tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post536626924729757146..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Tillman Keeps Stone on His ToesBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14931305145883002512009-04-26T17:20:00.000-06:002009-04-26T17:20:00.000-06:00Is he a dominionist?
This whole Aquinas natural l...Is he a dominionist?<br /><br />This whole Aquinas natural law thing is of great interest to me. Can you recommend any book that would be a 101 on the subject? I have been thinking a great deal about going to Law School for property law. I read Sandfeur's abstract on Locke months ago and it really spoke to me. <br /><br />I have been reading a lot about this stuff but their are some real holes because I barely paid attention in HS and did the minimum to get out of college. I have learned a lot from reading your posts here, on Ed's blog, and at positive liberty.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8675632510146765962009-04-26T11:54:00.000-06:002009-04-26T11:54:00.000-06:00As far as I remember on Positive Liberty, it was f...As far as I remember on Positive Liberty, it was for two reasons, one he was being a class a nuisance. And two, the subject of homosexuality and the common law penalties for "sodomy" were brought up. It was noted that "sodomy" was a capital crime and that Jefferson's proposed VA bill "lessened" it to castration. We never determined whether "sodomy" referred to ordinary homosexuality or something forced. OFT just determined it was consensual homosexuality. And he seemed to proudly stand by the idea that castration (or execution) was a just and good punishment for sodomy. At that point, Jason K. unapologetically gay and PL's site adminstrator had him banned.<br /><br />Then on Dispatches he started rating and raving and Ed just banned him immediately.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65710876615626912312009-04-26T11:22:00.000-06:002009-04-26T11:22:00.000-06:00Why was he banned?Why was he banned?King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13713248411699122452009-04-26T10:59:00.000-06:002009-04-26T10:59:00.000-06:00KOI,
Of course you are right; however, you have t...KOI,<br /><br />Of course you are right; however, you have to understand our history of dealing with OFT. He's been banned on Brayton's blog and is the only person banned by Positive Liberty. If we are going to continue to deal with him instead of deleting or banning him, it has to be with a heavy hand.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10025822499491414512009-04-25T15:14:00.000-06:002009-04-25T15:14:00.000-06:00Please feel free to argue that, King.
In the case...Please feel free to argue that, King.<br /><br />In the case of the natural law discussion, the issue was a matter of standard definition and of historical fact, not of opinion or interpretation.<br /><br />For instance, if one were to write that natural law means you can do whatever you want, this would be a gross error of fact and would serve only to junk up any possibility of productive discussion if insisted upon.<br /><br />Most things are not so cut-and-dried, so contrary views are always welcome if backed by fact and intelligent argument. However, stuff like "the Bible is true" or "the Bible is a lie" is mere opinion and contention, and has no place here.<br /><br />I hope that explanation helps. Your comments have been ace.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5909193678674757782009-04-25T14:48:00.000-06:002009-04-25T14:48:00.000-06:00I meant to say that people like to pretend that mo...I meant to say that people like to pretend that most of America was NOT Christian at the time of the founding. It was in a general sense and even in a more orthodox sense due to the Great Awakening. At least my reading of History seems to bear this out.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30361862682445388612009-04-25T14:46:00.000-06:002009-04-25T14:46:00.000-06:00" If you don't concede that which has been irrefut..." If you don't concede that which has been irrefutably proven to you, you will be banned because of your stubborness."<br /><br /><br />This seems kind of arrogant. I for one do not know a lot about this whole discussion. I learned more from the back and forth in one post than learned in 36 years of life. OFT may be wrong but being banned for stubborness of not conceding is Hitler like. By the way, I do not agree with him but think he should be able to say it.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11228821673792089092009-04-25T13:19:00.000-06:002009-04-25T13:19:00.000-06:00I asked them to consider that people questioned th...<I>I asked them to consider that people questioned things in the Middle Ages but stayed part of the Church. They did the same in the Renaissance and Reformation and switched teams but not leagues.</I>..<br /><br />I like that one, King.<br /><br /><I>So the answer is probably more complicated then we like to think. Secularists look at one side and are blind to other evidences and closed minded Christians do the same.</I>..<br /><br />That one, too.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3956152201269347642009-04-25T12:11:00.000-06:002009-04-25T12:11:00.000-06:00Tom Van Dyke said:
