Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Theistic Rationalism: Is it a Theological or Historical Term? II

In the comments section of a recent post by Jon Rowe Dr. Gregg Frazer stated the following:

"So, my statement stands irrespective of Tom's claim that unitarians, who worshiped an entirely different god than did Christians, were Christians."

To which I responded:

"I see a lot of Calvinists state this but find it absurd. If they are worshipping the God of Exodus 34:5-7 then that is the God of the Bible. Do you maintain that Jews that had no concept of the Trinity were worshipping a different God? "

This is an interesting theological debate but it is just that: theological. Why does it come up at all in a conversation about the use of the term Theistic Rationalism?  I would have to propose because it is a theological and not a historical term. Not to mention one built on a rather extreme view of who is, and is not, worshipping the God of the Bible. 

36 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

Exactly. To argue the unitarians worshipped a different God than normative Christianity's, one must argue that the Jews worship a different G-d as well. When Jesus teaches the Jews to pray to "Our Father," well, he's not inventing a new God, and neither did the unitarians.

To accept Frazer's historical method, one must accept his theology.

I for one do not.

King of Ireland said...

"To accept Frazer's historical method, one must accept his theology."

As much as he tries to deny it comes out all the time. It sure did in his statements here.

When we open this up to the larger picture things look a little different. Really his whole premise is flawed. His trying to come up with a definition using the time of the founding. But if we are to come up with the correct understanding of what it means to be a historical Christian it really should be all of Church History and how the founding fits into that context.

King of Ireland said...

He says he uses Catholicism but not really. Narrowing the scope as he does leaves out a lot of the debate within the church for centuries. As already stated being infidel was often as simple as being on the wrong side of the Emperor at the time.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, I know you're on this Constantine/Nicaea thing. I just argue that Protestantism was pretty young and the development of further unorthodoxies was in the cards.

Michael Servetus was already arguing against traditional Trinitariasm in the mid-1500s, with the Reformation barely a generation old.

The Protestants burning him wasn't going to put the lid on unorthodoxy any more than it worked for the Roman Church.

I found this interesting, a history of Trinitarianism as told through the eyes of Michael Servetus.

King of Ireland said...

"I just argue that Protestantism was pretty young and the development of further unorthodoxies was in the cards."

But if we look at the breadth of Church history we see that these unorthodoxies were nothing new and not inspired by "Enlightenment" thinking. We also see the corrupt way that these things were made doctrine. Calvin burned the dude. What a prince.

Gregg Frazer said...

Where to start?

God is either three persons or He is not. A God who consists of three persons is a different god than one who is one person. Why is that observation controversial? How could a three-person God be the same god as a one-person god? You want to talk reason -- how is that rational?

Aside from that, however, once again you've jumped on a tossed-in point and ignored the main point. My point was that there was no unitarian denomination and so, despite Tom's complaints to the contrary, all Christian denominations affirmed the Trinity -- as my original statement said. This, by the way, was an historical point.

So, no, you don't have to accept my theology in order to accept my historical method -- just ignore throw-away lines and concern yourself with the actual historical argument.

You claim to only be interested in historical points, but then you jump on the one theological point that I make and ignore the historical points. We could launch into a theological discussion of the Jews and the Old Testament and the Trinity; and I could show you the Trinity in the Old Testament (such as Gen. 1:1 where "Elohim" -- a plural term -- is used for God or Gen. 1:26 which shows plurality even in English) -- but I thought you were only interested in historical points.

Likewise in the discussion of the validity of the Bible or how the canon became the canon: it shouldn't matter to you whether a "bunch of priests" did it or Constantine ordered something or whatever. What matters from a strictly historical point of view in our context is that by 18th-century America, unitarianism was heresy (historically) and not considered to be Christian by Christians. And the WHOLE Bible was considered by Christians to be revelation from God and not open to personal determination. So, when one rejected some of the Bible because it did not comport with their reason, they were choosing reason over revelation.

But again, the clearest example of reason over revelation was Adams's claim that he would not believe in the Trinity if God Himself told him it was true to his face on Mt. Sinai. There you have indisputable revelation -- personally from God -- rejected by Adams because he didn't consider it to be reasonable.

