Does it Really Matter If George Washington Took Communion or Not? II

For many months now Jon Rowe, Tom Van Dyke, and I have been discussing Jon's claim, via Dr. Gregg Frazer, that founding era Christians had to come up with new and creative ways to interpret the Bible to justify their resistance to what they perceived was tyranny. In short, Jon seems to think that these were "dissident" and "revisionist" views that were heavily influence by Enlightenment thinking. Tom Van Dyke and I point to the fact that resistance theory has a long tradition in both Catholic and Protestant political theology that, by far, pre-dates the Enlightenment.

This topic came up again in the comments section of Jon's post that references D.G. Hart's response to Peter Lillback. The discussion starts on the topic of whether there was a Hebrew Republic and gradually shifts to resistance theory and what is orthodox Christian political thought or not? Here is Tom Van Dyke setting the stage:

More "Extremes" from the Harvard Narrative?

In his last post Jon Rowe cited Paul Sigmund, of Princeton, reviewing John Marshall, of Johns Hopkins on John Locke. That piece contained this statement:

"Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but to show us the way to eternal life."

In the comments section I proposed changing that to the following:

"Locke believed that Christ died not to atone for Adam's sin, but for the sin of each individual."

I went back and read his notes on Romans 5:12-19 from The Works of John Locke, Volume 8 and it seems clear that he did not believe in original sin. You can read it for yourself, but in my reading I found no dispute with the first half of this statement quoted above from Jon's post.


Nonetheless, I do dispute the second half of the quote. I base this on reading Locke's notes on Romans 3:24 in which he stated this:

"For it is to God we are redeemed, by the death of Christ"

Thus my contention that Locke believed that Christ died for our personal sins.


Here is more from Locke on the topic of redemption from The Reasonableness of Christianity that brings some context to my quote above:

"IT is obvious to any one, who reads the New Testament, that the doctrine of redemption, and consequently of the gospel, is founded upon the supposition of Adam's fall. To understand, therefore, what we are restored to by Jesus Christ, we must consider what the scriptures show we lost by Adam. This I thought worthy of a diligent and unbiassed search : since I found the two extremes that men run into on this point, either on the one hand shook the foundations of all religion, or, on the other, made Christianity almost nothing : for while some men would have all Adam's posterity doomed to eternal, infinite punishment, for the transgression of Adam, whom millions had never heard of, and no one had authorised to transact for him, or be his representative ; this seemed to others so little consistent with the justice or goodness of the great and infinite God, that they thought there was no redemption necessary, and consequently, that there was none ; rather than admit of it upon a supposition so derogatory to the honour and attributes of that infinite Being ; and so made Jesus Christ nothing but the restorer and preacher of pure natural religion ; thereby doing violence to the whole tenour of the New Testament."

I think this says it all and gives us a true picture of what Locke taught about original sin and redemption. It also makes me wonder if the modern Locke scholars just ignore the things that do not align with their preconceived notions of Locke that do not fit with the "extremes" Locke warned against found in the Harvard Narrative? Locke seems to have had a problem with Augustine and Calvin, not the Bible.

The American Founding: A Big Tent of Diverse Interests

By King of Ireland with special thanks to Jonathan Rowe for editorial suggestions/changes that I adopted.

In my last series of posts, I attempted to start a dialogue around two questions I think better frame the "Christian Nation" debate in clearer context. The questions are:

1. Which Christian ideas, if any, helped bring us into the modern world?

And

2. Which Christian ideas, if any, derail us from progressing toward the modern world? 

Jack Goldstone's essay at "Cato Unbound", arguing "a community of free individuals sovereign over a limited state" created the engineering culture that launched the modern world, initially inspired the thought that produced this series of posts.

I argue the history of Christianity, properly understood, provided the fertile ground that launched modernity and as such those who invoke the authority of "science" and "rationality" should be less hostile, as many of them oft-seem, to what I term "rational Christianity," a theological system that helped bring about science, rationality and political liberty. Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and many American Founders stand as the best representatives of the "rational Christian" tradition that I defend.

I see America's Declaration of Independence -- a document that posits the universal natural ends of government -- as typifying "rational Christianity." Indeed it was written by "rational Christians" Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin and supported by "rational Christians" like Sam Adams. But wait, didn't John Adams -- a unitarian -- practice a different religion than that of his cousin Samuel, a Calvinistic Trinitarian? The kind of rational Christianity for which I argue transcends such sectarian differences. Issues of salvation/heresy such as whether Jesus is the second person in the Trinity matter not to the political-theological tradition of "rational Christianity" that I (after America's Founders) endorse.