Thoughts on Reason, Revelation, and the Bible
Over the last several days, much discussion has ensued on this blog (and on my other blogs) touching upon the subject of the source of our Founders political beliefs and therefore, the ideological foundations of our government. In my last two posts, “Reason v. Revelation?” (parts one and two), I showed the quotes from our Founders themselves, which show that our Founders venerated the teachings of Scriptures (even though not all the Founders agreed with everything in the Bible), and viewed the Scriptures as the ultimate authority of law. They relied upon reason, yes; and they observed the law of nature. But as Sir William Blackstone succinctly put it, “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” (emphasis added). (1)
Any critical mind would ask in objection to Blackstone’s statement: “How can valid revelation be discovered and false revelation be rejected apart from reason? It is stupid just to blindly accept any statement just because it wears the label ‘revelation.’ ”
This question has much truth. Many people throughout the ages, and even up to this present time, have been led astray by false religions because the religious leader claimed to have a divine revelation from heaven. Many pagan religions rely upon the ignorance of masses in order to accumulate large followings. But perhaps many people would have known the truth, if they had simply thought things through rationally for themselves, instead of placing blind faith in a religion of which they had no proof. Students of history have observed the tragic outcomes of the abuse of “divine revelation,” and several have concluded that everything must pass the “smell test” of human reason, so that the truth will be known, and falsehoods avoided.
This sounds like a rational proposition. However, there is one logical problem with this prescription for the human problem of determining truth:
Absolute truth cannot be discovered by reason alone. Men do not just reason, without making assumptions upon which to base their reason. One cannot determine the dimensions of an object without having a system of measurements. Reason is like a ruler; but the ruler is not a ruler unless it bears the markings of the measuring system its user recognizes. Just as the use of the ruler is reliant upon a basic system of measurements, so the use of reason is reliant upon a set of basic assumptions.
An understanding of this concept is essential. Throughout history, intellectuals have observed and scrutinized pieces of data, and come up with different conclusions. Why is this the case? Men have made different assumptions, and reason in different manners, and therefore, though they do reason, they come to different conclusions. Sometimes these conclusions are not easy to reconcile!
The set of assumptions that men make, and which form the basis of their reasoning, is called a “basic belief system.” The basic belief system is often heavily grounded in one’s religion (one’s outlook on himself, the world around him, and his responsibilities to whatever was ultimately responsible for his existence). Religion, then, forms the basis of reason. Ah, but wait! What is to check the accuracy of one’s religion? “Reason, of course!” one might say. True. One must have a reasonable religion. But that still does not negate the fact that one reason’s on a basic belief system. We “reason” so as to calculate mathematical equations based upon the assumption that 1×1=1, or that 7×0=0. Perhaps our rational faculties cannot comprehend every detail of why this is so, but when the mathematical equations based upon those assumptions are put into practical use, they always serve a valuable purpose, and they always work.
In the same way, religion is somewhat assumptive, but not necessarily blindly assumptive. For example, the Christian religion believes that there is one God who created the world, that He created the natural systems and organisms around us for our benefit, and that He is a good and just God. Our reason cannot comprehend Him, though we can discover that He exists with our reason (if we are willing to be honest and admit His existence). We do not see Him, cannot feel Him, or most of the time audibly hear Him. Our minds cannot comprehend everything in His nature; nor can our reason discover why He does everything that He does. But we have just as much a reason to trust in God and commit ourselves to Him, as a little infant does his mother, even though he does not understand everything about his mother. It is reasonable to make the logical assumption that God, who created this world and ourselves out of nothing, knows far more than we do. Throughout history, He has given us innumerable proofs of His goodness and faithfulness, and therefore we can trust Him when He says things that we may not understand or comprehend with our logic. If one acknowledges God’s existence because of his own logic, but places his logic on an equal level with God, that man serves his own limited brain, and not God, and therefore is guilty, in God’s eyes, of idolatry. Deists are not the true disciples of God therefore, because although they acknowledges that He exists, they shut out all ways for Him to communicate with them, His own creation. Their brain, therefore, is their source of truth and morality, and although some of their postulations may be true, yet they shall always be limited from understanding the most important truth, which is only revealed clearly and explicitly in the Scriptures.
