tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post3148237776761473473..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Protestant Case Against The Natural LawBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1838062530211915522008-12-14T08:55:00.000-07:002008-12-14T08:55:00.000-07:00.I think it is counterproductive to ignore or to s....<BR/>I think it is counterproductive to ignore or to set aside what OFT has to say in regards to these questions.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88124164879704050502008-12-14T08:54:00.000-07:002008-12-14T08:54:00.000-07:00."OFT is by no means wrong in arguing that natural....<BR/><I>"OFT is by no means wrong in arguing that natural law and the Bible were seen as coming from the same source. ... whether or not that's true is irrelevant for our purposes. But whether the Founders by and large believed it [or not] is essential to our inquiry."</I><BR/>.<BR/>I am enjoined to inquire as to our purpose in the discovery of any truth about the Founding of our nation.<BR/>.<BR/>OFT provides an example of what it means to think like a Neo-Conservative operating from a position where truth has <I>already</I> been given in the master revelation from which all reality is reasoned..<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40664085964533475112008-12-13T20:20:00.000-07:002008-12-13T20:20:00.000-07:00"This is what the Bible teaches; remember, re..."This is what the Bible teaches; remember, reason and revelation is the same thing, from the same God, in different channels."<BR/><BR/>How can this be? If reason is revelation, then why wouldn't other faiths be Christian?><BR/><BR/>Other faiths have a different god.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that God would reveal a CHRISTIAN truth to all of his children. So, why isn't the whole world Christian?><BR/><BR/>Love enjoins freedom to choose, or it isn't love, and God is Love. God created us with freewillOur Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21809118150985972042008-12-13T18:41:00.000-07:002008-12-13T18:41:00.000-07:00I love that South Park riff, Brad. Thx for the li...I love that South Park riff, Brad. Thx for the link.<BR/><BR/>OFT is by no means wrong in arguing that natural law and the Bible were seen as coming from the same source. In the past week, there have been numerous quotes from folks like the learned James Wilson that <I>explicitly</I> say it. It's easily found in Aquinas and the oft-quoted Anglican Rev. Richard Hooker and all through the Founding era.<BR/><BR/>Again, I mention that whether or not that's <I>true</I> is irrelevant for our purposes. But whether the Founders by and large believed it [or not] is essential to our inquiry.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-92051882261205673212008-12-13T15:48:00.000-07:002008-12-13T15:48:00.000-07:00Wonderful post, Jon! I had to read it a couple of...Wonderful post, Jon! I had to read it a couple of times to make sure I got it all, and I will probably be reading it again!<BR/><BR/>OFT writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>"This is what the Bible teaches; remember, reason and revelation is the same thing, from the same God, in different channels."</EM><BR/><BR/>How can this be? If reason is revelation, then why wouldn't other faiths be Christian? It seems to me that God would reveal a CHRISTIAN truth to all of his children. So, why isn't the whole world Christian? <BR/><BR/>Jon writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>"This blog is an inquiry. Sometimes things (like TV and movies series, book series) end because you did it all and there's really not much more to explore. I doubt this blog will ever end for that reason. We'll all be dead before we come to that point. And hopefully we'll be able to continue the discussion in the afterlife and see who was right."</EM><BR/><BR/>Oh my...I wonder if we will even be able to agree at that point. I can just picture all of us arguing the same stuff even after death!!!<BR/>But hey, if South Park is right, that means that the MORMONS are right. Just see for yourself:<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGv9NUYX3JgBrad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53144357815777777692008-12-13T15:15:00.000-07:002008-12-13T15:15:00.000-07:00.OFT comes off with, "It was revealed to me by Dav....<BR/>OFT comes off with, <I>"It was revealed to me by David, Paul, the Prophets, Tertullian, Basil, Polycarp, Ignatius, the other church fathers, Aquinas, John Knox, Tyndale, Calvin, Luther, Bullinger, Beza, Zwingli, Melanchton, Hooker, Pufendorf, Grotius, Montesquieu, Ponet, Locke, Rutherford, Sydney, Blackstone, Witherspoon, and all the Founding Fathers."</I><BR/>.<BR/>Oh, O.K.. I thought maybe you got it directly from God. Worse than that, I thought that to have something "revealed" means that it was put in your mind by some form of osmosis. My bad, I guess.<BR/>. <BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59934257175280004902008-12-13T14:10:00.000-07:002008-12-13T14:10:00.000-07:00(Ex. 21. 16.)If any man stealeth a man or mankinde...(Ex. 21. 16.)<BR/>If any man stealeth a man or mankinde, he shall surely be put to death.