tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5536108685505374726..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Jon Rowe v. Our Founding TruthBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30123983433648407042018-06-29T07:03:00.169-06:002018-06-29T07:03:00.169-06:00Yes I remember Fortenberry's argument AND Alle...Yes I remember Fortenberry's argument AND Allen Jayne's argument about Bolingbroke. And I think it proves almost the exact opposite of what you would like. Or at least it proves the Gregg Frazer/David Holmes thesis (not necessarily the secular thesis).<br /><br />Bolingbroke was a notorious "Deist." Now, as Joseph Waligore has demonstrated, many of the notable English Deists weren't quite as distant or "non-Christian" as they have been made out to be.<br /><br />It's possible that Bolingbroke in some way deserves to be lumped in with the "Christian-Deists" as opposed to the "non-Christian" Deists. <br /><br />But however heterodox Jefferson was in the way in which he cut up his Bible, Bolingbroke was worse.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51350614856035602722018-06-29T07:01:30.416-06:002018-06-29T07:01:30.416-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1870985480906311732018-06-28T23:18:02.166-06:002018-06-28T23:18:02.166-06:00Jon,
You could be right, but my gut feeling says ...Jon,<br /><br />You could be right, but my gut feeling says no. I don't believe TJ invented LONANG; so he had to borrow it from someone, then change the phrase somewhat into what is written in the DOI. I've never seen that exact phrase used before. The attorney's at lonang.com claim the phrase "The laws of nature and of nature's God" is a plural contraction of "The laws of nature and the laws of nature's God". It looks like that is the case to me, but I'm no grammar expert, so I put in an email to them to see what they say. If it can be proven it's a plural contraction, then it follows the phrase contains two sets of laws; one for nature and one for nature's God, especially as TJ wrote "Laws" instead of "Law." Otherwise, it seems redundant.<br /><br />Incidentally, I found a post by Bill Fortenberry about this from a few years ago with some background information. He gives a few 18th century examples of the phrase with two sets of laws and then quotes JQA from 1841:<br /><br />“In the Declaration of Independence the Laws of Nature are announced and appealed to as identical with the laws of nature’s God, and as the foundation of all obligatory human laws.”<br />https://thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-is-the-law-of-natures-god<br /><br />Therefore, Adams is clearly making a delineation for two sets of laws from two channels. Further, TJ most likely got lonang from Lord Bolingbroke. TJ wrote over ten thousand words of Bolingbroke in his Commonplace Book attacking biblical Christianity; even how to question the authenticity of ancient sources. Bolingbroke's comment to Alexander Pope reads:<br /><br />“You will find that it is the modest, not the presumptuous enquirer, who makes a real, and safe progress in the discovery of divine truths. One follows nature, and nature’s God; that is, he follows God in his works, and in his word.”<br /><br />This interpretation appears to be the same from the beginning of the Christian era, since both Augustine and Tertullian make the same delineation. It follows, JQA and the other framers understood the phrase as two sets of laws. <br /><br />I believe Bill's source is Allen Jayne's book on Jefferson, where he claims most every modern scholar believes TJ got lonang from Bolingbroke<br />https://books.google.com/books?id=3xVZfXfAPy8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=question&f=falseOur founding truthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32913080369914276402018-06-27T17:57:15.511-06:002018-06-27T17:57:15.511-06:00Also of interest, Tom West on Locke:
"As Zuc...Also of interest, Tom West on Locke:<br /><br />"As Zuckert himself correctly points out, the only source of moral obligation that Locke recognizes is a law whose punishment is imposed by a lawgiver. Locke writes, "Moral good and evil, then, is only the conformity or disagreement of our voluntary actions to some law, whereby good or evil is drawn on us, from the will and power of the law-maker; which good and evil, pleasure or pain, attending our observance or breach of the law by the decree of the lawmaker, is that we call reward and punishment."<br /><br />...<br /><br />"Contrary to Zuckert, I agree with Strauss that Locke's doctrine of natural law is not a moral doctrine in the strict sense, because Locke is unable to establish by mere reason the fact of a moral obligation, that is, a lawgiver who promulgates the law and punishes those who disobey it. Locke is able to show that the law of nature benefits all or almost all men. But he cannot show that it is promulgated (for only a small number know it in the state of nature). Nor can he show that it is enforced by the lawgiver (its enforcement in the state of nature is left up to every individual, which means that it will go mostly unenforced, as Locke admits)."