New Republic: "The Dangerous Lies We Tell About America's Founding"
Here. A taste:
To conclude that America is a “Christian nation,” as numerous Christian conservatives insist, underestimates both the radicalness of the ideas on which the republic was founded and, more crucially, the source of our continuing national strength. That power, according to Stewart, is the ability of liberalism to effect progress—however slowly—through ideas like equality, freedom, and popular sovereignty.
Stewart, best known for his philosophical history of Leibniz and Spinoza, The Courtier and the Heretic, gives deism the gift of serious historical roots. He traces this strain of radical philosophy from Epicurus, via Lucretius, to Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, and through to the ideas of Jefferson, as evidenced in the Declaration of Independence.
58 comments:
The Dangerous Lies We Tell About America's Founding
Myths may comfort us, but facts are our best weapon against Tea Party perversions
"a founding myth that...more than half of Tea Party members believe: that our Founding Fathers were religious men, and that America is therefore a “Christian nation.”
...
"[T]o what degree did the Founding Fathers consider themselves loyal to the version of Christianity that prevailed in America at their time? Not much, [Matthew] Stewart concluded after a decade of research.
"Deism, he argues persuasively, “is in fact functionally indistinguishable from what we would now call 'pantheism'; and pantheism is really just a pretty word for atheism.” Them’s fighting words.
Why does David Barton get all the flak and BS like this in the liberal The New Republic get a free pass from the Ivory Towers of Truth?
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Founding-Fathers-Were-Not-Deists-John-Fea-02-02-2011.html
"The Dangerous Lies We Tell About America's Founding" indeed.
"That power, according to Stewart, is the ability of liberalism to effect progress—however slowly—through ideas like equality, freedom, and popular sovereignty."
Reminds me more of the French revolution than the American. "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité." Maybe Stewart just got the two confused somehow.
If true Stewart would be in good company among Christians like Ezra Stiles, et al.
TVD - "Why does David Barton get all the flak and BS like this in the liberal The New Republic get a free pass from the Ivory Towers of Truth?"
Barton, acting as a political operative, has been spreading his BS for decades in an effort to create a reliogio-political narrative that the GOP can exploit.
Stewart has just published. Patience grasshopper. He will be challenged - hopefully in a systematic and substantive way. As I suggested in an earlier com box, why don't you get a copy of the book and start the process. I'm not being facetious. It would be a constructive exercise. There's lots of material to sink one's teeth into, including much on Locke. Refute away. Shine the light.
Maybe too KOI if he's still with us. He was always interested in the intellectual underpinnings of the early modern ideas baked into the founding/framing.
Personally, and I've only just completed chapter 4 (On the Genealogy of Nature's God) and started Chapter 5 (Self-Evident Truths), I find the case compelling in light of other augmenting texts that I mentioned earlier(1)(2). But then, I'm only in the process of a first read through and have not yet started digging into the presented facts...well, maybe a little bit.
1) Steven Nadler, 2011. A Book Forged in Hell; Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age. Princeton University Press. Pp 304.
2) Jonathan Israel, 2001, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750. Oxford University Press. Pp 810.
And the more user friendly (shorter):
Jonathan Israel, 2011, A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Democracy. Pp 296.
This one was highlighted here at AC:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/03/jonathan-israel-enlightenment.html
...and maybe this one that I started but then stopped to read his Radical Enlightenment:
Jonathan Israel, 2012, Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790. Pp 1066.
...or maybe this one, which I have not looked at yet, may be of interest:
Jonathan Israel, 2009, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752. Pp 1024.
Amazon Description: Jonathan Israel presents the first major reassessment of the Western Enlightenment for a generation. Continuing the story he began in the best-selling Radical Enlightenment , and now focusing his attention on the first half of the eighteenth century, he returns to the original sources to offer a groundbreaking new perspective on the nature and development of the most important currents in modern thought.
Israel traces many of the core principles of Western modernity to their roots in the social, political, and philosophical ferment of this period: the primacy of reason, democracy, racial equality, feminism, religious toleration, sexual emancipation, and freedom of expression. He emphasizes the dual character of the Enlightenment, and the bitter struggle between on the one hand a generally dominant, anti-democratic mainstream, supporting the monarchy, aristocracy, and ecclesiastical authority, and on the other a largely repressed democratic, republican, and "materialist" radical fringe. He also contends that the supposedly separate French, British, German, Dutch, and Italian enlightenments interacted to such a degree that their study in isolation gives a hopelessly distorted picture.
A work of dazzling and highly accessible scholarship, Enlightenment Contested will be the definitive reference point for historians, philosophers, and anyone engaged with this fascinating period of human development.
Bill Fortenberry - "Reminds me more of the French revolution than the American. "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité." Maybe Stewart just got the two confused somehow."
There's a lot of intellectual interconnectivity. He doesn't get them confused. Buy the book. Give it a read. See what you think. You might also refer to the list of books that I give above that touch on the intellectual tradition that Stewart taps into. Good beach reading....if you go to the beach a lot.....a LOT.
Here’s a video (University of New England) that includes Jonathan Israel discussing his work and at approximately 9:00 minutes he discusses the French Revolution and general democratic Enlightenment ideas (and then contrasts the early democratic philosophes with the Robespierre faction):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBcP7TAVkNQ
Jon, I think you’d like this one.
Stewart has just published. Patience grasshopper. He will be challenged - hopefully in a systematic and substantive way.
I sincerely doubt the academic establishment has the guts to cross the prevailing secular-left orthodoxy, let alone the knowledge.
But on rare occasions I'm wrong, and I'd love this to be one of them.
As for Barton, except for his "Jefferson Lies" debacle for which there's no excuse,* his sins are no worse than the even far more pervasive myth of Founding "deism" being peddled here.
_______
*He actually had the germ of a point. In earlier life Jefferson expresses doubt in the Trinity, but it's not until his later years that he becomes ardently anti-Trinitarian. But of course Barton is never satisfied with half-a-loaf and overshot his evidence.
TVD - "... far more pervasive myth of Founding "deism" being peddled here."
You don't even know what's being "peddled here" and slam goes the gates to the epistemological castle. Buy the book and engage. Expand thyne castle.
Then, critique away. It would be fun. And Enlightening.
Well, actually, I quoted Stewart directly, via one of the reviews.
