Reason vs. Revelation? Part One
Good question. Are reason and revelation contrary to one another? Jonathan, who has been commenting on my blogs lately, said this:
“Is it a government in which God’s moral law is not recognized as the ultimate source of justice….” [quoting a previous post of mine]
I don’t mean to pick on you and your blog. I’ll scram if you want me to. But when it came to that God-given “higher” law, Founders like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Hamilton (especially the quotation that you offer) didn’t mean “open the Bibles and there you will find it.” Rather, as theistic rationalists, they believed God primary revealed Himself through nature not scripture. Therefore, man’s reason, not revelation was the primary mechanism for ascertaining such higher law.
As John Adams put it:
“To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.”– John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson’s, “The Founders on Religion,” p. 132.
Or as Adams put it again:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
…Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
For more, see this post.The post he mentions is his own argument that the Founders used essentially “rationalistic” (basically equivalent to “deistic”) methods to establish our government, and to establish the foundations of our jurisprudence. This post will tackle the controversy more in-depth then my previous comments.
In the above-mentioned post, Jonathan states:
The Founders believed in both man made “positive” law, and God given “natural” law, which positive law, by right could not contradict. However the content of natural law was ascertainable entirely by man’s reason, arguably unaided by revelation. Or, if revelation had any role to play in determining “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” it was to assist or provide support for man’s reason, not the other way around. Further, though these Founders believed that reason and revelation mostly agreed, they also believed that some revelation was not legitimately given by God and had to pass the “reason” smell test to be true or part of the “higher” law that rules us and which no positive law could contradict.
In American jurisprudence, there are classified TWO categories of God-given law, not just the law of nature. The second category is the “law of nature’s God,” made reference to in the Declaration of Independence. If one reads the quotes Jonathan presents after the above section more carefully, such as the one by James Wilson (who spoke the second most frequently at the Constitutional Convention), one cannot totally agree that the Founding Fathers only recognized the “law of nature” by reason alone, and not the law of revelation. If Jonathan’s statement that “‘nature’ by its very definition in the Founding era refers to what man can discover from reason as opposed to revelation” is true, then why did James Wilson say:
“But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God”?
Apparently, Wilson saw that the “law of nature” and the “revealed law” weren’t contrary, but they were distinct, in order for there to be a law “natural and revealed.”
The other two quotes presented along with Wilson’s above, trace their origin to Sir William Blackstone‘s Commentaries on the Laws of England (the Hamilton quote that Jonathan presented is right out of Blackstone’s four-volume book).
Some background on Blackstone:Commentaries on the Laws of England was required reading for law students in America until about the 1920s. The Founding Fathers praised and recommended his work (though the more rationalistic ones, and those peeved by English monarchy criticized his defense of the British Constitution and government), and it is obvious from the quotes above that the Founders quoted him as a chief authority on matters of law. Blackstone was the universally recognized legal authority in America, though they did not adopt the monarchy philosophy.After Blackstone made the statement quoted by Hamilton above (in Jonathan’s afore-mentioned post), he said this:
But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to REASON; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life; by considering, what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness. >PAY ATTENTION TO THIS STATEMENT:< And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor [Adam] before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error. This has given manifold occasion for the benign INTERPOSITION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, in sundry times and diverse manners, to discover and enforce it’s laws by an IMMEDIATE AND DIRECT REVELATION. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found ONLY IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in it’s present corrupted state; since we find that, UNTIL THEY WERE REVEALED, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the SAME ORIGINAL with those of with those of the law of nature, for their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the human law is (humanly speaking) of infinitely for more authority than what we generally call the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared for to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but till then, they can never be put in competition together.” (1)
Now, before we can successfully examine this particular debate, some key terms must be defined. This step is perhaps the most essential in debating and deciding the truth on a “yes” or “no” issue. The general definition of “reason” seems to be well-established. It merely means thinking things through, utilizing logic, human experience, and common sense. The “clincher” term in this debate, however, is the term “revelation.” This term, and its use, has been abused by the religious and “non-religious” throughout the centuries. Let me make clear that “revelation,” in the sense that I shall use it, does NOT mean “knowledge and wisdom magically falling down from the sky.” God simply does not just drop words on people, and expect them to blindly believe Him. When God spoke to the prophets of the Old Testament, they asked Him hard questions (Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Habakkuk did just that), and God did not strike them dead. He answered their questions. Now, as was sometimes true in their cases, God expects us to trust Him, even when we cannot fully comprehend what He is doing or why. But to trust in Him in such a circumstance is not to have blind faith, because experience clearly demonstrates that God has always been faithful and He always knew what He was doing. God never made a mistake in the (approximately) 6,000 years that mankind has inhabited this planet. To trust Him is to accept the evidence He has already given us of His goodness and faithfulness.