[by the way, when I said -- in a very brief, skeletal response -- that they rejected parts of the Bible because they didn't like what they said, I meant, of course, that they didn't like it because they considered it to be irrational. I thought, with all of the ground we've covered over the years that you'd understand that. But I guess I have to restate the whole argument every time I rejoin the discussion.]

As for "narrowing the scope" and ignoring centuries of church history and being on the wrong side of the Emperor, etc. -- I thought this was a site about religion and the American Founding??? I have made my arguments in that context. Disputes over doctrine in past centuries or decrees from emperors, etc. are irrelevant to our purpose -- unless you want a theological debate, which you say you do not.

In 18th-century America, there was a certain understanding of what constituted Christianity. I have evaluated the self-expressed religious beliefs of certain 18th-century Americans and found them to be at almost complete variance with what was understood to constitute Christianity. On that basis, I have said that they were not Christians by the standards of that day. That is an historical argument. To widen the argument to try to determine whether they might have been right or to compare their views with others in another time period or place for the purpose of making them out to be Christians is a theological argument -- which you claim not to want.

Tom Van Dyke said...


God is either three persons or He is not. A God who consists of three persons is a different god than one who is one person.


Again, the corollary is that the Jews don't worship the same God as Christians. Very few people hold that position.

Our Father which art in heaven is the same Father. You play up the "three persons" bit at the expense of "one God."

As for finding parts of the Bible "irrational," that is not the non-Trinitarian argument of that time. It was Bible-based.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=30

See also Augustine on the Genesis story about literalism, "reason trumps revelation."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html

King of Ireland said...

"God is either three persons or He is not. A God who consists of three persons is a different god than one who is one person. Why is that observation controversial? How could a three-person God be the same god as a one-person god? You want to talk reason -- how is that rational?"

That is a theological debate Gregg. Not historical. You dodged the question. Was the Jew that worshipped the God of Exodus 34:5-7 worshipping the God of the Bible or not? Simple and straight forward."



"Aside from that, however, once again you've jumped on a tossed-in point and ignored the main point. My point was that there was no unitarian denomination and so, despite Tom's complaints to the contrary, all Christian denominations affirmed the Trinity -- as my original statement said. This, by the way, was an historical point.

So, no, you don't have to accept my theology in order to accept my historical method -- just ignore throw-away lines and concern yourself with the actual historical argument."


No I open the historical debate to the full scope of Christian History and thus your historical term becomes a theological term. They were Arians not Theistic Rationalists. If they were then so were the Jews of the Old Testament period.



"Likewise in the discussion of the validity of the Bible or how the canon became the canon: it shouldn't matter to you whether a "bunch of priests" did it or Constantine ordered something or whatever. What matters from a strictly historical point of view in our context is that by 18th-century America, unitarianism was heresy (historically) and not considered to be Christian by Christians. And the WHOLE Bible was considered by Christians to be revelation from God and not open to personal determination. So, when one rejected some of the Bible because it did not comport with their reason, they were choosing reason over revelation."

Yes if you limit to 18th Century. When you broaden the scope the history shows that a large portion of Christianity were Arians. It was a discussion between branches of Christianity. No they used the Bible to refute other Christians that were using the Bible.


"As for "narrowing the scope" and ignoring centuries of church history and being on the wrong side of the Emperor, etc. -- I thought this was a site about religion and the American Founding??? I have made my arguments in that context. Disputes over doctrine in past centuries or decrees from emperors, etc. are irrelevant to our purpose -- unless you want a theological debate, which you say you do not."

This is a debate of the historical definition of a Christian. You mininmize Arian influence in Christian history. Your method is to narrow the scope. It makes this seem like something new and a fringe movement.



"In 18th-century America, there was a certain understanding of what constituted Christianity"

Why are we using these years? Lets open it up to years of existence of Christianity.

As far as Adams goes that is an awful complex statement to be building an argument from. One I do not even understand yet what definitions we are using. It would seem illogical for Adams to say that if he knew for sure that God was telling him something that he would ignore it and go with his own opinion.

