David W. Hall's excellent book, "Genevan Reformation And The American Founding" provides excellent insight into Calvin's Influence on the Founding Fathers and in the formation of the United States. Here is Google's overview of the book:
"Calvinism's insistence on human rulers' tendency to err played a significant role in the founders' prescription of limited government and fed the distinctly American philosophy in which political freedom for citizens is held as the highest value. Hall's timely work countervails many scholars' doubt in the intellectual efficacy of religion by showing that religious teachings have led to such progressive ideals as American democracy and freedom."
As I have mentioned in earlier posts, this tendency to err on the part of human beings is encompassed in Calvin's exposition on human depravity. This condition, derived from Original Sin in the Scriptures, is imputed to all humanity by the fall of Adam. Nearly all our Founding Fathers adhered to Human Depravity; from Federalists George Washington to Democratic Republicans such as, James Madison.
Not to say Washington, or Madison for that matter, adhered to all tenets of Calvinism; but human depravity never left them. Madison quoted Calvin as late Feb. 1788:
"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
As David W. Hall explains, Madison sounds not unlike John Calvin:
"If we were all like angels, blameless and freely able to exercise perfect control, we would not need rules or regulations. Why, then, do we have so many laws and statutes? Because of man's wickedness, for he is constantly overflowing with evil; this is why a remedy is required."
-Sermons on Galatians (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1996), 313.
Emphasis Added.
The best example of James Madison's adherance to human depravity is from a letter by a Presbyterian named Samuel Stanhope Smith. Madison's response to Smith is lost, but Smith tells us that Madison rejected moral liberty in favor of John Calvin's predetermined will, promoted by Jonathan Edwards and John Knox:
"I have read over your theoretical objections against the doctrine of moral liberty; for practically you seem to be one of its disciples.1 I remember the manner in which you have formerly expressed yourself upon that intricate subject..It was with a view to avoid the objections with which you press me, that I made a distinction betwixt desire, & volition; & supposed that the latter solely regards our actions, & not merely the objects themselves that excite desires the immediate motives of volition...But only that they have such an influence as to prevent any necessary & irresistible effect of their antagonists. The mechanism of the idea is the objection which I make to your illustration of a motive deficient by 1/3 of the force necessary to produce an action--which then would not be commensurate to the effect, & would require some supplement to make up the deficiency. Altho we are not able to explain the idea of moral liberty, & that innate of mind that is involved in it, so as to be exempt from all questioning & doubt, yet we have as clear a sentiment of nature to appeal to, as in the case of colour.4"
-Smith to Madison, September 15, 1778. The Papers of Madison, Vol. 1, William Hutchinson, 1970.
Footnotes:
1. JM's reply to Smith's letter of Nov. 1771-August 1778 (q.v.) is lost, but at least part of what he must have written is implicit, & occasionally explicit, in the present answer.
4. From Smith's rebuttal it would appear that JM had countered Smith's distinction between desire and volition by advancing a staple argument of the opponents of freedom of the will to the effect that desire and volition are both conditioned by a chain of antecedent forces necessarily determing any given choice. Another important thread of JM's argument seems to have been an effort to confound Smith's derivation of moral liberty from the multitude of desires, passions, interests, etc., which press upon human beings. JM apparently tried to show by a specific percentage analysis of the contending motives that even the interplay of forces from which Smith derived moral liberty might well be a part of the great chain of events (predeterming) every course of action.
It was a delight finding Hutchinson's volumes of Madison's papers. In light of Madison's other writings on depravity, the editor hit the nail on the head. Ultimately, Madison believed external(supernatural) forces determine our choices. He could only be referring to two causes; God or Satan. Defending Calvinism by percentage analysis is not influence at all, but evidence of his faith.
Calvin employed predestination directly from the scriptures:
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
-Ro 8:29.
"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."
-Eph 1:5.
Madison again, explaining the heart, in general terms, is depraved:
"The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands...The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies, and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degraded pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character."[bold face mine]
-Federalist #37.
Madison believed, along with the other Calvinists, that whatever decisions humans make, God already foreknew those decisions. Whatever volition we make was God's will.
What does this say about Madison's belief in Calvin's unconditional election? If he believed our choices were pre-determined, it follows he believed in predestination, which is based on the same argument he was making to Rev. Smith. Is it not an inconsistency to believe our choices are predestined, and not our souls?
Madison's biographer Ralph Ketcham, here and author Mark Noll, here, affirm Madison adhered to Calvin's doctrine of human depravity. It's Calvin's doctrine, as the word "depravity" isn't found in the Bible of the framers.
