tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post1283145915420213866..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Knapton Responds to FrazerBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80725705525960697412010-06-28T07:46:11.958-06:002010-06-28T07:46:11.958-06:00Yes most certainly. Aristotle who discovered natu...Yes most certainly. Aristotle who discovered natural law obviously didn't use the Bible. Now, you do have, throughout history and today, natural law scholars who debate whether God is necessary to make the theory morally binding. But the Bible as revelation is distinct from natural law reasoning. Though Christian natural lawyers use the two to work together to complement one another.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32760124410328169822010-06-27T22:43:11.436-06:002010-06-27T22:43:11.436-06:00" But it still defines as substantive truths ..." But it still defines as substantive truths that reason discovers without the aid of revelation."<br /><br />What does revelation mean is this sentence Jon? Does it mean the Bible? If so I see why all the confusion.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50130320394339253922010-06-27T08:23:28.373-06:002010-06-27T08:23:28.373-06:00Tom,
I don't think I implied what you said I ...Tom,<br /><br />I don't think I implied what you said I implied. Not all religious conservatives believe in the concept of natural law. And a great deal of them don't understand what it is.<br /><br />Mr. Knapton, apparently, is a religious conservative who like Gregg doesn't believe in natural law. The idea that reason is a process that can discover no substantive truths on its own -- what Mr. Knapton argued, is a rejection of natural law.<br /><br />Natural law means reason discovers substantive truths by looking to nature. Now, it may require an anchor and John Adams, like many natural lawyers believed God is a necessary anchor to make natural law binding. But it still defines as substantive truths that reason discovers without the aid of revelation.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82872235456123508722010-06-26T19:24:48.485-06:002010-06-26T19:24:48.485-06:00In his Two Treatises, Locke informs “The State of...<i>In his Two Treatises, Locke informs “The State of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason...is that law....” </i><br /><br />Ellipses...the...quote-grabber's---friend...<br /><br />Gotta do the whole quote, which ties man to God as His Workmanship.<br /><br />Tut, tut, Jon. By logical procession, man's reason is God-given, not some independent entity. <br /><br /><i>reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, </i><br /><br /><i>Who will but consult it..."</i> That's consulting <i>right</i> reason, the only way man might know the "natural law."<br /><br />Locke, full quote, no ellipses:<br /><br /><i>"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's."</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9241149247881239492010-06-26T16:05:18.690-06:002010-06-26T16:05:18.690-06:00but this is not what West seems to be saying. He i...<i>but this is not what West seems to be saying. He is talking about a pretended revelation. Much like many believed the Trinity was one. He is not criticizing the Bible but bad theology. </i><br /><br />That's my reading of it too.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18113144066370196562010-06-26T13:38:11.430-06:002010-06-26T13:38:11.430-06:00"Here we actually see West setting up one sub..."Here we actually see West setting up one substantive system of rules -- those discovered from reason -- against another -- those contained in Bible."<br /><br />I am still trying to grasp where you are coming from here so any comments I make have to be taken from that position but this is not what West seems to be saying. He is talking about a pretended revelation. Much like many believed the Trinity was one. He is not criticizing the Bible but bad theology. <br /><br />I got into an aburd dialogue at Dispatches(I am done there the bad outweighs the good and many there are just assholes of the first order) about Darwin but did pick up some quotes that confirmed my tentative suspicion that he had more of a problem with Calvin than the Bible. He talked about designed principles and undesigned results. I think it was about natural law. It is the latter that many Calvinists struggle with. <br /><br />In other words, I think many misread these quotes and do not realize that they are nailing bad theology not the bible itself. They had a different view of man and his ability to do good. "Pretended" revelation based on sola scriptura and total depravity denied what reason through natural was telling them about human nature.<br /><br />That is my take but like I said I am still not totally grasping where you are coming from here.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.com