At National Review, Timothy Sandefur reviews C. Bradley Thompson new book which seems destined to be a classic. A taste:
Thompson’s presentation is valuable because it helps correct modern mischaracterizations of the revolutionaries’ natural-law theories and shows just how rigorous and thorough their thinking was. His exploration of such questions as the relationship between natural rights and natural law, and between Lockean thought and the republican theories that the Founders drew from the ancient Romans, does justice to the ingenuity and depth of Revolutionary-era thinking.
In fact, America’s Revolutionary Mind stands as a refutation of two noxious trends in recent American historiography. The first, which Thompson mentions only briefly in a few endnotes, is the effort to downplay the impact of Locke’s ideas on the Founding Fathers. Scholars of the “classical republican” persuasion have argued that, important as Locke may have been, American revolutionaries were more influenced by Greek, Roman, and Puritan writers who placed less emphasis on the rights of the individual than on the stability of society, the importance of tradition, and the need to sacrifice for the common good. Thompson, by contrast, argues that “America’s revolutionary mind is virtually synonymous with John Locke’s mind” and backs that argument up with an arsenal of examples.
While the Founders certainly consulted the writings of such classical thinkers as Aristotle and Cicero, Thompson argues that they modified the ancients’ republicanism in light of their Lockean commitment to liberty: “For traditional republicans going back to ancient Greece and Rome, the sacrifice of individual interests for the common good was the ultimate standard of moral and political value,” he writes. But thanks to the influence of now-forgotten intellectuals such as Massachusetts minister Jonathan Mayhew, who wove Lockean theory together with Christian doctrine, the Founders adopted “a new and improved understanding of republicanism” that focused on what the Declaration calls “happiness and safety,” the twin pillars of the bourgeois commercial republic.
22 comments:
His exploration of such questions as the relationship between natural rights and natural law, and between Lockean thought and the republican theories that the Founders drew from the ancient Romans,
The author may get some things correct in his book, but most of the book has to be suspect if similar to the above quote. The colonists did not know doctrine of the Greeks and Romans, especially natural law.
Natural law is the ultimate law, but the first order of business for the Founders was natural rights, as opposed to conventional political rights. Alexander Hamilton to the notorious Tory Rev, Samuel Seabury, in "The Farmer Refuted":
The first thing that presents itself is a wish, that “I had, explicitly, declared to the public my ideas of the natural rights of mankind. Man, in a state of nature (you say) may be considered, as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, and, then, the weak must submit to the strong.”
I shall, henceforth, begin to make some allowance for that enmity, you have discovered to the natural rights of mankind. For, though ignorance of them in this enlightened age cannot be admitted, as a sufficient excuse for you; yet, it ought, in some measure, to extenuate your guilt. If you will follow my advice, there still may be hopes of your reformation. Apply yourself, without delay, to the study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your perusal, Grotius. Puffendorf [sic], Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui. I might mention other excellent writers on this subject; but if you attend, diligently, to these, you will not require any others.
There is so strong a similitude between your political principles and those maintained by Mr. Hobb[e]s, that, in judging from them, a person might very easily mistake you for a disciple of his. His opinion was, exactly, coincident with yours, relative to man in a state of nature. He held, as you do, that he was, then, perfectly free from all restraint of law and government. Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he run into this absurd and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe.
...
Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensibly, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever.
This is what is called the law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately, or immediately, from this original.” Blackstone.
Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beatifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty, and personal safety.
Natural rights are grounded in the natural law, not in politics and government. And frankly, especially per Pufendorf, Protestantism and its countless sects and theological innovations made the establishment of individual freedom a necessity, and the natural law was logical fertile ground for the unquestionably Protestant milieu that was the American Founding to plant it.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/pufendorf-and-religious-toleration-ii
Natural law is the ultimate law
No. Says the one who spoke of it first; Moses and the one who was the final messenger to the ff's (gentiles); Paul.
Hamilton was young when he wrote "The Farmer Refuted". 20 years old according to Hamilton himself. It is impossible for natural law to be any authority for anything because it's completely subjective, with no foundation underneath it. The ff's rejected the true authority behind natural law by rejecting Christ as the creator of natural law: John 1:1-4, 14.