That James Madison has been labeled a "rationalist" in any meaningful sense, should be forever abandoned. The evidence now supports Madison believed in a form of predestination, and the depravity of human nature. Furthermore, in a recent post, I declared Madison was most likely not a unitarian in the way his elite contemporaries, such as: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were. Madison had a Calvinist education; Jefferson, his southern compatriot, did not. Madison believed in God's Grace; Jefferson did not. And Madison believed in the supernatural; which Jefferson rejected. It wasn't until the 19th Century that Unitarian intellectuals, from Jared Sparks, to William Ellery Channing, who, proclaimed more accomodating views toward the essentials of the Christian Faith. Enlightenment Unitarians of the 18th Century, here, and in Europe, abandoned all foundational Christian fundamentals, such as: Original Sin, Total Depravity, Grace, and the Vicarious Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ. However, Orthodox Christianity starts with human depravity, of which is the basis of Original Sin. Upon this depravity, the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ is the logical cure. The concept of the Blood Atonement is precisely the same as that of Original Sin(Human Depravity), that is, imputation; sin imputed to man, man's sin imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness imputed to man. This is the Bible, and Calvinism; all consistent, of which Madison was taught.
The rationalists believed God saved souls by a works doctrine by character; read Jonathon Mayhew, Joseph Priestley, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.
The following are only a couple of quotes by Founding Fathers; the orthodox such as: Mason, Jay, Stockton [who tutored Law to Boudinot and Paterson], Wolcott, Webster, Trumbull, Boudinot, Witherspoon, King, Marshall, Lee, Pendleton, Sherman, Ellsworth, Dickinson, Rush, Laurens, Johnston, Read, McKean, Huntington, Hancock, and Samuel Adams, no doubt believed in one or more of John Calvin's Theology.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the greatest Statesman to ever live, is sometimes labeled a rationalist, however he rejected their views on human nature. Hamilton's views are no different from those of James Madison. For instance, he attacked reason in April 1802, four months after his son died. Although I doubt he ceased to be a rationalist because his son died; more likely, he never was a rationalist. His son's death is not a motive for dropping rationalism to the curb, especially when he attacked reason, and claimed "I will comply with your invitation by submitting some ideas which, from time to time, have passed through my mind." Obviously, supporting the Christian religion had to be one of those ideas, and he is writing this letter to his Orthodox friend. It doesn't appear probable that Hamilton would write to Rev. Bayard, wanting to support a heterodox religion Bayard rejected. Here is Hamilton's rant on reason:
"Nothing is more fallacious than to expect to produce any valuable or permanent results in political projects by relying merely on the reason of men. Men are rather reasoning than reasonable animals, for the most part governed by the impulse of passion. This is well understood by our adversaries, who have practised upon it with no small benefit to their cause; for at the very moment they are eulogizing the reason of men, and professing to appeal only to that faculty, they are courting the strongest and most active passion of the human heart, vanity!"
http://www.reclaimliberty.com/hamiltonplan2009.html
Here is Hamilton's definitive statement on the condition of humanity:
"And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. [bold face mine]
-FEDERALIST No. 78
Thus, unlike, the rationalists, he did not believe learning and the enlightenment would cause virtue, but only that the depravity would change its form. Hamilton knew he couldn't change his condition, because it was inherrant:
"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others..It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity." [bold face mine]
-Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention 21 June 1788. Papers 5:36--37, 40--43
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s38.html
Hamilton thought the later stages of the French Revolution a prime example of human depravity:
"But though we may find in these causes a solution of the fact calculated to abate our solicitude for the consequences; yet we can not consider the public happiness as out of the reach of danger so long as our principles continue to be exposed to the debauching influence of admiration for an example which, it will not be too strong to say, presents the caricature of human depravity. And the pride of national character at least can find no alleviation for the wound which must be inflicted by so ill-judged so unfortunate a partiality.
If there be anything solid in virtue—the time must come when it will have been a disgrace to have advocated the Revolution of France in its late stages.
-Alexander Hamilton on the French Revolution [bold face mine] [Philadelphia, 1794]
http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/593/
Not a few Hamilton scholars hold a similar view of his belief in human depravity:
"The effects of what he called “the ordinary depravity of human nature” were everywhere, of “uncontrollable impulses of rage . . . . jealousy. . . . and other irregular and violent propensities.”(18)
Quoted in Adrienne Koch, “Hamilton and Power,” in Cooke, P. 17. Also see idem., Power Morals and the Founding Fathers; Essays in the Interpretation of the American Enlightenment (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1963), ch. iv., pp. 50-80. Cf-The Federalist No. 15 in Milton Cantor, ed., Hamilton (Prentice-Hall, 1971), pp. 51-53.
Important Founding Father Patrick Henry understood depravity as the others:
"The Northern States will never assent to regulations promotive of southern aggrandizement. Notwithstanding what gentlemen say of the probable virtue of our representatives, I dread the depravity of human nature. I wish to guard against it by proper checks, and trust nothing to accident or chance. I will never depend on so slender a protection as the possibility of being represented by virtuous men."[bold face mine]
-Patrick Henry, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3] Thursday, June 12, 1788
James Wilson, one of the principal builders of the Constitution, and Signer of the Declaration of Independence, appears to have believed that our human nature was corrupted, that man's nature is selfish, a form of depravity, not a grown or learned selfishness, but an inherrant corruption in our nature. The nature of man, refers to the natural tendencies of man.
