Sunday, January 25, 2004
Our Christian Foundations...Part 3 [Rick Barry]
The question: on what was our nation founded? On freedom? And upon what foundation is American freedom built? The answer from John Adams: “Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles, upon which Freedom can securely stand.” And Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”
Though Jefferson was a deist, he did not lack respect for Christianity. At the time of his presidency, the largest church service in the nation took place in the Capitol Building. And Jefferson attended. One day a preacher examined him about his churchgoing. This account can be found in the preacher’s diary: “President Jefferson was on his way to church of a Sunday morning with his large red prayer book under his arm when a friend querying him after their mutual good morning said which way are you walking Mr. Jefferson. To which he replied to Church Sir. You going to church Mr. J. You do not believe a word in it. Sir said Mr. J. No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir.”
Before I conclude, there are a few more comments in Dan’s blog that I would like to address. First, Dan quotes well the Declaration of Independence, with its references to Nature’s God and the Creator. To him, this is secular material, not necessarily the God of the Bible. I will grant Dan that for now, but say also that Dan should have read on. The last paragraph reads: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
So, the Declaration refers to the Creator, Judge, and Providence. It cannot be said that this is the same God as the God of the deists. This is uniquely the God of the Bible.
Dan, you then quote, “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” You say this is not from Scripture or Tradition. Assuming you regard Saint Thomas Aquinas as part of Tradition, I quote him now: “If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power.” It seems that Catholic thought has, as Novak says, “established the principle that political power flows from the consent of the governed.”
I will close with two extended quotes. First, for our Catholic friends, John Paul II in 1998 said, “Thus John Dickerson, chairman of the Committee for the Declaration of Independence, said in 1776: ‘Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declarations of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchment or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth.’ Indeed it may be asked whether the American democratic experiment would have been possible, or how well it will succeed in the future, without a deeply rooted vision of divine Providence over the individual and over the father of nations.”
Next, George Washington, the Father of our nation. In his farewell address he says: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with public and private felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ’Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it; can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
Though Jefferson was a deist, he did not lack respect for Christianity. At the time of his presidency, the largest church service in the nation took place in the Capitol Building. And Jefferson attended. One day a preacher examined him about his churchgoing. This account can be found in the preacher’s diary: “President Jefferson was on his way to church of a Sunday morning with his large red prayer book under his arm when a friend querying him after their mutual good morning said which way are you walking Mr. Jefferson. To which he replied to Church Sir. You going to church Mr. J. You do not believe a word in it. Sir said Mr. J. No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir.”
Before I conclude, there are a few more comments in Dan’s blog that I would like to address. First, Dan quotes well the Declaration of Independence, with its references to Nature’s God and the Creator. To him, this is secular material, not necessarily the God of the Bible. I will grant Dan that for now, but say also that Dan should have read on. The last paragraph reads: “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
So, the Declaration refers to the Creator, Judge, and Providence. It cannot be said that this is the same God as the God of the deists. This is uniquely the God of the Bible.
Dan, you then quote, “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” You say this is not from Scripture or Tradition. Assuming you regard Saint Thomas Aquinas as part of Tradition, I quote him now: “If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power.” It seems that Catholic thought has, as Novak says, “established the principle that political power flows from the consent of the governed.”
I will close with two extended quotes. First, for our Catholic friends, John Paul II in 1998 said, “Thus John Dickerson, chairman of the Committee for the Declaration of Independence, said in 1776: ‘Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declarations of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchment or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth.’ Indeed it may be asked whether the American democratic experiment would have been possible, or how well it will succeed in the future, without a deeply rooted vision of divine Providence over the individual and over the father of nations.”
Next, George Washington, the Father of our nation. In his farewell address he says: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with public and private felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ’Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it; can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
Our Christian Foundations...Part 2 [Rick Barry]
Dan says that he does not believe that the founders established the United States with an “eye towards heaven.” While I am not exactly sure what Dan means by an “eye towards heaven”, I assume he means that they did not establish America with Christianity on their minds. This is incorrect. What needs to be understood is that their whole way of thinking was literally shaped by Christianity. Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, in Christianity on Trial, refer to a study done by Bernard Bailyn in the 1960s. This study “undertook a systematic review of revolutionary era pamphlets in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution and found that the political and social ideas of New England Puritanism had a major impact on the men who made the Revolution. Bailyn concluded that covenant theology in particular ‘carried on into the eighteenth century and into the minds of the Revolutionaries the idea, originally worked out in the sermons and tracts of the settlement period, that the colonization of British America had been an event designed by the hand of God to satisfy his ultimate aims.’”
