tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post466707801549328698..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Samuel West, Reason & RevelationBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20132332905471272742009-08-08T00:23:14.226-06:002009-08-08T00:23:14.226-06:00Thats very nice article thanks for information...
...Thats very nice article thanks for information...<br />___________________<br />Susana<br /><a href="http://www.paydayloancashonline.com/" rel="nofollow">Get Payday Loan in 4 easy steps</a>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12186838559949418956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10880012172011504372009-08-03T06:50:59.199-06:002009-08-03T06:50:59.199-06:00"I think Jefferson's more of a republican..."I think Jefferson's more of a republican in the platonic sense,..."<br /><br />He may have been; but that assumes he/they really didn't understand Plato. They may not have. They hated Plato, loved Aristotle.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61765651433798197732009-08-02T18:36:11.780-06:002009-08-02T18:36:11.780-06:00.
ERATA
The word, thread, is a typo. It should ha....<br /><b>ERATA</b><br /><br />The word, thread, is a typo. It should have read, THREAT.<br /><br />Sorry about that.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11833745856151687062009-08-02T18:33:33.061-06:002009-08-02T18:33:33.061-06:00.
So, then, can anyone respond to my question rega....<br />So, then, can anyone respond to my question regarding the negative influence Christianity might have had on any of the Founders.<br /><br />Remember, just like today when an atheist could not be elected to high office, in those days anyone not espousing fealty to God could never be accepted as a leader. And, the Founders put this great experiment together--they would have had to have expressed strong support for religion and especially Reformed Protestant Christianity. They were the super leaders who, in unison with each other, turned the world of religious domination on its head.<br />.<br />Can we see some evidence that any of the FFs saw Christianity as a thread against the future of society?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14705992433114551472009-08-02T11:35:48.715-06:002009-08-02T11:35:48.715-06:00Good points Phil.Good points Phil.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44142691512094246792009-08-02T11:15:52.643-06:002009-08-02T11:15:52.643-06:00I am aware of that--see my material on Pound/Frame...I am aware of that--see my material on Pound/Framers/Aristotle on my blog-- but I don't recall (say in bios/writings of Jeff. or Madison) any real substantial discussion of Aristotle, or unqualified approval. <br /><br />I think Jefferson's more of a republican in the platonic sense, but even when quoting the klassix they are still a bit sceptical of the greeek--and latin--authoritarianism, which Locke was well aware of as well. Neither Aristotle nor Plato were overly fond of democracy.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46849623968928120052009-08-02T11:00:59.644-06:002009-08-02T11:00:59.644-06:00J.
They loved Aristotle. They didn't talk ab...J.<br /><br />They loved Aristotle. They didn't talk about Aquinas at all, probably because of their anti-Roman Catholic bias. When Jefferson listed the 4 sources for the DOI, he listed Aristotle, Cicero, Locke and Sidney.<br /><br />See my above post on the FFs as Roman republicans. Without Aquinas there probably would have been no classical studies in Christendom. However, it's important to keep in mind that the classical characters were pagans not Christians. America has as much of a pagan foundation as it does a "Judeo-Christian" one.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39311346623554769852009-08-02T10:48:13.292-06:002009-08-02T10:48:13.292-06:00.
