tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post3407946533053641615..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Locke's CreedBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28159824846021541972010-06-15T08:51:28.654-06:002010-06-15T08:51:28.654-06:00"I don't have time to dig deep into it no..."I don't have time to dig deep into it now, but from a quick glance, it appears that Locke is engaged in a reasoned examination of Romans. It does not appear to me that his words (quoted above) were intended to represent his personal belief. Rather my impression is that he was stating his reasoned understanding of "<br /><br />Ben,<br /><br /><br />He clearly goes against the establishment here. I see no reason not to believe these are his personal views because of that. <br /><br />Looking back he is challenging propitiation or atonement as some call it. Even changing propitiation in the next verse to propitiatory. This is fairly radical even for his time. I would like to know what the difference was for him between redemption and atonement? <br /><br />Anyway.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63294249741538492322010-06-15T06:11:27.751-06:002010-06-15T06:11:27.751-06:00Re: "Locke believed that Christ died not to a...Re: "<i>Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but to show us the way to eternal life.</i>"<br /><br />This passage is within the "Notes" section of "The works of John Locke, Volume 8", pg 276. The scanned version in Google books is poor quality, but those interested can read it <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=LwIwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=%22For+it+is+to+God+we+are+redeemed,+by+the+death+of+Christ%22&source=bl&ots=En4Y9rhia8&sig=0AaofMsht5hEBCMMrDHRQKe9IKg&hl=en&ei=6GgXTIm6J4P_8AaU_KXvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22For%20it%20is%20to%20God%20we%20are%20redeemed%2C%20by%20the%20death%20of%20Christ%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />I don't have time to dig deep into it now, but from a quick glance, it appears that Locke is engaged in a reasoned examination of <i>Romans</i>. It does not appear to me that his words (quoted above) were intended to represent his personal belief. Rather my impression is that he was stating his reasoned understanding of <a href="http://bible.cc/revelation/5-9.htm" rel="nofollow">Revelations 5 verse 9</a> (from the King James Version).<br /><br />"<a href="http://kingjbible.com/revelation/5.htm" rel="nofollow">And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for <i>thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood</i> out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;</a>"<br />-- Rev. 5 verse 9. (with emphasis to the passage examined by Locke).bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72598111422109180862010-06-14T23:28:08.131-06:002010-06-14T23:28:08.131-06:00Jon,
After reading Locke himself I would change t...Jon,<br /><br />After reading Locke himself I would change this:<br /><br />""Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but to show us the way to eternal life"<br /><br />to this:<br /><br />"Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but for the sin of each individual." <br /><br />It seems that he believed that the sin of Adam made us mortal and that in our mortality we sin. This would absolutely deny orthodox teaching on(of the Protestant variety I am not so sure about non Augustinian Catholic thought) original sin. But it does not equate with the Enlightement thought of the goodness of man either. <br /><br />I think it was Daniel that stated if you take total depravity and sola scriptura out of the equation that you have the schoolmen version of Christianity.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28559145947506665682010-06-14T23:19:13.867-06:002010-06-14T23:19:13.867-06:00"I believe 'twas I who provided you with ..."I believe 'twas I who provided you with the link to Locke's commentary on the Epistles in the first place, so fair is fair."<br /><br />I got it from another blog and used it in one of my responses to Frazer before you posted on it. Not that it really matters.