<BR/><BR/>This, BTW, was one of the strongest and favorite Biblical arguments by the Christian abolitionists. "Manstealing" corresponded exactly to chattel slavery as practiced in the South.><BR/><BR/>Exactly! I still can't believe the South used the Bible to justify slavery; some of them were great men: Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Beauregard, etc.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47832554311815743992008-12-13T13:56:00.000-07:002008-12-13T13:56:00.000-07:00(Ex. 21. 16.)If any man stealeth a man or mankinde...<I><BR/>(Ex. 21. 16.)<BR/>If any man stealeth a man or mankinde, he shall surely be put to death.</I><BR/><BR/>This, BTW, was one of the strongest and favorite Biblical arguments by the Christian abolitionists. "Manstealing" corresponded exactly to chattel slavery as practiced in the South.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2460550612376111122008-12-13T13:45:00.000-07:002008-12-13T13:45:00.000-07:00But this actually serves as evidence that the grea...But this actually serves as evidence that the great majority believed such stuff! So when we read Adams' Thanksgiving Proclamation [which was seen as coming directly from the Presbyterians, and hurt Adams politically],><BR/><BR/>I read a good rebuttal to Adams' belief blaming his election loss to the Presbyterians; I will look for it. <BR/><BR/>As for the missing Wilson quote, memory sez he doesn't say scripture is corrupted, but that clergy-types have sometimes made a mess of it.><BR/><BR/>Boy, isn't that the truth!Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13109381861801494352008-12-13T13:32:00.000-07:002008-12-13T13:32:00.000-07:00OFT, I wouldn't read too much into various Founder...OFT, I wouldn't read too much into various Founders using biblical language or Biblical arguments as reflecting their personal beliefs. They were arguing in the language of the greater masses.<BR/><BR/>But this actually serves as evidence that the great majority believed such stuff! So when we read Adams' Thanksgiving Proclamation [which was seen as coming directly from the Presbyterians, and hurt Adams politically], let us not assume that his reference to the Holy Spirit indicates he believed in one. But we may take it to mean it was speaking to the grand majority of Americans did!<BR/><BR/>As for the theocracy of the Puritans, it appears that by the Founding era, they had mutated into the Congregationalists and into unitarians in the years shortly thereafter. But aside from perhaps a very few of the Dominionist stripe, few claim that America was founded as a theocracy, with the death penalty for atheists. But as Franklin noted, atheists did keep their heads down, out of the line of fire.<BR/><BR/>As for the missing Wilson quote, memory sez he doesn't say scripture is corrupted, but that clergy-types have sometimes made a mess of it. I'll post it when I relocate it.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44383163375796960242008-12-13T10:39:00.000-07:002008-12-13T10:39:00.000-07:00"...remember, reason and revelation is the sa..."...remember, reason and revelation is the same thing, from the same God, in different channels."<BR/>.<BR/>How was that line of thought revealed to you?><BR/><BR/>It was revealed to me by David, Paul, the Prophets, Tertullian, Basil, Polycarp, Ignatius, the other church fathers, Aquinas, John Knox, Tyndale, Calvin, Luther, Bullinger, Beza, Zwingli, Melanchton, Hooker, Pufendorf, Grotius, Montesquieu, Ponet, Locke, Rutherford, Sydney, Blackstone, Witherspoon, and all the Founding Fathers except Thomas Jefferson.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27113454525083879342008-12-13T07:16:00.000-07:002008-12-13T07:16:00.000-07:00."...remember, reason and revelation is the same t....<BR/><I>"...remember, reason and revelation is the same thing, from the same God, in different channels."</I><BR/>.<BR/>How was that line of thought revealed to you?<BR/>.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89955302053461876382008-12-12T22:06:00.000-07:002008-12-12T22:06:00.000-07:00However, they still didn't necessarily believe...However, they still didn't necessarily believe it infallible or *the* authoritative source of history, just one of many valid sources.><BR/><BR/>The above quote doesn't jive if James Wilson believed in the supernatural, which he did. <BR/><BR/>"Immediately after the DELUGE, the great charter of general property was renewed. “God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth."<BR/><BR/>James Wilson calls the Torah inspired, not just a history book, meaning all the miracles written in it. Noah lived to be 950 years old, is that a miracle?<BR/><BR/>The INSPIRED legislator of the Jews [Moses] speaks of them as of an institution, which, even in his time, was anciently established in Canaan. <BR/>Wilson, Works.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73963035667966087372008-12-12T20:14:00.000-07:002008-12-12T20:14:00.000-07:00This is not to say scripture, or the interpretatio...This is not to say scripture, or the interpretation of it, cannot be corrupted, and indeed Wilson allows for that,><BR/><BR/>Hey Tom, please post Wilson's specific words for this; it would be good to know. Also, Wilson was and still is, our greatest authority on the Law of Nature, having been a Professor of it, and studying under the Masters of it, Pufendorf, and Grotius. Jefferson, or Franklin were not Professors of Law.