Revelation, in our case (the case of higher law and the source of good government) means, in my argument, the words of God revealed to mankind directly, and, as Blackstone said, are available to us “only in the holy scriptures.” Most of the time, when the Founders referred to divine revelation, or the revealed law, they were referring to God’s commandments and words to man as written in the Bible. We shall examine the Founders’ writings on “divine revelation” and “revealed law” in order to determine the truth of the matter.
Now here is where skeptics of my belief may interject that some things in the Bible (accounts of the miraculous, the divinity of Jesus, His atonement, etc.) are beyond human reason, and therefore must pass the “smell test” of man’s logical powers. But to say that our Founders enthroned man’s brain above the Bible defeats the purpose of having a government of law. One understands this statement if one understands Blackstone’s logic above. Mankind is not uniform in his reasoning; his reason is and is prone to distortion from many things — often by natural human selfishness and bias (man simply does not have the ability to prolong his life that he may obliterate all his short-sightedness, selfishness, and prejudice, and humanity continues to make the same mistakes that he always did make, in spite of improvements in technology, hygiene, etc.). Men may reason on the same subject but come up with different conclusions. A good example of this is the Founding Fathers themselves when they discussed issues in collective assemblies. They were all very smart men, and tried to be as unbiased and indifferent as they could, but failed numerous times to ever agree on crucial issues. In fact, so heated did their debates get that even Benjamin Franklin, who (especially when a young man) never agreed with the idea of divine revelation, requested regular prayers at the Constitutional Convention, “humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings.” (2)
The point is that mankind in general, no matter how much he reasons, will never agree on anything for certain, because every mankind’s reason is not uniform. Absolute truth, and in our case, the source of absolute law, must therefore be derived from some other source than man’s reason, though we should certainly utilize it (“Come, let us reason together, saith Jehovah” Isaiah 1:18). Law must ultimately come from God. God has revealed Himself directly in the Scriptures and (in the case of Christians) through the Holy Spirit, which confirms His word in the Scriptures, and God has revealed Himself indirectly through His creation and through history. With reason, humanity can discover God and come to know Him, but we will never comprehend Him, or understand the deep mysteries of law and government on reason ALONE; the “Father of Lights” must “illumine our understandings.”
Absolute law (“higher law”) must come from a more authoritative source than man, for as we have seen, even man’s reason, though useful and essential to the protection of his rights, is reliant upon man’s fallen nature. Any structure of government or human society that places man’s reason at the top of the “authority ladder” is a government of man, because it is man’s reason, and no higher authority, that makes the laws. Absolute, higher law, must come from a super-human being, a being without flaw, and that being would be GOD. His law is revealed in the Scripture, and this law is completely reasonable (but this does not mean that God’s law must be subject to man’s reason, because man does not know better than God does). In my next and soon-coming post, we shall see what the Founders said on this subject, and the answer to the question of “Did the Founders base their ideology on reason alone, on revelation, or on both?” will determine whether America really is a government of man or of Law. The answer to this question will also decide whether Christianity or secular humanism is a more rational belief system, based upon the experiment of American government.
Stay tuned!
17 Responses to “Reason vs. Revelation? Part One”
August 4th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Very nice.
I’ll wait before trying to answer this in more substantive detail.
But first, let me briefly note that arguably it is improper to assert theistic rationalism is “basically equivalent to ‘deistic,’” if you mean by “deistic,” strict deism. If you mean “deistic” as in not quite strict deism, but a some kind of broader understanding of the term, then perhaps your statement is accurate. As Mark Noll put it in his blurb for David Holmes’ book The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, “I agree with the book’s overall assessment that the Founders were Deist-like, but not exactly.” Holmes doesn’t use the term “theistic rationalism,” but “Christian-Deism,” and “Unitarianism” to describe the faith of the key Founders — Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Monroe.
Dr. Gregg Frazer (like Mark Noll, an evangelical; I think Frazer’s theology is beyond “evangelical” but as fundamentalist as it gets — his College President and church minister is John MacArthur) coined the term “theistic rationalism” to distinguish from both Christianity and Deism (though, broadly speaking, the key Founders’ beliefs could qualify as both Christianity and Deism, hence Holmes’ term “Christian-Deism”; narrowly speaking, their creed was neither Christianity nor Deism, but something in between with rationalism as the trumping element).