"Deism, [Stewart] argues persuasively, “is in fact functionally indistinguishable from what we would now call 'pantheism'; and pantheism is really just a pretty word for atheism.” Them’s fighting words.
Now that's just pure nonsense. If somebody expects me to spend cash money on their book, they can't be guilty of such scholarly malpractice as this.
And frankly, there are virtually thousands of moronic books and theses generated by the academic left. One does not have to spend $25 each on thesis after thesis to confirm they're crap.
[I ran into this game with the hack Corey Robin, where he insisted I couldn't judge the crappiness of his polemic The Reactive Mind by judging it by a moronic essay of his that I read for free.
So too with this Stewart fellow. He did a Boston Globe interview to publicize his book, and he succeeded--in warning me off it.
And FTR, Spinoza is a lot less John Locke and a helluva lot more Leo Strauss. ;-P
Spinoza teaches that revelation, while it is not the same as reason, is absolutely essential to statecraft. If most human beings are not rational, then they must learn through revelation. The pagan teleology cannot teach virtue to the masses. Only biblical caritas can accomplish this feat. The Bible does not teach by philosophic argument. Thus Scripture can reach those "who [cannot] acquire the habit of virtue by reason alone." (TPT, 176– 77) In separating philosophy from theology, Spinoza teaches that no citizen (or ruler) has the right to question the way in which the sovereign democratic authority interprets this separation, if this questioning returns the polity to the state of nature. The "vulgar" are meant to obey, not to reason about religion. (TPT, 176–77) While the philosophic few may enjoy the "natural light" of reason, the ignorant many must be content to learn from Scripture.
Responding to an interview comment is not the same as engaging the argument. I assumed that you would back out of doing any work....but, for a moment, I could hope. :)
Really though, it's not too late, you could borrow a copy from your local lending library.
Right. The same way you run out and buy David Barton's books.
And I did engage the argument. So did John Fea
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Founding-Fathers-Were-Not-Deists-John-Fea-02-02-2011.html
although he prefers to stay out of the line of fire unless it's Barton or Palin. Not that you can blame him. The ivory tower is a tough town, with no mercy for those who get out of line.
Jim, if you're reading the book, perhaps you could answer a question that I have about it. I've noticed in several of the reviews that Franklin is listed as one of the Deists that are praised by Stewart. Do you know if he mentions anything about the fact that Franklin was only a Deist as a teenager, and that he was defending Christian doctrine by the time that he was 30? Did he mention anything about Franklin's reliance on Scripture to settle one of the most frequently debated portions of the Constitution, or that Franklin frequently referred to Jesus as the Christ and even occasionally as our Savior? All of this would seem to be inconsistent with the claim that Franklin was a Deist, and I'm curious as to whether Stewart addresses it at all.
Yes the adult Franklin defended such "Christian doctrines" as the impossibility of parts of the Old Testament being given by divine inspiration, that men are not saved through faith alone, praising the "honesty" of known unitarians, and doubting Jesus divinity while holding him up as the greatest moral teacher the world has known.
Franklin was the quintessential "Christian-Deist."
Bill, I will look into it.
Bill, There are too many pages that reference Franklin to address your question in the fullness you’d like or that the question deserves – something that really deserves a full read.
I’ll post the following in order to address the question to a small degree but it is just a smidgeon and early in the book and forms only the basis for further inquiry. Keep in mind that this is just a discussion about a descriptive box and says nothing of the substance of what being a Deist entailed with respect to Mathew larger thesis, “...Deism in its own day referred not to a superficial theological doctrine but to a comprehensive intellectual tradition that ranged freely the terrain we now associate with ethics, political theory, metaphysics, the philosophy of mind, and epistemology.”(1)
The following passages are Stewart’s (2). I have recreated his citations as I saw fit.
”Upon reading a collection of many of the very same authors whose works would later appear on Jefferson’s bookshelf of moral philosophy, Ben became ‘a real Doubter in many Points of our Religious Doctrine.’ He was ‘scarce 15’ when, ‘after doubting by turns of several Points as I found them disputed in the different Books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation it self.’ In a decisive confession, he announces that his books had made him into a deist:
-----”’Some Books against Deism fell into my Hands; they were said to be the substance of Sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an Effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them: For the arguments of the Deists which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much Stronger than the Refutations. In short I soon became a thorough deist.’ 67-----
“It is an apt reflection of Franklin’s subversively insouciant personality that he claimed to have formed his opinion against the authorities he read. The sermons that unintentionally converted Ben, in any case, were hard hitting affairs, intended to beat into their reader’s minds the conviction that deism is just a dishonest name for atheism. The sermons had specific targets for their theological odium, moreover, and the chief target of the first and most influential of the Boyle Lectures was Charles Blount – the author of the first of the Oracles of Reason. 68
”Though Franklin modulated the expression of his philosophical and religious views considerably as he matured, he never gave reason to think that he ever departed from the convictions he acquired as a youthful bibliophile. ‘He was an unbeliever in Christianity’ who by his example did much to ‘make others unbelievers,’ said fellow philosopher (and notorious heretic in his own right) Joseph Priestley.69 He was a man ‘of whom the infidels plume themselves much.’ Complained the firebrand preacher Jonathan Edwards (the younger).70 In a letter to Ezra Stiles in the last year of his life, Franklin confessed to a simple list of deist doctrines that could have been inserted without notice into Ethan Allen’s Bible71”
Stewart’s Citations
67. Franklin, Autobiography, part 6.
68. Richard Bentley, The Folly of Atheism and (what is now called) Deism (London: Mortlock, 1693.
69. Joseph Priestley, Autobiography of Joseph Priestley Adams & Dart, 1775), p. 117.
70. Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, D.D. (Boston: Doctrinal Tract Society, 1850), 2.524.
71. Franklin to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790, in Franklin, Papers (unpublished).
Note: Ethen Allen’s Bible refers to his Reason The Only Oracle of Man
1) Stewart, Nature’s God, p. 5
2) Stewart, Nature’s God, pp 27-28
Bill, I think that I remember you bring up the "Christ" and "Savior" reference before. Do you have the citation for Ben declaring that Jesus Christ was his Lord and Savior?