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps. But aside from Jefferson and Adams' private scribblings to each other, I doubt you'll find many echoes of your opinion in the Founding literature, which is the focus of this blog.><BR/><BR/>We will only find the opposite viewpoint. Even the quote by Adams ONLY supports my view, and is exactly what I believe:<BR/><BR/>"Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature. man. When this revelation is clear and certain, by intuition or necessary inductions, no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it."<BR/><BR/>This is what the Bible teaches; remember, reason and revelation is the same thing, from the same God, in different channels. <BR/><BR/>Adams seemed to believe the entire Bible, as he saw it, was Supreme:<BR/><BR/>As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration [Bible]...offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come..<BR/>Thanksgiving Proc. 1799.<BR/><BR/>Adams, and James Madison believed in miracles, which exempts them from believing Reason supreme:<BR/><BR/>The great and almighty Author of nature, who at first established those rules which regulate the World, can as easily Suspend those Laws whenever his providence sees sufficient reason for such suspension. This can be no objection, then, to the miracles of J [Jesus] C [Christ]. Altho' some very thoughtfull, and contemplative men among the heathen, attained a strong persuasion of the great Principles of Religion, yet the far greater number having little time for speculation, gradually sunk in to the grossest Opinions and the grossest Practices.<BR/>John Adams diary March 2, 1756<BR/><BR/>To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.<BR/>James Madison-Memorial and Remonstrance 1785<BR/><BR/>Adams understood, as with Wilson, without Revelation, reason is corrupt:<BR/><BR/>The passions and appetites are parts of human nature as well as reason and the moral sense. In the institution of government it must be remembered that, although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be. <BR/>Defence, 3:289, 479. Cf., Cited by Michael Novak, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2002), 49.<BR/><BR/>We see every Day, that our Imaginations are so strong and our Reason so weak..<BR/>Diary, FEB, 9TH, 1772. ADAMS PAPERS.<BR/><BR/>Only Jefferson, and maybe Franklin, out of all the Founding Fathers believed in this foolishness. <BR/><BR/>The only way reason can be known or useful to people and nations is if it's put on paper (Law), and once its on paper, it's human, unless coming from an inspired author, therefore, reason could not be divine, destroying what it is. The doctrine is totally illogical! To claim the framers or their God in the DOI as proponents of this is false.<BR/><BR/>Even Blackstone believed reason inferior to Revelation:<BR/><BR/>Yet this rule admits of exception, where the former determination is most evidently contrary to reason; much more if it be dearly contrary to the divine law...And hence it is that our lawyers are with justice so copious in their encomiums on the reason of the common law, that they tell us, that the law is the perfection of reason, that it always intends to conform thereto, and that what is not reason is not law. Blackstone, SECTION THE THIRD. OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND<BR/>http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-1103.htmOur Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64926345276468827892008-12-12T19:51:00.000-07:002008-12-12T19:51:00.000-07:00.Those are God's Laws--revealed in sacred scriptur....<BR/>Those are God's Laws--revealed in sacred scripture.<BR/>.<BR/>They certainly are not the laws of nature.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14215224491833328932008-12-12T18:15:00.000-07:002008-12-12T18:15:00.000-07:00Let me say something else about Gary North. First...Let me say something else about Gary North. First Tom (and others) I'm glad you heeded my admonition to "[l]et his arguments in this regard rise and fall on their own merits" and not poison the well by attacking his extremely politically incorrect and crankish theocratic politics.<BR/><BR/>Philosophy is, after all, a search for the truth, and sometimes you have to go to the most extreme places to find those willing to speak truth and tackle sacred cows. I think Robert Locke called them the "non-respectable Left" and the "non-respectable Right." North is certainly comes from one of most non-respectable places on the Right. <BR/><BR/>But, the way I see it, his ideal vision of politics is straight from Puritan Massachusetts and what Founders like the first 5 Presidents, Wilson, Hamilton, G. Morris did from 1776-1800 was radically different than the Puritans ideal form of government. North sees that; but David Barton and company don't.<BR/><BR/>Let me quote from the Mass. 1641 Body of Liberties to prove the point:<BR/><BR/> <I>94. Capitall Laws.