"Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but to show us the way to eternal life."
In the comments section I proposed changing that to the following:
"Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but for the sin of each individual."
I went back and read his notes on Romans 5:12-19 from The Works of John Locke, Volume 8 and it seems clear that he did not believe in original sin. You can read it for yourself, but in my reading I found no dispute with the first half of this statement quoted above from Jon's post.
Nonetheless, I do dispute the second half of the quote. I base this on reading Locke's notes on Romans 3:24 in which he stated this:
"For it is to God we are redeemed, by the death of Christ"
Thus my contention that Locke believed that Christ died for our personal sins.
Here is more from Locke on the topic of redemption from The Reasonableness of Christianity that brings some context to my quote above:
"IT is obvious to any one, who reads the New Testament, that the doctrine of redemption, and consequently of the gospel, is founded upon the supposition of Adam's fall. To understand, therefore, what we are restored to by Jesus Christ, we must consider what the scriptures show we lost by Adam. This I thought worthy of a diligent and unbiassed search : since I found the two extremes that men run into on this point, either on the one hand shook the foundations of all religion, or, on the other, made Christianity almost nothing : for while some men would have all Adam's posterity doomed to eternal, infinite punishment, for the transgression of Adam, whom millions had never heard of, and no one had authorised to transact for him, or be his representative ; this seemed to others so little consistent with the justice or goodness of the great and infinite God, that they thought there was no redemption necessary, and consequently, that there was none ; rather than admit of it upon a supposition so derogatory to the honour and attributes of that infinite Being ; and so made Jesus Christ nothing but the restorer and preacher of pure natural religion ; thereby doing violence to the whole tenour of the New Testament."I think this says it all and gives us a true picture of what Locke taught about original sin and redemption. It also makes me wonder if the modern Locke scholars just ignore the things that do not align with their preconceived notions of Locke that do not fit with the "extremes" Locke warned against found in the Harvard Narrative? Locke seems to have had a problem with Augustine and Calvin, not the Bible.
21 comments:
I admit I'm having trouble penetrating Locke's language and this "mercy-seat" business, but here's one scholar who appears to agree with your reading.
The interesting part is that there's still a scholarly dispute atall, which again suggests that a reader in the Founding era could take Locke as reasonably orthodox.
I think the quote I used from The Reasonableness of Christianity sums up his thoughts from his commentaries on Romans. He was contra Augustine more than anything else. Seems fairly in line with Aquina's thought from what I have read.
Re: "For it is to God we are redeemed, by the death of Christ"
I'm still confident that this quote represents Locke's understanding of the meaning of Revelations 5. verse 9. Which is different than a profession of belief.
Locke may believe in redemption, but I don't see how this quote indicates that.
Ben,
Read the quote from the Reasonableness of Christianity. It is more clear there.
Well, I'd like to see more argument.
The first page of the JSTOR thing I linked argues that Locke still believed in "the universality of sin, the human need for salvation, and the redemptive power of Christ's blood."
That's not bad.
Proving that would take Locke much closer to orthodoxy than a lot of prevailing scholarly opinion presently allows. But since the JSTOR thing only gives one page, proof will have to be offered from elsewhere. Anyone interested in this issue needs to get get to work.
The language in the original Locke is a bit too dense for the average person to penetrate on his own; some assistance from the "experts" will be required, as in the theology of the "mercy-seat," which apparently has a long history. A cursory examination of the text by 21st century eyes will not suffice.
Tom,
All the good stuff is not free I see from your link. But from the intro I think it hits the nail on the head and produces a silver bullet that kills most modern interpretations of Locke.
Unless I am missing something, and I might be, I am appalled that I dude with a Bachelors degree, an hour of time, and the internet can find something that Ivy League scholars cannot find. Since I fully understand that they are by far smarter and infinitely more trained than I, I have to come to the conclusion that they are biased on do not bother to look.
Their version is the one that made it into our textbooks. I know because I taught it.
"The language in the original Locke is a bit too dense for the average person to penetrate on his own; some assistance from the "experts" will be required, as in the theology of the "mercy-seat," which apparently has a long history. A cursory examination of the text by 21st century eyes will not suffice."
I actually have a pretty entensive knowledge of that theology. At least the evangelical version. I can do a post on that and where Locke fits in but I am afraid it will degenerate into an unproductive discussion about truth claims. What do you think?
The link under Augustine is a pro-Augustine piece that lays out Locke's case against him in a fair manor. At least the part I read. It was chapter 13 pretty far down. The link got messed up and went to the start.
"redemptive power of Christ's blood."
I would like to see how this fits in with his probable unitarianism. Or maybe he was the trinitarian he claimed and just had a different view of atonement than Augustine's. Hard to say without reading more.
Their version is the one that made it into our textbooks. I know because I taught it.
Yup. This "scholarly consensus" thing can be tyrannical, since it depends on who the scholars are who constitute the consensus.
I actually have a pretty entensive knowledge of that theology. At least the evangelical version. I can do a post on that and where Locke fits in but I am afraid it will degenerate into an unproductive discussion about truth claims. What do you think?
It's possible to discuss theology at arms-length without claiming its cosmic truth. We do that with Mormonism all the time.
I would like to see how this fits in with his probable unitarianism. Or maybe he was the trinitarian he claimed and just had a different view of atonement than Augustine's. Hard to say without reading more.
I don't think you'll get him to Jesus being God, but if Christ's blood has soteriological significance, it's a lot more than a bland Socinianism.
The important thing is to offer the evidence and trust our gentle and fair-minded readers to draw the proper conclusions.
"I don't think you'll get him to Jesus being God, but if Christ's blood has soteriological significance, it's a lot more than a bland Socinianism."