Again, Carroll and Shiflett quote Sidney Ahlstrom in saying, “Puritans provided the moral and religious background of fully 75 percent of the people who declared their independence in 1776.” Carroll and Shiflett conclude, “For that generation, the language of social compact and a stubborn insistence on the consent of the governed was ingrained tradition—Christian tradition—with more than a century of practice behind it.”
It is important to take a careful look at the Puritan tradition in America, since it is, to a large extent, the heritage of the founding fathers. Historian Stephen Foster, quoted in Christianity on Trial, says, “Few societies in western culture have ever depended more thoroughly or more self-consciously on the consciously on the consent of their members than the allegedly public life in New England…Every aspect of public life in New England demanded the formal assent of the public. Church members elected their ministers, town meetings the selectmen, freemen their deputies and magistrates, and militiamen their officers.” These democratic customs, Foster explains, sprang in part from the Puritans’ unromantic view of human nature and its tendency toward corruption. “Because even magistrates, the most saintly of the saints, had a sizable residue of natural lust left in them, their power had to be limited by a codified body of laws [and] frequent elections.”
Though it would be difficult to argue that the Puritans were secular, they too had a democratic system of government. This was the heritage of the revolutionary generation. Novak says that a Jewish metaphysic also played a significant role in ordering the thoughts of the founders. This metaphysic declared, “Time had a beginning and is measured for progress or decline by God’s standards; that everything in the world is intelligible, and that to inquire, invent, and discover is an impulse of faith as well as of reason; that the Creator endowed us with liberty and inviolable dignity, while the Divine Judge shows concern for the weak and the humble; that life is a time of duty and trial; and that history is to be grasped as the drama of human liberty—all these are the background that make sense of the Declaration of Independence.”
Novak argues that if the foundations of this country were based solely on reason, the founders, or Locke, could never have come up with the idea of natural human rights. This is because reason seems to suggest that some people are strong and some are weak. Throughout nature there is inequality, not equality. Novak says, “Locke’s contention that by nature no man is intended to be ruled by another comes not from observation, not from history, and not exactly from philosophical argument, but from an appeal to a biblical metaphysic. Indeed, it never entered into the consciousness of philosophers in any part of the world, unless they had first had contact with Christianity. The one overwhelming reality that reduces all humans to equality is the Face of their Creator, Who is not impressed by men’s power, wealth, or earthly might.”
Therefore, let us return to the question: on what foundation did the fathers of this nation build? Was it a purely secular, or predominantly secular, foundation as Dan suggests? Or was it a foundation of both faith and reason, as I argue? Consider Alexis de Tocqueville for a moment. What did he find in America? He writes, “There is no country in the world in which the boldest political theories of the eighteenth-century philosophers are put so effectively into practice as in America. Only their anti-religious doctrines have never made any headway in that country. For the Americans the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of the one without the other.”
If the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so mingled, then to create a government based on human liberty is, in fact, the Christian thing to do. Tocqueville again: “In France I had seen the spirits of religion and of freedom almost always marching in opposite directions. In America I found them intimately linked together in joint reign over the same land.” And again: he sees Anglo-American civilization as “the product of two perfectly distinct elements which elsewhere have often been at war with one another but which in America it was somehow possible to incorporate into each other, forming a marvelous combination. I mean the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom.”
Again, Carroll and Shiflett quote Sidney Ahlstrom in saying, “Puritans provided the moral and religious background of fully 75 percent of the people who declared their independence in 1776.” Carroll and Shiflett conclude, “For that generation, the language of social compact and a stubborn insistence on the consent of the governed was ingrained tradition—Christian tradition—with more than a century of practice behind it.”
It is important to take a careful look at the Puritan tradition in America, since it is, to a large extent, the heritage of the founding fathers. Historian Stephen Foster, quoted in Christianity on Trial, says, “Few societies in western culture have ever depended more thoroughly or more self-consciously on the consciously on the consent of their members than the allegedly public life in New England…Every aspect of public life in New England demanded the formal assent of the public. Church members elected their ministers, town meetings the selectmen, freemen their deputies and magistrates, and militiamen their officers.” These democratic customs, Foster explains, sprang in part from the Puritans’ unromantic view of human nature and its tendency toward corruption. “Because even magistrates, the most saintly of the saints, had a sizable residue of natural lust left in them, their power had to be limited by a codified body of laws [and] frequent elections.”