Anyway here are a few ways in which theistic rationalism differs from strict deism: Whereas deism believes in a non-intervening deity, theism rationalism posits an God who intervenes in man’s affairs. Whereas deists’ God is cold and distant, theistic rationalists’ God is warm and personal. Deists don’t believe in prayer or miracles. Theistic rationalists believe in prayer and split on miracles (they more likely believed in “rational” miracles, that is miracles that don’t break the laws of nature or science). Whereas deists believed God revealed Himself only through nature and reason and categorically rejected all revelation, theistic rationalists believed God primarily revealed Himself through nature and reason, and that some biblical revelation (the rational parts) were legitimately given by God.
Finally, whereas strict Deists were likely to hold a negative view on Jesus of Nazareth and call him a fraud, the theistic rationalists thought he was a great, arguably the greatest moral teacher the world had seen. Though they did not believe Him to be God or the second person in the Trinity. (And they rejected most other key tenets of orthodox Christianity as well.)
This is without question what Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin believed. And it what Washington, and Madison likely believed in as well. Every single proof that shows Washington was not a Deist fails to prove Washington was not a theistic rationalist.
August 4th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Thank you for your comment Jonathan, and thank you for reading my post. Part Two will be posted in the near future.
To answer your question, yes I was referring to a “liberal deism,” not strict deism. The basic, basic tenet of deism (my research on it so far has convinced me) is that there is no real direct revelation from God; just man’s God-given reason and God’s creation. Any true system of morality and religion, according to the deists, is formulated by man, but is supposed to ultimately come from God. So, ultimately, “theistic rationalism” and general “deism” have basically the same basic belief.
After reading the Founders writings on religious subjects, I don’t agree that the key Founders were overall rationalists, although it is true that some (like Jefferson, Franklin, and probably John Adams) were not Christians in the Biblical sense. I will provide evidence for these claims in another place at the soonest convenient time.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
After reading the Founders writings on religious subjects, I don’t agree that the key Founders were overall rationalists,
You may be interested in my latest post where I discuss the concept of “The State of Nature” that our Founders made key to declaring independence (see how Hamilton discusses it in “The Farmer Refuted”).
At the end of the post I write:
I’ve long shown that the key Founders — those most responsible for declaring independence, constructing the Constitution, and then leading the newly formed nation — were not orthodox Christians, but theistic rationalists. Their “enlightened” God better fit the needs of Whig republicanism than the Biblical God did. Perhaps that’s one reason why non-Christians played such leading roles. Without question, Jefferson, (John) Adams, and Franklin were theistic rationalists. I’d argue that Washington, Madison, and Hamilton were as well (though their creed remains disputed).
You could add G. Morris and James Wilson to the theistic rationalist list. I’d agree that whether orthodox Christians or theistic rationalists were a statistical majority of the Founders is unknown. All that can be shown is that the overwhelming majority of them, like Jefferson and Franklin, were in some way formally or nominally connected to a Christian Church that professed orthodoxy. Adams’ Congregation was supposed to be preaching orthodox Christian doctrines (New England Congregationalists were of Puritan origin). But by 1750 his Church ministers preached Unitarianism (the formal creed change didn’t occur until the 19th Century; but that’s because Unitarians were so anti-creedal, they didn’t want to exclude anyone, not the Calvinist Trinitarians, from their Church. Ultimately, it was the Calvinist Congregationalists who disfellowed themselves from the Unitarians in the early 19th Century).
And that’s why M.E. Bradford’s 52 out of the 55 or 50 out of the 55 statistic is bunk. Plenty of folks formally connected to a Christian Church were deists, unitarians, or otherwise not “real Christians” in the orthodox Trinitarian sense.
I will say this about Washington, Madison, Hamilton (before 1800), G. Morris and James Wilson. I’ve studied their utterances on religion in meticulous detail and I believe the evidence strongly points in the direction of their being theistic rationalists just like Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams. Yet, unlike those three who were quite explicit in exactly what they believed, those five tended to speak about God and religion at a level of generality, and there are few smoking gun quotations were they reject or affirm the tenets of orthodox Christianity.
