A-Biblical v. Anti-Biblical

[This was originally written in 2007.]

Jim Babka, who does Yeoman’s work fighting for liberty as head of Downsize DC, left a few comments on my post about the concept of the State of Nature. I intended to make two quick points responding to his first post, but I went on a bit of a digression. My response clarifies what I mean when I use the term “a-biblical” to describe Locke’s concept of the State of Nature and I shed some light on why socially conservative Republican Straussian philosophers like Harvey Mansfield, Walter Berns, Thomas Pangle, and Robert Kraynak believe we should strictly construe the Constitution without viewing man as a being endowed with unalienable natural rights in a Lockean (or Jeffersonian-Madisonian) sense. I’m going to reproduce Jim’s first comment and then my response.

Jon, Part I

It is not necessary to make Locke’s approach a-Biblical or anti-Biblical to make the point that the State of Nature should be a libertarian state.

In fact, Locke wasn’t a libertarian, at least in the modern sense. Going one step further, this notion of liberty as not “license” is sophistry. We’ve since learned Locke was wrong about that, though many continue his error.

Liberty encourages personal responsibility.

Liberty is also permission to fail without government sanction for so doing.

One can do drugs, engage in promiscuous sex, or advocate gluttony by example. And if one does so, only nature has the right to impose a penalty — not the State. That’s a necessary part of liberty.

Locke built his formulation, starting with Adam in the Garden. In this “brief” piece, that was the part you chose to cut from the quote. I would go so far as to suggest that Adam was essential, from Locke’s perspective and time, to his case.

But the Biblical allusions remained in those parts you did quote and they are repetitive to the point that one must want to miss them. And as if that’s not enough, his favorite source to quote is Hooker — an Anglican theologian.

Locke, like his friend Newton, was, apparently, a “fundamentalist Unitarian” — something entirely different than the Unitarians of today. Further, Locke insisted that atheists were not fit to serve in government and couldn’t be trusted. Reason was not his god. Reason, for a natural theologian, was a special tool God had given humans. And it had been given to all men, not just kings. This made man “equal.”

This was revolutionary and very much countered Hobbes.

But it’s Frazer’s words, as quoted in your piece, that bother me most. His account of Eden must be a personal axe to grind. I read the same Bible yet don’t see what he sees. I see the first humans left with Free Will. And unless I take a hyper-literalist view of the story of The Fall, then I see precisely what Locke saw — natural consequences in the face of disobedience to natural law.

But even if I do take a literalist view, could an all-powerful, omniscient God have been caught off-guard? When I ask Evangelicals, was God caught by surprise when Adam and Eve took a bite of the apple? Can you imagine God saying, “Oops, I didn’t see that coming?” Not one Evangelical I’ve spoken with has answered differently.

Since God didn’t prevent this action in advance, He must’ve been willing to accord humanity Free Will.

And so, the question becomes, if it was good enough for God, why not for you? …and for your government? This is, in discussion with a Christian, a persuasive argument for individual liberty as the created state of man.

Similarly, Romans 13 is a favored hobby horse for you to prove that there’s no way the Founders were real Christians because the Bible opposes liberty. And you raise this specter, again, in this piece.

I may not agree with every point of this entire series I’m about to recommend, but I think blogger Steve Scott’s commentary on Romans 13 is more accurate than the view you, and apparently Frazer, have of that passage. I encourage you to check it out.

But my most important point — the reason I write — is that it is correct to label the Founders as outside of orthodox Christianity — the very place Barton, et al, place him. But it is not correct to make them a-Biblical. Theistic rationalism is accurate, as far as it goes. But very clearly, Locke was quite Biblical. And equally clear, Locke was influential on the Founders.

No one is wrong on purpose. Each is convinced of the rightness of his position, and thus advocates it. Locke, his contemporary Newton, and the Arians/Socians/Unitarians that followed, were, in their own minds, advocates of “true Christianity.” David Barton and his ilk certainly haven’t cornered the market in what it means to be a Christian.

It is perfectly consistent for a Christian to favor classic liberalism. A Christian who does so is not contradicting scripture in so doing. Rather, they are, IMHO, honoring the Creator’s intent in “loving their neighbor,” by embracing this high view of man.

My response:

Jim:

I want to respond this in more detail, but off the bat let me make two quick points.

First, re: Frazer, Locke, and Eden, this isn’t, I don’t believe anything personal on his part. In reading his Ph.D., and in knowing about Claremont Graduate College where Straussian thought is popular, he relies on the interpretation of a number of Straussian scholars to reach his conclusion. He’s also read the originals (Locke and the Bible) and agrees with various scholars like Walter Berns, Michael Zuckert, Thomas Pangle, and Leo Strauss himself on Locke’s a-biblical understanding of the state of nature.