"...it is clear that the founders were infl....<br /><i>"...it is clear that the founders were influenced by earlier great thinkers and many/most of them all by the Bible."</i><br />.<br />Well, at least by teachings that originated from the Bible.<br />.<br />In order for us to be honest in our grasp of American History, it behooves us (puts shoes on our feet) to do what we can to put ourselves in the place of those men who did the grunt work in founding our great society.<br />.<br />First thing, I think, we must do is to separate the Founding Fathers from the masses of Americans that lived during those trying times.<br />.<br />From what I've learned, the masses were almost all completely influenced by what their ministers taught them from the pulpit--they had no other place to get any food for their minds whatsoever--except what they might have read in a newspaper or broadside flyer. And, the ministers interpreted what ever it was they read. Period. The ministers proclaimed an intrusiveness on every personal behavior to keep everyone as righteous as could be. They preached the necessity of government being ordained for the purpose of the salvation of every single soul.<br />.<br />Aside from that, we turn to the Founding Fathers--each of whom we learn about from our studies. But, they are a different breed than the masses and we should never confuse the two classes. They WERE separate and most had as much education as any minister in any pulpit.<br />.<br />I am heavily influenced in my thinking by present day Fundamentalist Evangelicalism seasoned with Calvinism. A large part of my extended family is intimately involved in the Christian ministry. Does that mean that I am a Fundamentalist Evangelical Reformed Protestant? <br /><br />Hardly. In fact, the truth be known, I am negatively influenced by that thinking.<br />.<br />Perhaps many of the Founding Fathers were as negatively influenced. Maybe that's why we have the Bill of Rights? The communalism of the Founding Era was extremely intrusive on everyone's personal life. Maybe the FF saw great danger lurking there?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4440819861009497902009-08-02T10:07:05.066-06:002009-08-02T10:07:05.066-06:00Phil,
I think principle motive of considering the...Phil,<br /><br />I think principle motive of considering the many minds who influenced the founders is to come to a better understanding fow how religion influenced the entire dynamic.<br /><br />Imagining your tree, I think it is clear that many who populate its branches invested a lot of thought reconciling Christianity with natural law, rights, etc.<br /><br />This is a perspective that seems (to me) to be lost in the CN debate ... i.e. the <i>excluded middle</i>.<br /><br />I any event, it is clear that the founders were influenced by earliers great thinkers and many/most of them all by the Bible.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10789160230709014092009-08-02T10:00:25.104-06:002009-08-02T10:00:25.104-06:00Does any ACster have a favorable quote of Aquinas ...Does any ACster have a favorable quote of Aquinas or Aristotle from early Americans/framers? Madison, Ham., Jeff., et al probably read the latin and greek klassix, but I don't think they were so supportive of catholic/dominican tradition. <br /><br />The Federalists, however, often seem nearly platonic in their desire for a strong central govt. which would prevent "factions." The Fed papers at times express Hamilton's crypto-Tory dream of having some perfect President-monarch rule the USA (with the king's financiers, Inns of courts duplicated), instead of all the states-rights hicks and Jeffersonian democrats (and I contend Madison was at first with Hamilton, then moves to the Jeff. faction). Whether or not he blessed Hobbes, Hamilton does not lack a Hobbesian love for the sovereign (though unlike Hobbes, he rarely bothers with the contracting aspects). <br /><br />That said, the Fed. papers make little or no mention of theological topics.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76624137233953277082009-08-02T09:59:18.155-06:002009-08-02T09:59:18.155-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8528749171416868862009-08-02T09:12:09.935-06:002009-08-02T09:12:09.935-06:00.
So, if a graph (like a family tree) could be see....<br />So, if a graph (like a family tree) could be seen, it would show that the thinking of Americans during the Founding Era was influenced by a variety of original thinkers?<br />.<br />Quoting Hobbes, Aquinas, Locke, the apostle Paul, Aristotle, Reformed Protestant ministers of the time, and others gives us a general view of the many influences that made America the boiling pot that it is acclaimed to be?<br />.<br />Are some of us claiming that one influence is much greater than the others? Or is something entirely different being put out here?<br />.<br />It seems we stagger at this point.<br /><br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57890742364150048622009-08-02T09:09:15.143-06:002009-08-02T09:09:15.143-06:00Locke's not in favor of theocracy. He favors a...Locke's not in favor of theocracy. He favors a social contract, which binds a king/sovereign by law. De Cive is not a Kingdom (or aristocratic regime). <br /><br />I don't pretend to have mastered Aquinas or Aristotle, but Aristotle was no democrat. He might have argued for a senate, controlled mostly by land holders, or the military class, but he defended slavery, and was hardly PC, or Lockean--more like Machiavelli. <br /><br />Really, even Plato's Republic slightly less tyrannical and macho than Aristotle's imperial politics--think Alex the Great, or Caesar. Aristotle, applied. Perhaps not as brutal as like khans or the mongols--not to say Hitler or Stalin--but not exactly democracy.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73726295524710534282009-08-02T08:55:37.148-06:002009-08-02T08:55:37.148-06:00Secular Square,