They invariably spoke, both publicly and privately, in a generic philosophical sense when they talked about God. Their utterances could be consistent with both theistic rationalism or orthodox Christianity. But what does it then say that when Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Hamilton, and Wilson talked about God, they purposefully did so in such a vague and generic way that you couldn’t distinguish their creed from either the orthodox Christians or the theistic rationalists like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin?
It certainly does nothing to forward the “Christian Nation” thesis as posited by Barton, Federer, and Kennedy.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Jonathan:
If you have been paying any attention to my comments in response to you, there is, contrary to what you claim, quite a bit of evidence that the MAJORITY of the Founders (I have used Hamilton as an example repeatedly) were most likely Bible-believing Christians (Jefferson and Franklin weren’t, but I think that their roles in the formation of our country are exaggerated).
As to the “state of nature,” maybe you should read what Hamilton thought about that idea, especially as it came from Thomas Hobbes:
“There is so strong a similitude between your political principles and those maintained by Mr. [Thomas] Hobbes, that, in judging from them, a person might very easily mistake you for a disciple of his. His opinion was exactly coincident with yours, relative to man in a STATE OF NATURE. He held, as you do, that he was then perfectly free from all restraint of law and government. Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he ran into this ABSURD AND IMPIOUS DOCTRINE was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent, superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge, of the universe.”
Don’t sound strictly rationalistic to me! And Hamilton said this in 1775!
If you refuse to take historical documentation, and instead rely upon the interpretations of the Founders writings (although you may read the Founders writings), if you rely upon the interpretations of either a Bible scholar or a history professor, than I cannot continue to discuss this controversy with you, as there is no common ground of definition between us, nor a willingness on your part to accept blatant evidence, even when it does not support your pre-conclusion.
One personal question, if you don’t mind:
Why do you have such a problem with the Founders being Bible-believers?
If the evidence I have shown in my replies to your comments is insufficient or easily explained away, show me how. But so far it seems that you are not willing to accept the evidence, no matter how many times you are presented with it.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:14 am
The problem is you a) aren’t presenting the sufficient evidence and b) are not responding to my points which directly address yours.
I never said Hamilton or the other Founders were Hobbseans. Rather I said they were Lockeans. And it is a FACT that Locke made “the state of nature” central to his theory, and such notion was first posited by Hobbes. Hamilton does exactly what Locke does. He invokes a Lockean “state of nature” against Hobbes’ notion of a “state of nature.” The concept of a “state of nature,” be it Locke’s, Hobbes’ or Rousseau’s, are all wholly alien to the Bible. Hamilton, when he invokes Locke’s state of nature is still speaking in Enlightenment, not Biblical, terms. His own words from “The Farmer Refuted.” Notice the bold:
Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beatifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty, and personal safety.
Hence, in a state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property or liberty; nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him; except that which arose from the ties of consanguinity.
Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent?
What you reproduced from Hamilton:
But the reason he ran into this ABSURD AND IMPIOUS DOCTRINE was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent, superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge, of the universe.”
And your categorization of it:
Don’t sound strictly rationalistic to me! And Hamilton said this in 1775!
While this might not be atheistic, it’s entirely consistent with theistic rationalism. These words could have come from Jefferson’s or Franklin’s mouth. Where are the verses and chapters of scripture? Where is the Trinitarian language?
You asked what I’m looking for and I’ll tell you: Jefferson, Franklin and Adams, did not believe in 1) the Trinity, 2) eternal damnation [though they believed people were “judged” by God and the wicked temporarily punished, eventually redeemed, and the good, because of their WORKS, rewarded immediately with eternal bliss); 3) the infallibility of the Bible. Further, they believed man’s reason superseded revelation and determined which revelations were legitimately from God. And that non-Judeo-Christian religions like Islam, Native Americans, Hindus and pagan-Greco-Romans worshipped the same one God the Jews and Christians worshipped.
What I want to see are statements from Hamilton (before 1800 when he did his work founding the nation) that show he believed in orthodox Christian not this system.
So far you’ve shown nothing of the kind. You’ve knocked down some atheistic or perhaps strict deist strawman. But when you reproduce Hamilton cricizing someone because he “disbelieved the existence of an intelligent, superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge, of the universe” you simply prove my point.
As I wrote in my above respose:
They invariably spoke, both publicly and privately, in a generic philosophical sense when they talked about God. Their utterances could be consistent with both theistic rationalism or orthodox Christianity. But what does it then say that when Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Hamilton, and Wilson talked about God, they purposefully did so in such a vague and generic way that you couldn’t distinguish their creed from either the orthodox Christians or the theistic rationalists like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin?