Though it would be difficult to argue that the Puritans were secular, they too had a democratic system of government. This was the heritage of the revolutionary generation. Novak says that a Jewish metaphysic also played a significant role in ordering the thoughts of the founders. This metaphysic declared, “Time had a beginning and is measured for progress or decline by God’s standards; that everything in the world is intelligible, and that to inquire, invent, and discover is an impulse of faith as well as of reason; that the Creator endowed us with liberty and inviolable dignity, while the Divine Judge shows concern for the weak and the humble; that life is a time of duty and trial; and that history is to be grasped as the drama of human liberty—all these are the background that make sense of the Declaration of Independence.”
Novak argues that if the foundations of this country were based solely on reason, the founders, or Locke, could never have come up with the idea of natural human rights. This is because reason seems to suggest that some people are strong and some are weak. Throughout nature there is inequality, not equality. Novak says, “Locke’s contention that by nature no man is intended to be ruled by another comes not from observation, not from history, and not exactly from philosophical argument, but from an appeal to a biblical metaphysic. Indeed, it never entered into the consciousness of philosophers in any part of the world, unless they had first had contact with Christianity. The one overwhelming reality that reduces all humans to equality is the Face of their Creator, Who is not impressed by men’s power, wealth, or earthly might.”
Therefore, let us return to the question: on what foundation did the fathers of this nation build? Was it a purely secular, or predominantly secular, foundation as Dan suggests? Or was it a foundation of both faith and reason, as I argue? Consider Alexis de Tocqueville for a moment. What did he find in America? He writes, “There is no country in the world in which the boldest political theories of the eighteenth-century philosophers are put so effectively into practice as in America. Only their anti-religious doctrines have never made any headway in that country. For the Americans the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of the one without the other.”
If the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so mingled, then to create a government based on human liberty is, in fact, the Christian thing to do. Tocqueville again: “In France I had seen the spirits of religion and of freedom almost always marching in opposite directions. In America I found them intimately linked together in joint reign over the same land.” And again: he sees Anglo-American civilization as “the product of two perfectly distinct elements which elsewhere have often been at war with one another but which in America it was somehow possible to incorporate into each other, forming a marvelous combination. I mean the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom.”
Our Christian Foundations...Part 1 [Rick Barry]
After studying the issue for a couple of days, I am prepared to answer the first half of Dan Geary’s blog criticizing my earlier blog about the SOTU. As you may remember, Christopher Hitchens said that America’s founding was completely secular, and I said that this statement is “utterly false”. To some extent, Dan sympathized with Hitchens, at least on the question of America’s founding. Dan said, “I would also hesitate to say that [America] was necessarily founded on Judeo-Christian values.” In response to Dan, I will affirm that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values. As Michael Novak has written, there were two wings to the American founding: common sense (or reason) and faith. While some of the founders were more comfortable with one wing or the other, America could not “fly” without both wings.
Dan began his critique of me by quoting Webster’s Revised unabridged Dictionary. I thought I too would start with a quote from Webster—Noah Webster, of dictionary fame. Eight years after the death of Jefferson and Adams, Webster wrote, “[The Christian religion] is the real source of all genuine republican principles…Never cease then to give to religion, to it institutions, and to its ministers, your strenuous support….those who destroy the influence and authority of the Christian religion, sap the foundations of public order, of liberty, and of republican government.” Here Webster contends that the Christian religion is the foundation of both liberty and republican government. If this is true, if the founders themselves thought as Webster did, then one cannot say that America was built on reason alone. Simple put, if Webster is correct, then America was built on the foundation of Christian values.
Dan, the definition of secular that you employ against my argument starts, “Of or pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy…” What I hope to show is that, in the minds of the founders, the founding of a republican government was indeed a spiritual and holy act. They were acting in obedience to God by establishing a government that most closely reflected his will. Liberty for mankind was the will of God, and therefore to establish a government based on such liberty is doing God’s work. It is possible you imagine that unless the government is run by a church, or runs a church, then it is secular. For the founders, creating democratic America was their holy and spiritual duty.
See what John Adams wrote Dr. Benjamin Rush: “The Bible contains the most profound philosophy, the most perfect morality, and the most refined policy, that ever was conceived upon earth. It is the most republican book in the world.” If this was the mindset of Adams, that the Bible is republican, than how could a Christian not promote republican government?
In fact, Rush himself believed that a “Christian cannot fail of being a republican”. Rush was a medical doctor, and considered the most learned man in the colonies. He is one of the signers of the Declaration. See where he gets the idea of inalienable rights: “The history of the creation of man, and of the relation of our species to each other by birth, which is recorded in the Old Testament, is the best refutation that can be given to the divine right of kings, and the strongest argument that can be used in favor of the original and natural equality of all mankind. A Christian, I say again, cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness, which are directly opposed to the pride of monarchy and the pageantry of a court.”