Wilson said the Scriptures were from God, affirming inerrancy. Claiming inerrancy, refers more so the entire Scripture, as he did not clarify what portions were not inspired. Only the original autographs are inspired, so Wilson may not have referred to the King James Version. Whenever the framers quoted depravity of human nature, or nature, etc., the meaning is inherrant:
"It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the public good, and I do not mean to make any personal reflection when I add that it is the interest of a very numerous, powerful and respectable body to counteract and destroy the excellent work produced by the late convention." [bold face mine]
-Pennsylvania State Convention, October 6, 1787
http://www.constitution.org/afp/jwilson0.htm
George Washington also wrote about depravity:
"[F]ew men are capable of making a continual sacrifice of all views of private interest, or advantage, to the common good. It is vain to exclaim against the depravity of human nature on this account; the fact is so, the experience of every age and nation has proved it and we must in a great measure, change the constitution of man, before we can make it otherwise. No institution, not built on the presumptive truth of these maxims can succeed." [bold face mine]
-To THE COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS WITH THE ARMY
[Head Quarters, January 29, 1778.]
and
"Good God! who besides a tory could have foreseen, or a Briton predicted them! were these people wiser than others, or did they judge of us from the corruption, and depravity of their own hearts? The latter I am persuaded was the case, and that notwithstanding the boasted virtue of America, we are far gone in every thing ignoble and bad."[bold face mine]
-To HENRY KNOX, December 26, 1786.
Total depravity of the human heart was adhered to by another Architect of the Constitution; Charles Pinckney:
"To the liberal and enlightened mind, the rest of Europe affords a melancholy picture of the depravity of human nature, and of the total subversion of those rights, without which we should suppose no people could be happy or content."
-The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4][bold face mine]
Influential delegate, and Signer of the Constitution, Luther Martin, admitted his own depravity:
"Why then all this misrepresentation of my absence at Baltimore and New York? Why the attempt to induce a belief that the Convention had been engaged in business from the fourteenth of May, and the insinuation that it might have happened in those periods? And why the charge that in not stating those facts I had withheld from the public information necessary to its forming a right judgment of the credit which ought to be given to my evidence. But, Sir, I am really at a loss which most to admire--the depravity of this writer's heart, or the weakness of his head." [bold face mine]
-Luther Martin's Reply to the Landholder, March 3, 1788. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
Here, a Congressman refers to depravity as common knowledge:
"The President, notwithstanding the supposed depravity of mankind, will hardly remove a worthy officer to make way for a person whom the Senate max reject." [bold face mine]
-Mr. Hartley, House of Representatives, June 16, 1789. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]Removal by the President.--On the Bill for establishing an executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Most of the Ratifiers of the Constitution understood the depravity of human nature:
"We ought to consider the depravity of human nature, the predominant thirst of power which is in the breast of every one, the temptations our rulers may have, and the unlimited confidence placed in them by this system. These are the foundation of my fears, They would be so long in the general government that they would forget the grievances of the people of the states. But it is said we shall be ruined if separated from the other states, which will be the case if we do not adopt."[bold face mine]
-Ratifier of the Constitution, Wm. Lenoir. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
and
"You will feel yourself little obliged to me even now that I draw off your attention from the endearing concerns of private and domestick life, from the recesses of rural and philosophic retirement, to fix it upon scenes that characterise human nature in its most depraved state, and almost tempt a man to arraign providence that he has been cast into being at a time when private & political Vice is at a Crisis & the measure of Iniquity full and overflowing."
-Signer of the Declaration of Independence William Hooper to Samuel Johnston, Sept 26th, 1776.
If the Founding Fathers believed in inherrant depravity of human nature, then, isn't assuming belief in the other mysteries of Revelation, such as the Trinity, and Atonement, within the realm of possibility?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Another Calvinist Founding Father: George Washington
Along with James Madison, another Virginian who was fairly silent on his religious beliefs was General George Washington. No doubt Christianity, and John Calvin's Exposition of it, was the greatest influence on the American Experiment. Calvin's theory of "Solidarity" is the basis and foundation of Republican Representative Government. Solidarity refers to how an individual refers to a group, nation, or mankind, etc. The group is then viewed and treated in relation to its head or King. Solidarity is the basis of the human race having worth and dignity, as man is made in the image of God, His image imputed by Adam to us (Gen. 1:26-27; James 3:9). Solidarity is the basis for: election, the Levitical Priesthood, Corporate Guilt and Punishment, and Even For the Righteous. Egypt's punishment based on the sins of a few is a classic example.
The Bible teaches the acts and decisions of one's representative are viewed and treated as being one's own acts and decisions. If our representatives declare war, you and I have declared war. Representatives for the mass of people was started by God as far back as Exodus 18. Because man is depraved (Calvin's first point in his five points of Calvinism), checks had to be established to limit his power. The Separation of Powers Doctrine, etc. was derived from the work of John Calvin.
George Washington and the Founding Fathers in general, believed in Calvin's Human Depravity, and they designed our government to reflect that depravity. Far from making a distinct declaration of Washington's faith, below is strong evidence of Orthodoxy, as these notes are in his own handwriting, and apparently has his signature. Since Washington approved these words by his signature, he may have added these words himself. Washington's notes for his Inaugural Address show Calvin's influence:
"The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power & prompted by the supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction & sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable--and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words--that no mound of parchmt can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." [bold face mine]
-George Washington, First Inaugural Address Fragments 1789. The Papers of George Washington Documents.