Finally, if I may ask you the same question? If it’s shown that most key Founders were not orthodox Trinitarian Christians but theistic rationalists, why would that bother you?
August 7th, 2007 at 1:31 am
I was going to get to this eventually, but since we are on topic…James Wilson on Reason and Revelation. As you quoted him:
“But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God.”
The theistic rationalists believed in both reason and revelation and that reason and revelation mostly agreed (at least some of them did; Jefferson believed in both reason and revelation, but cut out with his razor a whole lot of revelation from his Bible).
Yet they believed God primarily revealed himself through nature not scripture (in other words, even though parts of the Bible were inspired, parts were not; it is not infallible) and that man’s reason determined which biblical revelations were legitimately from God.
Once you understand this, reread what Wilson wrote and it’s clear it fits with theistic rationalism.
Moreover, let’s see what else Wilson wrote in Works:
“[T]he scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supersede the operations of reason and the moral sense.”
Wilson also denies the possibility of miracles in Works.
“This immutability of nature’s laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself.”
– Works, I:124
Spoken like a true theistic rationalist.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:59 am
I’ll do one more post for now; it would be rude to leave more.
If you want to know my motivation in debunking the Christian Nation idea, I write about it here.
One thing I’ve noticed in your responses (I noted last post), you have a tendency, when trying to show the Founders were Bible believing Christians, to attack a straw man by showing them criticizing atheism, strict deism or the excesses of the French Revolution. Adams, like Hamilton hated the French Revolution. And both Adams and Franklin attacked the strict deism and anti-religiosity of Thomas Paine.
The theistic rationalists (including Franklin and Jefferson) did not want to abolish religion. On the contrary, they supported “religion,” thought it indispensable to society. Though, it was not the “Christian religion” only, but rather “religion” in general, including systems you would regard as heretical and downright pagan.
Jefferson and Madison too supported “religion”; they just thought it violated natural right to directly fund churches with tax dollars (whereas Adams and Washington had no problem with that).
And by “religion,” they included orthodox Trinitarian Christianity (though they disagreed with some of its key doctrines). They thought most if not all world religions taught what they valued in Christianity — that there is a Providence who governs the world and will ultimately reward good and punish evil. That’s first and foremost what people needed to believe. The evangelical Christian Churches taught this, and so did non-Christian Churches. As pro-religionists, they’d support whatever “religion” “the people” choose, Christian or not. As Franklin put it in his autobiography:
Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.
Again, show me something from Washington, Madison, Hamilton (before the end of his life), G. Morris, or James Wilson that contradicts this. I’ve quotations from Washington and Madison speaking to Native Americans and referring to God as “The Great Spirit,” exactly as Indians did. Google the words “The Great Spirit” and you will see this clearly is not the Biblical God, but a pagan god.
I’ve seen Christians take umbrage at the notion that Allah is the God of Abraham in the Old Testament as he claims to be. The Indians’ “Great Spirit” doesn’t even claim to be the God of Abraham.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Jonathan:
You say I did not present sufficient evidence, and that I did not answer your points directly. I am sorry if my writing was sloppy, and therefore you didn’t understand (I have been writing things in a hurry these days, due to lack of time to sit down and focus all of my attention on writing — I don’t live at my computer screen). But I don’t understand why the quotes I have been presenting are “not sufficient.” For instance, how can it be argued that Hamilton was a “theistic rationalist” when he attacked it (before the 1800s!)? I have presented the quote numerous times. I don’t know why that is insufficient in that case.
You say that the “state of nature” theory used in “The Farmer Refuted” is incompatible with Scripture, because Hamilton did not make reference to the Bible or use “Trinitarian language.”
?!?!?!
The Bible itself never mentions the word “Trinity” or “triune”; so what??? And before you begin denouncing the Founders’ statements as “incompatible with Scripture,” why don’t you –
A) study the Bible, and
B) read the writings of men like Locke (who quoted the Bible VERY often in his writings, and apparently relied upon its basic principles — Locke attacked religious hypocrites and those who wished to use religion for their selfish ends, but real Christians do not use the Bible to empower themselves and Locke never attacked the Bible). And John Locke certainly never held that his ideas were either incompatible with the Bible, or that reason must “smell check” the Scriptures. He believed just the opposite (unless he was a FANTASTIC liar):
“The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture. But I must confess to your lordship, that I do not perceive any such contrariety in any thing in my Essay of Human Understanding.”