Thanks for the info.Secular Square,<br /><br />Thanks for the info.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81367998701443146972009-08-01T19:25:46.169-06:002009-08-01T19:25:46.169-06:00King:
sorry for the abbreviated comments on Aquina...King:<br />sorry for the abbreviated comments on Aquinas. In an attempt to answer a question posted earlier I only confused matters. <br /><br />Aquinas views natural law I think as more to do with humans as rational creatures rather than as a function of conscience. Because man is a rational creature, "there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him; thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society.And in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belings to the natural law; for instance, to shun ignorance, to avoid offending those among who one has to live, and other such things regarding the above inclinations." It sounds more Aristotelian-a rational creature seeking his good.<br /><br />The positive law is human law which"come from the precepts of natural law . . . for more specific determination of certain matters."<br /><br />He actually adds a fourth kind of law: divine law, which he divides into old law and new law. (I was running out time during this mornings am post. I work some long and unusual hours in retail. I was not up late commenting; I wss up early).<br /><br />Aquinas on natural law is found in Part1/part 2(part 2 of part 1) beginning I think a question 90. I do not have the reference for Aquinas on general revelation. You can probably find it at website New Advent. I found it there when my local library stopped allowing me to renew it. Its a long read and interesting; but no fluffy page turner by any means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6214394707339956912009-08-01T18:53:15.572-06:002009-08-01T18:53:15.572-06:00King's rubber meeting the road
that is the c...King's rubber meeting the road <br /><br />that is the challenge of biblical interpretation, I suppose, comparing scripture with scripture. Additional scriptures can add a nuance to Rom. 13 that does not appear as it stands alone. But they also may be merely evidence of the internal inconsistency of the scriptures. It might depend on one's point of view. But I am still reading your interesting essays.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31854813461412805142009-08-01T17:23:41.796-06:002009-08-01T17:23:41.796-06:00Not really on topic. Locke DOES routinely argue t...Not really on topic. Locke DOES routinely argue that a prince or authority may be opposed: "force is to be opposed to nothing but an injust and unlawful force." (2nd Treatise Of Civ. Govt, Chapter XVIII, Of Tyranny). Note the emphasis on law. If the prince/sovereign is not bound by law (ie a constitution, consented to by citizens, at least in principle--not theocratic in the least) then the state dissolves. <br /><br /> Locke at times suggests even without great tyranny, a monarchy to which subjects have not consented has no real legal or political authority, and is a type of anarchy. <br /><br />The Two Treatises of CivGovt. are the KEY Lockean texts in regards to the Framers (and their french allies--at least according to Jeff. and Franklin, Madison (though Madison was not that enamored of Locke)Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86584092729299703432009-08-01T16:22:20.574-06:002009-08-01T16:22:20.574-06:00J stated:
"stands in direct opposition to th...J stated:<br /><br />"stands in direct opposition to the message of Romans 13"<br /><br />It should say stands in direct opposition to J's interpretation of what he think Paul, if Paul was real or not, states in Romans 13. You cannot say for sure what the message is you are not God.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24478130021112739542009-08-01T11:31:02.310-06:002009-08-01T11:31:02.310-06:00Paul may insist on that in Romans 13 (assuming a m...Paul may insist on that in Romans 13 (assuming a man named "Paul" existed, and this is his writing, etc.