This of course, brings up the question of the validity of the Bible. There are many portions which seem “unreasonable,” such as the Trinity, the birth of Jesus by a virgin, His miracles, resurrection, and so on. But such accounts are not unreasonable at all. We cannot fully comprehend them with our reason, but (I appeal to my previous statement) it is perfectly rational to make the logical assumption that a God who made this world and the laws by which it operates (this fact CAN be confirmed by the observation of nature coupled with reason) can 1) supersede those laws of nature, 2) create the X-chromosome out of nothing that it took for Jesus’ birth, 3) cause Jesus to rise from the dead, and 4) exist in an essence that cannot be fully comprehended by the human mind.*
*Dr. D. James Kennedy quotes a distinguished theologian, who compares the Trinity to the “trinity” of time, in his book Why I Believe. This passage is truly fascinating, and I think gives much clarity to the theological dispute over the Trinity.
The Bible has never been debunked scientifically, historically, logically, or in any other way. These fields have only corroborated what the Bible says (and some of these fields owe their very progress to the Bible, such as in the case of science). Many atheists and skeptics who have searched out the Bible, in an effort to disprove it or look for errors have not only become Christians, but defenders of the faith. Among these people are Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, both of whom have published books on this subject. If the Bible, then, has been found to be true to such an astonishing degree, even though some questions to minor details still remain, why then, can we not trust it as the word of God? Here are philosopher John Locke’s words on the subject:
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 [sic]. 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. (2)
My main interest in the historical analysis is first understanding what the Founders believed, not whether they were right. On a personal note, my own religious beliefs are far more agnostic than Jefferson’s, Franklin’s, Adams’ et al. (as each firmly believed in an active, personal Divine Providence).
On the other hand, Dr. Gregg Frazer, whose work on the key Founders I endorse as the one that best understands their creed, is, like you, an evangelical Trinitarian Christian, and, as such, personally believes they were wrong on their conclusions about God.
Jefferson’s, Adams’, and Franklin’s beliefs ought not be in dispute as they clearly told us what they believed.
With the other key Founders, though there is some room for debate, given their reticence to explicate their specific creed, Washington, Madison, Wilson, G. Morris, and Hamilton (before his son’s death) were likewise theistic rationalists.
And that means they believed in an active person God, one to whom men ought to pray, but also that such God primarily revealed himself through nature, not scripture, and as such, the Bible is only partially inspired.
This post is only making clear my beliefs, and the logic behind them. It is not necessarily to declare whether or not the Founders were right or wrong in their religious beliefs. This post was meant merely to clarify where I had been coming from in light of my two previous posts.
“With the other key Founders, though there is some room for debate, given their reticence to explicate their specific creed, Washington, Madison, Wilson, G. Morris, and Hamilton (before his son’s death) were likewise theistic rationalists.
“And that means they believed in an active person God, one to whom men ought to pray, but also that such God primarily revealed himself through nature, not scripture, and as such, the Bible is only partially inspired.”
Question A: How does a “reticence to explicate their specific creed” prove that they were theistic rationalists? In the case of Hamilton, that selection you have referred to in “The Farmer Refuted” is compatible with Christianity AND rationalism. I haven’t found any writings of Hamilton in which he preferred theistic rationalism to Christianity, but rather that he believed the Christian religion to be true. You argue that certain Founders must have been theistic rationalists because they did not expressly declare a Christian creed. I argue that because certain Founders (Washington, Hamilton, G. Morris, others) did not expressly declare a creed that agreed ONLY with theistic rationalism and NOT compatible with Christianity, that they were NOT theistic rationalists (or at least that it cannot be PROVED that they DEFINITELY WERE rationalists).
Question B: You said: “they believed in an active person God, one to whom men ought to pray, but also that such God primarily revealed himself through nature, not scripture, and as such, the Bible is only partially inspired.”