Bill, I checked the index and there's no direct reference to Franklin declaring Jesus to be the Christ or that Jesus was his Savior. Maybe the citation, a letter that he wrote or his autobiography, will help narrow it down.
If Franklin does declare himself later in life to be a Christian, with Jesus as his Savior, then that would be consistent with Stewart's ”Though Franklin modulated the expression of his philosophical and religious views considerably as he matured," but would give evidence against his "...he never gave reason to think that he ever departed from the convictions he acquired as a youthful bibliophile."
It would also directly refute Priestley's statement above.
Can you pinpoint the time of his conversion and to whom he professed his conversion?
Thank you, Jim. That's pretty much what I suspected.
I've traced Franklin's conversion to his 1735 pamphlets in defense of Samuel Hemphill. In these pamphlets, Franklin expressed a proper Christian view of that salvation comes only as the gift of God because of the sacrificial death of Christ. This view was defended by Franklin in subsequent letters. I've documented this in my article on "The Conversion of Benjamin Franklin."
I've also documented several instances in which Franklin spoke of Jesus as being the Christ, the Messiah and the Saviour in my article "Frazer, Fortenberry and Franklin."
Bill, Your citation of Franklin's Conversion does look familiar and I have again scanned it. I'm not surprised that Stewart doesn't include a Franklin "conversion" as you've presented it.
As best as I can tell, Your thesis - that Franklin "...had documented his own, spiritual revolution in clear detail revealing to all the world his conversion from skeptical deism to a full faith and trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ:"
1) seems to rest on three documents, 1) Franklin's 1732 article "On the Providence of God in the Government of the World", 2) Franklin's "Doctrine to be Preached,” (1788 although apparently written down earlier, possibly ca. 1730s), and a letter to Ezra Stiles (March 9, 1790), and
2) does not hold up when actually examining the full text and context of the documents.
And, I'll write in more detail as I have a chance but, for now, I have holes to dig in the back yard. Otherwise, does Franklin ever make an explicit confession of Christian faith - as Christianity would have been perceived at the time or even now?
FTR, I consider Franklin agnostic on most points of Christian doctrine--in the truest sense of "I don't know."
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/11/ben-franklin-was-not-deist-ok.html
Also keep in mind that the Trinity is doctrine--there was controversy whether the Bible itself supports that doctrine.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
JRB:
Fortenberry is straining at gnats and seeing what he wants in Franklin's writing.
The "conversation" pieces are consistent with an unorthodox understanding of "Christianity" which is what "Christian-Deism" is.
There Franklin notes:
"Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one."
I've read what Mr. Fortenberry presents and can attest that Franklin never says anything that contradicts this.
Rather, all Franklin says is that he didn't think either he himself or most humans could earn their way through good works towards salvation so they needed some kind of benevolent plus factor to push themselves through the gates of heaven.
In his commentaries on the Hemphill affair Franklin suggests Jesus death might have been that plus factor.
In his letter to Whitefield, while written in the context suggesting they believed in two different religious systems, Franklin doesn't even suggest he relies on Jesus for that plus factor salvation but rather the benevolence of the Father. That is, even though Franklin didn't merit salvation through his own good works, he had faith a benevolent Father God would deliver him a happy ending.
The only place in that letter Franklin discusses Jesus is towards the end where Franklin uses Jesus to argue AGAINST a system of relying on faith alone without good works.
Fortenberry will reply something along the lines of faith without good works is a dead unsaving faith. But Franklin never says this. Fortenberry is just reading that in to make it "fit" his theory.
Indeed, I just noticed this part at the very end of the letter which fits the "Jesus saves through being the perfect moral teacher" heterodox notion of salvation which, if any of the Jesus saves theories, Franklin believed:
"[Jesus] declares shall in the last day be accepted; when those who cry Lord,! Lord ! who value themselves upon their faith, though great enough to perform miracles, but have neglected good works, shall be rejected. He professed, that he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; which implied his modest opinion, that there were some in his time so good, that they need not hear even him for improvement;..."
In other words, Jesus' prime purpose was to perfect the morality by which men are saved. And there were a few among them who didn't even need to hear Jesus' message because they were already living the proper moral lives.
http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/67/Letter_form_Benjamin_Franklin_to_George_Whitefield_1.html
Wow! My argument isn't based on a single one of those three. Those were just used to set the stage by presenting the evidence used to argue that Franklin was not a Christian. If you couldn't see that, then you must not have read anything that I wrote. Perhaps you should take another look.
Jon,
Your first quote is from Franklin's "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians" which, as I stated in my article, was written before Franklin adopted the Christian view of salvation which he presented in his Defense of Hemphill. And as I've mentioned in previous discussions, it is not certain whether the figure identified as S. is actually conveying Franklin's views.
As for the quote from Franklin's letter to Whitefield, why don't we consider it in its entire context:
The faith you mention has certainly its use in the world. I do not desire to see it diminished, nor would I endeavor to lessen it in any man. But I wish it were more productive of good works, than I have generally seen it; I mean real good works; works of kindness, charity, mercy, and public spirit; not holiday-keeping, sermon-reading or hearing; performing church ceremonies, or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments, despised even by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity. The worship of God is a duty; the hearing and reading of sermons may be useful; but if men rest in hearing and praying, as too many do, it is as if a tree should value itself on being watered and putting forth leaves, though it never produced any fruit.
Your great master thought much less of these outward appearances and professions, than many of his modern disciples. He preferred the doers of the word, to the mere hearers; the son that seemingly refused to obey his father, and yet performed his commands, to him that professed his readiness, but neglected the work; the heretical but charitable Samaritan, to the uncharitable though orthodox priest and sanctified Levite; and those who gave food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, raiment to the naked, entertainment to the stranger, and relief to the sick, though they never heard of his name, he declares shall in the last day be accepted; when those who cry Lord! Lord! who value themselves upon their faith, though great enough to perform miracles, but have neglected good works, shall be rejected. He professed, that he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; which implied his modest opinion, that there were some in his time so good, that they need not hear even him for improvement; but now-a-days we have scarce a little parson, that does not think it the duty of every man within his reach to sit under his petty ministrations; and that whoever omits them offends God.