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4512702981765610062010-06-14T23:12:48.776-06:002010-06-14T23:12:48.776-06:00http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=REAAAAAAYAAJ&am...http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=REAAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />Romans starts about half way down and the quote was from Romans 3. I would also read Romans 5:12 too. I think it seems that Locke had a problem with the justice in original sin but still allowed for the fact that Jesus had to die to redeem man. <br /><br />In other words, everyone needed to redeemed for their own sins not Adams. This also speaks to possibly a belief that man was not sinful by nature. Hard to pin him down on the specifics. He sounds a lot like Aquinas to me in my readings of Aquinas. Though that dude is hard to understand too.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5460320423215154942010-06-14T22:45:45.082-06:002010-06-14T22:45:45.082-06:00K of I, please provide a link so everybody can exa...K of I, please provide a link so everybody can examine the evidence in context.<br /><br />I believe 'twas I who provided you with the link to Locke's commentary on the Epistles in the first place, so fair is fair.<br /><br />Sometimes Locke presents something, then goes on to disagree with it. [See the "forgotten kind of writing" above.] If you're arguing the "real" Locke, we must read him in context for ourselves. Quote-grabbing will not do. Perhaps you're right, but only his context will prove it. Locke was clearly and provably slippery.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36798579824904638782010-06-14T22:37:26.537-06:002010-06-14T22:37:26.537-06:00I went back to Romans 5:12 in his notes and it see...I went back to Romans 5:12 in his notes and it seems fairly clear that he only believes that mortality was imputed to mankind not death in the sense of seperation from God in the evangelical sense. So it seems that Locke did have some issues with original sin for sure. <br /><br />I also noticed he skipped commentary on some verses that would help pin him down on some of these things. But he most certainly believed that man needed to be redeemed and that Christ's death accomplished this.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44344323478535407222010-06-14T22:04:21.999-06:002010-06-14T22:04:21.999-06:00Jon,
Based on the direct quote from Locke above I...Jon,<br /><br />Based on the direct quote from Locke above I wonder where you come up with this:<br /><br />"Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but to show us the way to eternal life"<br /><br />You might be able to make a case that he did not believe in original sin. But he did believe we needed to be redeemed.(This is where he gets confusing as to what the difference is) I will have to read this entire commentary again and see if I can figure out what he is saying about the price paid for sins. It is a bit confusing but he is more orthodox than most would think. <br /><br />By the way, if Genesis 1-3 is myth in the oral history sense as I believe then original sin and how it is taught take on new meaning. I do not want to confuse things but I can see where Locke would believe in the need for redemption and the death of Christ and not necessarily believe in original sin. He most certainly did not believe in total depravity. <br /><br />I guess I am saying that its seems that many of the Locke experts did not read his commentary on Romans. Romans is the gospel in a nut shell. His thoughts on this book give great insight into his personal theological beliefs.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22117686134442381492010-06-14T21:53:57.101-06:002010-06-14T21:53:57.101-06:00Lockes Notes on Romans 3:24:
"For it is to G...Lockes Notes on Romans 3:24:<br /><br />"For it is to God we are redeemed, by the death of Christ"<br /><br />He does seem to do a little dancing around verse 23 that states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and says some things about the method of payment i.e. atonement but the part I quoted here seems to be clear and this is a pretty good definition of atonement.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3689466898299575982010-06-14T19:34:03.327-06:002010-06-14T19:34:03.327-06:00This is getting a little wack.