Where are the quotes that prove that statement to be true? That’s not what the Founders (like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, etc) said in my “Part Two” post.
One reason why “reticence to explicate their specific creed” points to their belief in “infidel” principles was because the context of the times — orthodox Churches had more social and institutional power — they expected men to affirm the tenets of orthodox Christianity. It was well-known that many men in elite circles didn’t believe in orthodox Christianity (I can point you to Bishop Meade’s testimony on the infidelity rife in Virgina and at William and Mary during the Founding), but they had to keep their opinion to themselves, else their public reputations be damaged or worse, face legal penalty at the state level.
They were coming out of a time where legal penalties for publicly denying orthodox Christianity could be DEATH – see Unitarian Servetus being burned at the stake in Calvin’s Geneva simply for denying the Trinity. In fact, one of their major projects was to try and transcend this illiberal aspect of Chistendom’s history.
Here is a link to a great paper by historian James H. Hutson from the library of Congress, who is regarded as anti-secularist and friendly towards religious conservatives (he’s even appeared on a few of D. James Kennedy’s specials). Hutson notes that Madison probably briefly flirted with orthodox Christianity in college, but then:
Two months later Madison renounced his spiritual prospects and began the study of law… For the rest of his life there is no mention in his writings of Jesus Christ nor of any of the issues that might concern practicing Christians. Late in retirement there are a few enigmatic references to religion, but nothing else.
Hutson then features quotations from Bishop Meade noting Madison’s “religious feeling, however seems to have been short lived. His political associates [with] those of infidel principles, of whom there were many in his day, if they did not actually change his creed, yet subjected him to a general suspicion of it.” Meade also noted when he talked religion with at his house, Madison “left the impression on my mind that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible.”
Finally, Hutson reports eyewitness testimony of a dinner converation between Madison and a Unitarian. Madison asked the man about “how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.”
Hutson ends up stating Madison probably believed in one of the many variations of “Deism,” not strict deism, but something “deist-like.” What I refer to as theistic rationalism.
I would agree with you that there is a lack of “smoking guns” with Wilson, Morris, Washington, and Hamilton (before his son’s death, after which he certainly became Christian — on Hamilton later I’ll show you some testimony of family members stating his religious views CHANGED after his son’s death, which suggest a born-again experience AFTER 1800), that we have to put pieces together.
I hope, at least, what I’ve shown you about Madison sheds light on why keeping religious secrets circumstantially point towards disbelief in orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.
For your second question.
In Part II, what you reproduce from Madison doesn’t have him quoting scripture but rather speaking about a generic, active personal “Almighty.” Hamilton’s statement attacks the descent of the French Revolution into strict deism and then atheism, not rejecting the more moderate position of men like Adams and Franklin (both of whom attacked the strict deism of Thomas Paine!). And you also offer quotations from Franklin and Adams showing they believed some scripture to be legitimate. When you look at the writings of those last two in toto they make clear they believed God revealed himself primarily through nature, discoverable by reason, and secondarily through scripture. This was the approach towards the Bible that “the most liberal and enlightened men” (as Franklin put it) of his age took.
What you reproduced from Washington’s Circular to the States seems entirely consistent with Franklin’s and Adams’ “enlightened” approach towards scripture. There, Washington promotes all sorts of Enlightenment ideas like “researches of the human mind,” and “the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers.” Before he mentions scripture, he qualifies his statements with “the growing liberality of sentiment,” and refers to “the pure and benign light of revelation” (I’ve emphasized that part to show Washington viewing scripture through the lens of “reason” or “enlightenment”).
Even Peter Lillback notes, without question, Washington was a man of the Enlightenment. His response is GW was a man of the “Christian Enlightenment,” and as with Freemasonry, there is no necessary conflict between Enlightenment and Christianity.
Perhaps, but the elite, enlightened Whigs of Founding era America, thought, or were likely to think in a particular way on religion and most other things.
And Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, in detai,l explicated the enlighted religious creed of that era, which was theistic rationalism.