"This means we have to look at...Tom Van Dyke said:<br /><br />"This means we have to look at the whole Founding era, not just at the writings of a few."<br /><br />I could not agree more. I have taught the "skepticism" of the Middle Ages and "humanism" of the Renaissance(Reformation in my mind as well), and am getting to the Enlightenment in my 9th grade World History class. <br /><br /> I asked them to consider that people questioned things in the Middle Ages but stayed part of the Church. They did the same in the Renaissance and Reformation and switched teams but not leagues. The Enlightenment shows that some through it all out. But many others did not. They just added some reason to their faith. <br /><br />So I agree that documents written in Colonial America were written by a Renaissance/Reformation age of people that still saw a role for the Church in the State. This is in contrast with Enlightenment Age documents such as the DOI and Constitution that had more a of secular flavor. But many take it too far and try to pretend that America was inhabited by mostly Christians at the time still. These are the people that the Founders represented. There had also been a Great Awakening just before this as well that swelled the ranks of devout Christians. <br /><br />So the answer is probably more complicated then we like to think. Secularists look at one side and are blind to other evidences and closed minded Christians do the same.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34538083068493965462009-04-24T16:16:00.000-06:002009-04-24T16:16:00.000-06:00I know the difference btwn universal (Natural) Law...<I>I know the difference btwn universal (Natural) Law and the bible. </I>Then we are all agreed. Let's move on, never to return.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57992586960328857602009-04-24T16:01:00.000-06:002009-04-24T16:01:00.000-06:00But this is the moral portion of the scripture, an...But this is the moral portion of the scripture, and does not get us all the way to Jesus-is-God and all that other stuff that man could not be able to discover on his own, even with uncorrupted reason.><br /><br />I never said that, you guys have made up a lot of ideas I never said. I know the difference btwn universal (Natural) Law and the bible. <br /><br />What they are most decidely NOT saying is the "law of nature" can validate among other things the First Commandment, that you should be worshipping the God of Abraham or an even more erroneous claim, a Triune God. Likewise they don't claim "the laws of nature" teach you should keep the Sabbath><br /><br />You invent all of this into your argument when I never brought it up, I never even mentioned the word "Abraham."<br /><br />If the law of nature simply were "the Bible" there would be no need for the concept to begin with.><br /><br />That's your opinion. God made two channels for the moral law. The Philosophers say lonang is the same thing from different channels. I never said Locke wrote that the first tablet of the law of Moses was Natural Law; you brought it up. I posted Locke's quote that the Divine Law is part of lonang. I understand what saves a person.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70400528093830342342009-04-24T15:44:00.000-06:002009-04-24T15:44:00.000-06:00Thanks Tom. Will now delete it.Thanks Tom. Will now delete it.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-201388578926110192009-04-24T15:29:00.000-06:002009-04-24T15:29:00.000-06:00Jon, the 2:52 quote and counterargument were decen...Jon, the 2:52 quote and counterargument were decent, and synthesized with your own comment of 3:10, there seems to be a harmonization.<br /><br />The 3:02 comment was out of line and unproductive, as it was just a restatement and not too civil either. It should be trashbinned.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-52971819594465777622009-04-24T15:23:00.000-06:002009-04-24T15:23:00.000-06:00Let me make one more note on what Blackstone, Wils...Let me make one more note on what Blackstone, Wilson, Locke, et al. mean when they make comparisons of the laws of nature and the laws of revelation and talk about the two agreeing with one another.<br /><br />What they are saying is the law of nature discovered by reason alone can tell us don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness about your neigbhor, the Golden Rule. What they are most decidely NOT saying is the "law of nature" can validate among other things the First Commandment, that you should be worshipping the God of Abraham or an even more erroneous claim, a Triune God. Likewise they don't claim "the laws of nature" teach you should keep the Sabbath.<br /><br />If OFT thinks otherwise -- if he makes such a basic error of understanding -- we cannot proceed with him and he will have to be deleted or banned.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32882537241494487772009-04-24T15:19:00.000-06:002009-04-24T15:19:00.000-06:00And two paragraphs later, Blackstone writes:
"Upo...And two paragraphs later, Blackstone writes:<br /><br />"Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."<br /><br /><I>Two</I> foundations. The distinction between the two is made. Now please observe it.<br /><br />All you're doing is shooting yourself in the foot by making a simple and avoidable semantic error. You have the germ of an argument in there, Mr. Goswick, but stop quote-grabbing and read Blackstone in his totality.<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=mCc0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=The+doctrines+thus+delivered+we+call+the+revealed+or+divine+law,+and+they&source=bl&ots=1FrOLftbZB&sig=NzZph7x3E94oFfYJz-6XfKuV6JM&hl=en&ei=FCnySZzDFYK6tgOM3cziCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA65,M1<br /><br />Both Blackstone and Locke <I>do</I> write that God's revelation of portions of the natural law were necessary because of man's corrupt reason, in other words, theoretically, man <I>should</I> have been able to discover them without revelation.<br /><br />But this is the <I>moral</I> portion of the scripture, and does not get us all the way to Jesus-is-God and all that other stuff that man <I>could not</I> be able to discover on his own, even with uncorrupted reason.<br /><br />This is the distinction between "general" and "special" revelation, per Aquinas.<br /><br />Mr. Rowe understands your point better than you do and it would behoove you to work with him instead of continuing this grenade toss. He's actually helping you clarify your point.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-940259795328608292009-04-24T15:11:00.000-06:002009-04-24T15:11:00.000-06:00OFT,
Regarding the post you made at 3:02pm; I'm g...OFT,<br /><br />Regarding the post you made at 3:02pm; I'm going to let Tom have a look at it. And then once he tells me he read it, I am going to delete it.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2049022981851163902009-04-24T15:10:00.000-06:002009-04-24T15:10:00.000-06:00OFT,
I just explained this to you. This is your ...OFT,<br /><br />I just explained this to you. This is your last chance before you get deleted from this thread.<br /><br />"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found...<br /><br /><B>upon comparison</B>...to be really a part of the original law of nature,..."<br /><br />[Emphasis mine.]<br /><br />He's saying that the law of nature is what man discovers from reason. Revelation is discovered a different way. It's only "upon comparison" that we find revelation matches up with law of nature discovered by reason.<br /><br />And by the way, Blackstone did not say the entire Bible is part of the law of nature; rather that certain parts of the Bible, upon comparison match up perfectly with the law of nature. At least that's a completely reasonable way to reason Blackstone's words. And is the most common sense meaning. Much of the supernatural in the Bible is beyond the reach of "the law's of nature."<br /><br />...as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in it's present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. <B>As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature"</B> [Bold mine.]<br /><br />-Blackstone, Commentaries<br /><br />Again notice Blackstone talking about revelation as though it were from a different channel, thus a different thing (even if ultimately it came from the same sources and the key parts of both match up). If the law of nature simply were "the Bible" there would be no need for the concept to begin with.<br /><br />OFT: You are going to have to concede "the laws of nature" or "the laws of nature and nature's God" are not shorthand for what's written in the Bible. That's our point (even if some/many of the philosophers believed there was a meaningful connect between the two, i.e., that they ultimately derived from the same source and properly understood would not contradict one another). If you don't concede that which has been irrefutably proven to you, you will be banned because of your stubborness.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73892957816367660212009-04-24T14:52:00.000-06:002009-04-24T14:52:00.000-06:00but "the law of nature" or natural law [...but "the law of nature" or natural law [not technically the same thing, but used interchangably by Blackstone and James Wilson] are not the same thing as scripture.><br /><br />Where does Blackstone say this? Where is the difference?<br /><br />How is Natural Law not a part of the original law of nature?:<br /><br />"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in it's present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature"<br /><br /> -Blackstone, Commentaries<br /><br />Locke says the same thing.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30997134190374250032009-04-24T14:50:00.000-06:002009-04-24T14:50:00.000-06:00OFT is a "why bother" on these grounds. But if I ...OFT is a "why bother" on these grounds. But if I must, the "moral" part of Moses' law to which Locke referred was not the Ten Commandments in its entirety but perhaps the second tablet. Non-Judeo-Christian natural lawyers like Aristotle and Cicero would have agreed with the second tablet of the Ten Commands, but didn't obey the first (perhaps because they didn't have the proper knowledge of the God of Abraham). Likewise Jesus moral teachings are that part of revelation which "form a part" of the natural law, as some of the natural lawyers would have put it; but not his teachings of salvation or his miracles.<br /><br />The natural law is universal, in principle knowable to any man of any religion, regardless of whether he ever heard of the Bible; the Ten Commandments and the Bible are not the same thing.