Washington made other comments about his faith that can be construed, however, below, is most likely a spurious letter; most of Washington's fake letters have no date:
"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart."
-George Washington, To the members of the New Church at Baltimore.
So why do secularists claim Washington was Arian? Isn't that appellation a superstition? They make that claim because GW claimed in The 1783 Circular to the States refers to Jesus as "the Divine Author of our blessed Religion." GW's use of "superstition" then, must refer to something other that Scripture, most likely added revelation, and heresy.
If Washington claimed Jesus was Divine, who can claim he denied the Trinity, as well as his understanding man was depraved and need of redemption, which man could not provide, thereby man needing a Divine Redeemer?
As to GW's faith, there is evidence on both sides, however Calvin's Human Depravity need not be disputed.
The Bible teaches the acts and decisions of one's representative are viewed and treated as being one's own acts and decisions. If our representatives declare war, you and I have declared war. Representatives for the mass of people was started by God as far back as Exodus 18. Because man is depraved (Calvin's first point in his five points of Calvinism), checks had to be established to limit his power. The Separation of Powers Doctrine, etc. was derived from the work of John Calvin.
George Washington and the Founding Fathers in general, believed in Calvin's Human Depravity, and they designed our government to reflect that depravity. Far from making a distinct declaration of Washington's faith, below is strong evidence of Orthodoxy, as these notes are in his own handwriting, and apparently has his signature. Since Washington approved these words by his signature, he may have added these words himself. Washington's notes for his Inaugural Address show Calvin's influence:
"The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power & prompted by the supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction & sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable--and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words--that no mound of parchmt can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." [bold face mine]
-George Washington, First Inaugural Address Fragments 1789. The Papers of George Washington Documents.
Washington made other comments about his faith that can be construed, however, below, is most likely a spurious letter; most of Washington's fake letters have no date:
"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart."
-George Washington, To the members of the New Church at Baltimore.
So why do secularists claim Washington was Arian? Isn't that appellation a superstition? They make that claim because GW claimed in The 1783 Circular to the States refers to Jesus as "the Divine Author of our blessed Religion." GW's use of "superstition" then, must refer to something other that Scripture, most likely added revelation, and heresy.
If Washington claimed Jesus was Divine, who can claim he denied the Trinity, as well as his understanding man was depraved and need of redemption, which man could not provide, thereby man needing a Divine Redeemer?
As to GW's faith, there is evidence on both sides, however Calvin's Human Depravity need not be disputed.
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Calvinist, James Madison
From Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, and his contribution in the Federalist, he was, at this time, no doubt a Calvinist, adhereing to total depravity. His three main teachers in his education were all Calvinist Clergyman. Does not sin corrupt the whole lump, or only parts of the lump? Yes, man can be good; that is not the issue, rather, man is prone to sin, and requires many checks that Calvinism supplies:
"The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation...Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. 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. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits...Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them." [bold face mine]
-James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785.
http://www.auok.org/original_intent_2.htm
Madison believed salvation was by grace through faith; a gift, that cannot be earned, not that salvation was by character, as Unitarians, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin believed.
"The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands...The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies, and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degraded pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character."
-Madison, Federalist #37.
Madison understood what depravity was, and how man acquired it.
"The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation...Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. 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. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits...Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them." [bold face mine]
-James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785.
http://www.auok.org/original_intent_2.htm
Madison believed salvation was by grace through faith; a gift, that cannot be earned, not that salvation was by character, as Unitarians, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin believed.
"The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands...The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies, and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degraded pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character."
-Madison, Federalist #37.
Madison understood what depravity was, and how man acquired it.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
John Witherspoon Claimed the Most Votes
Dr. Witherspoon received the most votes as the important Clergyman of the founding period. Although it was a small sample, and a close race, I was suprised Jonathan Mayhew received the votes he did, as he passed away years before the Revolution. Jonathon Edwards and Joseph Priestley came in 2nd, and 3rd respectively. Witherspoon was the favorite at the outset.
Witherspoon was no doubt one of our greatest Founding Fathers, having participated in over one-hundred committees in the Continental Congress; among his layman graduates was James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, and Vice-President Aaron Burr. Of his students, ten became cabinet officers and sixty served in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives in Congress. Twelve became Governors of States and fifty-six members of State Legislative bodies and three Justices of the Supreme Court of the U.S. Of the twenty-five College graduates at the Continental Congress, nine were from Princeton University, among which six had Witherspoon's signature on their College diplomas.
He was a staunch Calvinist, teaching its precepts at Presbyterian, Princeton College. Witherspoon disagreed with rationalists of the enlightenment, including, Francis Hutcheson and David Hume, who understood reason was superior to revelation:
"In the deistical controversy, what commonly leads the way, is the necessity of revelation in general...The first infidel writers in Europe, were chiefly employed in shewing the sufficiency of reason as a guide to man in his conduct, of whom Lord Herbert, of Cherburg, was one of the most early, and one of the most eminent. Their way of arguing is very fallacious; for they avail themselves of that very improvement of reason, which they owe to revelation, in order to shew revelation to be unnecessary...Infidels do not now plead for Jupiter, Juno, Mars, and Apollo, but for the suffciency of human reason." [bold face mine]
-Works, Vol 4.
