the evangelical sense. So it seems that Locke did have some issues with original sin for sure.

I also noticed he skipped commentary on some verses that would help pin him down on some of these things. But he most certainly believed that man needed to be redeemed and that Christ's death accomplished this.

Tom Van Dyke said...

K of I, please provide a link so everybody can examine the evidence in context.

I believe 'twas I who provided you with the link to Locke's commentary on the Epistles in the first place, so fair is fair.

Sometimes Locke presents something, then goes on to disagree with it. [See the "forgotten kind of writing" above.] If you're arguing the "real" Locke, we must read him in context for ourselves. Quote-grabbing will not do. Perhaps you're right, but only his context will prove it. Locke was clearly and provably slippery.

King of Ireland said...

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=REAAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Romans starts about half way down and the quote was from Romans 3. I would also read Romans 5:12 too. I think it seems that Locke had a problem with the justice in original sin but still allowed for the fact that Jesus had to die to redeem man.

In other words, everyone needed to redeemed for their own sins not Adams. This also speaks to possibly a belief that man was not sinful by nature. Hard to pin him down on the specifics. He sounds a lot like Aquinas to me in my readings of Aquinas. Though that dude is hard to understand too.

King of Ireland said...

"I believe 'twas I who provided you with the link to Locke's commentary on the Epistles in the first place, so fair is fair."

I got it from another blog and used it in one of my responses to Frazer before you posted on it. Not that it really matters.

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

After reading Locke himself I would change this:

""Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but to show us the way to eternal life"

to this:

"Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but for the sin of each individual."

It seems that he believed that the sin of Adam made us mortal and that in our mortality we sin. This would absolutely deny orthodox teaching on(of the Protestant variety I am not so sure about non Augustinian Catholic thought) original sin. But it does not equate with the Enlightement thought of the goodness of man either.

I think it was Daniel that stated if you take total depravity and sola scriptura out of the equation that you have the schoolmen version of Christianity.

bpabbott said...

Re: "Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but to show us the way to eternal life."

This passage is within the "Notes" section of "The works of John Locke, Volume 8", pg 276. The scanned version in Google books is poor quality, but those interested can read it here.

I don't have time to dig deep into it now, but from a quick glance, it appears that Locke is engaged in a reasoned examination of Romans. It does not appear to me that his words (quoted above) were intended to represent his personal belief. Rather my impression is that he was stating his reasoned understanding of Revelations 5 verse 9 (from the King James Version).

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"
-- Rev. 5 verse 9. (with emphasis to the passage examined by Locke).

King of Ireland said...

"I don't have time to dig deep into it now, but from a quick glance, it appears that Locke is engaged in a reasoned examination of Romans. It does not appear to me that his words (quoted above) were intended to represent his personal belief. Rather my impression is that he was stating his reasoned understanding of "

Ben,


He clearly goes against the establishment here. I see no reason not to believe these are his personal views because of that.

Looking back he is challenging propitiation or atonement as some call it. Even changing propitiation in the next verse to propitiatory. This is fairly radical even for his time. I would like to know what the difference was for him between redemption and atonement?

Anyway.