I wish to such more humility, and to you health and happiness, being your friend and servant,
B. FRANKLIN.
As you can see, this letter agrees with the position stated in my article that, after Franklin's defense of Hempill, his writing style changed in that he relied heavily on the teachings of Scripture to ascertain the truth about religious matters. And as you correctly guessed, I am going to claim that Franklin was speaking about faith without works being dead. Anyone the least bit familiar with the passages that Franklin referenced can see that. This was a common theme for Franklin, and we can see that his view was consistent with Christianity when we recognize that it was the same view held by Jonathan Edwards as Franklin once wrote to his sister:
You express yourself as if you thought I was against Worshipping of God, and believed Good Works would merit Heaven; which are both Fancies of your own, I think, without Foundation. I am so far from thinking that God is not to be worshipped, that I have compos’d and wrote a whole Book of Devotions for my own Use: And I imagine there are few, if any, in the World, so weake as to imagine, that the little Good we can do here, can merit so vast a Reward hereafter. There are some Things in your New England Doctrines and Worship, which I do not agree with, but I do not therefore condemn them, or desire to shake your Belief or Practice of them. We may dislike things that are nevertheless right in themselves. I would only have you make me the same Allowances, and have a better Opinion both of Morality and your Brother. Read the Pages of Mr. Edward’s late Book entitled Some Thoughts concerning the present Revival of Religion in NE. from 367 to 375; and when you judge of others, if you can perceive the Fruit to be good, don’t terrify your self that the Tree may be evil, but be assur’d it is not so; for you know who has said, Men do not gather Grapes of Thorns or Figs of Thistles.
"Your first quote is from Franklin's 'Dialogue between Two Presbyterians' which, as I stated in my article, was written before Franklin adopted the Christian view of salvation which he presented in his Defense of Hemphill."
And as I have demonstrated, the first quote from "Dialog" is entirely consistent with what Franklin wrote in his "Defense of Hemphill."
"And as I've mentioned in previous discussions, it is not certain whether the figure identified as S. is actually conveying Franklin's views."
Just as it's not certain whether Franklin's defense of Hemphill actually conveys Franklin's views or whether he's just acting as an advocate.
"As for the quote from Franklin's letter to Whitefield, why don't we consider it in its entire context: ..."
Yes and I'm confident the entire context validates my understanding. :)
Well I gather three things from Franklin's letter to his sister:
1. He asserts he denied good works merited Heaven. It is a non-sequitur to conclude Franklin therefore believed men are saved through faith alone, as opposed to some combination of works and grace.
2. He was trying to build a bridge and find common ground with his sister who believed in a more conservative John Edwards like faith.
3. He explicitly declares while trying to find that common ground, he disagrees with parts of his sister's Jonathan Edwards influenced faith.
The common ground revolved around the stress on good works, not on faith alone saves.
The notion that faith that does not produce good works is not saving faith is, as it were, likely viewed by Franklin as a useful loophole because it puts the focus on what Franklin thought most important: the outcome of good works, and not a "saving faith" that alone saves.
My conclusions is, looking at Franklin's writings as a whole, to try to claim he believed in a Jonathan Edwards like Christianity is a distortion.
If anything Franklin's "Christianity" -- if it's fair to term it that -- was like that of Edwards' theological nemesis Charles Chauncy.
WF - "Perhaps you should take another look."
While I realize that there is more to your argument I will focus on the three that I called out before considering the whole. If these three documents have nothing to do with your argument and are extraneous then why did you put them in?
Since they are early and late public and private professions of Franklin's faith creed they remain relevant whether you wish to disavow them now or not, and establish a context for which to examine his Hemphill pamphlets, etc.
The faith you mention has certainly its use in the world. I do not desire to see it diminished, nor would I endeavor to lessen it in any man. But I wish it were more productive of good works, than I have generally seen it;
My guess is that Franklin's speaking specifically of the doctrines of Calvinism [Election?*] and "sola fide" [faith alone saves"] here---not of Christianity in general.
Any opinions or facts on this angle would be welcomed.
_____
* The doctrine of "the Elect"--God "elects" those to be saved, and once saved always saved"--gives an opening for the accusation of "antinomianism," that the Elect can get themselves damned no matter how crappy they act. Franklin mentions it all in the "Dialogue between 2 Presbyterians."
“First,” says he, “This Scheme [of imputed Righteousness] renders Christ’s Satisfaction to the Justice of God, by offering up himself as our expiatory Sacrifice, needless and superfluous.
“The divine Law never subjects any to Punishment, who are regarded and accepted by God any Way as perfect Fulfillers of it. They may have transgress’d it in their natural Persons; but if another by God’s own Appointment, is constituted their legal Proxy, and his sinless Obedience to the Law be in God’s Account, and by an Act of strict Imputation made their personal Obedience, then after such an Act of Imputation, no Sins commited by them in their natural Persons, can be any longer charg’d upon them as theirs; and as a noted Writer (tho’ no profess’d Antinomian) speaks, as to the Elect, there was never any Guilt upon them in the Judgment of God. And this shews the Confusion that those run into, who supposing Christ to be in the strictest sense our Surety, assert him to have both discharg’d our Debt of perfect Obedience, and our Debt of Punishment too.
Before I get much further, I peg this as the central point of your conversion thesis:
From Fortenberry’s Conversion: ”In addition to publishing the "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians," Franklin also published three pamphlets in defense of Hemphill. In those pamphlets, we find Franklin shedding the last vestiges of his previously held deism and fully adopting biblical Christianity. The third of these pamphlets was entitled "A Defense of Mr. Hemphill's Observations," and in it, Franklin declared in no uncertain terms that "Christ by his Death and Sufferings has purchas’d for us those easy Terms and Conditions of our Acceptance with God, propos’d in the Gospel, to wit, Faith and Repentance." Here at last, he had arrived at pure Christian doctrine. He finally understood that there is a God, that sin separates men from Him, that no man is virtuous enough to regain fellowship with God, that the penalty for this failure is death, that Christ paid that penalty for all men through His own death on the cross and that it is only by placing faith in His sacrifice and repenting of our own failures that we can be brought back into favor with God. Here, Franklin speaks not as a mere deist or theist but as a true follower of Jesus Christ.”
If this is not right please set me straight.
Does anyone have a link to the letter that Franklin was responding to when he spoke of "The faith you mention..." That would certainly help clear up this particular discussion. I haven't been able to locate a copy yet.