If "turn the ...This is getting a little wack.<br /><br />If "turn the other cheek" means anything, it means "do not escalate," in fact do the reverse.<br />____________<br /><br />For the record, it may have been unclear [since I was writing as if mine were to be the first comment], that I agree with everything in Jon's original essay about Locke's probable personal theology. It agrees with my own reading of Locke; I don't look for an orthodox Christian or even a Christian, I just attempt to take him as he understands himself.<br /><br />To me, the evasions of Trinitarianism are clear; on the other hand, I was surprised with him re-inserting a "lawgiver" into natural law when Suarez and Nrotius had argued natural law without one.<br /><br />Also, that Locke rejected the ability of philosophy and "natural theology" to convey the power of moral truth to your everyday person, that it was necessary [or a mercy] that God sent the Gospel to man in the form of Jesus.<br /><br />Locke isn't sentimental toward classical philosophy, nor does he compose a new "modern" philosophical crafting of Christianity ala Immanuel Kant.<br /><br />Leo Strauss and "Persecution and the Art of Writing," esoteric writing, where the author intentionally misleads or omits---this method is very useful in reading Locke.<br /><br />If Locke were a Trinitarian, knowing how precarious anti-Trinitarianism was in his time, he certainly would have done some riffing on the Trinity to dispel all doubt.<br /><br />But he did not, likely because he could not. Didn't believe in it.<br /><br />However, the first thing to keep in mind is that he clearly <i>wanted</i> to be "misunderstood" as a Trinitarian, an orthodox Christian.<br /><br />There also remains the possibility that he wanted to be seen as "cool" by the "cool" crowd, the non-Trinitarians, and so didn't thump Trinity for that reason, since it's "mysterious" and not logical or philosophical.<br /><br />A less likely possibility I admit, but he was able to make his case on philosophical grounds, with the exceptions of admitting that God is a <i>reality</i> and the scriptures hold divine truth.<br /><br />The fact that the "true" Locke still remains in dispute today indicates that the Founders could read him---if they chose, and they did, like Sam Adams---as Trinitarian with no sullying of Locke's message, since the Trinity was not essential to his political philosophy.<br /><br />And non-Trinitarians like Jefferson glommed onto him, too. For Locke, mission accomplished, roped in the both the orthodox and the "cool guys," via <br /><br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/18012590/LEO-STRAUSS-ON-A-FORGOTTEN-KIND-OF-WRITINGTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26087884352004147362010-06-14T18:49:30.014-06:002010-06-14T18:49:30.014-06:00"Hmmm ... do you imply that the cussing was d..."Hmmm ... do you imply that the cussing was directed toward the police officer?"<br /><br />No just in front of them. Long story. They are bad down here but I definitely did not handle it the right way. You can actually call a police officer anything you want and they cannot arrest you. It is only if they find a drunk guy to complain that it offended him and press charges.<br /><br />I brought this up to illustrate a point about loving neighbor and the law. My situation with the law made me think about the foundations of the law and how far we have strayed today in some areas. I think if you read all of what I said that it introduces perhaps a different "Christian" morality than we are presented with today.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57517376382947531282010-06-14T18:43:30.474-06:002010-06-14T18:43:30.474-06:00" I see no problem with Locke's questioni..." I see no problem with Locke's questioning the doctrines of Original Sin, the Trinity, etc. and still calling himself a Christian. Hell, myself and others do the same every day."<br /><br />For the record so do I.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41893730289991058392010-06-14T18:40:08.227-06:002010-06-14T18:40:08.227-06:00Re: " Until some police officer tries to viol...Re: "<i> Until some police officer tries to violate my rights that is.</i>"<br /><br />Hmmm ... do you imply that the cussing was directed toward the police officer?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75733549363254559302010-06-14T18:36:46.224-06:002010-06-14T18:36:46.224-06:00"Yeah, I know, very elementary comment here. ..."Yeah, I know, very elementary comment here. I just don't want to get drawn into another semantics debate."<br /><br />Then you dhould have very few problems with David Barton. What he says is essentially true overall the problem you guys have is how it is used. Which is fine and I agree with you. But Frazer's argument(not by his own doing) is used to do the same thing on the other side and no one has a problem with it. <br /><br />Brad,<br /><br />You personally do not seem to have an agenda, or at least not one I can detect. But those who do profit from simplying things for their side and muddying the waters on the other side. Words have meaning. <br /><br />BUT I do think it is good to simply things when we can for sure. I know I am contradicting myself but I see both sides. This is a complex issue.