Witherspoon understood, as did John Calvin, that reason supports revelation, and is a vital part of Christian Theology, however, he never aligned with the rationalists, but derided their theology:
"Very plain, that such is our blindness and ignorance in the things of God, that we know very little about them, till they are made known by God himself; and if we were to make our own reason the previous standard of what was admissible or not in quality of revelation, it would make mad work indeed." [bold face mine]
-Works, Vol 4.
He believed, as did all Christians before him, that reason is perfectly agreeable to The Gospel of Jesus Christ:
"I shall care very little what men of vain and carnal minds say of my sentiments; but I have been many years of opinion, that as revelation was necessary, and revelation is given us, we act the most wise and truly rational part, if we take all our theological opinions immediately, and without challenge, from the oracles of truth. I confess it is agreeable to me to shew, that the truths of the everlasting gospel are agreeable to sound reason, and founded upon the state of human nature ; and I have made it my business through my whole life to illustrate this remark. Yet to begin by making the suggession of our own reason the standard of what is to be heard or examined as a matter of revelation, I look upon to be highly dangerous, manifestly unjust, and inconsistent with the foundation-stone of all revealed religion, viz. that reason, without it, is insufficient to bring us to the knowledge of God and our duty; and therefore as Socrates said to Al.cibiades, It is reasonable to think that God will come down into the world, to teach us his will." I am not insensible how far it would be just to carry the principle on which our adversaries ground their sentiments. Any new principles or doctrines, seemingly absurd in themselves, and unholy in their effects, would not, with judicious persons, be rashly or suddenly admitted ; and the more supicious the principles are in themselves, no doubt we will examine the pretensions to miracles the more carefully.—This is the part of prudence ; but to carry it further, and say, we will receive no evidence that God hasn't taught any thing different from what we ourselves think reasonahle, is just weakening the truth before admitted,' that revelation immediately from himself is evidently new?"It will now be time to consider a little, the objections against the Christian religion...That reason is a sufficient guide to truth and happiness and therefore revelation is unnecessary; and that miracles are impossible, and incredible. Those I pass with what has been laid on them above.""that things may be above reason, and yet not contradictory to it. By this expression above reason, may be understood two things—beyond the power of reason to discover, and above the reach of reason to comprehend."Therefore though we say that the trinity in unity is incomprehensible, or above reason, we say nothing that is absurd or contrary to reason; so far from it, I may say rather it is consistent to reason and the analogy of nature that there should be many things in the divine nature that we cannot fully comprehend. There are many such things in his providence, and surely much more in his essence." [bold face mine]
-Works, Vol 4.
The Sovereignty of God is a firm Calvinist belief that all Christians should adhere to. There are many parts of scripture beyond our comprehension to understand, yet God is Sovereign, and has preserved His Words for His Creation.
Witherspoon was no doubt one of our greatest Founding Fathers, having participated in over one-hundred committees in the Continental Congress; among his layman graduates was James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, and Vice-President Aaron Burr. Of his students, ten became cabinet officers and sixty served in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives in Congress. Twelve became Governors of States and fifty-six members of State Legislative bodies and three Justices of the Supreme Court of the U.S. Of the twenty-five College graduates at the Continental Congress, nine were from Princeton University, among which six had Witherspoon's signature on their College diplomas.
He was a staunch Calvinist, teaching its precepts at Presbyterian, Princeton College. Witherspoon disagreed with rationalists of the enlightenment, including, Francis Hutcheson and David Hume, who understood reason was superior to revelation:
"In the deistical controversy, what commonly leads the way, is the necessity of revelation in general...The first infidel writers in Europe, were chiefly employed in shewing the sufficiency of reason as a guide to man in his conduct, of whom Lord Herbert, of Cherburg, was one of the most early, and one of the most eminent. Their way of arguing is very fallacious; for they avail themselves of that very improvement of reason, which they owe to revelation, in order to shew revelation to be unnecessary...Infidels do not now plead for Jupiter, Juno, Mars, and Apollo, but for the suffciency of human reason." [bold face mine]
-Works, Vol 4.
Witherspoon understood, as did John Calvin, that reason supports revelation, and is a vital part of Christian Theology, however, he never aligned with the rationalists, but derided their theology:
"Very plain, that such is our blindness and ignorance in the things of God, that we know very little about them, till they are made known by God himself; and if we were to make our own reason the previous standard of what was admissible or not in quality of revelation, it would make mad work indeed." [bold face mine]
-Works, Vol 4.
