tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post8590837664643455239..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: More on Reason Trumping Revelation During the American FoundingBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83701263156993808292009-08-10T09:22:37.894-06:002009-08-10T09:22:37.894-06:00Locke "found" a right to revolt against ...<i>Locke "found" a right to revolt against tyrants in "nature" using his "reason" unaided by scripture.</i><br /><br />Yes, but Locke also felt the New Testament itself provided some justification for his rights philosophy, and general anti-monarchist message. In his discussion of Paul/Romans 13 Locke insists Christianity is Liberty, and that Romans 13 is not meant to be taken literally.<br /><br />"Reason" is another problematic word anyway. I think Locke wanted to suggest his concepts of natural law were rational--it's reasonable to respect another's right to his property, even in a state of nature, and to expect that others' respect your own right. But those rights are not axiomatic or <br />logically necessary--unless one of the ACsters would care to prove that. <br /><br />Hobbes had suggested rights and values were not really about "Reason" as relating to Aristotelian logic, but concerned self-interest--and in that I think he's sort of correct; reason being used sort of colloquially or instrumentally to mean, not via revelation, but calculated, to one's best advantage. <br /><br />The Founders were probably drawn to Locke (rather than Hobbes, or Hume, or other machiavellian sorts) because they felt there was some objectivity to the natural law bits in Locke's 2nd Treatise, which they could also relate to religion in some manner, however vague (though I suspect the Federalists did not agree. Adams and Hamilton want republicanism to protect against the possibility of rule via "democratic" mobs. The Federalists loved the judiciary and executive branches, not the legislative). <br /><br />Really, Ms Sotomayer, given her statism and bureaucratic aspects might be called a federalist, or leftist-federalist, though I sort of doubt Adams and Co would have approved...then neither would the Jeffersonians, who at times were not opposed to quoting the Jacobins. Magistrates were of course 2nd estate--in ancien regime France-- and probably more hated than the nobility, and among the first to face the guillotine. Locke himself had no love for magistrates (Rousseau himself praised Locke at times).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38250749038620318642009-08-10T09:19:19.601-06:002009-08-10T09:19:19.601-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31693028194315147322009-08-09T17:54:34.771-06:002009-08-09T17:54:34.771-06:00Jon stated:
"Locke "found" a right...Jon stated:<br /><br />"Locke "found" a right to revolt against tyrants in "nature" using his "reason" unaided by scripture. THEN AFTER DOING SUCH WITH THE ANSWER ALREADY DETERMINED, he explained why Romans 13 really doesn't mean men can't revolt against tyrants in all cases."<br /><br />Since Locke was more than likely talking about intuitive reason that is God given to man at creation, he is checking one interpretations claim of revelation and checking it with this type of reason that is from God(General Revelation as I understand it) and then rejecting it. In other words, if Locke did believe in two types of reason as Hooker and Aquinas did, he is not saying that reason(discursive i.e. reason in the normal sense of thinking on our own apart from God) trumps revelation.<br /><br />Anyway, once he rejected the interpretation with intuitive reason from God then crafted his interpretation from the Bible. His interpretation is still from the Bible.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30573510217221481842009-08-09T17:15:02.553-06:002009-08-09T17:15:02.553-06:00KOI,
Your argument for Romans 13/revolt may be &q...KOI,<br /><br />Your argument for Romans 13/revolt may be "entirely from the Bible" (I haven't yet dissected it as I have Locke's) but Locke's from what I have seen, is not.<br /><br />Locke "found" a right to revolt against tyrants in "nature" using his "reason" unaided by scripture. THEN AFTER DOING SUCH WITH THE ANSWER ALREADY DETERMINED, he explained why Romans 13 really doesn't mean men can't revolt against tyrants in all cases.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68143713211373392722009-08-09T14:44:24.337-06:002009-08-09T14:44:24.337-06:00Jon stated:
"In other words to many who hold...Jon stated:<br /><br />"In other words to many who hold the "orthodox" position on eternal damnation, while Rush might CLAIM to be arguing Bible, he's actually using discoveries of man's reason to supplant what the Bible teaches. Or at least, "orthodox Christians" of today, "<br /><br />The "proof texts" are nothing more than one groups interpretation of what the Bible teaches they are not infallibly what the Bible teaches. I have taken the same general approach that Rush uses to refute Frazer on Romans 13. My entire argument is from the Bible. So is Locke's. Like I said in the last post, I think Locke's is actually a better hermeneutic because is takes into account the entire discussion in Romans up to that point and puts the verse in context.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54687962288416054792009-08-09T14:32:49.576-06:002009-08-09T14:32:49.576-06:00Jon stated:
"His thesis shows lots of Trinit...Jon stated:<br /><br />"His thesis shows lots of Trinitarians like John Witherspoon (and I might add Benjamin Rush; Frazer's thesis deals with Witherspoon, not Rush) as pushing forth this "theistic rationalist" project that was not authentically "Christian." When Witherpsoon, for instance, argued salvation, he was an orthodox Calvinist. But when he taught politics to his students at Princeton and argued for a right to revolt, Witherspoon argued Locke, the Scottish Enlightenment, and what man discovers from "reason," not the Bible.<br /><br />Where is his evidence of this? What type of reason was he talking about? Was it intuitive reason or discursive reason? Why does what he believed or did not believe in the realm of salvation issues relevant to his political theology? Why would he need to even go outside of scripture to have an equally valid interpretation of Romans 13 like Locke did? Finally, why does it matter if what Jefferson believed is comparision to whether the ideas he used in the Declaration of Independence were part of a stream of historical Christian thought? <br /><br />What one believed about heaven and hell is irrelevant to this whole debate in my opinion. Those are not the ideas that went into the DOI and possibly the Constitution. It was the law of nature(which to Aquinas and Company meant the first revelation given to man i.e. a moral code) and the law of God meaning the ten commandments. It is the reason found in the former that all so called revelation should be checked by. <br /><br />Witherspoon is a great example of someone who had conservative beliefs in regards to salvation and liberal views in regards to political theology. It shows clearly the difference and distinction that needs to be made.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.com