tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4746959086438629544..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Charles Chauncy on Reason, Revelation and DoctrineBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78607850109366595172009-06-19T05:53:11.380-06:002009-06-19T05:53:11.380-06:00.
Perhaps William Penn set up Pennsylvania as theo....<br /><i>Perhaps William Penn set up Pennsylvania as theologically tolerant because of the heat Quakers took back in England. </i><br />.<br />Professor Guelzo will tell you that two of the main reasons involved (1) the sale of real estate and the (2) change in America's intellectual "center of gravity".<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21327481091069810032009-06-18T20:50:37.233-06:002009-06-18T20:50:37.233-06:00Perhaps, Brad, and I certainly don't dispute y...Perhaps, Brad, and I certainly don't dispute you.<br /><br />However, he had his share of troubles and so his agenda was a natural outgrowth of it.<br /><br />Perhaps William Penn set up Pennsylvania as theologically tolerant because of the heat Quakers took back in England. We could say he "grew" as a result of his persecution, but on the other hand, the accounts we read from John Adams and others in that era was that Quakers were quite quarrelsome, and not the mellow fellows in the funny hats who make such an ace oatmeal for PepsiCo.<br /><br />It appears it wasn't the Quakerism.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50659223878579388662009-06-18T12:25:59.706-06:002009-06-18T12:25:59.706-06:00I agree, Tom, this stuff goes back way before Hook...I agree, Tom, this stuff goes back way before Hooker. <br /><br />I won't agree with you on the "Roger Williams was wack." I actually think he was a smart dude and in many ways ahead of his time.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56596899192464476982009-06-18T04:02:49.718-06:002009-06-18T04:02:49.718-06:00Peter Abelard.
His girlfriend became a nun, he be...<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01036b.htm" rel="nofollow">Peter Abelard.</a><br /><br />His girlfriend became a nun, he became a monk, and fought with everybody. Dude was wack.<br /><br />Abelard also studied Aristotle and "dialectics," which became Aquinas' method.<br /><br />Abelard also had an interesting concept of sin, that it's all about your intention, and if you go through with it, your sin isn't in the act, it's in your contempt for God. <br /><br />These medievals weren't all that medieval, were they?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38785101472062201452009-06-18T03:48:07.428-06:002009-06-18T03:48:07.428-06:00Actually, I'm not, Brad. I'm just dialing...Actually, I'm not, Brad. I'm just dialing back to Hooker, and now I must dial back even further to Abelard. Thx.<br /><br />As for Roger Williams, it might be fairly said he was right for the wrong reasons. Dude was wack.<br /><br />But on the whole, history doesn't care. The above comments also apply to Winston Churchill.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50016642970941035422009-06-17T18:46:59.345-06:002009-06-17T18:46:59.345-06:00Jon:
Interesting points about Roger Williams. My...Jon:<br /><br />Interesting points about Roger Williams. My understanding is that he basically had a Joseph Smith type approach to the Bible. He eventually came to believe that no person had any authority to act in the name of God or discover the will of God without God first RESTORING the apostleship to the earth. This of couse was one of the fundamental reasons for his being expelled from Mass. <br /><br />I think Tom is right on Hooker. From what I have read o him (not a lot but thanks for the links, Tom) Hooker maintained some similar views as those held by Abelard several centuries before. Abelard was, of course, the primary mentor of John of Salisbury...I'm sure TVD is making the connection.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38568848411408311522009-06-17T17:44:25.282-06:002009-06-17T17:44:25.282-06:00More to come as I get into it, but see see page 33...More to come as I get into it, but see <a href="http://www.google.com/#q=A+conference+betwixt+a+devout+mother&hl=en&sa=2&fp=H6vTdRH54oU" rel="nofollow">see page 33 onward</a>, especially the reference to "A Conference betwixt a mother a devout recusant, and her sonne a zealous Protestant" (1600).<br /><br />Fascinating. Orthodoxy says Mom's going to hell.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3491783858113255552009-06-17T16:58:53.003-06:002009-06-17T16:58:53.003-06:00Tom,
I'd be interested in seeing Hooker's...Tom,<br /><br />I'd be interested in seeing Hooker's case for tolerance. My understanding is while Locke quoted him favorably, he didn't get his ideas for tolerance from Hooker (because that's not what Hooker preached).<br /><br />Roger Williams, interestingly enough, predated Locke and gave a fundamentalist rationale for liberty of conscience (that actually exceeded Locke's initial vision). But he had some odd reasons for doing so. Both Philip Hamburger and Martha Nussbaum do good work on Williams. However, Nussbaum doesn't deal adequately enough with Williams' odd rationale for separation/religious liberty. She promotes the concept of equal dignity and Williams didn't personally believe in the dignity of the pagans and unregenerate whom he wanted the civil state to tolerate.<br /><br />Hamburger does a great job at exploring this angle. However, he wants to portray Williams as an oddball and a nut, because Hamburger wants to minimize uses of the term "separation."<br /><br />I've written on Williams before; but perhaps I should do another post which plays up on the irony that he was a man of great ideas, but in many ways was a fanatic who had strange motives behind the great concepts which he was among the first to pioneer.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42389072368669929692009-06-17T16:00:41.132-06:002009-06-17T16:00:41.132-06:00I'm working on the concept of tolerance for an...I'm working on the concept of tolerance for another venue, and the prevailing narrative is that it was a product of the Enlightenment, in no small part due to Locke.<br /><br />However, there's Hooker [with whose work Locke is very well acquainted, as he quotes it often], opening the door 100 years before!<br /><br />And yes, this right reason and natural law stuff is a language no longer spoken or understood even by most Christians. However, it was the <i>lingua franca</i> of the Founding era, and that's why applying reason to scripture wasn't a [poof!] Founders thing or an Enlightenment thing, but a process that was already 500 or more years old in Christianity.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26620054388958798772009-06-17T15:46:18.300-06:002009-06-17T15:46:18.300-06:00Tom,