On the other hand, I have noted another statement from Franklin on the topic of "saving faith" in particular. In His defense of Hemphill, he explained what Hemphill meant by this term:
Saving Faith, in Hemphill’s Sense, is always attended with suitable Effects; that is, with Piety and Virtue, or Love to God and Mankind
http://franklinpapers.org/franklin//framedVolumes.jsp?vol=2&page=090a
This shows that Hemphill at least was advocating the view that "faith without works is dead." Thus, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that Franklin's statements about faith in his Defense of Hemphill should be understood in that light.
And here is an excerpt from the end of Frnaklin's Defense of Hemphill in which he argued that Hemphill's view of justification by faith is essentially identical to that expressed by his accusers:
These Authors in very angry Terms condemn a Remark of Hemphill’s in his Observations, which yet appears to be a very just one. He (Hemphill) supposes, that all Christians (Antimonians excepted) will allow, that Faith will not be imputed for Righteousness to those Men who have been educated in the Christian Religion, and yet have never endeavour’d to practise its Precepts; that such Men, says he, have no reason to expect that they shall be justify d by a bare Faith, as the primitive Christians were, who embrac’d Christianity assoon as they heard it preached; that is, have no reason to expect the Forgiveness of their Sins upon account of a bare Faith, as the primitive Christians were forgiven their past Sins upon their first Conversion, or their Believing in Jesus Christ.
To this our very reverend Authors, with a pious and orthodox Sneer, answer, It is scarce possible for a Man to bind together a greater Bundle of Error, Ignorance and Impertinence in so few Words, than this Gentleman has done. Hah! a home Thrust! a bold Stroke! next Turn’s mine. Here they suppose this Position of Hemphill’s to be erroneous, &c. And yet in the next Paragraph tell us, with a sanctify’d Leer, that the whole Protestant World, the Antinomians only excepted, have constantly taught, that those Men who have been educated in the Christian Religion, are justifyed by a Faith, that from the very Nature of it is necessarily accompanied with Good Works, by a Faith that can no more exist without good Works, than the Body can live without the Spirit, &c. So then we are now justify’d by a Faith, the very Life and Soul of which consists in good Works, as certainly as the Life of the Body consists in the Spirit. Such Inconsistency! Such Self-contradiction! Surely these Men’s Spirits must be strangely muffled up with Phlegm, and their Brains, if they have any, encompass’d with a Fence of a most impenetrable Thickness.
Well I read the passage as Franklin attacking the notion that men are justified by faith alone and he's doing so by focusing on the hermeneutical loophole in question.
Parts of the Bible seem to suggest men are not justified by faith alone, but rather need works too.
To which the "sola fide" Protestants argue a hermeneutical loophole as they interpret those passages: you are saved by faith alone but saving faith will always be accompanied by good works; but it's the former not the later which justifies you.
Franklin seems to see this as a distinction without a difference. He sees it as functionally the same thing as arguing men are justified by a faith/works combination and doesn't "get" why those who argue against sola fide would be attacked in lieu of this.
And here's something that I don't "get."
We all understand the different sects within Christianity point the fingers at one another and have their pet theories on what it really takes to be a "real Christian."
For an evangelical fundamentalist, Mr. Fortenberry surprisingly has argued you don't necessarily have to believe in such things as the Trinity and the Virgin birth, among other doctrines that some view central to the meaning of Christianity.
But why sola fide? There are huge amounts Christians in the ecumenical small o orthodox tradition, mainly of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bent who (as I understand) reject sola fide as well.
Are you going to tell me that they aren't "real Christians."
That's an excellent question, Jon, and I'm glad to see you ask it. The reason that I'm so adamant about salvation being only through faith is that God is adamant about it in the Bible. There is no passage of Scripture which states that one must believe in the Trinity in order to be saved from hell, nor is there any verse which claims that one must believe in the virgin birth of Christ in order to obtain heaven. But there is an abundance of verses which state in clear and unmistakable terms that men can only escape the punishment of hell and obtain the gift of eternal life through faith.
Consider, for example, what is written in Ephesians 2:8-9.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Then compare that with what we read in Romans 3:22-26.
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
And again we find a very clear contrast between faith and works expressed in Galatians 2:16.
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
We could go on and look at dozens of additional instances, but I think that the point has been made fairly clear. According to the Bible, the only means of obtaining salvation from an eternity in hell is to believe in Jesus Christ. No other doctrine of Scripture is more clear than this.
But, we may ask, what is it about Christ that must be believed in order to obtain this salvation by faith? This question is also answered in Scripture. In Romans 1:16 we read:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Thus, we see that it is the Gospel which must believed in order to obtain salvation, and in I Corinthians 15:1-4, the Gospel is clearly explained to be the sacrificial death of Christ and His resurrection.
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
"No other doctrine of Scripture is more clear than this."
The problem is the Bible isn't exactly clear on this doctrine. Apparently it can go different ways on this and lots of other doctrines. It's the hermeneutic that straightens it out.
Likewise you haven't shown why one of your other stock answers you give to folks who believe in things you disagree with but still get to be "Christians" anyway should also not apply here.
So what if Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox (and as I argue Ben Franklin; but let's leave him aside for the moment) -- folks who believe in some kind of works/grace justification scheme -- are mistaken on that particular issue any more if they are mistaken on the Trinity or Virgin birth. As long as they believe Jesus is Messiah and did in fact die for their sins and offers the gift of grace -- which they do -- I don't see why it should make a difference, accordingly.
No, Jon. The Scripture is actually extremely clear on this point. That's why those who reject sola fide invariably reject sola scriptura as well.
As for whether those who reject this doctrine should be considered Christians, I actually hold to the doctrine of eternal security. Once someone becomes a Christian by believing in the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ, he will always be a Christian regardless of whether his beliefs may change at some future point in time. This is taught expressly in Scripture in passages such as II Timothy 2:13.