I would like to see those quotes from Hamilton’s family that you mentioned. I have seen several quotes from his son John C. in which he said:
“His religious feelings grew with his growing intimacy with the marvelous works of nature, all pointing in their processes and their results to a great pervading, ever active Cause,” etc.
However, I have never heard ANY testimony that his religion ever CHANGED after his son died.
Actually,
You featured a number of these quotations on your Hamilton post. Two of them are:
“Genl. Hamilton has of late years expressed his conviction in the truths of the Christian Religion, and has desired to receive the Sacrament — but no one of the Clergy who has yet been consulted will administer it.” [my emphasis]
~ Oliver Wolcott to his wife
SOURCE: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, edited by Harold Syrett and Jacob Cooke, volume XXVI, page 317
“He [Hamilton] labored intensely, and, withdrawn for a time from politics, sought and found relief from the painful reflections which growing delusion of the country forced upon him, in the duties of religion, in the circle of domestic joys, and in the embellishment of his rural retreat [the Grange].”
“As it may add to the consolation of your respected mother, I think it well to say, that is has been and is my full belief, formed as I think on strong reasons, that if your father’s life had been spared, no great portion of time would have elapsed before the Christian religion would have found in him a public professor and a most able advocate and defender.”
~ General W. North to James A. Hamilton June 3, 1824
SOURCE: Reminiscences of Men and Events, by James Alexander Hamilton, p. 34
Apparently, according to North, before his death, Hamilton wasn’t much of a “defender” of the Christian religion.
If you understand the dates and the context of his son’s death on your Hamilton page, I read those quoations as supporting Hamilton’s end of life conversion to orthodox Christianity.
Hamilton reportedly made a number of wisecracks about God which may turn out to have been apocryphal. But I have uncovered some real quotations of religious wisecracks from his earlier life which suggest he didn’t take the Christian religion quite as seriously as he did before he died.
“He is just what I should like for a military parson except that he does not whore or drink,…”
– July 6, 1780 letter to General Anthony Wayne.
I’ve seen some earlier reproductions of this quotation that leave out “whore” part. Yet, Douglas Adair and a number of other scholars reproduce it as written above.
I have a Hamilton fan reader who won’t believe Hamilton said this until he sees the handwritten letter, which I haven’t.
There is nothing in these quotes that indicates that Hamilton’s religion “CHANGED,” only that he expressed his firm belief in it in later years. He also expressed his firm belief in Christianity in his youth, and when atheism and deism pervaded France and threatened to infiltrate the higher society of America, Hamilton did not defend “theistic rationalism,” but CHRISTIANITY.
As to the quote you presented from 1780, you are merely preferring a certain version of an unconfirmed writing, merely because it supports your thesis. The rumor that Hamilton made smarmy remarks about “foreign aid” was contradicted in a letter by Madison, and by his notes at the Convention (and, as I have pointed out in other places, Hamilton proposed public prayer himself, in 1797).
Your thesis is built upon a shaky foundation, and yet when Hamilton’s own words, which supersede anything anyone ever said about him (unless those eyewitnesses could prove him a hypocrite).
Another note: if Hamilton was a creep as this recently revised quote (or rather, it’s interpretation by modern authors), then why would Hamilton be General Washington’s FAVORITE aide-de-camp. Washington was very particular about morality, especially among officers in the army. None of them were perfect, but Washington did his best to never let such debauched behavior go unpunished. Washington’s “General Orders” illustrate this truth very clearly.
One more comment on the Gen. North quote:
This quote does not prove that Hamilton never previously defended Christianity. There is a quote from Hamilton’s personal friend Chancellor James Kent, in which Kent said:
“I have very little doubt that if General Hamilton had lived twenty years longer, he would have rivaled Socrates or Bacon, or any other of the sages of ancient or modern times, in researches after truth and in benevolence to mankind.”
(History of the Republic by J. C. Hamilton, 7:792)
Does this quote mean that Hamilton was not just that, merely because he did not live longer?
Hamilton be General Washington’s FAVORITE aide-de-camp. Washington was very particular about morality, especially among officers in the army.