<br /><br />Leo Strauss [as well as Voegelin, who was far more vociferous against him] had his doubts about Locke being a genuine philosopher since we see a fogginess--if not self-contradiction--at the heart of Locke's grounding of his is-es and oughts.<br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27982433039391712692018-06-27T17:53:58.484-06:002018-06-27T17:53:58.484-06:00nature = discoverable by reason as opposed to reve...<i> nature = discoverable by reason as opposed to revealed by God and recorded in any holy book. </i><br /><br />The distinction called "general" vs "special" revelation made by Aquinas. No educated person in Western civilization was not influenced by scholastic thought and aware of this distinction.<br /><br /><br /><i>"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."<br />---James Wilson, Of the Law of Nature, 1804</i><br /><br />For the believer, this is true: the "same adorable source" is the Lawgiver, God. Even Locke references a "lawgiver," which argues against the secular whitewash of religion in the Founding era. <br /><br />But still, the distinction between "general" vs "special" revelation was made.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73534721936889976052018-06-27T17:01:07.013-06:002018-06-27T17:01:07.013-06:00"This must be why Blackstone and James Wilson..."This must be why Blackstone and James Wilson divided them into reason and revelation."<br /><br />Again, NO they didn't, as it relates to the phrase in question. The laws of Nature and of Nature's God is a double invocation of reason because nature = discoverable by reason as opposed to revealed by God and recorded in any holy book. <br /><br />Both Blackstone AND Wilson used different terminology when they discussed the matter as OFT knows and everyone else here who has read the debates knows. <br /><br />God is invoked in the phrase "laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to make the natural law/natural rights binding in an ought sense.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37415206701102468482018-06-27T16:59:00.765-06:002018-06-27T16:59:00.765-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2903316419871061062018-06-26T21:30:36.159-06:002018-06-26T21:30:36.159-06:00Obviously Paul did not write about Natural Law fro...<i>Obviously Paul did not write about Natural Law from the pagans</i><br /><br />As a Roman citizen, Paul is credited with being quite familiar with classical philosophy.<br /><br />https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/paul-and-his-use-of-greek-philosophy/Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77196362258141907922018-06-26T08:59:15.752-06:002018-06-26T08:59:15.752-06:00TVD,
We are all in accord with the idea of natura...TVD,<br /><br />We are all in accord with the idea of natural law, and the use of the conscience and right reason. Roman writers such as Cicero expanded their natural law ideas from the Greeks, given their sources were one and the same; a pantheon of gods, one being the chief god.<br /><br />"Romans 2 refers to "natural law," which dates back to Aristotle and Cicero."<br /><br />Obviously Paul did not write about Natural Law from the pagans, and so his source is different. Paul's source is his own ancestors, namely Isaiah 1:18, "Come now, and let us reason together," and 43:25-26, which is footnoted. In fact, Moses used Natural Law before the ten commandments were written, Ex 18:16, as well as Jeremiah 31:33 and Paul quoting the moral sense in 1 Cor 11:14, "Does not even nature teach you.."<br /><br />I know Cumberland goes over the differences, but so do many others. <br /><br />http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/cumberland-a-treatise-of-the-laws-of-nature<br /><br />For the heathens, it was "rational agents in a political system with Jupiter, Zeus or Baal" as the source, with no division of creator with his creation. <br /><br />The "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is a contraction of "The Laws of Nature and The Laws of Nature's God." This must be why Blackstone and James Wilson divided them into reason and revelation. <br /><br />I know you, Brad and Jon know all this, but laid out like this makes sense to me. <br /><br />Natural Law are the laws of creation God has established for all people and nations (law of nations), and in the DOI, it justified their actions in the Revolution. The heathens' right reason were not universal laws of a creator over His creation, affirmed by His own revelation. <br /><br />https://lonang.com/commentaries/conlaw/organizing/laws-of-nature-and-natures-god/#fn27u<br />Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64748093594314734852018-06-25T14:34:26.652-06:002018-06-25T14:34:26.652-06:00Amen to that, Jonathan.