~Postscript to “A Letter to the Right Rev. Edward … concerning some passages relating to Mr. Locke’s ‘Essay on Human Understanding.’”
(BTW, the source of the quote above demonstrates that Locke was a believer in the Trinity, and he was trying to defend himself from “the Right Reverend Edward’s” seeming implication that Locke was un-Trinitarian):
“If your lordship had showed me any thing in my book, that contained or implied any opposition in it to any thing revealed in holy writ concerning the Trinity, or any other doctrine contained in the bible, I should have been thereby obliged to your lordship for freeing me from that mistake, and for affording me an opportunity to own to the world that obligation, by publicly retracting my errour.”
Just to make the issue clearer, what part of Scripture is “incompatible” with the state of nature idea? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the state of nature concept in comparison the what the Scriptures actually say.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Jonathan — in response to your comment:
“What I want to see are statements from Hamilton (before 1800 when he did his work founding the nation) that show he believed in orthodox Christian not this system.
“So far you’ve shown nothing of the kind. You’ve knocked down some atheistic or perhaps strict deist strawman. But when you reproduce Hamilton criticizing someone because he “disbelieved the existence of an intelligent, superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge, of the universe” you simply prove my point.”
What about the quote from Hamilton (written during the 1790s) when he attacked, not STRICT deism, but “theistic rationalism” (acknowledging God, but saying that He only reveals Himself through nature and not Scripture or anything else)?!?!?!?!? Here is the quote AGAIN:
“Opinions, for a long time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threaten the foundations of religion, morality, and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture, but the being and attributes of GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained and cherished.”
How can the “attack upon Christian revelation” be anything other than “theistic rationalism?!?!? Hamilton certainly went on the attack atheism as even worse, but here, he is talking about “rationalism,” is he not?
August 8th, 2007 at 3:24 am
I’m also busy working on things; so we can take this conversation slow and let things unfold over time. [So just because I don't answer all your points doesn't meant I can't or won't in the short future, if you don't mind.
.]
That said, I don’t see Hamilton’s quotation from the 1790s, read in context, as attacking theistic rationalism (what Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams, without question believed), but rather attacking the excesses of the French Revolution, which ultimately, in Hamilton’s eyes, led to strict deism and eventually atheism.
What Hamilton said:
“Opinions, for a long time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threaten the foundations of religion, morality, and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural religion was offered as the substitute.”
“Natural religion” as in “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” … as in what can be understood about God and the universe from man’s reason. Christians can believe in both natural and revealed religion as long as revealed religion and the tenets of orthodox Christianity take precedence. Deists entirely discard revelation and view the concept of “Christianity” in a negative sense. Theistic rationalists, like Christians, believed in both reason and revelation but elevated reason over revelation. And some theistic rationalists (like Jefferson and Adams) embraced the “Christian” label, but believed orthodox Trinitarian Christianity (and the Bible itself) to be “corrupted.”
“The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture”
A very strong statement. Even Jefferson, the most “deistic” of the theistic rationalists, believed only parts (big parts) of the Bible to be “gross imposture.” Paine, on the other hand, rejected the entire thing.
“but the being and attributes of GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained and cherished.”
Notice this is what Hamilton regarded as “the being and attributes of GOD” — “the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments,” — that’s what it was about “religion” that the theistic rationalists valued. And Hamilton doesn’t seem to be complaining about that, but rather on the extreme attack made on the “Christian revelation.”
Hamilton admits that “the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments” are what God is all about. He just didn’t like the extreme attack on the Christian religion.
What you wrote:
How can the “attack upon Christian revelation” be anything other than “theistic rationalism?!?!?
That’s not how the theistic rationalists viewed themselves. They didn’t see themselves as “enemies” or “attackers” of “the Christian religion,” but, on the contrary, as defenders of “Christianity” and “religion” as such ought to understood, — theologically unitarian and universalist, and where only the reasonable parts of the Gospels were retained, the “unreasonable” parts thrown out. They did believe, contra the strict deists, that some, revelation was legitimately given by God.
The theistic rationalists, unlike the strict deists of the French Revolution, didn’t want to “abolish” the Christian religion, but wanted it to turn into something more sober and rational. (But “sober and rational” in their minds = theologically unitarian and ended up throwing out so many tenets of orthodox Christianity, that arguably speaking, the “Christian” religion of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Madison, ceased being “Christian”).