Obviously he was assuming that God would not contradict what he thought was common sense. This is 500 miles away from what you seem to indicate.

Your weakest argument is with the Jews and the God of Exodus.

King of Ireland said...

"And the WHOLE Bible was considered by Christians to be revelation from God and not open to personal determination. So, when one rejected some of the Bible because it did not comport with their reason, they were choosing reason over revelation."

I refer to Hooker for his great point on Calvinists downplaying reason but sneezing and believing it was revelation. Yes I exaggerated what he said to make the point. I am sure you are aware of the argument.

I also do not see anyone but Jefferson cutting it apart. I see them doing what Augustine himself did and replacing literal interpretations with more reasoned ones. I read your essay on Wilson and saw many wholes in your arguments that I think reflect your theology. That is if I am understanding you. I may not be. I sincerely want to I am not just messing with you.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Frazer: "God is either three persons or He is not. A God who consists of three persons is a different god than one who is one person. Why is that observation controversial? How could a three-person God be the same god as a one-person god? You want to talk reason -- how is that rational?"

No wonder Christians are accused [by Islam in particular] of being polytheists [tri-theists] and not monotheists.

You do not speak intelligibly of One God, and no wonder the Founding era unitarians were repulsed by such unintelligible nonsense as yours.

Your thesis lies in ruins. You are forced to argue that the Jews don't worship the same One God as Christians.

The Founders saw that as nonsense, and so do most Christians, and so do even atheist observers who have no dog in the fight.

"May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, and planted them in the promised land, whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of Heaven, and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah."

That was George Washington in a letter to the Jews. "Theistic rationalist?" Fine. Whatever you say. American political theology saw the God of Providence that helped the American Revolution the same God who "planted [the Jews] in their Promised Land."

Dr. Frazer, do your theological thing. But don't f**k with George Washington, OK? I'm gettin' real tired of this. If GWash is a "theistic rationalist," than so am I. [In fact more so.]

Jonathan Rowe said...

Tom,

It may be "unintelligible nonsense," but Dr. Frazer is not alone. You are taking on a line of historic orthodox Christian thought that traces back to 325AD.

Some contemporary voices:

First Joe Carter, one of the most well respective conservative evangelicals in today's blogsphere:

If you tell me that you’re a "Christian" I take that to mean that you subscribe to a common set of doctrines outlined in either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed. Both of these creeds are ecumenical Christian statements of faith accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and almost all branches of Protestantism. They outline what it means to be a "mere" Christian.

Next Clayton Cramer who is a notable, smart evangelical conservative and historian of the Second Amendment:

The Nicene Creed

I mentioned a few days ago a controversy brewing concerning the Idaho Prayer Breakfast's invitation of a speaker who is an Iranian convert from Islam to Christianity. In the course of that discussion, I explained that are certain core values that define various faiths, and trying to gloss over those differences is silly. I gave as an example of a core value of Christianity--really, a lowest common denominator definition--the Nicene Creed. At least from my reading, the Nicene Creed is one that the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and nearly all Protestant denominations, accept. (I don't know about the Unitarian-Universalist Church. "Is it true that if you are a Unitarian, bigots burn a question mark on your lawn?")

In the last thirty years, I will admit, you can find some of the more liberal denominations awash in theologians and clergy who deny significant portions of the Nicene Creed. For example, denying "Jesus Christ" was "the only-begotten Son of God" and at least reluctant to admit "He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures...." These are pretty much the exception, and I think you would find that most members of even these liberal denominations, to the extent that they have thought about it, would not take these positions.

One of my readers took exception to my claim about the Nicene Creed being a core definition of Christianity. He pointed out that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) do not accept the Nicene Creed, and therefore the Nicene Creed is not the core definition of Christianity. I would say that a more accurate statement is that the Mormon Church, whatever you might want to think or say about it, is not a Christian church in the sense that Christians (and that's pretty much all divisions of Christianity) define it.


