Trent Dluglosh left this comment on a previous post regarding the Renaissance and the Reformation:
Sibby,
You and the book you quote are way off base. Thomas Jefferson basically plagiarized the enlightenment philosopher John Locke when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Locke wrote 1689 that people have certain "inalienable rights" and then listed "Life, liberty and property" Then the framers basically plagiarized the enlightenment philospher Mintesquieu when they incorporated separation of powers into the Constitution. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to make up facts. I can't believe that book you quoted even got published. But I guess when one can find a publisher for a book that puts forth the theory that Facism is a left wing ideology nothing should surprise me.
I thank Trent for bringing forward the above points. There is some truth in regard to the influence of Enlightenment philosophers. This is from page 70 of the book "A Patriot’s History of the United States":
Three major Enlightenment thinkers deeply affected the concepts of liberty and government held by the majority of the American Revolutionary leaders. Certainly, all writers had not read the same European authors, and certainly all were affected by different ideas to different degrees, often depending on the relationship any given writer placed on the role of God in human affairs. Nevertheless, the overall molding of America’s Revolution in the ideological sense can be traced to the theories of Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, and the Baron Charles de Montesquieu.
And the book goes on to say that Montesquieu did bring forward the separation of powers. The book said this about John Locke:
Locke’s state of nature was beautiful and virtually sinless, and to protect his rights entered into a social compact, or a civil government. It is significant that both Hobbes and Locke departed substantially from the classical Greek and Roman thinkers, including Aristotle, who held that government was a natural condidti0on of humans. Both Hobbes and Locke saw government as artificial-created by humans.
Now contrast that to this comment left by Bill Fleming:
Sibby, the founding fathers were neo-classicists. That's why all the government buildings are designed to resemble classic Greek, Roman, and Renaissance architecture. They were decidedly not Medieval but rather were inspired by Greek Democracy, the Roman Republic, the Magna Carta and the Guilds (such as the Freemasons) which were basically early trade unions.
Looks like Fleming may not have it all straight. And in regard to Locke, his worldview was indeed based on the humanist worldview. On page 91 from the book, "A Patriot’s History" we have this point in regard to worldview:
Such priorities also underscored another important point, that despite enthusiastically accepting the end product of the Lockean view of rights, American political theorists had rejected the underlying assumptions of both Hobbs and Locke that government was artificial. Jefferson said so himself in the Declaration, insisting that even when people abolish a tyrannical government, they had to replace it with a just and benign one. At its origin, therefore, the American idea had certain tensions between civil rights that emanated from a worldview and the basis of the worldview itself.
Now I return to page 71 to detail which worldview the Founding Fathers choose to replace the humanist worldview from which the Enlightenment was based on:
It goes without saying, of course, that most of these men were steeped in the traditions and teachings of Christianity-—almost half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had some form of seminary training or degree. John Adams, certainly and somewhat derogatorily viewed by his contemporaries as the most pious of the early Revolutionaires, claimed that the Revolution "connect, in one indissolubable bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John’s cousin Sam cited passage of the Declaration as the day that the colonists "restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient." John Witherspoon’s influence before and after the adoption of the Declaration was obvious, but other well-known patriots such as John Hancock did not hesitate to echo the reliance on God. In short, any reading of the American Revolution from a purely secular viewpoint ignores a fundamentally Christian component of the Revolut6ionary ideology.
So it is Trent Dluglosh that is off base by ignoring facts, such as inalienable rights "come form our Creator". And if Trent was open minded and tolerant, he would have read Francis Schaeffer’s book, "How Should We Then Live?" before attacking it. Schaffer did address John Locke. This is from page 109 (be sure to note the previously mentioned John Witherspoon):
Samuel Rutherford’s work and the tradition it embodied had a gret influence on the United States Constitution, even though Anglo-Saxons have largely forgotten him. This infuence was mediated through two sources. The first was John Witherspoon (1723-1794), a Presbyterian who followed Rutherford’s Lex Rex directly and brought its principles to bear on the writing of the Constitution and the laying down of forms and freedoms. Witherspoon, educated at Edinburgh University, became president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) in 1768. He was a member of the Continental Congress from 1776 to 1779 and from 1780 to 1782. The only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence, he played an important role on a number of committees of the Congress.
The second mediator of Rutherford’s influence was John Locke (1632-1704), who, though secularizing the Presbyterian tradition, nevertheless drew heavily from it. He stress inalienable rights, government by consent, separation of powers, and the right of revolution. But the biblical base for these is discovered in Rutherford’s work. Without this biblical background, the whole system would be without a foundation. This is seen by the fact that Locke’s own work has an inherent contradiction. His empiricism, as revealed in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), really leaves no place for "natural rights." Empiricism would rest everything on experience. But "natural rights" must either be innate to the nature of man and not based on experience (thereby conflicting with the concept of empiricism) or they must have an adequate base other than man’s experience. Locke’s difficulty was that he did not have Samuel Rutherford’s Christian base. He stated the results which come from biblical Christianity without having the base which produced them. That is, he secularized Christian teaching.
So this should clear things up. If Dluglosh wants to attack Jefferson for using the work of Locke, he should also attack Locke for using the work of Rutherford. But more importantly, we need to understand that Locke used Rutherford’s work, but left out the most important fact, the biblical Christian base to the work.
What Republicans and Democrats want, what conservatives and liberals what, what the left and the right want, is the same thing…freedom. But how we achieve that depends on the worldview base that we use. Do we use the secular humanist base, or do we use the biblical Christian base?
Another point that needs to be understood to answer that question is that the ebb an flow of history since the days of Jesus Christ has been between the worldviews of biblical Christianity and humanism. [See this post for more on this point.] From the Renaissance to the Reformation to the Enlightenment to the First Great Awakening that influenced the American Revolution tells us what being American means…freedom based on the Laws of God as revealed through the Bible and the world’s greatest philosopher…Jesus Christ.
Today we have a return to the humanist base as the secular humanist agenda has infiltrated our institutions, and most effectively in our education system. If we want to solve our problems, we must restore the biblical Christian foundation that was used to create freedom. Ben Franklin knew that the greatest challenge for future generations was to maintain what was created by the Continental Congress. In order to maintain freedom, Americans must restore in themselves the Truth from the Bible, and then use that Truth to engage America’s culture.
You should notice a change to my banner that looks to the heavens in the search for truth [Note: Could not get the new banner to work. Will try again leter.] God is that Truth. This web site is now being transformed from being in search of the truth to a message that aims to restore Truth and freedom in America.
Comments