August 24th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Hi Hercules,
I’ve read all the posts by Jonathon and yourself, I can’t help but use common sense, and not try and twist the meaning of the concepts.
It is common sense that the framers believed as the Christian Philosophers do that reason is flawed. Hercules, you did a fine job of bringing that concept to light. “Right Reason” is what is needed to take out the flaws. It is a FACT the framers knew this, especially Wilson, as his mentor Richard Hooker, elaborated heavily on it.
It is by common sense that God’s revelation has to be superior than reason, if reason is flawed.
This concept the framers understood, and would not embarrass themselves to violate.
I will hold and affirm there is no evidence whatsoever of Adams, Hamilton, and Madison affirming reason superior to revelation while they formed the govt.
Adams’ quote here does not show supremacy of reason over revelation, but that the “right reason” is needed to discern God’s moral law:
“To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.”– John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson’s, “The Founders on Religion,” p. 132.
If reason is flawed, how can it know the correct will of God? The only way is to find out from the bible. Adams denied only the Deity of Jesus Christ, affirming the rest of the bible while in govt.
My understanding is on solid ground as Adams affirmed reason by revelation. Adams was a unitarian, he only became a universalist by his relationship with Jefferson, after he left govt.
MARCH 2, 1756: Began this afternoon my third quarter. The great and Almighty author of nature, who at first established those rules which regulate the world,can as easily suspend those laws whenever his providence sees sufficient reason for such suspension. This can be no objection, then, to the miracles of Jesus Christ. Although some very thoughtful and contemplative men among the heathen attained a strong persuasion of the great principles of religion, yet the far greater number, having little time for speculation, gradually sunk into the grossest opinions and the grossest practices. These, therefore,could not be made to embrace the true religion till their attention was roused by some astonishing and miraculous appearances. The reasoning of philosophers,having nothing surprising in them, could not overcome the force of prejudice, custom, passion, and bigotry.
I haven’t read anything contrary to these sentiments, granted he was only twenty-one, until after Adams left govt. Of which, he was a unitarian, not a rationalist, or deist.
Same with Hamilton and more so with Madison. Madison could only be labeled a universalist AFTER he formed the govt:
“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.
Memorial and Remonstrance 1785
“This miraculous aid is the aid God provided to the early church, as recorded in the Book of Acts. Paul and Peter raising people from the dead, Peter and John healing a lame man,Peter striking dead Ananias and Sapphira with his words,sudden earthquakes, and many other supernatural events like prison locks automatically opening to free the Apostle Paul.
Hercules, you have quoted sufficiently regarding Hamilton not being a rationalist.
Maybe Wilson did deny miracles, but there is no evidence that he believed the other scriptures were not superior to reason, quite the contrary, or that he was a universalist.
It means only Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin were considered rationalists while forming the nation. A far cry from a majority of the “key founders” being rationalists.
If there is evidence contrary to this post, I would be obliged to see it.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:59 am
OFT:
I think that you put it very well, that there is a great lack of evidence that the majority of the Founders believed that reason had more authority than the Bible. I would not, however, include Washington in the list of rationalists. I have seen no evidence that leads me to conclude that he was a rationalist. All the “anti-Christian nation” people have to offer is that he (1) did not express his religious creed expressly, and that (2) he did not talk a lot about “Jesus” or “the Trinity.” Hence they fall into the great abyss of warped logic, and say that because he did not talk about these things, he did not believe in them. They may as well just as forcefully assert that just because I don’t talk about computers doesn’t mean I don’t believe in them or think that they are irrelevant to my life.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I would not, however, include Washington in the list of rationalists. I have seen no evidence that leads me to conclude that he was a rationalist.>>
In this case, I’ve did some homework on Washington, and there is no doubt in my mind he was a mason. The testimony is irrefuetable. The biggest proof in my opinion of Washington’s lack of belief in the Deity of Jesus Christ is not that he never took communion with his wife, but that the eyewitness accounts that he WALKED OUT of communion.
Not only that, but his closest friends intimated that he did not believe Jesus was God, Gouverneur Morris, for example.
Another indicator of his lack of belief is his personal rejection of Jesus Christ in public. He was cornered at a dinner, once and a person asked him about his faith in Jesus Christ, and he said nothing and walked out.
He who rejects me in front of men, him will I reject in front of the Father.
Jesus
It is just my opinion, Rowe has no legs to stand on when proclaiming Hamilton, Madison, or Adams when forming the govt, rationalists.