I agree that Washington was concerned with morality; though his republican sense of virtue often paralleled the traditional Christian sense of virtue, the two didn’t always perfectly match up. For instance, his favorite play CATO, one after which he modeled his personal sense of morality and behavior, glorified a very un-Christian act — suicide.
Washington wasn’t quite as intolerant about morality as you make him out to be. Esp. with his troops, he was more concerned that morality led to order. He didn’t want to see moral problems lead to public problems. For instance, he cautioned G. Morris to be more careful, but didn’t seem to stop feeling affection for a man whose sex life was more active than Bill Clinton’s (Morris was an avid adulterer and fornicator, and went so far as to purposefully try to impregnate a married woman!)
Baron Von Steuben may well have been a homosexual pederast, but Washington had no interest in pursuing the claim after he heard rumors. And the one instance where Washington court martialed someone for sodomy, it was almost certainly a case of attempted rape. Few if any sodomy prosecutions at common law involved consensual acts. And notice in that case, only ONE soldier was court martialed, the other an innocent party. How do you have one soldier attempting to commit sodomy with another — an innocent party — and the act still be consensual?
Washington was also completely accepting of Hamilton after he admitted his affair with Maria Reynolds.
I certainly don’t see personal moral problems being a deal-breaker for friendship and affection on GW’s part.
The quotation from Hamilton, by the way, is not unconfirmed. The only thing that is in dispute is whether the part about whoring is valid. This is what it looked like in at least one book published as far back as 1904.
TO GENERAL ANTHONY WAYNE
July 6, 1780.
DEAR GENERAL:
Doctor W. Mendy is one of those characters that for its honesty, simplicity, and helplessness interests my humanity. He is exceedingly anxious to be in the service, and, I believe, has been forced out of it not altogether by fair play. He is just what I should like for a military parson, except that he does not drink. He will fight, and he will not insist upon your going to heaven whether you will or not. He tells me there is a vacancy in your brigade. I should be really happy if, through your influence, he can fill it. Pray take care of the good old man.1
He still doesn’t sound quite orthodox, joking about a minister drinking and not insisting upon people going to heaven.
Though the Hamilton papers, Harold Coffin Syrett edition, includes the quotation with “he does not whore or drink,…”
Either the later editions insterted it to make him look bad or earlier editions deleted it to make him look not so bad; personally I think the former is a much worse thing to do and it is more realistic to think that someone would delete something from Hamilton’s writings, sweep something under the rug, to help preserve his image.
You may be interested in this the comment thread where a person like minded to you pretty much says he refuses to believe the “whore” part untill he sees it written in a manuscript.
I can always email some professional historians to try to get to the bottom of this if you’d like.
Hamilton was also, btw, rumored to have a zipper problem, which rumors were confirmed by the Maria Reynolds affair.
John Adams called him a “bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar,” who had a “superabundance of secretions which he could not find whores enough to draw off.” Adams decried “the profligacy of his life; his fornications, adulteries and his incests.”
Abigail wasn’t much nicer. “Oh, I have read his heart in his wicked eyes. The very devil is in them. They are lasciviousness itself.”
Jonathan:
(One note of caution)
For the sake of being polite, I would heartily recommend that you be a little more discrete (i.e., less gory details) when such issues as these are discussed. My request.
As to your first response on Washington:
Washington’s motives in demanding moral conduct in his officers doesn’t need your opinion. Trying to judge the intent is not part of the issue being discussed here. Washington’s gift to Hamilton, in token of his firm friendship and support, was dated previous to the date when Hamilton published the Reynolds pamphlet, according to the PAH, ed. by Syrett, and the Writings of Washington, ed. by Fitzpatrick. And even if it wasn’t, Hamilton was truly repentant, and Washington certainly must have recognized that.