--reliability of the text ALWAYS an issue) . <br /><br />Locke does not insist on a literal reading of Romans 13, whatsoever. In his major texts (like 2nd Treatise, or Toleration letter) he argues against any sort of theocratic or monarchic despot: indeed, his central political theory of democratic rights stands in direct opposition to the message of Romans 13 (as Jefferson and Co realized as well), as quite a few people (including me) have pointed out numerous times. You're misreading Locke as a theologian when he's a political philosopher---and not a supporter of the monarchy or nobility (which Paul seems to be). <br /><br />Check the quotes (on Locke Romans 13) regarding Christianity as liberty, and on assessing legitimate power via "worldly standards." Even in this minor essay, he gave a liberal reading of the New Testament, not a monarchic or despotic one. <br /><br />Anyway, Locke's not the final word on Paul, or the New Testament. Let's not forget that few if any of the major Framers held to "inerrancy", with Jefferson pretty much dismissing Paul altogether (along with the Book of Revelation, the "ravings of a maniac). Or ponder Nietzsche's thoughts on Paul of Tarsus--well, not really appropriate for a phamily-oriented site like AC.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53128494768934279712009-08-01T11:18:08.129-06:002009-08-01T11:18:08.129-06:00J stated:
"I don't think Locke's add...J stated:<br /><br />"I don't think Locke's addressing Romans 13 in particular here--or rubber-stamping it-- but referring to Paul's general message--if not the New Testament as a whole. "<br /><br />This undoubtedly is addressing Romans 13 because it is a note in his paraphrase of Romans 13. That is not debatable. <br /><br /><br />J also stated:<br /><br />"Paul's the inconsistent one, really. Paul says governments derive their power from God, yet he says the just shall live by faith, not law or works."<br /><br />It should say "J's interpretation of what Paul is saying" You have your view of what he is saying and Locke has another one on Romans 13. To find out what Locke thought Paul meant in the second scripture you would have to go to see. I think it was from Romans so you can easily go to the link Tom provided in his post and look and see. <br /><br />My challenge stands in regard to the Locke quote to prove it is unreasonable. Remember what I said about Titus 3:1 and how Frazer cannot have it both ways:<br /><br />If submission is absolute then obedience is absolute.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31505298775785646662009-08-01T11:01:03.778-06:002009-08-01T11:01:03.778-06:00I don't think Locke's addressing Romans 13...I don't think Locke's addressing Romans 13 in particular here--or rubber-stamping it-- but referring to Paul's general message--if not the New Testament as a whole. <br /><br />Locke sounds somewhat critical of Paul (though in his usual tame manner), in that Pauls message of Christianity replacing mosaic Law, or supposed message, led some jewish converts to take advantage of the general message of freedom from the Law. One notes this with some of the dispensationalist sorts of sunday schoolers. Merely attend church and put on appearances of faith, and "all things are possible". <br /><br />Some believers might take that supposed message of christ --JC obviating mosaic law--to mean they can be Neros---or Hermann Goerings or Dick Cheneys. So Paul, according to Locke, reminds them vis a vis Romans 13 that governments are ordained by Gott, and to be obeyed (hah. a nice piece of propaganda, which I doubt even Locke really believes). <br /><br />I don't think this should be considered a central point of Locke's philosophy, and again, conservatives are misreading it. King also failed to note that even in his discussion of Romans 13, Locke stresses that christianity was about Liberty (not obedience) and that political power must be assessed in regards to "worldly standards"--Reason again. <br /> <br /><br />Which is to say, Locke wants to avoid a literal rezding of Romans 13. That's good. Paul's the inconsistent one, really. Paul says governments derive their power from God, yet he says the just shall live by faith, not law or works. He tells believers they are above the Law, but that at the same time, the powers-that-be are ordained by God. Paul wants it both ways: obedience to a powers-that-be, and yet faith above works. Caesar vs God again. <br /><br />Inconsistent, if not nearly a paradox worthy of Paul's later mentioning of the evil Cretans that tell only lies.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31868386535820066942009-08-01T08:27:25.421-06:002009-08-01T08:27:25.421-06:00Secular Square,
"Ironically, West does allow...Secular Square,<br /><br />"Ironically, West does allow his reasoning to reach what I think is its logical end. And his conclusions do seem to contradict scripture."<br /><br />This is where the rubber meats the road and Romans 13 is at center stage. If his reasonings only contradict an alternative interpretation of scripture then Jon's thesis loses steam. If it is found that his interpretation of Romans 13, when taking the whole counsel of the Bible in full context, is as or more reasonable and believable than the other interpretation then Jon's thesis dies. <br /><br />No one has refuted the reasonableness of Locke's thesis on Romans 13 that I quoted in my last post and until someone does then Jon's thesis lacks legs. Here it is again for those who missed it:<br /><br />John Locke:<br /><br />""And St. Paul had taught them, in his epistle, that all Christians were free from Mosaic Law. Hence corrupt and mistaken men, especially Jewish converts, impatient as we have observed of any heathen dominion might be ready to infer that Christians were exempt from subjection to the laws of heathen governments. This he obviates by telling them that all other governments derived the power they had from God as well as that of the Jews, though they had not the whole frame of their government immediately from him as the Jews had."<br /><br />Sounds plausible to mean and requires no satire at all. If others disagree then I am open to the evidence as to why? I am not saying it is the true interpretation, only, or correct. I am saying it is reasonable and would explain what many people think are some contradictions.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37376792835750500082009-08-01T08:16:30.108-06:002009-08-01T08:16:30.108-06:00Secular Square stated:
"He divides law into ...Secular Square stated:<br /><br />"He divides law into three parts: eternal law, natural law, and positive law. Eternal law is that which exists in God as the eternal ruler over all creation. Natural law is that which exists in humans and “is promulgated by the very fact that God instilled it into man’s mind so as to be know by him naturally.”<br /><br />I have read some papers that reference but have not gotten to this in my reading of Summa. Where is it? Natural law sounds much like conscience. This would go well with Romans 2 about the Gentiles being a law of their own when they do things instinctively that are found in the Torah(I assume this is the positive law he was talking about) without the Torah. When paired with the other verse about God being known through what was made I think we may have Aquinas' source for natural law and general revelation. <br /><br />I would guess that the former is by reason alone and the other is revelation aided by reason?King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18571191361380826022009-08-01T01:28:57.649-06:002009-08-01T01:28:57.649-06:00Philosophy and reasoning should be an open ended ...Philosophy and reasoning should be an open ended process in which questions and reason lead to some tentative conclusions. When God is the subject of philosophy (as in Aristotle), it can be called philosophical theology. It is somewhat limited in scope, however, since it mainly concerns the possibility of the existence of God and perhaps what characteristics a supreme being might possess. Aquinas fused Aristotle to Christianity, he made philosophy a “handmaiden” to religion (little different and more apt analogy than the “guardian“ analogy in the blog comment). And what he did then and what Christians do today might be better called sacred theology or dogmatic theology. They are, in a manner of speaking, abusing the domestic help by forcing reason to submit to the demands of scripture. In other words, this kind of philosophy is no longer an open ended process. Reason cannot be allowed to contradict scripture. It does philosophy a disservice.<br /><br />This is what West means when he writes that “right reason” cannot contradict revelation. Reason may lead to different conclusions than those allowed by scripture; but “right reason” never can.<br /><br />Ironically, West does allow his reasoning to reach what I think is its logical end. And his conclusions do seem to contradict scripture. Therefore, he employs a different tact. He applies hermeneutical principles that transmogrify the scriptures so that they conform to reason. Does this not, in general, do scripture a disservice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36362624681490393562009-08-01T01:03:26.787-06:002009-08-01T01:03:26.787-06:00I recently came across AC and have find your websi...I recently came across AC and have find your website interesting and unique. I appreciate the time y’all spend on researching issues related to the founding of our country. I’ve tried to follow the recent controversy on Rom 13, although difficult because the responses seem to be scattered all over the internet. And it seems that the debate has become as much about theology and philosophy as about history. Anyone cannot be a historian, but I guess anyone can be a philosopher, so here goes a couple of comments. First I’ll comment on a side issue of Aquinas and general revelation, as least as I understand him from notes I wrote when I read parts of the Summa a couple of years back. This leads to my second comment on reason and revelation. He makes a distinction between general revelation and natural law. On general revelation, he argues that knowledge begins with the senses. Humans can perceive the world. They then can through reason conclude that God exists as a cause of it. The law of nature is a little more complex. He divides law into three parts: eternal law, natural law, and positive law. Eternal law is that which exists in God as the eternal ruler over all creation. Natural law is that which exists in humans and “is promulgated by the very fact that God instilled it into man’s mind so as to be know by him naturally.” But he does not mean innate ideas or reason. He says natural law exists implicitly in our inclinations as humans. For example, he says humans have the inclination as part of our nature to live in societies. It is implicit then that we do not other human harm, because that would conflict with our ability to live in societies. Finally, positive law is constructed by human reason to make the natural law more explicit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com