And Albert Mohler on why Jews don't worship the same God as Christians:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/11_5/pages/mohler.html

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

Saying that the Jews did not worship the same God as Christians do now is extreme. Now Gregg will say, and started to, that they Jews knew the Elohim was plural and the word "us" was used in Genesis. It is at best the seed of an idea and I cannot see anyone that the Jews had the "doctrine" of the Trinity.

Tom's quote about the Jews from Washington is powerful. This is a huge hurdle for this thesis and it ain't looking so good right now. I also do not see anyone but Jefferson getting out their scissors and cutting up the Bible.

Jonathan Rowe said...

King,

Earlier I linked to an interview that Jesse Lee Peterson (a non-Trinitarian fundamentalist Christian type) did with a Trinitarian fundamentalist on the Bible. It was amusing when Peterson and one of his cohorts questioned Jesus divinity because it seemed so shockingly un-biblical to the guest author and threw a monkey wrench into their conversion.

Orthodox Christians believe the OT is to be interpreted in light of the New. If it's clear that God is revealed as Triune in the New, then use that as an interpretive key with OT passages.

One of the passages in the Bible (you probably know better than I) says no one but Jesus has seen the Father. Trinitarians interpret this as whenever Jehovah God speaks to man, it's Jesus doing the talking. Jehovah is the name of the God the Jews worshipped and orthodox Christians believe Jehovah is Triune, not a mere synonym for the Father.

Therefore, all of the talking done by Jehovah in the OT is Jesus Christ talking to man NOT the Father. Therefore, Jesus appears throughout the OT as God speaking to man.

That might help better understand why rejecting Jesus as God means rejecting Jehovah God period, accordingly.

Orthodox Christians like Frazer, Mohler, Carter, etc. would note, whether they were aware of God's Triune Nature, the OT Jews worshipped Jehovah. But the Jesus rejecting Jews do not.

Gregg Frazer said...

As I said, I am out of town and have very limited access to the internet, so: a)I've been making some shorthand statements, assuming that you can read them in light of knowledge that you already have and ground that we've already covered ad nauseum; and b)I do not have time to address each and every point in detail -- which you will no doubt take as inability to do so.

That said, in the few minutes that I have:

I'm sorry that I made the offhanded comment about worshiping different gods -- not because I cannot back it up, but because I should have known you'd fixate on that THEOLOGICAL point (despite continually declaring that you're not interested in theological argument and scolding Jon & I for bringing them up) and ignore the main point, which was historical. I do not have the time to deal with this in full, but: I mistakenly assumed that you have enough understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity to know that when I talk of God as three persons, I mean ONE GOD consisting of three persons. Of course, I "played up" the "three persons bit" -- that was the kernel of disagreement!

There were many mysteries in the Old Testament that the Jews did not fully understand because God had not yet revealed them (see, e.g. Colossians 1:26-27 and 2:2) [progressive revelation]. One of which was the deity of the messiah; another was the suffering of the messiah; another was the grafting in of Gentiles, etc. So, yes, the faithful Jews before Christ's incarnation worshiped the same God, but did not understand fully that He was Triune. When several Old Testament characters encountered the pre-incarnate Christ, they recognized that He was God and they worshiped Him -- but the full reality of the Trinity was beyond their comprehension with the level of revelation that they had. There is plenty of Old Testament Scripture indicating the Trinity, but God had not yet spelled it out to them -- the mystery was revealed with Christ. God revealed Himself fully as Triune in the Incarnation. So, after the Incarnation, Jews who reject Jesus (the messiah) also reject God, just like Jews throughout history who did not accept other parts of God's revelation rejected God.

Gregg Frazer said...

The non-Trinitarians "used" the Bible, as you said in a previous entry, but their argument was not "biblical" because they ignored the numerous inconvenient passages which clearly indicate the Trinity; some of which have bearing on the "different god" discussion. For example, Jesus said "I and the Father are one" and Jesus referred to Himself as "I Am" -- the Jews then tried to kill Him because they fully understood that He was claiming to be God. Now, if Jesus and the Father are one, and one does not believe in Jesus, does one believe in the Father? If Jesus is the great "I Am" who spoke to the Jews in the Old Testament, and one does not believe in Jesus, then does one believe in the God of the OT? Jesus and the Father are clearly distinct persons, as Jesus refers to Him in that way.