Here again, we see that Dr. Rush’s understanding of equality and republican government stem from his understanding of Christianity. If, in the minds of the founders, a Christian cannot help but be a republican, and as you say most founders were Christians, then establishing a republican government based on equality for all is, in fact, a holy and spiritual duty.
Dan began his critique of me by quoting Webster’s Revised unabridged Dictionary. I thought I too would start with a quote from Webster—Noah Webster, of dictionary fame. Eight years after the death of Jefferson and Adams, Webster wrote, “[The Christian religion] is the real source of all genuine republican principles…Never cease then to give to religion, to it institutions, and to its ministers, your strenuous support….those who destroy the influence and authority of the Christian religion, sap the foundations of public order, of liberty, and of republican government.” Here Webster contends that the Christian religion is the foundation of both liberty and republican government. If this is true, if the founders themselves thought as Webster did, then one cannot say that America was built on reason alone. Simple put, if Webster is correct, then America was built on the foundation of Christian values.
Dan, the definition of secular that you employ against my argument starts, “Of or pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy…” What I hope to show is that, in the minds of the founders, the founding of a republican government was indeed a spiritual and holy act. They were acting in obedience to God by establishing a government that most closely reflected his will. Liberty for mankind was the will of God, and therefore to establish a government based on such liberty is doing God’s work. It is possible you imagine that unless the government is run by a church, or runs a church, then it is secular. For the founders, creating democratic America was their holy and spiritual duty.
See what John Adams wrote Dr. Benjamin Rush: “The Bible contains the most profound philosophy, the most perfect morality, and the most refined policy, that ever was conceived upon earth. It is the most republican book in the world.” If this was the mindset of Adams, that the Bible is republican, than how could a Christian not promote republican government?
In fact, Rush himself believed that a “Christian cannot fail of being a republican”. Rush was a medical doctor, and considered the most learned man in the colonies. He is one of the signers of the Declaration. See where he gets the idea of inalienable rights: “The history of the creation of man, and of the relation of our species to each other by birth, which is recorded in the Old Testament, is the best refutation that can be given to the divine right of kings, and the strongest argument that can be used in favor of the original and natural equality of all mankind. A Christian, I say again, cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness, which are directly opposed to the pride of monarchy and the pageantry of a court.”
Here again, we see that Dr. Rush’s understanding of equality and republican government stem from his understanding of Christianity. If, in the minds of the founders, a Christian cannot help but be a republican, and as you say most founders were Christians, then establishing a republican government based on equality for all is, in fact, a holy and spiritual duty.
Our Christian Foundations...Intro [Rick Barry]
My dear fellow bloggers, you will find in my entries above evidence of a man gone mad! I have taken Dan Geary's criticism of an earlier blog I wrote, and prepared an extended reply. However, I am aware that such long entries are not common in the blog world. Following this three part post, I shall try to conform to general blogging etiquette and offer more pithy statements in the future. Speaking of the future, I hope to someday tackle the second part of Dan Geary's critique, where he asks me to "unpack" my statement that "without Christian theology there could be no democracy or capitalism or freedom." I would also like to comment on Machiavelli, and finally Dan O'Connor's comments about salvation. However, first things first: my mega blog in three easy installments.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
re: Salvation and the Church [Rick Barry]
Hi Joe. How about when we want to start a new subject we can give it an original title, and if you want to comment on someone else, just put a "Re:" before their title. I don't know how to make folders, otherwise that would be a good idea too.
Now, on the substance of your comment...I must admit, I had a little difficulty understanding exactly what you were saying. The two quotes you give, one from the Holy Father and the other the paraphrase of Saint Thomas, did not fit together as far as I could tell. Anyway, I would like to comment the best I can.
The first quote from John Paul seems to be in reference to the problem of “those who have not heard” and the "Pagan Saint". There are many pagan saints in the Old Testament, men and women who were not Jews but were believers of God. These people include Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Daniel, Melchizedek, Lot, Abimelech, Jethro, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman. This is part of the age old question: what about those who have never heard the Good News? Can there be salvation for those who have not specifically heard Christ's name.
In this passage, the Pope is affirming that, yes, salvation can come to those outside of the church's reach. Those people who sincerely search for God and live according to their God given conscience will be spared. There is less optimism for those outside of the church in the Augustinian/Calvinistic tradition of predestination. Generally, there is great pessimism within the Christian, and especially Augustinian/Calvinistic, tradition for the salvation of the world. It is generally believed that few will be saved, and most will perish.