I do too. Though, I try to be more cautious than some of the above named Straussians in my argumentation (Frazer argues cautiously in his thesis as well). They have a tendency to read in things that aren’t there, as part of their belief that philosophers encoded esoteric messages in their texts. And they are justified in doing this to some extent. Locke et al. were not free to speak their minds. Challenging orthodox opinions could get you criminally punished, even executed (see Servetus and many others like him). There was no free speech back then. That’s why these Enlightenment philosophers argued for the concept!

Still, in a debate like this where there is much controversy about what the Founders and the philosophers they followed really believed, I think it’s best to take people at their word.

And when I take Locke at his word, I see his vision of the state of nature as “a-biblical” — a modified version of Hobbes’ (whose state of nature, ironically, is closer to the traditional orthodox Christian notion of original sin and mans’ depravity than Locke’s).

Let me carefully explain what I mean by “a-biblical.” I don’t necessarily mean contrary to or inconsistent with the Bible. If I did I would have used the words “anti-biblical.” Indeed, some of those Straussians like Berns and especially Pangle do indeed believe Locke’s state of nature and his book “The Reasonableness of Christianity” were “anti-biblical.”

One day I should feature some of Pangle’s more provocative quotations on Locke which make assertions that go much farther than I ever would.

“A-biblical” means not derived from the Bible, but not necessarily inconsistent with the Bible. A good Christian can believe in something that is “a-biblical”; he just shouldn’t try to credit the Bible or his faith with the concept. Similarly, I’m willing to categorize the right to revolt, a la Romans 13 as “a-biblical,” not necessarily “anti-biblical” (though I think the Christian Tories’ understanding of Romans 13 which viewed America’s Revolution as a biblically unjustified act — hence “anti-biblical” — to be reasonable as well).

Think of republican government as our Founders envisioned it like an automobile. The car is not an “inherently” Christian idea. It was not made for Christians, by Christians, for the purpose of getting to church easier. It’s an “a-biblical” invention. But, it’s legitimate for Christians to use automobiles precisely for that purpose! Perhaps it’s also legitimate for conservative evangelicals and Catholics to use republican government to promote their values as well. One could reasonably argue that the original meaning of the Constitution never was intended to prevent, as the ACLU believes, government and religion to connect in that sense. That’s I think, ultimately how Berns, Pangle, Kraynak and the other socially conservative Straussians who argue “The Spirit of Modern Republicanism” (a title to one of Pangle’s books) is a-biblical or anti-biblical believe we should interpret the Constitution. That’s also why, they believe, we shouldn’t interpret the Constitution with the view that man is a creature endowed with unalienable natural rights, because that might prevent conservative citizens from being able to use the organs of the state to enforce traditional morality.

But, as you and I would both agree, the state need not be used for that purpose for the Christian religion to flourish. And invariably, such “morals” legislation do more harm than good.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to A-Biblical v. Anti-Biblical

  1. tom van dyke says:

    “Government is founded not on force, as was the theory of Hobbes; nor on compact, as was the theory of Locke and of the revolution of 1688; nor on property, as was the assertion of Harrington. It springs from the necessities of our nature, and has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God.” James Otis, 1764

    Until the “law of nature” as “natural law” is figured in [see also Alexander Hamilton’s The Farmer Refuted—the terms are used interchangeably in the Founding scheme], the Straussian method is inadequate, as it creates an untenable either/or between modernity and the Bible, reason and revelation.

  2. OFT says:

    TVD,

    I agree. Any reason put on paper that contradicts the Scriptures is null and void. On what basis did Thomas Jefferson challenge God’s sovereignty? His reason.

  3. tom van dyke says:

    I wasn’t arguing the Bible here, I was pointing at a middle ground between sola scriptura and Straussian analysis, which would be traditional natural law theory.

    There is a secondary point to be explored, just how much of the Founding was considered in direct contradiction of the Bible. I’m not aware of any, but am not ready to argue the point, chapter and verse as it were. Traditional Christian natural law theory argues reason and revelation are from the same divine source, and therefore cannot conflict. The main point is that the Straussian view rejects any such middle ground completely—Christian or otherwise—and therefore cannot adequately describe the Founding milieu.

  4. D.A. Ridgely says:

    Any reason put on paper that contradicts the Scriptures is null and void. On what basis did Thomas Jefferson challenge God’s sovereignty? His reason.

    How does OFT determine what he believes contradicts the Bible. His reason. (Which, based on his comments here, is a decidedly flawed lens.) On what basis does he accept the sovereignty of God as he believes he understands it. His reason.

  5. James K says:

    It seems to me that if Reason can contradict Scripture then it is Scripture that is null and void.

  6. ppnl says:

    I’m sticking with my idea that the bible is the work of Satan. It nicely explains the state of religion in the world. Our only defense is our reason flawed as it is.

  7. Chris says:

    One has to wonder what OFT thinks of all this Copernicus stuff.

  8. OFT says:

    D.A.,

    Scripture is supernatural, TJ and the rationalists rejected the supernatural.