I am not sure how it can have sotierological signifigance if Christ is not God? New line of theology I have never considered. I can say on a personal note that Locke's rendering of Romans 5:12 makes a lot more sense to me than Augustine's. Modern evangelicalism accepts Augustine un critically on this. But that is a side note.
Maybe I will write up something on the mercy seat and get Locke and Augustine's take on it.
Well, if I understand Socinianism and most unitarianism correctly, Christ's death, his 'sacrifice"---his blood---has no cosmic significance towards the forgiveness of sin and, following, entry into heaven.
This is a big theological deal.
But again, the business of salvation is beyond political philosophy's pay grade. Locke works either way.
Re: "Read the quote from the Reasonableness of Christianity. It is more clear there."
While Locke writes much regarding the pros/cons of the reasonableness of redemption, I see no indication of Locke professing a theological belief regarding Rev. 5 v. 9.
I found an essay by Jlian Gotobed on Locke's thoughts regarding redemption.
"The content of The Reasonableness of Christianity begins with a consideration of what Adam lost before examining what Christ restored in His work of Redemption. Locke disagrees with those that believe all people are subject to eternal punishment because of Adam. Such an outcome is inconsistent with the goodness and justice of God. “The reason for this strange interpretation we shall perhaps find in some mistaken places in the New Testament” (Locke, 1695: 27). The witness of the New Testament is relegated to the role of a supporting act when it does not agree with the canons of human reason. He also disagrees with those that think no Redemption is necessary since the Scriptures, which are the written Word of God, were plainly given to instruct people in the way of salvation. For Locke, Adam lost immortality by his act of transgression against God. Death for all was the consequence of Adam’s sin, not guilt or necessity of sinning. A righteous God would not condemn everybody to a necessity of sinning on the basis of one person’s sin. God does not impute the sin of Adam to his posterity. Locke effectively disagrees with the doctrine of original sin and diverges from those that stand in the tradition of Augustine. Each person is entirely responsible for his or her own sin without reference to the sin of Adam or any ancestors."
This view of Locke's words looks correct to me. However, I remain hesitant to conclude what the details of Locke's theological belief are from his "The Reasonableness of Christianity". However, I do think Locke presents himself as a Christian engaging the Christian theology.
From Ben's Quote:
"The witness of the New Testament is relegated to the role of a supporting act when it does not agree with the canons of human reason"
This is the type of thing that is just preposterous. Augustine used just as much reason as Locke did. The truth is that Locke used the Bible more correctly than Augustine did. The latter used a wrong interpretation of Romans 5:12 that is at the root of his view here.
It was a reasoned interpretation.
Ben,
If he wrote a commentary and books on it I assume it was his beliefs. Especially when he states that he went into an unbiased study of it. His theology is also very consisten throughout and it well thought out. He gets a little slippery some places but is pretty straight forward.
Re: "If he wrote a commentary and books on it I assume it was his beliefs."
I think it best, and respectful, to not associate a belief with an individual who avoided professing it. Particularly an individual such as Locke who is often central in the culture wars.
In any event, I am in agreement on your point regarding the superiority of Locke's reasoned interpretation.
" think it best, and respectful, to not associate a belief with an individual who avoided professing it. "
That is where we disagree in that I he was expressing his belief on this topic and wanted to. This was controversial at the time and he gained nothing by stating this. As far as the Unitarian thing I can see what you are talking about with some avoidance. From what Jon says this would actually have been illegal. Two different things.
Yes Ben this is at the center of the culture war. This view of Locke throws a monkey wrench in a great deal of what has been written about Locke.
Re: "That is where we disagree in that I [think] he was expressing his belief on this topic and wanted to. This was controversial at the time and he gained nothing by stating this."
Locke left his mark by applying his reasoned faculties to theological questions.
In my opinion, Locke's works explained and instructed on how theology should be studied and understood. He was essentially teaching how to discern better ideas from lesser ones. He no doubt had a passion for theological questions, but I see no clear indication what his personal religious beliefs were.
In terms of what he had to gain, through his work and reputation he was able to secure greater personal liberty than a lesser man would have been able to maintain.
However, I think his work was significantly motived by his principles and that the potential for gain played a lesser role.
'In my opinion, Locke's works explained and instructed on how theology should be studied and understood. He was essentially teaching how to discern better ideas from lesser ones. He no doubt had a passion for theological questions, but I see no clear indication what his personal religious beliefs were."
I do not understand how one can do this and leave their personal beliefs out of it? Bible commentaries are personal interpretations of the Bible by definition.
Re: "I do not understand how one can do this and leave their personal beliefs out of it?"
I'm not saying he did. I'm saying we don't know what those beliefs were (we was more sly than GW, I think).
Re: "Bible commentaries are personal interpretations of the Bible by definition."
They may be, but in the commentaries we're discussing, Locke makes no indication of his religious belief. What he does is to present reasonable interpretations of the Bible.
I'll put it a different way.
From my readings I've concluded that Locke often accepts sola scriptura for the purpose of his reasoned theological work. However, I've not read of him affirming a belief that the doctrines of the Bible contain all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Nor that the Bible doesn't contain many corruptions.
Locke does accept the same Biblical scriptures of the theological leaders of his present and past and proceeds to apply his reasoned faculties to distinguish between better and lesser theological interpretations.
Or in more abstract wording, he *may* have played another man's game by another man's rules and consistently triumphed over those with the home court advantage.
Ben,
We cannot speculate on what he does not say. We only know what he said. No one said he was an evangelical. Just that he is a lot closer than most scholars let on.
Agreed
Post a Comment