I will check out the book. I do not want th...Tom,<br /><br />I will check out the book. I do not want this to nose dive into a discussion of salvation(though it often goes there) I am just attempting to understand the definitions that you guys are using.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46381128187376936682009-06-17T15:36:04.591-06:002009-06-17T15:36:04.591-06:00King, your "nomad in Tibet" was of great...King, your "nomad in Tibet" was of great concern to the Christian thinkers of the 16- and 1700s, whether salvation could be theirs.<br /><br />But as for the moment, I'd like to get back to "right reason," which Aquinas would say <i>prepares</i> a person to accept the Christian faith. In fact it was axiomatic among Protestants as well that the person of right reason would accept the Gospel as soon as he heard it!<br /><br />However, Aristotle's reason only got him to a deist God, the Roman Stoics, whose view of natural law was entirely compatible with Aquinas', were polytheistic, and the Buddha, a righteous dude, didn't come up with anything resembling the God of Abraham at all!<br /><br />Hence, the limits of reason and the need for revelation. <br /><br />Somewhat related, as it touches on salvation---I think Rev. Richard Hooker, one of Locke's influences but much more Thomistic, religious and therefore not as claimable for the Enlightenment, requires much more study than he gets. This article on his "A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and how the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown," has whetted my interest...<br /><br />http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/236959/christian_duty_and_difference_crypto.html?cat=37Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56742734050819354752009-06-17T08:31:21.668-06:002009-06-17T08:31:21.668-06:00.
In What way?
.
Shain works hard to make the poin....<br /><i>In What way?</i><br />.<br />Shain works hard to make the point that Founding Era Americans never conceived of themselves in the sense that they were individuals. More so, they were brothers and sisters in the local villages and congregations where they lived out their existence. And, they upheld each other to live what they considered to be the "good life".<br />.<br />So the "way" was a highly intrusive and watchful eye of each person over the other to help them live life as it was ordained to be lived by God.<br />.<br />"Localism" ruled them.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13354505994720359372009-06-17T08:06:00.235-06:002009-06-17T08:06:00.235-06:00Bpabbott stated:
"There's a good point i...Bpabbott stated:<br /><br />"There's a good point in the above last comments. Specifically that Tom and King have both applied reason and reached nearly incompatible conclusions."<br /><br />In what way? Please be more specific.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40075096052082193152009-06-17T07:49:40.429-06:002009-06-17T07:49:40.429-06:00Maybe you have to forgive me as I keep bringing up...Maybe you have to forgive me as I keep bringing up Barry Alan Shain and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Myth-American-Individualism-Barry-Shain/dp/0691029121" rel="nofollow">his book</a>.<br /><br />Regarding the question at stake this is my take on what his thesis amounts to so far as I have read:<br />.<br />Founding Era America seems to have been influenced by the idea that God relates with humanity through two venues, His Word--the Holy Bible--and His Behavior--Nature.<br /><br />Both were seen as equally legitimate measures of God's sovereignty. The problem is about how that gets to be understood. Founding Era Americans were most heavily influenced by three equally strong forces; Early Modern Rationalism, Reformed Protestantism, and Republicanism, each of which informed the other as though they were all one and the same force and all under the watchful eyes of an intrusive way of life.<br />.<br />_________________<br /><br />That's what I'm getting from Shain.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7323281290276405122009-06-17T07:33:14.494-06:002009-06-17T07:33:14.494-06:00Tom,
What about the nomad in TIbet that has never...Tom,<br /><br />What about the nomad in TIbet that has never seen a Bible, would not be able to read it if someone gave it to him because it is not in his language, has not real concept of the Western idea of religion, and no Paul to explain all this to him?<br /><br />This is not hypothetical there are millions in this position. Most nations(ethne) of people do not have any of the above. Many who have heard some of the message still do not have the whole Bible translated into their language.<br /><br />I think this is what Frazer misses with his thesis. It does not account for these people. We know that God can be known(I would assume personally in this context) through what is made and through conscience. Is there a place for special revelation in that context in your mind? In other words, what about the poor bush man who never hears? Can God reach him through nature and conscience?