If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself
And it is exemplified in other passages dealing with Christians who have accepted false doctrines as was the case in Galatia. In Galatians 1:6-7, we find this statement:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
The Christians in Galatia had accepted the Gospel which Paul preached which was that Jesus Christ died to pay the price for their sins and that He rose again after three days. Unfortunately, after Paul left the city, the Galatians began to believe a different gospel which was based on obtaining salvation through adherence to the Law of Moses. That this was the false gospel which they accepted is readily seen in chapter 5 where we read:
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
The Galatians had originally believed the Gospel of justification by faith, but they later changed their beliefs and accepted the gospel of faith plus works. However, there is nothing in the book of Galatians to indicate that these believers ever ceased to be Christians even though they had come to believe a false gospel. In fact, the book is filled with references to these believers as "brethren" which was a term that Paul never used for Gentiles unless they were Christians.
Similar examples could be drawn from the letters to the Corinthians, the letter to the Ephesians, the letter to the Hebrews and several other passages throughout Scripture. Once a man accepts the Gospel that Christ died for his sins and rose again three days later, that man has become a Christian, and nothing that he does from that point on can change that. The Christians in Galatia actually abandoned the very doctrine of sola fide that we are discussing, and yet the fact that they had once accepted that doctrine and placed their faith in the Gospel was sufficient for Paul to refer to them as believers even while he rebuked them for abandoning the true Gospel of Christ.
Well I know you have your understanding of Matthew 26. But Franklin and Jefferson's understanding was that good works are too a necessary component for salvation. And yes, both of them rejected sola scriptura.
As I read Matthew 26 I see a good faith reading is consistent with works as necessary for justification.
This brings me to your question about Catholics. According to the above explanation, if a Catholic individual has ever accepted the gospel that Christ died for his sins and rose again three days later, then that person is a Christian and will always remain a Christian.
The error of Catholicism, however, is that the Catholic church does not teach Christ died for our sins. The Catholic view of Christ's death is actually similar to that of the Mormons in that they teach that He died to provide the opportunity for men to earn their salvation by atoning for their own sins. This is contrary to Scripture, and this belief is insufficient to make one a Christian.
That does not mean, however, that one cannot be both a Catholic and a Christian. I am personally acquainted with several Catholics who are Christians. They have rejected this particular doctrine of their church and have instead accepted the biblical teaching that Christ died to pay for their sins and not just to give them the opportunity to pay for them themselves.
The Catholic among the founding fathers, Charles Carroll, would have fallen into this category of being a Christian who was also a Catholic. Carroll wrote a letter to Dr. Charles Wharton on September 27, 1825, in which he made the following statement about his faith:
On the mercy of my redeemer I rely for salvation and on his merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to his precepts.
Thus, I have frequently included Carroll in my listings of Christian founders even though he was a member of a church which rejected the doctrine of sola fide.
I think that you may be confusing necessity with sufficiency. Good works can be said to necessary for salvation in the sense that a faith which does not produce good works is a dead faith which is to say that it is not really faith at all but rather a mere outward expression of something which is not really believed. This is the type of faith that Franklin often criticized, and it is expressly stated in Scripture to be insufficient for salvation. Consider what we find written in the second chapter of James:
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
This passage tells us the only way in which works are necessary for salvation. They are necessary only because they are the natural result of the faith which is necessary for salvation. No amount of good works can be sufficient in and of themselves to merit heaven. They are merely the evidence of a sufficient faith.
"Good works can be said to necessary for salvation in the sense that a faith which does not produce good works is a dead faith which is to say that it is not really faith at all but rather a mere outward expression of something which is not really believed."
Again this is your sola fide explanation that Franklin NEVER articulated.
Franklin's view is closer to the Mormons and Catholics that held a combination of faith and works as necessary for salvation.
What Franklin detailed in Hemphill is much closer to what the Roman Catholics believe than what you believe.
I also find it very interesting how you use this dialog as an opportunity to simultaneously 1. distort the Catholic and Mormon view of justification in one direction; while 2. distorting Franklin's view in the very other direction when they are saying very similar things.
Actually, even if we take your understanding of Franklin's view to be correct, there is still an important distinction between what you believe to be Franklin's view and what is taught by Mormonism.
According to your view, Franklin believed that, after believing the Gospel of Christ, Christians are required to make a sincere effort at living righteously while trusting in Christ to make up the difference between their efforts and the righteousness which is actually required in order to merit heaven.
The Mormon view of atonement is quite different as I've outlined in an article entitled "The Real Reason that Mormons are not Christians." The full article is available at: http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/the-real-reason-that-mormons-are-not-christians, but the essence of it is that Mormonism teaches that Christ's death only provided the opportunity for men to earn their own salvation. The idea that Christ would make up the difference between a man's failures and the necessary limit of righteousness for heaven is contrary to the teachings of the Mormon church. Under that system, those who are not righteous enough in themselves simply fail to attain eternal life with the Father.
"According to your view, Franklin believed that, after believing the Gospel of Christ, Christians are required to make a sincere effort at living righteously while trusting in Christ to make up the difference between their efforts and the righteousness which is actually required in order to merit heaven."
This is basically what Franklin says in Hemphill, though there is a lot more to the story there. In his personal writings Franklin is not even so explicit that he trusts in Christ.
As I noted before in his letter to George Whitefield, he seems to trust in the benevolence of the Father God for justification as opposed to in Christ.
Similarly if you put Franklin though the kind of scrutiny you put the Mormons you could just as easily assert he too was one of those folks who understood himself to be a Christian, but really was not.
For instance, "[u]nder that system, those who are not righteous enough in themselves simply fail to attain eternal life with the Father."
I don't see how this contradicts Franklin's view. Both the Mormons and Franklin seemed to believe in some kind of modified version of universalism.
Franklin did not believe that all or perhaps even any of those who missed the mark would burn in Hell for eternity.
When I said there is "more to the story" in Hemphill, I mean like this: In parts of Hemphill Franklin suggests that after being forgiven through Christ at conversion, if one practiced virtue but did not fail (that is, if one properly "walked the walk") one wouldn't even need to trust in Christ for any more forgiveness. It's only those, like himself, who would stumble on the way who would then need to turn to God's forgiveness.
What's known as the "holiness doctrine" (or heresy?) in Christian circles -- that salvation means men reach a point where they literally stop sinning -- dovetails with the Enlightenment view of the perfectibility of man.
The "rational Christianity" in the Hemphill affair captures this.
And in Hemphill, Franklin's views on justification are more "works centered" than for which the following summary gives credit:
"[A]fter believing the Gospel of Christ, Christians are required to make a sincere effort at living righteously while trusting in Christ to make up the difference between their efforts and the righteousness which is actually required in order to merit heaven."