<BR/><BR/> 1.<BR/><BR/>(Deut. 13. 6, 10. Deut. 17. 2, 6. Ex. 22.20)<BR/>If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.<BR/><BR/> 2.<BR/><BR/>(Ex. 22. 18. Lev. 20. 27. Dut. 18. 10.)<BR/>If any man or woeman be a witch, (that is hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,) They shall be put to death.<BR/><BR/> 3.<BR/><BR/>(Lev. 24. 15,16.)<BR/>If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Sonne or Holie Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous or high handed blasphemie, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.<BR/><BR/>[Page 274]<BR/><BR/> 4.<BR/><BR/>(Ex. 21. 12. Numb. 35. 13, 14, 30, 31.)<BR/>If any person committ any wilfull murther, which is manslaughter, committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or Crueltie, not in a mans necessarie and just defence, nor by meere casualtie against his will, he shall be put to death.<BR/><BR/> 5.<BR/><BR/>(Numb. 25, 20, 21. Lev. 24. 17)<BR/>If any person slayeth an other suddaienly in his anger or Crueltie of passion, he shall be put to death.<BR/><BR/> 6.<BR/><BR/>(Ex. 21. 14.)<BR/>If any person shall slay an other through guile, either by poysoning or other such divelish practice, he shall be put to death.<BR/><BR/> 7.<BR/><BR/>(Lev. 20. 15,16.)<BR/>If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.<BR/><BR/> 8.<BR/><BR/>(Lev. 20. 13.)<BR/>If any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woeman, both of them have committed abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death.<BR/><BR/> 9.<BR/><BR/>Lev. 20. 19. and 18, 20. Dut. 22. 23, 24.)<BR/>If any person committeth Adultery with a maried or espoused wife, the Adulterer and Adulteresse shall surely be put to death.<BR/><BR/> 10.<BR/><BR/>(Ex. 21. 16.)<BR/>If any man stealeth a man or mankinde, he shall surely be put to death.<BR/><BR/> 11.<BR/><BR/>(Deut. 19. 16, 18, 19.)<BR/>If any man rise up by false witnes, wittingly and of purpose to take away any mans life, he shall be put to death.<BR/><BR/> 12.<BR/><BR/>If any man shall conspire and attempt any invasion, insurrection, or publique rebellion against our commonwealth, or shall [Page 275] indeavour to surprize any Towne or Townes, fort or forts therein, or shall treacherously and perfediouslie attempt the alteration and subversion of our frame of politie or Government fundamentallie, he shall be put to death.</I>Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77271543999528987862008-12-12T18:05:00.000-07:002008-12-12T18:05:00.000-07:00Tom,I don't think you can cast off Jefferson's or ...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I don't think you can cast off Jefferson's or Adams' sentiments as "private scribblings." <BR/><BR/>This blog is an inquiry. Sometimes things (like TV and movies series, book series) end because you did it all and there's really not much more to explore. I doubt this blog will ever end for that reason. We'll all be dead before we come to that point. And hopefully we'll be able to continue the discussion in the afterlife and see who was right.<BR/><BR/>That said, I still see the key ideas of the Founding as coming from a heterodox place and being delivered to the masses in a more "respectable" form. (Wilson's and Blackstone's forms were respectable; Jefferson's and Adams' private letters weren't necessarily). In that case, the private musing of the Founders may shed light on just where the public ideas came from.<BR/><BR/>That's why I think Jefferson's and Adams' private musings are worthwhile and telling. And we are, after all, talking about the 2ND and 3RD Presidents of the United States!Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-834020330655530732008-12-12T17:47:00.000-07:002008-12-12T17:47:00.000-07:00.I am under the impression that the focus of this ....<BR/>I am under the impression that the focus of this blog is related to the religious history of America's founding.<BR/>.<BR/>And, we have zeroed in on the idea that <I>all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness</I>, all of which has something to do with either God's law or Nature's Law.<BR/>.<BR/>So, I figured that it was on track to make my previous statement. Otherwise, why the question about American being founded as a Christian nation?<BR/>.<BR/>.<BR/><BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57446970953026660792008-12-12T17:00:00.000-07:002008-12-12T17:00:00.000-07:00Perhaps. But aside from Jefferson and Adams' priv...Perhaps. But aside from Jefferson and Adams' private scribblings to each other, I doubt you'll find many echoes of your opinion in the Founding literature, which is the focus of this blog.<BR/><BR/>But please do provide them if and when you find them.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28891644723791019642008-12-12T15:12:00.000-07:002008-12-12T15:12:00.000-07:00.Even though I have seen it argued here, I cannot ....<BR/>Even though I have seen it argued here, I cannot buy that Natural Law and God's Law are the same thing.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21659645757824316222008-12-12T14:21:00.000-07:002008-12-12T14:21:00.000-07:00.Sorry about that. Too many typos. Here it is, cor....