  9. D.A. Ridgely says:

    OFT breathtakingly misses my point. Both he and Mr. Jefferson use their reason, respectively, to decide what to believe and what not to believe. As the existentialists teach us (and gawd knows they teach us very little), a person cannot ever abandon the authority of his own mind. Well, except perhaps by committing suicide.

    OFT also breathtakingly and once again plays fast and loose with standard English. I have a copy of Scripture (several, in fact) at home, and there’s nothing at all supernatural about it. It may, of course, make claims about the existence and nature of the supernatural, but that’s a different matter entirely. And it is those claims which even the man of faith (even in the proverbial Kierkegaardian “leap of faith”) still exercises his reason in accepting.

  10. James Hanley says:

    OFT,

    If I ask nicely, pretty please, will you go away?

  11. Jon Rowe says:

    On a personal note, I know there is room for disagreement here, I believe Jefferson did believe in the supernatural and those PARTS of the Bible which made his razor’s cut. It’s clear that J. Adams believed large parts of the Bible (larger than Jefferson’s) were divinely inspired, but parts were errant.

    In a sense Jefferson and J. Adams were doing what the Church did when they compiled the Bible. They had to use THEIR REASON to decide which books to include, which not to. OFT sometimes acts as though the Bible just popped into being all at once. Church history teaches otherwise.

    I know orthodox Christians argue it was the Holy Spirit who guided the hand of the CHURCH who selected which books to include in the Bible which not. But where does the Bible say that? The only Church that teaches it is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit is the Roman Catholic Church. If you are a Protestant you don’t believe in an infallible Church. So a fallible Church, as it were, selected the books to include in the canon.

  12. OFT says:

    OFT breathtakingly misses my point. Both he and Mr. Jefferson use their reason, respectively, to decide what to believe and what not to believe</i..

    I don't use my reason at all; either did C.S. Lewis. It is by faith, and grace that I believe. Reason has nothing to do with it. TJ thought the Trinity was non-sense. Christians take the text for what it says, not information from a flawed mind.

    And yet the faith aspect appears less than 1% of the equation. The fulfilled prophecies is the overwhelming evidence Jesus Christ is God. TJ never examined any of the 300 prophecies. Had he, it's possible, he wouldn't be in hell. He used his flawed mind to determine what was God's will; a bad idea. Since no one knows God's ways.

    D.A.,

    1 Corinthians 2:14-15 (King James Version)
    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

    Once you are saved, it will all make sense.

    They had to use THEIR REASON to decide which books to include, which not to.

    This is flawed. The Canon has always been not what the Church approves, but what God approves. God says He is the author of Scripture. The Church only dismissed that which contradicted other parts of Scripture.

  13. D.A. Ridgely says:

    OFT, when you tell me you don’t use your reason at all, I cannot help but take you at your word.

    (Because, for example, deciding that “The fulfilled prophecies is the overwhelming evidence Jesus Christ is God” doesn’t involve reason at all. Nosiree!)

  14. Jon Rowe says:

    “The Church only dismissed that which contradicted other parts of Scripture.”

    The what you view as “fallible” Church, but the Roman Catholics view as “infallible” Church did indeed give THEIR REASONS as to why which books were included and which weren’t; however, I don’t buy the idea of contradiction. The traditional canon appears to contradict itself in thousands of places, which is why you need smart theologians like Gregg Frazer or John MacArthur (sorry, you aren’t up to par yet) to smooth out those apparent contradiction. But with talent like theirs, we could add plenty of the non-canonical books into the mix, and they could iron out a hermenuetic that is just as “non-contradictory” as those of the ordinary biblical canon.

  15. Jon Rowe says:

    “God says He is the author of Scripture.”

    There is not one place in scripture that you can show may that “God says he is the author” of those exact books that YOU believe in and no more or no less. I could add in “The Book of Linus” (if it were written in that time period) create a Bible that is every book you believe in plus one more, and then start quoting Linus as though it were on part with every other part of the Bible and synthesizing and syncronizing it with the rest of the canon.

    Replace “Linus” with “The Gospel of Thomas” or “Book of Mormon” or “Koran” and the logic stands.

  16. OFT says:

    D.A.,

    Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

    <i.The traditional canon appears to contradict itself in thousands of places

    Name one.

    Jon,

    Does the book of Linus say: “so says the Lord”?

  17. Jon Rowe says:

    Yes, why a matter of fact it does.

    “Don’t pick your nose and eat it, so says the Lord.” Linus: 1:1.

  18. OFT says:

    D.A.,

    Once I got saved, I took the Bible as truth without using my flawed mind. I understand God is sovereign, that He will preserve His words, uncorrupted, for His creation. I may not understand a verse, but I could never doubt inerrancy.

    I was most likely saved at an early age. There was never a time I understood the Bible as being flawed. Through all my sins, I always knew Jesus was the Way. It’s when I start reasoning that I will be convicted by God, or may quench the Spirit, thereby backsliding in some way from Orthodoxy.

  19. OFT says:

    “Don’t pick your nose and eat it, so says the Lord.” Linus: 1:1.

    Proves my point!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s