Should it be said in opposition to the observations, which I have made concerning the intelligibleness of the Scriptures, that my antagonists will grant, that the Scriptures are thus plain, in points of essential importance to our duty and salvation ; but need not be supposed to be so in mere speculative opinions: I answer, that no doctrine is of more importance, whether speculative or practical, than that, which teaches the character of Christ; except that, which teaches the existence and perfections of God. If Christ be a creature; all the worship, and all other regard, rendered to him as the Creator, is unquestionably mere Idolatry: the sin, which of all sins is the most strongly threatened, and reproved, in the Scriptures. If Christ is God; then a denial that he is God, is all that is meant by impiety. It is a denial of his primary and essential Character; of the Attributes, which in this character belong to him; of the Relations, which he sustains to the Universe, and will for ever sustain; of the actions, which he has performed, and will perform throughout eternity; and of the essential glory, which he had with the Father before ever the world was. Man is a being, made up of an animal body and a rational mind. Should I deny, that a particular person possessed a rational mind; would it not be justly said, that I denied him to be a man, and refused to acknowledge his primary and most essential character? If Christ is God-man; and I deny him to be God ; do I not, at least as entirely, deny his primary and most essential character? In other words, do I not plainly deny the Lord that bought me? It is evidently impossible for him, who makes this denial, to render to Christ those regards ; that confidence, love, reverence, and obedience; which a man, who believed Christ to be God, would feel himself indispensably bound to render. Indeed, were it possible, he would necessarily, and in the very act of rendering them, condemn himself as guilty of Idolatry. On the other hand, he, who believes Christ to be God, cannot refuse to render them, without condemning himself as guilty, and without being actually guilty, of the plainest and grossest impiety ; because he withholds from the true God, the homage and obedience, due to his character. The Unitarians censure the system of the Trinitarians as being idolatrous, and them as being Idolaters. If the Unitarian scheme is true, the censure is just. We, on the other hand, and with equal justice, if our scheme is true, declare them to be guilty of direct and gross impiety; because they worship not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; the Jehovah of the Scriptures; the Jehovah Aleim, who is one Jehovah ; but another and very different God.
The admission of the Deity of Christ, therefore, if he really be God, is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity; mistakes about which are altogether dangerous and dreadful....
So this is how, according to Timothy Dwight's logic, orthodox Trinitarian Christians OUGHT to view the God of the American Founding, the God of the Declaration of Independence. The God of the American Founding is not necessarily or identifiably Trinitarian. The biblical God is necessarily and identifiably Trinitarian. Therefore, the God of the American Founding is not necessarily or identifiably the God of the Bible.
Unitarians, though perhaps not a majority of the FFs, did play disproportionate roles during the American Founding. Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin wrote the Declaration, for instance. Even though they did not (and could not) publicly declare the God of the American Founding as non-Triune, the lack of identifiably Trinitarian attributes of the God of America's Founding civil religion (for which I DO see the unitarians as responsible) arguably makes that God implicitly unitarian (and hence, according to Trinitarians, not the God of the Bible).
22 comments:
"So this is how, according to Timothy Dwight's logic, orthodox Trinitarian Christians OUGHT to view the God of the American Founding, the God of the Declaration of Independence"
For political purposes or sotierological reasons?
Fortunately, we don't let clergymen like Timothy Dwight write history, and seldom let them into political office. This is the sort of trouble clergymen are paid to stir up.
I don't think Dr. Dwight like a lot of "Christians" drew a distinction between the two.
This is an extreme view Jon. One that I have only seen promoted by strict Calvinists. Lets branch out from that group and come up with some stuff from others. If your argument is that the American Founding was at odds with strict Calvinism you are correct. But other than that I think you are wrong.
Aquinas had problems with Augustine's, and thus Calvin's, view of the nature of man just like Locke did. It was a battle within Christendom not something new with the Enligtenment.