Perhaps you could provide some examples from the Hemphill pamphlets along with a more detailed analysis in support of your view. I am especially interested in seeing how you can interpret Franklin to be postulating both a works based salvation and universalism at the same time. These two doctrines are polar opposites of each other, and it would be quite an achievement for someone to argue for both of them together.
From what I've seen in the Hemphill pamphlets, the dispute in regards to justification by faith was focused on whether one could be saved by a "bare faith" or whether one's faith must be accompanied by good works. As you can see in the quote that I provided above, neither side was willing to embrace antinomianism which completely denies the necessity of good works. Thus, as Franklin pointed out, both sides were really arguing for the same thing even while accusing each other of heresy.
"I am especially interested in seeing how you can interpret Franklin to be postulating both a works based salvation and universalism at the same time. These two doctrines are polar opposites of each other, and it would be quite an achievement for someone to argue for both of them together."
LOL: It's quite easily summed up in one word: Purgatory for which Franklin did believe.
If you missed the mark, you spent some time working your debt off in purgatory and eventually got into Heaven.
"Thus, as Franklin pointed out, both sides were really arguing for the same thing even while accusing each other of heresy."
Yes Franklin thought the theological loophole that a saving faith is always accompanies by good works to be essentially the same thing as saving salvation comes through faith + works.
Can you cite a few quotes to demonstrate both of those statements?
Here is one:
From his letter to "Mrs. Partridge. On the Death of Ben Kent.—Orthodoxy. (extract.) Philadelphia, Nov. 25, 1788."
"You tell me our poor friend Ben Kent is gone, I hope to the regions of the blessed; or at least to some place where souls are prepared for those regions! I found my hope on this, that though not so orthodox as you and I, he was an honest man, and had his virtues. If he had any hypocrisy, it was of that inverted kind, with which a man is not so bad as he seems to be. And with regard to future bliss, I cannot help imagining that multitudes of the zealously orthodox of different sects, who at the last day may flock together, in hopes of seeing each other damned, will be disappointed, and obliged to rest content with their own salvation. Yours, &c. B. Franklin."
Likewise when I noted your quoted summary gave short shrift to the notion of good works, it's because in Hemphill (as elsewhere) Franklin makes men doing good works the ESSENCE or the "end" of "Christianity."
"It wou’d be needless to quote any more Texts of Scripture to this Purpose; they are to be found in almost every Page of the New Testament. So that upon the whole, it may justly be concluded, that the main Design and ultimate End of the christian Revelation, or of Christ’s coming into the World, was to promote the Practice of Piety, Goodness, Virtue, and Universal Righteousness among Mankind, or the Practice of the moral Duties both with Respect to God and Man, and by these Means to make us happy here and hereafter. All the Precepts, Promises, Threatnings, positive Institutions, Faith in Jesus Christ, and all the Peculiarities and Discoveries in this Revelation tend to this End; and if God gives a Revelation to Mankind at all, it is this, and this only that can make it worthy of him.
"Now that natural Religion, or that the Laws of our Nature oblige us to the highest Degrees of Love to God, and in consequence of this Love to our almighty Maker, to pay him all the Homage, Worship and Adoration we are capable of, and to do every thing we know he requires; and that the same Laws oblige us to the Love of Mankind, and in consequence of this Love, as well as of our Love to God, (because he requires these things of us) to do good Offices to, and promote the general Welfare and Happiness of our Fellow-creatures: That the Laws of our Nature, I say, oblige us to these things, even the Rev. Vindicators themselves, will hardly be altogether so absurd as to deny, since they acknowledge, p. 20, of their learn’d Performance, the christian Revelation to be agreeable to our Nature. By what Accident such an Acknowledgment slipt from their Pen is not easy to guess; I imagine it to be a Mistake of the Printer; if not, how consistent it is with other parts of their wise Scheme is obvious to the lowest Capacity.
[...]
"Now, that to promote the Practice of the great Laws of Morality and Virtue both with Respect to God and Man, is the main End and Design of the christian Revelation has been already prov’d from the Revelation itself. ..."
In order to understand how Franklin views Christ's sacrifice/atonement it must be tied into this "works of man" centered view of Christianity. As such, whenever we see Franklin speaking of Christ in context, it's always as someone who saved man by perfecting morality.
Thank you, Jon. I suspected that you were referring to Franklin's statement about Kent when you mentioned purgatory, but I wanted to be certain before responding. There are two things about this letter from Franklin which must be taken into account in order understand what he is saying. The first of these becomes apparent when we read the letter from Elizabeth Partridge to which Franklin was responding. I have not been able to locate a website which contains the entire letter, but you can read the relevant section about Kent's death in vol. 9 of The Writings of Benjamin Franklin at this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=RfF2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA683
Our Friend Mr. Benjamin Kent has taken His departure but for what Land is uncertain He thought He should be one of the Happy Few that escaped Stoping at Purgatory I wish he may not be Mistaken but have arrived safe at the Elisian Fields.
As you can see from this excerpt, the first part of Franklin's statement could be nothing more than a paraphrase of Elizabeth's statement:
You tell me our poor friend Ben Kent is gone, I hope to the regions of the blessed; or at least to some place where souls are prepared for those regions!
is very similar to what Elizabeth said in her letter. I do not know if Elizabeth was a Catholic or not, but if she were, then this section of Franklin's letter could have been nothing more than an attempt on Franklin's part to avoid a theological confrontation with his niece.
The second point that should be made is that Benjamin Kent was very much a Christian. He was actually an ordained minister of the Congregationalist church before being dismissed on charges of heresy. That these charges were false can be seen in his only published sermon which was entitled "Upon the divinity of Christ. Wherein it is strongly asserted, proved and vindicated against the Socinian & Arian heresys." You can read this very orthodox sermon online at: http://www.classicapologetics.com/k/kentb-a.pdf. After being forced out of the Congregationalist church, Kent began attending the Anglican church, and I am not aware of any heretical doctrine which can be found in his writings.