Satan "uses" the Bible for his own purposes, too -- but his arguments are not "biblical."

Anyway, the unitarians argued on the basis of rationality because they used what they considered to be rational to screen out inconvenient passages -- their opinion of irrationality determined which lines of the Bible they would use to make their argument, rather than dealing with the body of Scripture honestly. They came to the Bible -- as so many do -- with a pre-conceived view and then "made" the Bible support it.

I'm sorry that you consider what I said to be "unintelligible nonsense." Again, I assumed that I could speak in short-cut language with you filling in certain necessary information -- I apparently assumed too much on your part. If you consider the concept of the Trinity itself to be nonsense, then you have a great deal of company, but I don't envy you your reunions.

By the way, I noticed that your response to my question [how could a three-person God and a one-person god be the same?] was not a refutation of my logic -- or even an answer, but an ad hominem attack. I expected as much, since I believe the logic to be sound.

Gregg Frazer said...

I am also sorry that you're getting tired of theistic rationalism -- especially to the extent that you feel the need to use expletives. I would remind you that I was asked to participate in this blog to begin with, I'm periodically asked by Jon to reenter the discussion, and you've asked me to explain things many times and/or provide support for arguments. I have plenty else to do.

I want to say this in as kind a fashion as I can -- I mean it to be friendly, constructive criticism. IT APPEARS TO ME that you want to discuss the general subject of the site within certain constricted boundaries. You want to pat each other on the back and reassure yourselves that you're right and you want to drive away alternate perspectives. Neither I nor Jon has ever said that we're getting tired of the "bleeping" ideas that you guys put forward. They are, and should be, part of the discussion -- even if I (or Jon) think they're mostly wrong.

If, for example, you attacked Mark Hall's essays as critically -- and in as much detail -- as you do my entries, it would enhance your reputation for intellectual honesty. [Mark is a friend and I've already read his entire piece and offered -- at his request -- feedback and suggestions and criticisms, so this isn't out of school.] While we agree on much, Mark and I do not agree on a number of things; but we are scholars and so we discuss them and challenge one another. We don't attack each other or dismiss arguments out of hand.

If you asked him for some support for his several unsubstantiated broad statements [which you simply hail as "powerful"] or if you questioned whether one can assume that a church with a reformed denomination title was actually teaching reformed thought [even though many had completely rejected reformed teaching and some had even become unitarian. The fact is that many were teaching the rationalism that the minister was taught at Harvard or Yale, which is one reason why they didn't object to Locke. Have you asked him how he can be confident that the ministers were educated in reformed thought?] If you asked any of these or some other critical questions instead of glad-handing what you agree with, then IT SEEMS TO ME you would gain credibility. Just my opinion.

If my welcome is used up, that's OK with me -- I don't really have the time or the inclination to continually beat my head against a wall. I usually reenter the discussion when Jon tells me I should, so it's easy enough not to respond to his requests if that will make you more comfortable.

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"If it's clear that God is revealed as Triune in the New, then use that as an interpretive key with OT passages."

That is not the discussion here though. Go look at the post about the Tibetan nomad I did up top and you will see my point. The issue is what the Jews had at the time. Abraham did not even have a Bible. How did he interact with God? Did his ignorance of the term Elohim deter him?


"Orthodox Christians like Frazer, Mohler, Carter, etc. would note, whether they were aware of God's Triune Nature, the OT Jews worshipped Jehovah. But the Jesus rejecting Jews do not."

Jon Exodus 34:5-7 states clearly who God is by character. If the Jews then or not worship God based on that it is irrelevant whether they understand the trinity or not. That only enhances the understanding of an already established truth in that the death of Christ demonstrates God attributes in a clear manner. In other words the abstract was put into action.

The jews that reject Jesus may have an incomplete understanding of the enhanced version of a commentary on God's character I grant but to say they are worshipping a different God is absurd from a theological point of view and even more so from a historical point of view.

Read my post about the nomad. Is he sent to hell for not an incomplete revelation of God he was never privy too? Come on!?