Jon,
I asked this in your last post but did not get an answer:
Why do you try to make something into a wedge issue that the vast majority at the time did not? It seems like you are trying to inject a 21 century dispute(though for political purposes I am not so sure it really matters now either) into the 18th Century. They simply were not going to let religious dogma become a wedge issue that divided them.
On issues of politics they took a few general biblical concepts they all could agree on(like imago dei) and combined them with natural law to create a big tent.
Put another way, we know the impact that the Bible and natural law as seen by those that supported the Declaration of Independence had on our history. What impact did views like Dwight's have?
King,
To answer your question I think I am taking Madison's advise in Federalists 10 and 51 to heart on factions. It's good to set them up against one another to cancel one another out.
I can go with that Jon. Well put.
Therefore, the God of the American Founding is not necessarily or identifiably the God of the Bible.
Well, by this logic, Dwight would also be arguing that Jews don't worship the God of the Bible either, a distinctly minority position even among the orthodox.
A couple of ironies about Dwight, which I'd hoped you'd go into deeper:
1) He was very active in the Federalist Party, which means he was a supporter of John Adams, a unitarian.
2) The internet tells us that Dwight questioned Calvin's doctrine of predestination and "the elect," presumably making him some sort of Arminian heretic.
Basically, your quote is from one of Dwight's sermons, where theological hassling is to be expected. Pretty much, he's accusing the unitarians of error and impiety, par for the course in such things.
Then again, I guess you're not taking any of this seriously, just using it as a wedge in the culture wars, so who cares anyway.
"Then again, I guess you're not taking any of this seriously, just using it as a wedge in the culture wars, so who cares anyway."
It is the lawyer in him. But I think what he misses is that Barton's vaque use of "Christian" and how it is used to deceive the ignorant is no different than Frazer's vague use of the word "Theistic Rationalist" and how it is used to deceive the ignorant on the other side is no different.
This term masquerades as some sort of balance between the "They were all orthodox Christian" idiots and the "They were all Deists" idiots. When in fact, it oversimplies things on on a scale of 1 to 10 with one being deist and 10 being John Calvin is about a 2 and a half at best.
Simply put Jon knows exactly what he is doing and does it well. That is why he chose a hyper-Calvinist like Frazer to speak for Christianity. Which is fine but do not get mad at Barton for doing the same thing. You are just smarter than him and do not use bum quotes.
Tom,
Regardless of what my motives are, or what you think they are, Dwight's thoughts here are an important piece of evidence in a not too well understood historical tale: Unitarians are, according to a strong academic current, lumped in with the Deists, even though unitarians believed Jesus the Messiah and many believed much of the Bible was revealed from God to man. Orthodox thought like that of Dwight played a role in shaping that perspective.
The way I see it is unitarians like Priestley, Price, and many "key Founders" are half way between Deism and traditional Christianity, which seems a pretty fair assessment to me.
Hyper Calvinist? Gregg believes in only 4 of Calvin's 5 points!
"Hyper Calvinist? Gregg believes in only 4 of Calvin's 5 points!"
Thats four more than most, even, Evangelical Christians.
"Dwight's thoughts here are an important piece of evidence in a not too well understood historical tale: Unitarians are, according to a strong academic current, lumped in with the Deists,"
And as I showed by actually reading Locke himself, apparently unlike many of them, this is garbage.
"The way I see it is unitarians like Priestley, Price, and many "key Founders" are half way between Deism and traditional Christianity, which seems a pretty fair assessment to me."
Theistic Rationalist is not half-way and is used by the Braytonites of the world to mean practically the same thing as Deist. On my scale above with a strict deist being a 1 and John Calvin being a 10 Locke was probably an 8. And that is using what Frazer supposedly says was "orthodox" at the time.
Augustine's view of original sin not only seems to be based on a bad translation of Romans 5:12 it is not found in Christianity before him. It was challenged by Aquinas and then reared its head again with the Protestants Calvin and Luther. I think Frazer's view of orthodoxy is tainted with the Protestant view of what that means.