<br /><br />I am hope I am being clear. I am not real sure what my answers would be to these questions but I think they are real relevant to this discussion about Nature's God vs. God of the Bible. <br /><br /> I think the wrench that could be thrown in the engine of Frazer's thesis is that Reason and Revelation are possible outside of the Bible. So we have "Reason", "General Revelation", and "Special Revelation". I am still not sure what the differences are. I will take a look at what you linked from Aquinas and see if he answers this.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75802193580015794752009-06-17T07:23:02.485-06:002009-06-17T07:23:02.485-06:00There's a good point in the above last comment...There's a good point in the above last comments. Specifically that Tom and King have both applied <i>reason</i> and reached nearly incompatible conclusions.<br /><br />I think this is a good point because it demonstrates how individualistic supernatural belief is. There simply is no objective/verifiable/reliable measure of the propriety of supernatural claims. If there exist supernatural truths, it is only <i>known</i> to "God" ... sorry for the "scare" quotes, but what do you expect from a atheist ;-)<br /><br /> Man must rely upon faith as explicit knowledge of the supernatural is beyond our grasp. However, that does not imply that reason cannot be applied as a determination of what the individual finds to be <i>reasonable</i>.<br /><br />... and in the event my words are confused with theological arguement, that is not my intent. Rather I agrue for the propriety of liberty of individual to form his own personal theological opinion.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67982855214928773492009-06-17T01:22:31.255-06:002009-06-17T01:22:31.255-06:00Points toward it? Yes, but only points. Even Jef...Points toward it? Yes, but only points. Even Jefferson observed that people tend toward belief. And the "proofs of God" that Jefferson's U of Virginia was to teach were part of the ethics---moral philosophy---class, not religious instruction.<br /><br />[Perhaps <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/04/its-just-so-obvious.html" rel="nofollow">Aquinas' proofs?</a>]<br /><br />However, the men of Athens, although arriving at the notion of God, could tell little about Him and His nature or the afterlife, which is why Paul told them the "good news" about Jesus, the Resurrection, all that stuff.<br /><br />So, what the men of Athens had at first would be called "general" revelation; what Paul brought them was "special" revelation.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71373837311217153812009-06-16T23:52:49.886-06:002009-06-16T23:52:49.886-06:00Tom stated:
"However, even right reason cann...Tom stated:<br /><br />"However, even right reason cannot derive salvation, or Christ's nature, or all those other zillion supernatural things."<br /><br />Why not? What other route toward understanding the "unknown God" did the people of Athens have? I believe whole heartedly that the natural points toward the supernatural. You do not?King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74634977786563182692009-06-16T19:15:11.500-06:002009-06-16T19:15:11.500-06:00Yes, there's no controversy here, Jon. Chaunc...Yes, there's no controversy here, Jon. Chauncy and most of those outside a few outliers like Jefferson would accept the latter explanation, exactly as key Founder formulated it.<br /><br />[Strangely enough the Founding era went further in linking the natural law to the will of God than did Aquinas, Suarez and Grotius!] <br /><br />Olasky: "Jefferson's first artful sentence declared that Americans were basing their case on the "laws of nature and of nature's God." Those critical of Christianity could sign onto a document that emphasized the course of human events without explicit reference to Jesus Christ; the expression "nature's God" even made it seem that nature had created God. Christian legal scholars, though, long had argued that "the law of nature means ... the law of God." The standard law book in the 1770s, William Blackstone's "Commentaries," states that "the will of (man's) maker is called the law of nature."<br />____________________<br /><br />King, "general" revelation is available to all men employing "right" reason, say Aristotle, who had no access to the scriptures.<br /><br />However, even right reason cannot derive salvation, or Christ's nature, or all those other zillion supernatural things.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60763055524569656032009-06-16T18:57:35.864-06:002009-06-16T18:57:35.864-06:00Here is an article by Olasky which sources the quo...Here is an article by Olasky which sources the quotation, originally found in one of his books:<br /><br />http://krla870.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2002/07/02/building_the_independence_day_coalitionJonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39223984565688404542009-06-16T18:42:14.349-06:002009-06-16T18:42:14.349-06:00Pinky,
Irregardless of what the Founding Fathers b...Pinky,<br />Irregardless of what the Founding Fathers believed, isn't the modern understanding of persons valid in understanding the basis of the issue of nominal versus devout Christians? <br /><br />Biblical Christianity is not definable, as even the terms are understood differently within different denominations and each denomination has different distinctives.<br /><br />I thought I was on course in the discussion as it seemed to curve around the issues of what evangelicals or conservatives understood to be "their mandate" to "take the nation" back to the "good ole days" of Christian faith in the founding of our country, as that was what "saved our nation" or made our "the city set on a hill".Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46670619433392853982009-06-16T17:33:15.586-06:002009-06-16T17:33:15.586-06:00,
Helloooo, Angie.