The fact that Kent claimed to be a Christian in spite of the charges brought against him changes the import of Franklin's comments significantly. Instead of this being an expression of belief in a purgatory where non-Christians can atone for their sins before being granted admittance into heaven, Franklin's words now appear to be an assurance that the works (honesty and virtue) produced by Mr. Kent supported his claim to be a Christian. Franklin new that Kent was of the Christian faith because that faith was accompanied by good works, and he argued that many others claiming to be Christians would likewise be permitted into heaven in spite of any number of their fellow believers who might accuse them of heresy.
As for the quote which you provided from the Hemphill pamphlets, let me simply point out that Franklin's statement is completely accurate. The Bible does teach that the ultimate goal of Christianity is that men live righteously and produce good works. Consider what is said in Titus 2:11-14:
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
According to this passage, the grace of God which brought salvation also teaches us that we should live righteously in this world. We also find here that the reason Christ died for us was to enable us to become a people who are "zealous of good works." There is nothing heretical about the claim that the goal of Christianity is to produce righteousness.
Wow, where Franklin's words in the quote are so few, yours are so many. Perhaps you needed those amount of words because you didn't think I'd notice you trying to slip this in:
"Instead of this being an expression of belief in a purgatory where non-Christians can atone for their sins before being granted admittance into heaven, Franklin's words now appear to be an assurance that the works (honesty and virtue) produced by Mr. Kent supported his claim to be a Christian."
No it's actually both. Right there in a plain reading of the letter Franklin admits that those who miss the mark may "go to some place where souls are prepared for those regions!" He hopes Mr. Kent didn't miss the mark; but if he did ....
"There is nothing heretical about the claim that the goal of Christianity is to produce righteousness."
And I'll repeat my assertion because it still stands:
"In order to understand how Franklin views Christ's sacrifice/atonement it must be tied into this 'works of man' centered view of Christianity. As such, whenever we see Franklin speaking of Christ in context, it's always as someone who saved man by perfecting morality."
One other thing about the dialog where Franklin is noting that all Christians who are not Antinomians believe "real Christianity" involves good works. I assert Franklin rejects men are saved through faith alone, but rather a combination of faith and works. And he believes all Christians, Antinomians excepted, apparently believe this. Franklin never asserts men are justified through faith alone, but a saving faith will always be accompanied by good works. Franklin apparently believes this is functionally no different than believing men are saved through a faith & works combination.
Your interpretation of Franklin's letter is not logically consistent. If Franklin believed in a universalism with those whose works "missed the mark" spending a period of time in purgatory before being allowed in heaven, then there would be no reason for Franklin to have used the words "I hope." If heaven and purgatory were the only options which Franklin saw as possible, then his "hope" would have been a certainty. Of course Kent would be in either heaven or purgatory, for there would not have been any other option under such a belief system. The very idea that one would "hope" that a friend made it to either heaven or purgatory contains within it an admission of the possibility that this friend might have gone somewhere worse. Thus, by referencing this letter, you have refuted your own claim that Franklin was a universalist.
In contrast, my view of this letter contains no self-contradiction, and unlike yours, my view takes into consideration the context in which this letter was written. We know from the evidence that Kent was a Christian. We know that he was a life-long friend of Franklin. We know that he was declared to be a heretic, and that he denied all charges and vigorously defended his orthodoxy. We also know that it was Elizabeth who brought the idea of purgatory into the conversation, and that she did so at a time when it would have been inappropriate for Franklin to correct her.
In light of these circumstances, we find Franklin writing that he had a reasonable hope that Kent was in heaven. The idea of purgatory, though not refuted, is relegated to an "or at least" section of the letter. Franklin's actual hope was clearly that Kent was in "the regions of the blessed." The reason that Franklin had that hope was clearly stated as being the contrast between Kent's honesty and virtue and his being "not so orthodox." This signifies that Franklin viewed good works as a more sure confirmation of Kent's claim to be a Christian than the decision of any church council in regards to his orthodoxy. Franklin then proceeded to give his opinion that those participating in such councils would one day be disappointed to find that their decisions had carried no merit in God's plan of salvation.
This view is fully consistent with the known facts surrounding this letter, and it is also consistent with a statement regarding the after life which Franklin made in a letter to his sister several years prior. In that earlier letter, we find Franklin writing:
But our reasoning Powers when employ’d about what may have been before our Existence here, or shall be after it, cannot go far for want of History and Facts: Revelation only can give us the necessary Information, and that (in the first of these Points especially) has been very sparingly afforded us. http://franklinpapers.org/franklin//framedVolumes.jsp?vol=17&page=313a
There is nothing in Scripture about any region such as purgatory, and when Franklin's letter to Elizabeth is viewed in light of his earlier letter to Jane, it becomes apparent that Franklin would not have accepted such a doctrine as anything more than a mere possibility, a supposition from the minds of men with no grounding in actual facts. Such a view of purgatory would allow for Franklin to include the possibility as an "or at least" section of his letter to Elizabeth even if he did not accept the existence of purgatory himself.
As for your assertion, what do you propose Franklin should have declared to be the goal of Christianity -- unrighteousness and immorality?
Honestly I think that this dialog represents the reality that the more one tries to explain away what's right there written on the page, the more words one must use. Is there a term for this phenomenon? Perhaps "convolution"?
All your convolution can't explain away what Franklin said, that he believes in both Heaven and Purgatory:
"You tell me our poor friend Ben Kent is gone, I hope to the regions of the blessed; or at least to some place where souls are prepared for those regions!"
Regarding the third possibility, it's a logical fallacy to conclude the wicked go to an eternal Hell, as opposed to a temporary Hell.
"As for your assertion, what do you propose Franklin should have declared to be the goal of Christianity -- unrighteousness and immorality?"
The orthodox notion demands an infinite atonement to satisfy man's infinite transgression against an infinite God.
Franklin's view of Christianity -- that it's all about proper moral modeling -- exactly that of J. Adams and Jefferson -- leads to or walks hand in hand with heretical or even non-existent notions of atonement.
So Franklin's view of the "atonement" is "apparently" less orthodox than that of the Catholics and probably no more orthodox than that of the Mormons.
And at the end of Franklin's life when asked to put his faith cards on the table by Ezra Stiles, what do we see?
Salvation through faith alone? Needing to put your faith in Christ's finished work on the cross?
Nope, rather doubts as to Jesus divinity and praise of Him or him as the best moral modeler.
If you were honest Mr. Fortenberry, you would concede that I bested you here.
Post a Comment