In the Lord
August 28th, 2007 at 1:56 am
OFT:
I will write more extensively upon this subject, naming the evidence pro and con on my Founders blog in the future (I am very sorry that much of what I have promised to write is not yet posted; some of the posts only have a few finishing touches before I add them to my blogs. Soon they will be up).
For now, I will just address your points one by one.
(1)It is true that Washington was a member of the freemasonic fraternity; however, in America, it was not generally a deistic or occultic group as it clearly is now. Washington, especially after the French and Indian War, when he was initiated, he was not very involved in the fraternity, and even said that he had not been in a lodge since approx. 1770. Other Founding Fathers, such as John Hancock and John Dickinson, were freemasons also, and yet their writings clearly show that they believed in Jesus as the Divine Redeemer. So, someone’s being a mason back then had no implications as far as believing Jesus was divine or not (at least this was the case in America) until about 1812, according to David Barton.
(2)Walking out of a communion service, though seeming offensive to the majority of Christians both past and present, does not involve a rejection of Jesus’ deity. I have never attended a communion service, and yet I am a firm believer in the divinity of Jesus, and in the complete infallibility of the Word of God. The communion, as was the case in the Anglican and Episcopalian denominations overall, was believed to become the actual blood and body of Christ Himself once the communicant partook of the sacrements (not ALL ministers in Protestant Episcopacy believed this, but it was the predominant concept). This belief is anti-scriptural, and was a belief that was inherited by the Anglicans (and therefore, the Episcopalians in general) from the Catholics, who merely took the pagan rituals of ancient Egypt and Rome and gave them Christian icons and symbols. So, there is the possibility that Washington abstained from the Eucharist for this reason. One of the church buildings that he had much influence in designing and building, purposely avoided and departed from much of the Catholic traditions, including the Catholic emphasis on iconography. There are many other reasons that Washington did not always attend the communions services (there are some testimonies, including one from Alexander Hamilton’s widow) that Washington did take communion on special occasions.
(3) I am not aware that Gouverneur Morris denied Washington’s Christianity, in any of the writings of Morris. The only source of Morris’ testimony, that I am aware of, comes from Jefferson, who said that Morris, whom Jefferson perceived was an infidel (Morris thought the same of Jefferson), said that “Washington believed in the system of Christianity no more than Morris himself did.” Jefferson is not a completely trustworthy source of the times and people that he wrote about years after the events occurred and after those people were dead. Jefferson’s claims about several of his political enemies, such as Patrick Henry and General Philip Schuyler, were refuted by the descendants of these men, because they possessed the papers of their progenitors. I have given another specific example of the frequent falsity of Jefferson’s testimonies on Washington in this post. But let’s say that Morris did say what Jefferson said Morris did; Morris’ meaning may have been construed by Jefferson’s statement that Morris was an atheist (John Eidsmoe presents quotes from G. Morris in his book Christianity & the Founders, and these show that Morris was no atheist).
(4) I have never heard that Washington walked out of the conversation you mention; where is the source of that? I would like to look into that more deeply. If it is true, then Washington was either very strict about revealing the tenets of his own religion (and most Episcopalians were at the time, for reasons unknown to me), or, your assertion that Washington was not a firm believer is probably accurate. Can you please show me the source of this account?
This comment is longer than I intended it to be. But I hope I got somewhere. Thanks for reading my blog, and commenting (and for excusing my very long replies).
August 31st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
“Did the Founders base their ideology on reason alone, on revelation, or on both?” will determine whether America really is a government of man or of Law.>>
Great question, I will wait for your answer. I think your post on why revelation is superior to reason is perfectly consistent with common sense. I don’t see any secularist refuted your post, great job!
OFT
September 1st, 2007 at 1:33 am
Hi OFT.
I think a good part of my answer (I hope a satisfactory part of it, anyway) is in the post “Reason v. Revelation, Part 2.” The Founders are quoted referring to reason and revelation, and so I think the answer is this: the majority of the Founders believed that reason is not superior to revelation (since reason is imperfect and God isn’t), but that it is the other way around; and that the Founders based their ideology using their rational faculties, yes, but they acknowledged their indebtedness to revelation as the illuminator of man’s reasoning.
I hope that sufficiently answers the question.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
but they acknowledged their indebtedness to revelation as the illuminator of man’s reasoning.>>
That’s what I believe. Ironic that Franklin said man needed to be “illuminated by the Father of Lights” which is the new birth, so he knew it, but wasn’t a recipient of it.
Leave a Comment