<br /><br />I agree; this is a good place for OFT to end. If he continues to challenge what has been clearly shown to him, his further comments will be of no further use to us here and will be deleted.<br /><br />OFT: Wake up.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-135551292741603052009-04-24T14:18:00.000-06:002009-04-24T14:18:00.000-06:00The Ten Commandments is not scripture? Are you ser...<I>The Ten Commandments is not scripture? Are you serious? </I>OFT, I'm done with you on this. <br />"It" refers to "the law of works," whatever that is, not scripture itself. You're reading the sentence wrong.<br /><br />Everyone from Thomas Aquinas to Blackstone to James Wilson to Phil Johnson knows what I'm talking about except you. We're in the-sky-is-not-blue territory, far beyond a difference of opinion.<br /><br />You'll either use the universal understanding of the concept, or I'll ask that your further comments on this subject be removed, not for content but irrelevance. I have a deep interest in this subject, and you're interfering with productive discussion.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35625785017471063932009-04-24T13:39:00.000-06:002009-04-24T13:39:00.000-06:00Locke is saying that one should obey scripture. Th...Locke is saying that one should obey scripture. That's what he means by the "law of works." However one again you put in brackets to make it the Ten Commandments. That's a no-no, OFT.<br /><br />This single quote adds some tiny support for obeying scripture, sort of, but "the law of nature" or natural law [not technically the same thing, but used interchangably by Blackstone and James Wilson] are not the same thing as scripture.><br /><br />I don't think so. You need to read Reasonabless. There isn't one inch of doubt Locke is referring to the Ten Commandments, it being Natural Law (The Law of Nature).<br /><br />Brackets mean clarification, and is needed.<br /><br /> but "the law of nature" or natural law [not technically the same thing, but used interchangably by Blackstone and James Wilson] are not the same thing as scripture.><br /><br />Where is the evidence for this? <br /><br />The "law of works" obliges one to obey scripture, according to Locke, but is not scripture itself.><br /><br />The Ten Commandments is not scripture? Are you serious? <br /><br />Since the natural law is universal, applicable to all men at all times, that the Jews obey one set of laws but Christians are exempt from it means it's not universal.><br /><br />No, you aren't reading it right:<br /><br />"it [The Divine Law or Ten Commandments] being a part of the law of nature, that man ought to obey every positive law of God, whenever he shall please to make any such addition to the law of his nature."><br /><br />Locke's use of man is general, not limiting the Jews as the subject, as "the addition" to his law of nature includes any subsequent time:<br /><br />"But the moral part of Moses’s law, or the moral law, (which is every-where the same, the eternal rule of right,) obliges christians, and all men, every-where, and is to all men the standing law of works. But christian believers have the privilege to be under the law of faith too; which is that law, whereby God justifies a man for believing, though by his works he be not just or righteous, i. e. though he come short of perfect obedience to the law of works. God alone does or can justify, or make just, those who by their works are not so: which he doth, by counting their faith for righteousness, i. e. for a complete performance of the law."<br /><br /> -Locke, ReasonablenessOur Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-961506040690160242009-04-24T12:56:00.000-06:002009-04-24T12:56:00.000-06:00Locke is saying that one should obey scripture. T...Locke is saying that one should obey scripture. That's what he means by the "law of works." However one again you put in brackets to make it the Ten Commandments. That's a no-no, OFT.<br /><br />This single quote adds some tiny support for obeying scripture, sort of, but "the law of nature" or natural law [not technically the same thing, but used interchangably by Blackstone and James Wilson] are not the same thing as scripture.<br /><br />The "law of works" obliges one to obey scripture, according to Locke, but is not scripture itself. Since the natural law is universal, applicable to all men at all times, that the Jews obey one set of laws but Christians are exempt from it means it's not universal.<br /><br />Nice try, though, but quote-grabbing isn't a genuine search for truth. Natural law and scripture are different, according to the understanding of virtually every thinker from 1200-1800.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71734678514772468702009-04-24T11:59:00.000-06:002009-04-24T11:59:00.000-06:00Tom:Jon [and Forrest McDonald] are 100% accurate h...Tom:<I>Jon [and Forrest McDonald] are 100% accurate here. OFT, although they add "and of nature's God" to "laws of nature," in the D of I, although this points the natural law back to God, it does not point it at scripture</I>.