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33525738170672828422010-06-14T18:30:32.050-06:002010-06-14T18:30:32.050-06:00"I find that hard to believe, Joe. You seem l..."I find that hard to believe, Joe. You seem like such a mellow fellow."<br /><br />Until some police officer tries to violate my rights that is. This was the culmination of a few month running debate about the Constitution meaning something or not with the police force here. Their final word was trumping up charges to lock me out. Sad but true condition in Southwest Florida.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72025301265289995922010-06-14T13:30:48.452-06:002010-06-14T13:30:48.452-06:00This is a great post, Jon! As a Mormon (who consi...This is a great post, Jon! As a Mormon (who considers himself a Christian) I see no problem with Locke's questioning the doctrines of Original Sin, the Trinity, etc. and still calling himself a Christian. Hell, myself and others do the same every day. But your point that this flies in the face of orthodoxy is important because it reveals the fact that Christianity was not (and is still not) as cut and dry as people want it to be. <br /><br />As for the "Enlightenment," "Imago Dei," "Theistic Rationalist" arguments, well, you know how I just LOOOOOVE arguing over semantics! =) Locke calling himself a Christian is good enough for me, so long as people can recognize the FACT that his Christianity didn't accept many of the traditional orthodox Christian teachings. <br /><br />Yeah, I know, very elementary comment here. I just don't want to get drawn into another semantics debate. Your argument is sound. Locke was not "orthodox" but was still "Christian." And as a fellow non-orthodox Christian I can fully accept that. I think the question now is how did Locke's non-orthodoxy play out.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19550597035686282262010-06-14T13:30:26.248-06:002010-06-14T13:30:26.248-06:00Jon, my problem here is that if "natural law&...Jon, my problem here is that if "natural law" is the core Founding political theology---and we don't seem to dispute it is, at least around here---then if the Enlightenment can be both pro-natural law and anti-natural law, we can subtract it from both sides of the equation, leaving it a constant, but not decisive in the equation.<br /><br />So too, if both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian Christianity both supported natural law, that's a constant, too, and can be subtracted.<br /><br /><i>x = y</i> is the same as<br /><br /><i>x</i> +1 = <i>y</i>+ 1<br /><br />I hate using math in philosophy, but this illustrates the point.<br />______________<br /><br /><i>Instead of a debate about the Trinity (which at bottom contains unexplainable mysteries) why not about what famous figures THOUGHT about the Trinity and how that affected their politics.</i><br /><br />That's all I was ever suggesting. There will be some divergence. Is it an <i>essential</i> divergence, I dunno. That's what you need to illustrate.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Dwight_IV<br /><br />would be a fine study. However, even though he's probably closest to today's religious right, we should resist slapping a label on him. <br /><br />As Joe touched on, then we start arguing labels instead of Timothy Dwight. But it would be interesting to compare his influence to say, that of Joseph Priestly, who gets far more cyberink around here.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47700047713467965092010-06-14T12:13:24.255-06:002010-06-14T12:13:24.255-06:00I was arrested recently for "breach of peace&...<i>I was arrested recently for "breach of peace" because some guy heard me cuss in public and complained.</i><br /><br />I find that hard to believe, Joe. You seem like such a mellow fellow.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49125870328813350172010-06-14T12:06:00.644-06:002010-06-14T12:06:00.644-06:00To win a game of chest at some point you have to v...To win a game of chest at some point you have to venture into the other persons side of the board. Those at Dispatches and PZ Myers refuse to learn enough about Christian thought to do that. It is a shame because the more authoritarian streams of Christianity that disturb them can be defeated using the very same instrument they use:<br /><br />The Bible. They have the Aquinas and Locke Christianity to use to defeat the Augustian and Calvinist Christianity but refuse to do it because they wrap it all into one nice strawman to knock down.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78690762232995829042010-06-14T11:58:02.615-06:002010-06-14T11:58:02.615-06:00continued...