He believed, as did all Christians before him, that reason is perfectly agreeable to The Gospel of Jesus Christ:
"I shall care very little what men of vain and carnal minds say of my sentiments; but I have been many years of opinion, that as revelation was necessary, and revelation is given us, we act the most wise and truly rational part, if we take all our theological opinions immediately, and without challenge, from the oracles of truth. I confess it is agreeable to me to shew, that the truths of the everlasting gospel are agreeable to sound reason, and founded upon the state of human nature ; and I have made it my business through my whole life to illustrate this remark. Yet to begin by making the suggession of our own reason the standard of what is to be heard or examined as a matter of revelation, I look upon to be highly dangerous, manifestly unjust, and inconsistent with the foundation-stone of all revealed religion, viz. that reason, without it, is insufficient to bring us to the knowledge of God and our duty; and therefore as Socrates said to Al.cibiades, It is reasonable to think that God will come down into the world, to teach us his will." I am not insensible how far it would be just to carry the principle on which our adversaries ground their sentiments. Any new principles or doctrines, seemingly absurd in themselves, and unholy in their effects, would not, with judicious persons, be rashly or suddenly admitted ; and the more supicious the principles are in themselves, no doubt we will examine the pretensions to miracles the more carefully.—This is the part of prudence ; but to carry it further, and say, we will receive no evidence that God hasn't taught any thing different from what we ourselves think reasonahle, is just weakening the truth before admitted,' that revelation immediately from himself is evidently new?"It will now be time to consider a little, the objections against the Christian religion...That reason is a sufficient guide to truth and happiness and therefore revelation is unnecessary; and that miracles are impossible, and incredible. Those I pass with what has been laid on them above.""that things may be above reason, and yet not contradictory to it. By this expression above reason, may be understood two things—beyond the power of reason to discover, and above the reach of reason to comprehend."Therefore though we say that the trinity in unity is incomprehensible, or above reason, we say nothing that is absurd or contrary to reason; so far from it, I may say rather it is consistent to reason and the analogy of nature that there should be many things in the divine nature that we cannot fully comprehend. There are many such things in his providence, and surely much more in his essence." [bold face mine]
-Works, Vol 4.
The Sovereignty of God is a firm Calvinist belief that all Christians should adhere to. There are many parts of scripture beyond our comprehension to understand, yet God is Sovereign, and has preserved His Words for His Creation.
Monday, August 17, 2009
John Eidsmore on John Calvin and the Founding
John Eidsmore, Pastor, Assn. of Free Lutheran Congregations, and Professor at Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy has written a post on Firm Foundation about John Calvin's legacy to our Founding.
Calvin was no doubt the Greatest of Reformers during the Protestant Reformation, being the only person to give a succinct Christian Theology. Calvin greatly influenced the Founding Fathers in their understanding of Law and Government, as Eidsmore explains:
"But if, as Calvin taught, every plowboy should be able to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself, then every plowboy must be taught to read. This led to widespread literacy, which made republican self-government possible."
It is true, the framers wanted literacy to be a great part of Republican Government. Benjamin Rush was among the many who labored hard for literacy to any and everyone, not to mention, nearly all the framers affirmed Calvin's Human Depravity which leads to Republican Representative Government:
"Calvin’s emphasis on Sola Gratia led to a recognition of the total depravity of human nature. Because of man’s sinful nature, we cannot live in a state of anarchy; we need government to maintain law and order. But because those in authority have the same sinful nature as the rest of us, we cannot trust government with too much power. This led to the system of limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and reserved individual rights that characterize republican self-government."
The framers employed Calvin's Human Depravity into Representative Government, which led to consent of the governed, separation of powers, etc. Representative government derives from the Calvinist concept of solidarity; the Biblical notion of persons (The King) representing the group, and the group judged by actions of the one (King). This Calvinist (Biblical) idea, being "In Adam" because of the imputation of sin, and "In Christ" by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness, is based on solidarity. In fact, Calvin's espousal of Original Sin is an air-tight case, quoting James 3:9 as scriptural support. If man is to deny Original Sin, he must deny man is made in the image of God as well.
Other historians have claimed Calvin's great influence on our Founding:
"But Leopold von Ranke, founder of the modern school of history in Germany, stated flatly, “John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.” And George Bancroft, the leading American historian of the first half of the 1800s, though not a Calvinist himself, called Calvin the “father of America” and added, “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”
Calvin on Romans 13, and the responsibility of civil rulers:
'Magistrates may hence learn what their vocation is, for they are not to rule for their own interest, but for the public good; nor are they endued with unbridled power, but what is restricted to the well-being of their subjects; in short, they are responsible to God and to men in the exercise of their power. For as they are deputed by God and do his business, they must give an account to him: and then the ministration which God has committed to them has a regard to the subjects; they are therefore debtors to them."
-Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 481.
http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=representative+government+through+Calvin%27s+human+depravity&fr=ush1-mail&u=www.prpbooks.com/samples/9781596380912.pdf&w=representative+government+calvin%27s+calvin+human+humans+depravity&d=NQpxxRlMTSlO&icp=1&.intl=us
And in some cases it appears Calvin allowed lower magistrates to overthrow a wicked ruler:
"For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings (as in ancient times the ephors . . .), I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dis-simulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance."