<br /><br />I was reading over Locke's Reasonableness the last few days; he is a hard nut to crack for sure. He got way much heat for what he said, but he defended himself almost satisfactorily, which may be why they didn't hang him. Locke believed in inerrancy, the Virgin Birth, a sinless Christ, etc. but said nothing else is needed to be believed to be saved, rather that any other truth of the faith, a part from "Jesus is the Messiah" should be believed. Locke's faith is still up in the air, however he, Blackstone, and the majority of framers believed Revelation, including the Ten Commandments were a part of Natural Law(Law of Nature) unless specifically noted:<br /><br />"Thus then, as to the law, in short: the civil and ritual part of the law, delivered by Moses, obliges not christians, though, to the jews, it were a part of the law of works; <B>it [The Divine Law or Ten Commandments] being a part of the law of nature</B>, that man ought to obey every positive law of God, whenever he shall please to make any such addition to the law of his nature." [bold face mine]<br /><br /> -John Locke, Reasonableness of Christianity<br /><br />As you mentioned in an earlier post, Blackstone believed the same as Locke. To the framers, besides Jesus Christ, Blackstone is the greatest influence in this country. Think how deceived the modern philosophers are, especially those "experts" on Natural Law, that do not know Locke, Blackstone, Hooker, Puffendorf, etc. <br /><br />By the way, Puffendorf is the best expert on The Law of Nature, being a Professor of it in Germany, and Switzerland. He is the one, we should look at.<br /><br />The posts author says "reason" is Natural; he is right, however, he omits another more important part of it.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5853339769108231982009-04-23T19:53:00.000-06:002009-04-23T19:53:00.000-06:00In no particular order:
Being orthodox doesn't ne...In no particular order:<br /><br /><I>Being orthodox doesn't necessarily mean they would reject freedom of conscience - the right for any citizen to hold one's own individual belief about the divine, even if not orthodox </I>...<br /><br />Mr. Cartwright, this is undeniably true. In fact, we must keep in mind that the different Protestant sects all disagreed on stuff. There's a quote from Sam Adams himself that I don't feel like looking up where he revels in the glories of finally being able to publicly disagree about doctrinal matters.<br /><br />Just not atheism. Atheism was a different bag back in the day. Thomas Paine caught high holy hell for his <I>Age of Reason</I>, and that was only deistic, not atheistic.<br /><br />Oh, and BTW, I tentatively endorse your use of "ecumenical" applied to the Founders' agreed-upon God, the more ecumenical the better.<br /><br /><I>Adams sounds almost like a theistic rationalist there</I>...<br /><br />No, Jon, he sounds like a Thomist [Aquinas]. Like Rev. Richard Hooker, like James Wilson.<br /><br /><I>when orthodox Christians like Sam Adams spoke in Lockean terms, they veered away from the Bible and orthodox Christian doctrine and veered towards the enlightenment and rationalism</I>...<br /><br />A bridge way too far. Adams is completely within the mainstream of Christian thought here.<br /><br /><I>So WHENEVER you see "natural" or "nature" qualify ANYTHING it means "discoverable by reason as opposed to revealed in the Bible</I>."<br /><br />Jon [and Forrest McDonald] are 100% accurate here. OFT, although they add "and of nature's God" to "laws of nature," in the D of I, although this points the natural law back to God, it does not point it at scripture.<br /><br /> <br />So whenever you argue for rights and liberty from a natural law standpoint, although it points back to God as the author of the natural law, it doesn't point to scripture, but to man's <I>unassisted</I> reason. You argue against the very point you're trying to make!<br /><br />I'll repeat the quote OFT requested for the benefit of those who came in late [and welcome!]:<br /><br /><I> [H]ow shall we, in particular instances, learn the dictates of our duty, and make, with accuracy, the proper distinction between right and wrong; in other words, how shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is ― to discover the will of God ― and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end</I>."---James Wilson<br /><br />This is completely representative of the Founding view of natural law, I think, and harmonizes completely with the quote Jonathan Rowe cites above from John Adams, who was no Holy Roller in the orthodox sense.<br /><br />What is interesting is that the Founders seem to be even more religious than earlier natural law theorists, that even if it can be discerned by unassisted reason [in other words, without the Bible], the natural law equivalent to the "wise benign and all powerful Will" of God, as John Adams writes above, and which James Wilson explicitly says also in his writings.<br /><br />This is no small thing in understanding religion and the Founding.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31728761367591060482009-04-23T19:29:00.000-06:002009-04-23T19:29:00.000-06:00OFT,
You have no clue whether the vast majority p...OFT,<br /><br />You have no clue whether the vast majority personally believed in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. The record shows only that the vast majority were like Thomas Jefferson and the other key Founders, formally associated with a Church that adhered to an orthodox creed. Jefferson proves that you can be even a Vestryman in said church while not just disbelieving in but hating its orthodox doctrines.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.com