IF modern secularists would use this...continued...<br /><br />IF modern secularists would use this argument from CHRISTIAN thought, at least how I read Aquinas, against the religious right it would be more effective. Instead, we have the culture wars and arguments over Romans 13 and the Trinity.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-668165751688628182010-06-14T11:56:26.352-06:002010-06-14T11:56:26.352-06:00"The end result is that Locke [and thereby th..."The end result is that Locke [and thereby the American Founding] is based on self-interested "social contract."<br /><br /><br />I have been doing a lot of reading of Aquinas and what people have written about him. His notion of rights is seems is not from a selfish perspective but a giving one. In other words, rights were not to be claimed in a positive sense but deference to one's neighbor is to be shown in the negative sense. <br /><br />I was arrested recently for "breach of peace" because some guy heard me cuss in public and complained. It turns out that the law does state that in Florida but it is gray. The question is if his right not to be offended trumps my right to free speech. I say no and the Supreme Court agrees with me. I think the law is an old morality law. <br /><br />Since I try to live by the axiom of loving my neighbor as myself I put most things in this vein when I evaluate my behavior. If he would have asked me not to cuss I probably would have differed to him. But I am not going to plead guilty because I offended him and would never press the charge against someone. I think it is selfish. <br /><br />This is a simple case that outlines all this. Many modern Evangelicals want to no cursing laws but it is from a selfish perspective and thus a violation of the Thomist view of rights. At least as to how I read it.<br /><br />In other words the moral thing to do would be to love your neighbor enough to give him the room to be himself and cuss. It would also to refrain if asked.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6461415624015015692010-06-14T11:46:20.638-06:002010-06-14T11:46:20.638-06:00"Instead of a debate about the Trinity (which..."Instead of a debate about the Trinity (which at bottom contains unexplainable mysteries) why not about what famous figures THOUGHT about the Trinity and how that affected their politics."<br /><br />I think it is too narrow in scope to really answer the larger questions about the founding political theology. Again, the founding phrase is biblical at its core. <br /><br />I also would like you to respond to my comments on how theistic rationalist muddies the waters just as bad as Barton using the word "Christian" with no explanation of the nuances. This is the core area of our disagreement.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21148766527986657192010-06-14T11:43:17.176-06:002010-06-14T11:43:17.176-06:00Again, it's You GUYS are arguing almost EXACTL...<i>Again, it's You GUYS are arguing almost EXACTLY like the Enlightenment unitarians of the Founding and early 19th Century. You are men of the Enlightenment.</i><br /><br />Well, Jon, this is exactly where Samuel Pufendorf comes in. A Lutheran of the 17th century, he was no unitarian.<br /><br /><br />http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=288&id=691&option=com_content&task=viewTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55508753261504502842010-06-14T11:42:08.588-06:002010-06-14T11:42:08.588-06:00"Absolutely agree. However, is that an Enligh..."Absolutely agree. However, is that an Enlightenment notion? That's the core issue."<br /><br />I would concur.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3726346143428578132010-06-14T11:30:29.056-06:002010-06-14T11:30:29.056-06:00quintessential enlightenment notion, just as is KO...<i>quintessential enlightenment notion, just as is KOI's idea that Jews, Trinitarians, unitarians and some deistically minded Providentialists can get together, ecumenically, and rely on a lowest common denominator God as a foundation for rights.</i><br /><br />Absolutely agree. However, is that an Enlightenment notion? That's the core issue.<br /><br />For what you describe, rights coming from God, is a "natural law" notion. That's why I quoted Rommen [who was used as a source by Strauss].<br /><br />Rommen puts Locke firmly in with the philosophical moderns, not with the God-friendly Scottish Enlightenment. The end result is that Locke [and thereby the American Founding] is based on self-interested "social contract."<br /><br />It's sort of the same argument you make against Lillback's hermeneutic---If Locke believed <i>x</i> [self-interested social contract], and the Founders believed Locke, therefore the Founding is based on self-interested social contract.<br /><br />That parses, doesn't it?<br /><br />Modernity---and "Enlightenment" is used interchangeably in common usage---isn't friendly to a God-given natural law, or even a natural law atall.<br /><br />[For the sake of clarity in language, I'd simply argue that when most folks think of "Scottish" and "Enlightenment," they think of David Hume, who is not a theist. We know better, but Thomas Reid is not on the radar of even many scholars.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com