Natural rights are grounded in the natural law
More proof that the idea is subjective and hopeless. The mind determines what's right and wrong in matural law, not the words of the creator of the mind. And the creator gave no rights to man in His word. Therefore, it follows God cannot be the author of natural rights.
Natural law is most famously in Romans 2:
“When Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts” (vv. 14–15).
- Romans 2:12–16
"Even those without access to Scripture outlaw the killing of innocent human beings and have clear determinations of when killing is murder and when it is not. The law of God on their hearts tells them there are cases when killing is clearly wrong, even if they do not always interpret this law rightly.
The lex naturalis, or natural law, is what theologians have called the universal sense of right and wrong. Western jurisprudence has been decisively shaped by it, although recent years have seen public education, elected officials, and law schools increasingly turn their backs on this time-honored concept."
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/natural-law-romans/
How you can be unfamiliar with this argument is beyond me, Jim. None of us are interested in your own personal theology or anyone else's---only in the prevailing theology of the Founding.
This is not a theology blog; we study only the HISTORY of theology, without taking sides.
Natural law is true only if the creator of natural law is acknowledged, otherwise it's natural law of the deists and Cato.
Natural rights are not in the bible and thetefore cannot be from God. They are political rights, contrary to what the ff's said
"Natural law is true only if the creator of natural law is acknowledged, otherwise it's natural law of the deists and Cato."
That is Leo Strauss's criticism as well. But even if true, your objection that God was left out of the Founding principles is now moot.
This is what is called the law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately, or immediately, from this original.”---Blackstone.
It's not a moot point to the Right. They rest on that assumption. All I'm claiming is the ff's were ignorant in not naming their Saviour and Lord as the creator of natural law, since God is the creator of the mind. Did they forget? I doubt it.
Did u know most of the colonial democrats in the 18th century were Trinitarian?
The Trinity yes or no is really irrelevant. Some even used the Bible to argue against it.
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
The "Unitarian Controversy" had little or no effect on American history except to illustrate that Protestantism had such a wide swath of theologies that establishing any sort of church on the national level was a patent impossibility to begin with.
Natural law works just fine with a Jehovah, a monotheistic creator-God who established a natural order, and according to atheists such as Murray Rothbard, even without one.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/04/primer-on-natural-law.html
The trinity is relevant because the democrats that ratified natural law into the founding were Trinitarian.
Samuel Barrett was not a founding father therefore his flawed opinion is irrelevant.
You keep peddling your incorrect notion that anything other than mainstream historical Christianity was protestant. The reformers refuted heresy the same as roman catholicism and the anabaptists.
Protestant sects were not different in theology like you say. They were different in worship and unessentials. That proves a national church wasn't impossible; the ff's just blew it.
The ff's rejected natural law without Christ. That's why I told you the democrats were Trinitarian; Lee, SA, Dickinson, Henry and Mason come to mind.
Samuel Barrett was not a founding father therefore his flawed opinion is irrelevant.
John Adams was a Founding Father and believed more or else the same. One can argue against the Trinity even using the Bible, and the unitarians were not even the first Christians to do so.
You're really getting on my nerves, Jim. You are fully aware of these facts that contradict your argument yet you continue to dodge them. I had hoped your return to our pages would exhibit some growth.
The ff's rejected natural law without Christ.
Give us just ONE example of this. The Founding Fathers accepted natural law and did not use Jesus Christ to argue it.
That you say anyone can argue against the trinity doesn't require a response; same with anyone calling themself a Christian.
The majority were Trinitarian, therefore, it follows that the majority understood the trinity is Creator. It was an established fact from the beginning. Their error was not writing it all into the founding.
That you say anyone can argue against the trinity doesn't require a response; same with anyone calling themself a Christian.
Your surrender of the battlefield of ideas is noted, Jim. If you had a legitimate rebuttal you would give it.
George Washington to the Jews of Savannah:
May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivering the Hebrews from their Egyptian Oppressors planted them in the promised land—whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation—still continue to water them with the dews of Heaven and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah.
Jehovah. No Jesus Christ. The same "wonder-working deity" as the God of the Founding.
To prove your point, you need multiple quotes from other Founding Fathers to trump the greatest Founder of them all, George Washington, to the effect that the Jews do not worship the same God as they.