Amen to that, Jonathan.<br /><br />Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11406111064507475492018-06-25T13:06:52.742-06:002018-06-25T13:06:52.742-06:00Good comment OFT. I agree this blog is special bec...Good comment OFT. I agree this blog is special because of its unique and intense focus on this issue (and has caught the eye the scholars like Mark David Hall who specialize in this issue). And that we try to keep the discussion civil as it is argumentative. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31063447007483786112018-06-25T02:54:29.315-06:002018-06-25T02:54:29.315-06:00Well done [mostly], OFT. Good to hear from you, Ji...<br />Well done [mostly], OFT. Good to hear from you, Jim. <br /><br /><i> Whatever the case, the orthodox didn't object to Nature's God; that term used by Hooker and others, in reference to Romans 2:14-15. It's a Christian term, not a generic one.</i><br /><br />Romans 2 refers to "natural law," which dates back to Aristotle and Cicero.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law<br /><br />It is not a uniquely "Christian" concept, although Christian thought incorporates it, as it incorporates much of classical philosophy. Truth cannot contradict truth. Christianity's embrace of philosophy is among its greatest strengths, as it unifies faith and reason, which the godless argue are in irreconcilable opposition.<br /><br />But yes, Christians maintain that God is the "lawgiver" of natural law, but that's actually secondary to the existence of natural law itself: Aristotle and Cicero did not require the Judeo-Christian God to prove and justify the existence of a natural law.<br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38352211121523693322018-06-24T22:32:04.923-06:002018-06-24T22:32:04.923-06:00Hi Brad,
I agree with you the DOI is not a bibli...Hi Brad, <br /><br />I agree with you the DOI is not a biblical document. That claim is clearly a bridge too far. Specifically, Christ would need to be invoked. With that being said, I've learned quite a bit from this site. There used to be a Colonel who posted on here. He was brilliant and always had something insightful to write. I miss Hercules Mulligan and Bill Fortenberry too. There's not many sites out there that talk about this subject, even though civil debate of our founding documents is needed more than ever. <br /><br />The Continental Congress prayed in Christ's name right before and right after the DOI. Hence, it follows, Christ must be the object. Maybe it's as simple as the founders using classical terms when they spoke of Christ, given their classical education. Whatever the case, the orthodox didn't object to Nature's God; that term used by Hooker and others, in reference to Romans 2:14-15. It's a Christian term, not a generic one.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41749394042579910222018-06-23T08:46:27.002-06:002018-06-23T08:46:27.002-06:00Yes OFT, as per the custom, shoots too far. It'...Yes OFT, as per the custom, shoots too far. It's bizarre that one would conclude a drafting board comprised of author Thomas Jefferson, along with J. Adams and Franklin, constructed a document where the God invoked four times there was necessarily the Second Person in the Trinity, even though neither Jesus nor verses and chapter of scripture are mentioned at all in that document. <br /><br />That said, the document could be understood as a lowest common denominator between the orthodoxy that prevailed in the community and the heterodoxy of the authors of the DOI. Hence the term "generic." Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64870049392566420822018-06-22T14:06:11.576-06:002018-06-22T14:06:11.576-06:00Although I think the claim that the D of I is &quo...Although I think the claim that the D of I is "Biblical" overshoots the evidence, OFT has a salient point regarding the "godless" revisionism of the modern secular academy that often bleaches out the religious--specifically Christian--landscape of the Founding.<br /><br />Although the Declaration is written in generally theistic [not Christian] terms to enhance its universal appeal [and satisfy Jefferson himself, if not Franklin and John Adams], the majority--even the vast majority--took the terms in a specifically Christian context. The Continental Congress and men like Samuel Adams invoked Jesus Christ often, and by name.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com