In other words, people were arguing about this crap long before anyone knew what an Enlightenment was and damning each other to hell over it too.
Priestley, Price, and many "key Founders"
Priestley and Price aren't even American, let alone Founders. We can't slip anyone but Jefferson and the later John Adams in with him decisively.
Because what the Dwight story tells us about religion and the Founding is that either he knew of John Adams' unitarian leanings and supported him politically anyway, or Adams kept his unorthodoxy under such tight wraps during his public life that Dwight, a Federalist party official, didn't even know.
Either way, this tells us more than the theological quibbling in Dwight's sermons does, where again, he accuses unitarians of error and impiety, but stops short of damning them for all time. He's simply making a theological argument.
And again, it was not a Founding sentiment that Jews didn't worship the God of the Bible, which lets the unitarian Christians off the hook.
Further, socio-historically speaking, "half way between Deism and traditional Christianity" is a completely arbitrary pronouncement of what is "halfway," and serves only to muddy the waters.
The Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement
that was part of the same era, the Second Great Awakening, was non-creedal in the same way as unitarianism. A past visitor to this blog, Bob Cornwall, is pastor of a Stone-Campbell church, Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and recognizes Jesus as Messiah [although the rest is noncreedal].
http://pastorbobcornwall.blogspot.com/2010/04/unexpected-guest-sermon.html
He would, I'm sure, not appreciate being called only "halfway" Christian, and in the general socio-historical scheme of things, I give him at least a 7, close enough for rock'n'roll.
Hard-core clergymen would disagree, of course, but that's their job.
"Orthodox thought like that of Dwight played a role in shaping that perspective."
I agree but how is this anything different from what Frazer does now?
He takes thought that is obviously historically Christian that is put forth by people he says are not Christian by his narrow definition and tries to thus label the ideas themselves not Christian.
Jon,
Dump Frazer and pick up Aquinas and his view of rights and use it against the religious right and you will win the war instead of this narrow battle. Which you are not really even winning it is a stalement because both sides use vague terms that mean nothing.
"He would, I'm sure, not appreciate being called only "halfway" Christian, and in the general socio-historical scheme of things, I give him at least a 7, close enough for rock'n'roll."
What do you give Locke? Assuming that I and the jstor thing are correct that is.
"Priestley and Price aren't even American, let alone Founders."
Neither was Locke!
Tom,
They sound a lot like those that want to get rid of creeds but develop their own rigidity to replace it. They would condemn people to help that did not get an immersed baptism! But I get your larger point and agree.
should say condemn to hell not help.
Neither was Locke!
Priestley and Price are nowhere in the same league.
What do you give Locke? Assuming that I and the jstor thing are correct that is.
I'd shoot up to 8 if Jesus died for our sins in some way, that his death had some cosmic significance.
I mean, you have to give both Calvinism and Roman Catholicism 10s, even though they disagree on lotsa stuff.
The belief in "revelation," the idea that God has spoken directly to man in the scriptures---even if adulterated by the doings of men---and some unique role for Jesus above all men [more than just a prophet like Moses], has to get you a 7, again, close enough for rock-n'roll.
[This has always been my proposed baseline for "Christian," and I've seen others put it forth as well.]
I mean there are 34,000 Protestant denominations in the world! We gotta have some leeway here.
I gave Locke and 8 too. I would bump him to nine if he really was a trinitarian. Good point about Catholicism but it is much harder to pin them down. They venerate both Augustine and Aquinas and they both contradict each other all the time.
I did not pick up a Bible until I was 25 years old. Then I was introduced to some rigid evangelicalism that would make Calvin look tolerant. I never knew all this variety existed before the Protestant reformation. The more I read the more I think these guys were on to something. The sad thing is most people just write about them and do not bother to read them.
It seems that Augustine got more from Plato than anyone. If true we have a Platonic stain that runs down much of Western thought.
Post a Comment