- Calvin, Institutes 4. 20. 30
Calvin was no doubt the Greatest of Reformers during the Protestant Reformation, being the only person to give a succinct Christian Theology. Calvin greatly influenced the Founding Fathers in their understanding of Law and Government, as Eidsmore explains:
"But if, as Calvin taught, every plowboy should be able to read and interpret the Scriptures for himself, then every plowboy must be taught to read. This led to widespread literacy, which made republican self-government possible."
It is true, the framers wanted literacy to be a great part of Republican Government. Benjamin Rush was among the many who labored hard for literacy to any and everyone, not to mention, nearly all the framers affirmed Calvin's Human Depravity which leads to Republican Representative Government:
"Calvin’s emphasis on Sola Gratia led to a recognition of the total depravity of human nature. Because of man’s sinful nature, we cannot live in a state of anarchy; we need government to maintain law and order. But because those in authority have the same sinful nature as the rest of us, we cannot trust government with too much power. This led to the system of limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and reserved individual rights that characterize republican self-government."
The framers employed Calvin's Human Depravity into Representative Government, which led to consent of the governed, separation of powers, etc. Representative government derives from the Calvinist concept of solidarity; the Biblical notion of persons (The King) representing the group, and the group judged by actions of the one (King). This Calvinist (Biblical) idea, being "In Adam" because of the imputation of sin, and "In Christ" by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness, is based on solidarity. In fact, Calvin's espousal of Original Sin is an air-tight case, quoting James 3:9 as scriptural support. If man is to deny Original Sin, he must deny man is made in the image of God as well.
Other historians have claimed Calvin's great influence on our Founding:
"But Leopold von Ranke, founder of the modern school of history in Germany, stated flatly, “John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.” And George Bancroft, the leading American historian of the first half of the 1800s, though not a Calvinist himself, called Calvin the “father of America” and added, “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”
Calvin on Romans 13, and the responsibility of civil rulers:
'Magistrates may hence learn what their vocation is, for they are not to rule for their own interest, but for the public good; nor are they endued with unbridled power, but what is restricted to the well-being of their subjects; in short, they are responsible to God and to men in the exercise of their power. For as they are deputed by God and do his business, they must give an account to him: and then the ministration which God has committed to them has a regard to the subjects; they are therefore debtors to them."
-Calvin, Commentary on Romans, 481.
http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=representative+government+through+Calvin%27s+human+depravity&fr=ush1-mail&u=www.prpbooks.com/samples/9781596380912.pdf&w=representative+government+calvin%27s+calvin+human+humans+depravity&d=NQpxxRlMTSlO&icp=1&.intl=us
And in some cases it appears Calvin allowed lower magistrates to overthrow a wicked ruler:
"For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings (as in ancient times the ephors . . .), I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dis-simulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance."
- Calvin, Institutes 4. 20. 30
Friday, July 31, 2009
What Makes a Christian Nation?
Having an intelligent debate on why the Founding Fathers formed Christian States is tough to come by these days. I have definitely learned my lesson posting on blogs. Ed Brayton's blog, Dispatch From The Culture Wars, posted an article about Chris Rodda and Rep. Randy Forbes' battle for the "Christian Heritage" resolutions. Although it isn't much of a fair debate, I tried to start a dialogue with Chris about my core defense of the Christian State Constitutions, which I believe is the best apologetic, however it never became a meaningful debate; the bloggers dismissed my posts without sufficiently refuting them with verbal attacks seen in a Martin Scorsese film.
I posted Maryland's State Constitution that prohibited a religious test, and established Christianity as the State Religion. Obviously, the religious test had to refer to only a Christian denominational test. Chris' response to the Christian State Constitutions was:
"So now all you need to do is explain why virtually all of the states admitted after the U.S. Constitution was written put the same "no religious test clause" in their state constitutions, many in exactly the same words as the U.S. Constitution. All of those states, writing brand new state constitutions, had a choice, and they chose to copy the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on religious tests and other guarantees of religious freedom."
Maryland's State Constitution, and the Christian religion established, along with most of the others states, was in effect years after the Constitution was ratified, so Chris, how does a religious test have any bearing when Maryland, et al. established Christianity? It obviously is consistent with a religious test.
Religion was left to the States, therefore, whatever the religion the majority of States established should determine what kind of religious country we were. If no religion was mentioned, I couldn't declare that, but if: Lord, Christian, Protestant, Christ, etc. are mentioned, it's indicative of what kind of establishment it is. Getting into other areas of debate such as: wording in the Constitution, Republican Government, etc. is meaningless. The fact that the majority of framers were not heterodox should quell the false assumption of what kind of Christianity was established.
Chris, on this basis alone, I would be happy to debate you. On what other basis could I proclaim the Nation was formed on Christianity?
I posted Maryland's State Constitution that prohibited a religious test, and established Christianity as the State Religion. Obviously, the religious test had to refer to only a Christian denominational test. Chris' response to the Christian State Constitutions was:
"So now all you need to do is explain why virtually all of the states admitted after the U.S. Constitution was written put the same "no religious test clause" in their state constitutions, many in exactly the same words as the U.S. Constitution. All of those states, writing brand new state constitutions, had a choice, and they chose to copy the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on religious tests and other guarantees of religious freedom."