Washington was indeed strict where morality was concerned, although not everyone who knew Washington was faultless. The image you paint of G. Morris and A. Hamilton is based upon rumors and ill-opinion, but not solid proof of their profligacy. The only proof in Hamilton’s case that he was ever guilty of infidelity is in the Reynolds case. But his life and writings show that he repented, and that in general, he was very loyal to his family, and that he took his marital vows seriously. King David in the Bible was also guilty of similar sin, but he was not a profligate, and he too repented. It is faulty logic to attribute one instance to someone’s entire character without proof.
As far as G. Morris goes, I don’t know enough about him to write a book, but such a picture of him as you give is also reliant on rumors and opinions reaped over time. I have read several of Morris’ writings, and he seemed to be pretty opposed to such sleeze. I can’t produce a documentary debunking everything you just said, but just because a modern biographer said it doesn’t make it valid or credible.
The Hamilton letter in question is useless to debate unless we know for sure what it says. Otherwise, we are just playing speculation-go-round. As far as emailing people about the original, do what you like. I am not here to discuss smear-tactics and speculating over dirt; and if speculation should remain predominant, I will abruptly leave the discussion.
Morris admitted in his own diaries and letters to being an unrepentant fornicator and adulterer.
Do you accept Brookhiser as an authority on the Founders? He confirms this in his book on what would the Founders do.
Just to add to the moderator’s comment about Hamilton and his morality according to John Adams: surely a politician (Adams, who was, by the way, notorious for outbursts of anger) who directed such foul and vehement language against a political opponent (Hamilton) is not to be trusted as a reliable source when judging that man’s character.
Thanks for your comment, Rob! And thanks for reading my blog.
This observation you made does have some truth to it; Adams was prone to loose his temper, especially where Hamilton was concerned, because he saw Hamilton (he must have been loathe to see Jefferson completely this way) as stirring up opposition to his presidential administration. It is true that Hamilton was all too happy to advise Adams’ cabinet (although McHenry, Pickering, and Wolcott did not literally take their orders from Hamilton; they sometimes disagreed with him), and Adams was peeved by his cabinet relying upon Hamilton, and therefore preventing Adams from fully leading his own administration. When Adams indicated that Hamilton was part of a “British faction,” and lost his temper and fired McHenry (who had been a very close friend of Hamilton’s), Hamilton lost HIS temper, and whipped up a pamphlet attacking Adams mostly for Adams’ hot temper and his alleged “insanity fits.” Hamilton himself, however, was not responsible for getting the pamphlet published (his friends had urged him not to do so, but to suppress it). However, Aaron Burr got his hands on a copy, and had it published without permission from Hamilton, so that Burr might divide the Federalist Party, and elevate himself to the office of US President.
Adams, of course, blamed Hamilton for the humiliation and defeat that he had suffered, and Hamilton was partially responsible (Hamilton, too, had his moments of outbursts of anger). Sadly, however, Hamilton and Adams never seemed to have realized that their troubles had probably not originated with each other, but rather elements within the other party — elements such as Burr himself.
This is a longer comment than I expected it to be, but I hope it was informative.
Excellent essay.
Since when does being angry make a person immoral? Jesus was angry many times. He called people vipers and demons.
I agree Mrs. Mecomber; anger does not make a person immoral. I’m SURE none of those who oppose the “Christian nation” idea EVER have their outbursts of anger in their private communications with confidential friends. Adams and Hamilton both had their outbursts of anger towards one another — so who was more at fault? Hamilton was certainly at fault for being a bad example in the instance of the affair, and it was certainly unwise of him to take advantage of the dependence that Adams’ cabinet had on him. Adams was apparently provoked by both of these things, and lost his temper. He probably accused Hamilton falsely in several instances, and this caused Hamilton to react in anger as well, saying inappropriate things about Adams. So, in this way, Adams’ and Hamilton’s expressions of anger differed from those of Jesus, although it is true that just because Adams had a hot temper does not mean that he was evil or unduly provocative. His life reveals that he had a great desire to see justice and honesty done, and when it wasn’t, he was upset (I sympathize). So, just because he lost his temper at Hamilton or others doesn’t mean that Adams was a villain.
Thank you for reading and commenting on my post, Mrs. Mecomber.