<BR/>Sorry about that. Too many typos. Here it is, corrected:<BR/>.<BR/><BR/>There is a lot of confusion here unless, of course, you ignore the various inputs and only stick to your personal view.<BR/>.<BR/>One of the major bones of contention has to do with the definition of what is meant by Natural Law.<BR/>.<BR/>I have a difficult time sorting out all the mumbo jumbo as a result.<BR/>.<BR/>Somewhere, recently, Tom mentioned the importance of coming to terms.<BR/>.<BR/>I am going under the assumption that Natural Law is that which exists in nature before government. And, I am going under the assumption that God's Law is that which is revealed by way of some respected scripture. And, Man's Law? That's the law of government, right?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49780692117518158172008-12-12T14:14:00.000-07:002008-12-12T14:14:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3223079204761569402008-12-12T14:04:00.000-07:002008-12-12T14:04:00.000-07:00To put it another way, when Dr. North writes, "I a...To put it another way, when Dr. North writes, "I am not arguing that Englishmen trusted a priori reason as the sole guide to human institutions," Wilson argues that reason cannot even approach the <I>a priori</I>. It is insufficient to the task, and would be redundant, as the <I>a priori</I> is established in the natural law and scripture. [That these two flow from the same source seems the common understanding of the Founding era.]<BR/><BR/>They did indeed place "great weight on historical experience," but with the expectation that observation and experience would [and could] only confirm the natural law and the scriptures, both of which were considered the embodiment of <I>a priori</I> truth.<BR/><BR/>One would have to counterargue the opposite, where the conclusions of "reason" were shown to be in conflict with natural law or scripture and put into action or law. One can find many examples in the French Revolution, which indeed elevate man's reason to the highest place, but none in the American. And that, Phil is an illustration of what you asked for awhile back, and what happens when man's reason---which is corrupt or at least corruptible---is put in the driver's seat.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say scripture, or the interpretation of it, cannot be corrupted, and indeed Wilson allows for that, but the culprit is once again man and his reason, not the natural law or scripture as <I>a priori</I> truth.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35983580198568204812008-12-12T13:43:00.000-07:002008-12-12T13:43:00.000-07:00Charles is quite correct in his observations. Man...Charles is quite correct in his observations. Man's reason is often corrupt, whereas the Bible is often unambiguous. It often means just what it appears to say. <BR/><BR/><I>Wilson's Works (which were public) I admit are somewhat ambiguous on the proper relationship between reason & revelation</I><BR/><BR/>Not ambiguous at all: reason is invaluable, but the "moral sense" [which is not corruptible] is superior to reason because it works from first principles, whereas reason does the sorting out, and therefore is a secondary faculty.<BR/><BR/><I>"Having thus stated the question—what is the efficient cause of moral obligation?—I give it this answer—the will of God. This is the supreme law. His just and full right of imposing laws, and our duty in obeying them, are the sources of our moral obligations. If I am asked—why do you obey the will of God? I answer—because it is my duty so to do. If I am asked again—how do you know this to be your duty? I answer again—because I am told so by my moral sense or conscience. If I am asked a third time—how do you know that you ought to do that, of which your conscience enjoins the performance? I can only say, I feel that such is my duty. Here investigation must stop; reasoning can go no farther. The science of morals, as well as other sciences, is founded on truths, that cannot be discovered or proved by reasoning."<BR/><BR/>[snip]<BR/><BR/>"...how shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is—to discover the will of God—and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, the question is, how typical are James Wilson's sentiments? I give them equal or greater weight than those of Adams' and Jefferson's after they had left public life, and whose correspondences were private and confidential.<BR/><BR/>I believe putting their post-presidential musings anywhere near the forefront mischaracterizes the theologico-political atmosphere of the Founding.<BR/><BR/>The relevant Wilson text is here:<BR/><BR/>http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2072&chapter=156459&layout=html&Itemid=27<BR/><BR/>[As for Leo Strauss, he would bifurcate the moral sense and revelation as incompatible, unlike Aquinas, Hooker, et al.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31755395688284311222008-12-12T11:37:00.000-07:002008-12-12T11:37:00.000-07:00.Interesting..Your post requires some serious thou....<BR/>Interesting.<BR/>.<BR/>Your post requires some serious thought.<BR/>.<BR/>I'm sure you know that it's getting us into some Strauss.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.com