You, of course, cannot, because they don't exist. Neither logic nor fact are on your side.
GW's quote was diplomatic and political of course. GW worshipped Christ. He called himself a Christian, not a Jew. And he didn't worship in a synagogue.
You still haven't refuted the logic:
"The majority were Trinitarian, therefore, it follows that the majority understood the trinity [a]s Creator."
Paul specifically says Christ created the heavens, the earth, stars; everything. All creation was done by the Son and for the Son.
You are also getting very close to claiming the colonists were so corrupt, including all the churches, that the God of the Founding fathers (Jehovah) was also the pagan god of greece, rome, the goddess of reason of the French, the god of the deists, muslims, etc . Besides possibly a few outliers, who believed that?
There are people who believe that. Otherwise, the only alternative is the trinitarian view.
GW's quote was diplomatic and political of course. GW worshipped Christ. He called himself a Christian, not a Jew. And he didn't worship in a synagogue.
Unresponsive. Put up or shut up, Jim. You can put up not a single Founder who denied the Jews [without Christ] worshipped the same God as they.
NOT ONE, Jim.
________________
George Washington to the Jews of Savannah:
May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivering the Hebrews from their Egyptian Oppressors planted them in the promised land—whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation—still continue to water them with the dews of Heaven and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah.
Jehovah. No Jesus Christ. The same "wonder-working deity" as the God of the Founding.
To prove your point, you need multiple quotes from other Founding Fathers to trump the greatest Founder of them all, George Washington, to the effect that the Jews do not worship the same God as they.
"Paul specifically says Christ created the heavens, the earth, stars; everything. All creation was done by the Son and for the Son."
...
"Otherwise, the only alternative is the trinitarian view."
You need to expand your mind on the different possible alternatives. The Arian James Burgh was tremendously influential on the founding. He believed Jesus, Himself a created being, created these things. Though he believed Jesus' father created the matter of the universe with which Jesus worked. The father like the creator of clay. Jesus the potter.
You need to expand your mind on the different possible alternatives. The Arian James Burgh was tremendously influential on the founding. He believed Jesus, Himself a created being, created these things. Though he believed Jesus' father created the matter of the universe with which Jesus worked. The father like the creator of clay. Jesus the potter.
Don't go beyond what the scripture says. I figured you would have read this already.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
Without the Son, nothing was made. That doesn't mean The Father couldn't do it Himself. That means Jehovah the Son is creating through Jehovah the Holy Spirit. Possibly, the universe is Jehovah the father's plan or else He's standing by. The arian you quoted, never read this, nor did he understand it.
"
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."
Jehovah the Son, created all the atoms, neutrons, electrons, protons, atoms, and everything invisible we don't about.
How great is Christ, yet He became a human and died for a bunch of rebels who hated Him. No one could make that up.
Jon, don't take a chance.
Put up or shut up, Jim. You can put up not a single Founder who denied the Jews [without Christ] worshipped the same God as they.
NOT ONE, Jim.
Of course not; myself included. You're not understanding everything. GW was correct, but I doubt he understood it, but he could of.
It's the same Jehovah, just a different person. The apostles wrote that Yahshua is Jehovah (all capitals LORD in the O.T.). Resd John 12.
Technically, GW was correct. We worship the same God. The Jews stumbled at the stumbling block to this day.
So, his statement was diplomatic so as not to offend them. He would have said the same thing about the god of islam, not understanding.
Biblical unitarians have their own understanding of John 1:1. You can put the words into a search engine and read for yourself.
As far as:
"Jon, don't take a chance."
I'll buy you a beer in purgatory.
There's only one way to read John 1:3; the same as Hebrews 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2:5-6 and all the rest. To change the meaning is a red herring.
Our Founding Truth said...
There's only one way to read John 1:3; the same as Hebrews 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2:5-6 and all the rest. To change the meaning is a red herring.
Genesis and Exodus sufficed for the purposes of the American Founding.
Genesis and Exodus sufficed for the purposesof the American Founding.""
They were Christians not jews, if u r correct, they would have called themselves jews and prayed in Jehovah's name, but they prayed in Christ's name. They believed salvation is by faith not the law
Post a Comment