King of Ireland said...

"Jews who reject Jesus (the messiah) also reject God, just like Jews throughout history who did not accept other parts of God's revelation rejected God.'

One I am not sure if all this is directed at me or Tom. But I most cerainly understand the trinity and have devoted hours and hours of study to it. Personally, I am probably still a Trinitarian but have recently seen some merit in the arguments of the Unitarians.

But this is theological and you interjected into the discussion of theistic rationalism not me.

With that said what you stated at the end is a sotierological point and is FARRRR different than the Jews worship a different God both theologically but most certainly historically speaking. You overplayed your hand do not get mad at me about it.

In fact, I would just drop this and have a good vacation and email Jon later with your response. I still feel bad about dragging you into this when your father was sick. You did respond in the end and were capable. I did not agree with you but do respect you for backing up what you said you would do. No problems here from me. If you look at the comments I proposed to table this until you had time to take it up.

King of Ireland said...

"The non-Trinitarians "used" the Bible, as you said in a previous entry, but their argument was not "biblical" because they ignored the numerous inconvenient passages which clearly indicate the Trinity; some of which have bearing on the "different god" discussion"

No they did not ignore them they came up with just as many that seem to contradict it. It is like the whole question of whether one can lose salvation or not? There are just as many passages the SEEM to be for it as against and reasonable people can argue over it. This is still theological and not historical.


Smoking gun quote:

"their opinion of irrationality determined which lines of the Bible they would use to make their argument, rather than dealing with the body of Scripture honestly"

Again with conjecture. The bottom line is that they were offering what they believed was a reasoned interpretation not cutting out passages from the Bible. Exactly what I said here numerous times.

You label their method of interpretation as cutting out parts of the Bible just because it differs from yours and speculate on their motives for doing so and build a term based on it. I think it is sloppy. This is the second time that you have added your conjecture.

Your theology is the basis for your argument Gregg. Just own up to it. It is the whole reason you picked the years you did to study.


?

King of Ireland said...

"They came to the Bible -- as so many do -- with a pre-conceived view and then "made" the Bible support it."

Pot calling the kettle black Gregg. I am not saying that to be rude or insult you but to make a point. They were still using the Bible. That is the point. The used reasoned interpretation to trump dogma. Far cry from what Jefferson did.

Same thing that Augustine did with the creation story. Which you have not addressed yet at all by the way.


"I am also sorry that you're getting tired of theistic rationalism -- especially to the extent that you feel the need to use expletives. I would remind you that I was asked to participate in this blog to begin with, I'm periodically asked by Jon to reenter the discussion, and you've asked me to explain things many times and/or provide support for arguments. I have plenty else to do."

Tom gets a little testy at times and never means anything by it.(So do I and many of us here) He speaks highly of you often here when you are not around. I sure appreciate your viewpoint on this and your interaction. I do not always agree with you but your thoughts are most certainly welcome here and absolutely germane to this overall societal debate we seem to be having.


"I mean it to be friendly, constructive criticism. IT APPEARS TO ME that you want to discuss the general subject of the site within certain constricted boundaries. You want to pat each other on the back and reassure yourselves that you're right and you want to drive away alternate perspectives. Neither I nor Jon has ever said that we're getting tired of the "bleeping" ideas that you guys put forward. They are, and should be, part of the discussion -- even if I (or Jon) think they're mostly wrong."

I have been on sites hostile to my point of view that do this Gregg and it sucks. I have been viciously attacked personally numerous times. So much so I left that blog for good. But I do not think it is the same here. We all differ a lot.

I cannot speak for Tom, and am not sure what comments are to him or me, or both of us but I have learned a lot from our interactions. I welcome them. I have asked Jon more than once to bring you in when we are not clear on the historical aspects of some things that I know you understand as an expert that I am most certainly not.

I am not dissing your work. I just question your premise. I am not even understanding your term yet to be honest.