.
You wrote, The problem so oft...,<br />Helloooo, Angie.<br />.<br />You wrote, <i>The problem so often is presumption on the part of others in their attempt to force a certain bent in an individual, without allowing that individual to develop 'naturally' as god innately made them.</i><br /><br />Could you believe a very good case can be made that the very concept of what it is you refer to as an individual was unknown during the Founding Era? If that is true, think of how hard that plays on any discussions we are having here.<br />.<br />.....Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91202803961012756202009-06-16T16:27:24.184-06:002009-06-16T16:27:24.184-06:00Jon,
No need to respond. Just food for thought. ...Jon,<br /><br />No need to respond. Just food for thought. <br /><br />Tom, <br /><br />Why did he call the Bible "special revelation" what separated it from "general revelation" I think he is right but I do not totally understand the whole concept.<br /><br />Tom and Jon,<br /><br />Great discussion I am learning a lot by reading the back and forth here.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22458960877705929202009-06-16T15:56:34.401-06:002009-06-16T15:56:34.401-06:00How anyone can say the definition of "christi...How anyone can say the definition of "christian" is irrelavant is illogical. What we commit to is something that we believe to be true, whether that belief is based on reason or revelation. Reason is what the real world survives on and revelation is what faith is about. Whether one believes in a supernatural realm that is above, beyond or transcendant of natural reality/experience is a matter of faith.<br /><br />Each man should be so convinced in his conscience....which is faith. People of faith will disagree on matters of faith, as they are not things that can be proven in an experiment. Experiments are based on outcomes, and sometimes these outcomes do not correlate with the hypothesis and the meaning of the experiment is misunderstood, if not meaningless, when it comes to matters of personal identity, faith, values, etc. Individuals are no "formula", but are complex entities that evaluate (using reason) to come to conclusions, opinions, and convictions. These are all based on some aspect of reason, but formulate what faith is grounded in...<br /><br />Supernaturalism is a belief that reason is not to be trusted, but God. But, God cannot be proven, as we do not know about that realm, unless we adhere to some particular message in a "revealed" text or tradition. Paul unified tribalists with his appeal to a "moral model figure" in Christ, as Christ undermined Paul's orthodoxy, but stood for something much more universal than orthodoxy....reason.<br /><br />Reason is faith's handmaiden, or should be. Revelation is the embodiment of reason's convictions and commitments. The Logos enfleshed, as in Christ. <br /><br />The problem so often is presumption on the part of others in their attempt to force a certain bent in an individual, without allowing that individual to develop 'naturally' as god innately made them. Personal interests, gifts, talents, can be used in diverse ways. Parents should be aware of this in supporting and encouraging their children.<br /><br />So, the bible is not some supernaturalistic revelation, but people who wrote with certain expectations, prejuidices, attitudes, worldviews, and experiences. They were humans writing about the human condition within a certain historical time period and within a certain context.<br /><br />So, reason is to be followed above "revelation", otherwise, we are at the mercy of whoever is in power and their particular "revelation". <br /><br />Human reason is a common factor that can be appealed to as it has a basis in rationale. Though one may disagree with another, at least there is an understanding of where another is "coming from" and an agreement to disagree can be unifying.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12020560710241635422009-06-16T14:43:58.267-06:002009-06-16T14:43:58.267-06:00"Learned scholars" means nothing to me. ..."Learned scholars" means nothing to me. That McGrath guy you just quoted is an idiot. Further, "learned scholars" disagree all the time. We could play dueling "learned scholars," but best to make our points on our own.<br /><br />The Olasky quote is interesting though. I'd like to read him in context, since a google turns this up:<br /><br />But Mr. Olasky and his followers believe separation of church and state is based on a misinterpretation of the Constitution. In his books, he offers a rereading of U.S. history in which such luminaries as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are replaced by more spiritually minded early Americans.<br /><br />"The government was meant to be secular in the sense of not preferring any religion. That's what the First Amendment was all about," Mr. Olasky said yesterday. "The founders would have seen what we've done to the public square not as neutrality, but as nakedness."<br /><br />As for your further explication of Zuckert, I probably agree. However, your original argument had the Founders <i>rejecting</i> revelation for reason if need be, which is not so. They simply used natural law arguments, entirely fitting for politics.<br /><br />Yes, King, Aquinas called natural law "general revelation" and all the supernatural stuff "special revelation."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com