Maryland's State Constitution, and the Christian religion established, along with most of the others states, was in effect years after the Constitution was ratified, so Chris, how does a religious test have any bearing when Maryland, et al. established Christianity? It obviously is consistent with a religious test.
Religion was left to the States, therefore, whatever the religion the majority of States established should determine what kind of religious country we were. If no religion was mentioned, I couldn't declare that, but if: Lord, Christian, Protestant, Christ, etc. are mentioned, it's indicative of what kind of establishment it is. Getting into other areas of debate such as: wording in the Constitution, Republican Government, etc. is meaningless. The fact that the majority of framers were not heterodox should quell the false assumption of what kind of Christianity was established.
Chris, on this basis alone, I would be happy to debate you. On what other basis could I proclaim the Nation was formed on Christianity?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Orthodox Christianity Left To The States
Why was our nation formed on Orthodox Christian, and not heretical principles? First, Christianity was left to the States to practice as they wished, however, heterodox Christian principles were never a part of the incorporation of legal Christianity, neither in the State or Federal Documents; the heterodox were given freedom of conscience like everyone else, but their minority, at this time, had no inclusion in ANY founding government document.
The various State Constitutions were Orthodox in nature; the heterodox minority in Massachusetts were years away from the Dedham decision of 1820. The majority understood Unitarianism was not part of the Protestant Reformation, having been kicked to the curb by Luther and Calvin, and forever cast out by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Furthermore, the Reformation denounced all forms of Unitarianism, Arianism, and Socinianism, starting with the Gnostics, which were never considered Christian. The majority "Protestant" framers of Massachusetts understood their history. Yes, it's true, a Unitarian wrote most of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, however John Adams is only one man, while the ratifiers of that Constitution are most important.
Notice the State Constitution of a Mid-Atlantic State where heterodoxy was a small minority, perhaps non-existent:
Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion (until 1851) [bold face mine].
Not only were the vast majority of Founding Fathers Orthodox, the majority philosophers they studied were as well, including: Arminianist Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, Richard Hooker, Samuel de Puffendorf, and perhaps John Locke. Yes, Arminius believed in Total Depravity. His only beef with Calvin was free will.
It's true, Locke failed to espouse Church Creeds, or essentials, but so did the Apostles. At Pentecost, there was no Westminster Confession, only faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Clarification of Church Doctrine wasn't made until the 2nd to 3rd Centuries. Notice, Jared Sparks, the former President of Harvard, and his opinion of Locke's faith:
"And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that "the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, 'that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,' which if they believed, they should have life."* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the "sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety," nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name."[bold face mine]
Sparks shows his understanding of Christian Theology. The Apostles had no assemblage of articles, and "without believing", has nothing to do with salvation, rather, it's the rejection of certain articles the indwelt Holy Spirit cannot affirm.
Did Locke have some unorthodox views regarding the unessential state of nature? Yes. Did he believe in inerrancy? Yes. Did he indirectly defend the Trinity? Yes. Furthermore, Locke could be a heretic, but more serious inquiry is needed to make a clear declaration as to John Locke's faith.
The various State Constitutions were Orthodox in nature; the heterodox minority in Massachusetts were years away from the Dedham decision of 1820. The majority understood Unitarianism was not part of the Protestant Reformation, having been kicked to the curb by Luther and Calvin, and forever cast out by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Furthermore, the Reformation denounced all forms of Unitarianism, Arianism, and Socinianism, starting with the Gnostics, which were never considered Christian. The majority "Protestant" framers of Massachusetts understood their history. Yes, it's true, a Unitarian wrote most of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, however John Adams is only one man, while the ratifiers of that Constitution are most important.
Notice the State Constitution of a Mid-Atlantic State where heterodoxy was a small minority, perhaps non-existent:
Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion (until 1851) [bold face mine].
Not only were the vast majority of Founding Fathers Orthodox, the majority philosophers they studied were as well, including: Arminianist Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, Richard Hooker, Samuel de Puffendorf, and perhaps John Locke. Yes, Arminius believed in Total Depravity. His only beef with Calvin was free will.
It's true, Locke failed to espouse Church Creeds, or essentials, but so did the Apostles. At Pentecost, there was no Westminster Confession, only faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Clarification of Church Doctrine wasn't made until the 2nd to 3rd Centuries. Notice, Jared Sparks, the former President of Harvard, and his opinion of Locke's faith:
"And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that "the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, 'that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,' which if they believed, they should have life."* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the "sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety," nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name."[bold face mine]
Sparks shows his understanding of Christian Theology. The Apostles had no assemblage of articles, and "without believing", has nothing to do with salvation, rather, it's the rejection of certain articles the indwelt Holy Spirit cannot affirm.
Did Locke have some unorthodox views regarding the unessential state of nature? Yes. Did he believe in inerrancy? Yes. Did he indirectly defend the Trinity? Yes. Furthermore, Locke could be a heretic, but more serious inquiry is needed to make a clear declaration as to John Locke's faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