"If, for example, you attacked Mark Hall's essays as critically -- and in as much detail -- as you do my entries, it would enhance your reputation for intellectual honesty. [Mark is a friend and I've already read his entire piece and offered -- at his request -- feedback and suggestions and criticisms, so this isn't out of school.] While we agree on much, Mark and I do not agree on a number of things; but we are scholars and so we discuss them and challenge one another. We don't attack each other or dismiss arguments out of hand. "

YOu use powerful in quotes so I assume you are refering to me. But are responding to things Tom said. I honestly am not trying to attack you. I am trying to understand you. I have confidence I can. I did not get where you were coming from with the Romans thing. In the end I did. You took it as me trying to dismiss you and all I wanted was to get all of what your were trying to say.

Some of it is because Jon makes your arguments here. He does not understand the theology at times that is behind it as well as I do and it confuses me. I am really just asking for clarity.

Have I bothered you about Romans again since you responded

King of Ireland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
King of Ireland said...

Gregg,

I offered many criticisms of Dr. Hall. I agree with his broad brush strokes because of ignorance I have seen about even the most elementary aspects of what he is stating. He is also offering his essay as general.

You have a doctoral dissertation that has been fully developed. We have also had a great deal of interaction on these topics. So I think it is easier to get into the details.


Again I am not trying to attack you.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Gregg, I apologize if I appear testy. I'm passionate, and I'm irreverent. That's my style. Some like it, since our topic is a bit dry. I'm the pepper in the Vaseline.

Now then, I don't insist on "Christian." "Judeo-Christian" does fine for me, albeit an imperfect term. Still, everybody knows what it means.

Unlike "theistic rationalist," which is misleading to all but you. I didn't reject your thesis out of hand; I've taken years now in examining its insufficiency. I took the time to locate and read your paper arguing Gouverneur Morris as a "theistic rationalist," where you explained your term connotes Protestant Christianity

Christianity Theistic rationalism was a hybrid belief system mixing elements of natural religion, Protestant Christianity, and rationalism – with rationalism as the decisive factor whenever conflict arose between the elements.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/8/1/1/2/pages281125/p281125-9.php

which you now deny or minimize.

My problem with your term and thesis is highlighted in your backing into the argument that the Jews don't worship the same God as Christians.

Clearly George Washington disagreed. You must show how Washington's view was atypical in those times, and I don't believe you can.

Your "theistic rationalists" [with the exception of Jefferson, and precious few others] still worshipped the God of the Bible, despite differences on Jesus' role and nature. Your term either ignores that willfully, or by omitting the dimension of the God of the Bible, leaves the wrong impression.

King of Ireland properly notes that your characterization of some interpretations of the Bible as simply wrong or dishonest requires one to accept your theology in order to accept your historical method.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Unlike "theistic rationalist," which is misleading to all but you.

Who is "all" kemosabe?

Jonathan Rowe said...

IT APPEARS TO ME that you want to discuss the general subject of the site within certain constricted boundaries.

Yes, it's called moving the goalpost to try and score points, which Tom is a virtuoso at.

Tom Van Dyke said...

True. Political theology, not theology. Any historical argument that requires one accept its theology as well [even as basic as that God exists!] is unhelpful.

Jon, you keep arguing that "reason trumps revelation." If true, then it was also true of Augustine. Pretty soon we don't have any Christians left, only "theistic rationalists."

Jonathan Rowe said...

Re George Washington as authority, why does he, or any American President get any special authority as "theologian in chief."

GW didn't just believe Jews and Christians worshipped the same God, but that Jews, Christians and UNCOVERTED Native Americans worshipped the same God. Though I've never seen him squarely address the question on whether the Muslims did too, I don't think it's much of a stretch to conclude GW would have, like Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin, concluded Muslims worshipped the same God Jews and Christians did because at last Allah claims to be the God of Abraham.

Tom Van Dyke said...

You keep flogging the "Great Spirit" thing, but Washington's tactic is no different than Paul the Apostle's claiming the Men of Athens' Temple to the Unknown God was to the real God he came to preach.

But I'm speaking specifically here---as Washington was---of the God of the Jews, and of the Bible, Jehovah. Don't move the goalposts.

Islam is problematic [and the Founding era knew really little of it], but the sociological term "Abrahamic" connotes that they do indeed have the same God.

Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin

This is the "theistic rationalist" tactic. Take a genuine theistic rationalist [always Jefferson, mind you], find a commonality with another Founder, and Presto! another theistic rationalist. They multiply like rabbits.

Without the outlier Jefferson as an anchor, the whole method doesn't amount to much. Even John Adams called Christianity a "revelation," which Jefferson did not. Franklin was agnostic on the mystical truth claims of Christianity; he did not reject them out of hand---"reason trumps revelation"---as Jefferson did.

You can accuse me of cheating the argument, Jon, but that's just an admission I'm carrying it fair and square.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Tom,

The way you understand Jefferson is not the way Gregg defines "theistic rationalist" and its understanding of reason & revelation and I think you know it.

Just to clarify, we have the strict Deist position that rejects all the revelation in the Bible, the "orthodox" position which believes the canon inerrant and infallible and something in between. Maybe we need more than three boxes, but Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin clearly fit the in between box.

YOU may think Jefferson's position is closer to the strict Deists' but Gregg has argued just as convincingly why Jefferson arguably believed what made his razor's cut was "revelation" in the God speaking to man sense.

Tom Van Dyke said...

My argument is based on Jefferson not believing the Bible was Divine Writ, the Word of God, revelation.

Adams thought the Bible had divine force; Franklin was unsure [agnostic].

The concept of "revelation" is a big deal. Without it, man is completely on his own. We see this in the French Revolution.

[Neither did Jefferson accept the "moral sense," which was a belief pretty much universally held. Jefferson thought man had an innate sense only as far as it extended to getting along in society.]

My problem with the term is its vagueness and sweeping pronouncements like "reason trumps revelation." As we poke through the history of Christianity, we see reason was always a big part of it. Augustine was an exquisite thinker; Paul the Apostle was steeped in Greek philosophy. Christianity spread not so much through the Middle East and eastward, but westward into Europe and the progeny of the Greek philosophical tradition.

As for the Bible, yes, that era was just coming into possession of earlier source scriptural documents, and the accuracy of the KJV was questioned, not arbitrarily, but based on scripture itself.

But the canon has always had its controversies, Luther and the deutero-canonical books of the Bible being a perfect illustration.

But after we clear the clatter, there was a God of the Bible, and the Bible itself was held to come from God.

Jonathan Rowe said...

My argument is based on Jefferson not believing the Bible was Divine Writ, the Word of God, revelation.

I believe Jefferson believed the parts of the Bible that survived his razor qualified as this.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I've never run across anything that made me think that, or that believed Jesus was anything more than a moral philosopher. These are my two main points, the Bible as revelation, and Jesus as Messiah. Jefferson is on his own here, except for the other "theistic rationalist," Tom Paine.

King of Ireland said...

"Yes, it's called moving the goalpost to try and score points, which Tom is a virtuoso at."

Jon you are pretty good at it too. I am not being sarcastic in that I think it is a good for the most part. Good and skilled debate and discussion is an artform.

King of Ireland said...

"GW didn't just believe Jews and Christians worshipped the same God, but that Jews, Christians and UNCOVERTED Native Americans worshipped the same God."

First of all Native American religions were about a diverse as Hindus. Which means it is impossible to nail to down to one general line of thought. But in the abstract the Great Spirit was the creator. It that general abstract sense we all do worship the same God. The question comes down to the manner and then the devil is in the details that Washington most certainly was not going to get into in the Public realm when officially addressing a nation of people. Come on Jon?

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

At some point you or Gregg has to answer the creation story objections stated numerous times in the last week here. Like I stated to Gregg, I want him to enjoy his vacation and not feel obligated to answer any of this now. But at some point I think it needs to be addressed.

King of Ireland said...

By the way Gregg,

Take the fact that you get racked over the coals as a compliment in that I or we are more familar with you and it is more of an argument among friends than aquaintances per se.

As a coach I think you can understand being harder on the people you expect more from. If I did not respect you I would not bother with you.

I am actually envious of you in that I wish I would have knuckled down earlier in life so I had your education. But that will not keep me from arguing with you if I think you are wrong.