However, at least according to Clark Pinnock, who I respect, there is reason for great optimism in salvation. In second Peter we read: “[God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” and in first Timothy Paul writes, “[God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” From these and other versus we can see that it is generally the will of God that all mankind be saved. We see in the Old Testament many examples of God reaching out to the world, not just the Jewish people.
The doctrine of election, from Augustine, was what lead to a pessimism of salvation, that few will be saved. On the reverse side, there is a liberal pluralism, which teaches that all paths lead to God, and that there are many ways to be saved. This is an over optimistic view. I believe that salvation comes through Christ alone, but can be achieved by those who have never heard Christ's name. I believe that the Catholic teaching on this is very true (which will be no surprise to Catholics). The thing is, because God wants to save all mankind, he is pursuing all people. Parts of his truth can be found in all religions, even though all religions are not true. People can be saved by responding to his truth in faith, even if they don't know that salvation is through Christ alone. It reminds me of the verse, "To those who much as been give, much will be expected." Those of us who know the full revelation of God will be expected to put our faith in Christ and submit to him. Those who have not been given the full revelation will be responsible for what God has revealed through nature and the Truth that can be found in their own culture.
This is the teaching of the Catholic church, and I believe the Evangelical church needs to learn this too. Next, Joe, you have a paraphrase of Saint Thomas. I have been thinking a great deal about this quote, and I am having a hard time deciding exactly what it means. I guess it might mean that, if I am strongly convinced that it is wrong to receive the Body and Blood, I should not receive it, even if I think I should do it in faith. However, Catholics for Free Choice would not be helped by this verse. Why, they have been blessed with the full revelation of God in the Catholic Church (so you might say). Therefore, they would have no reason to reject the Church’s teaching. However, if one had not the full revelation, they would be required to rely on the revelation they have received to the best of their ability. It is therefore feasible that a pagan somewhere could believe abortion is right based on a warped conscience, but those of us with the full revelation cannot claim ignorance or plead for mercy based on our warped consciences.
Actually, as I read your post for about the sixth time, I guess what I would really like is clarification of what your point is. What exactly do the two quotes you cite have to do with each other? Sorry, I am sure I am missing something. What am I missing?
Now, on the substance of your comment...I must admit, I had a little difficulty understanding exactly what you were saying. The two quotes you give, one from the Holy Father and the other the paraphrase of Saint Thomas, did not fit together as far as I could tell. Anyway, I would like to comment the best I can.
The first quote from John Paul seems to be in reference to the problem of “those who have not heard” and the "Pagan Saint". There are many pagan saints in the Old Testament, men and women who were not Jews but were believers of God. These people include Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Daniel, Melchizedek, Lot, Abimelech, Jethro, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman. This is part of the age old question: what about those who have never heard the Good News? Can there be salvation for those who have not specifically heard Christ's name.
In this passage, the Pope is affirming that, yes, salvation can come to those outside of the church's reach. Those people who sincerely search for God and live according to their God given conscience will be spared. There is less optimism for those outside of the church in the Augustinian/Calvinistic tradition of predestination. Generally, there is great pessimism within the Christian, and especially Augustinian/Calvinistic, tradition for the salvation of the world. It is generally believed that few will be saved, and most will perish.
However, at least according to Clark Pinnock, who I respect, there is reason for great optimism in salvation. In second Peter we read: “[God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” and in first Timothy Paul writes, “[God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” From these and other versus we can see that it is generally the will of God that all mankind be saved. We see in the Old Testament many examples of God reaching out to the world, not just the Jewish people.
The doctrine of election, from Augustine, was what lead to a pessimism of salvation, that few will be saved. On the reverse side, there is a liberal pluralism, which teaches that all paths lead to God, and that there are many ways to be saved. This is an over optimistic view. I believe that salvation comes through Christ alone, but can be achieved by those who have never heard Christ's name. I believe that the Catholic teaching on this is very true (which will be no surprise to Catholics). The thing is, because God wants to save all mankind, he is pursuing all people. Parts of his truth can be found in all religions, even though all religions are not true. People can be saved by responding to his truth in faith, even if they don't know that salvation is through Christ alone. It reminds me of the verse, "To those who much as been give, much will be expected." Those of us who know the full revelation of God will be expected to put our faith in Christ and submit to him. Those who have not been given the full revelation will be responsible for what God has revealed through nature and the Truth that can be found in their own culture.
This is the teaching of the Catholic church, and I believe the Evangelical church needs to learn this too. Next, Joe, you have a paraphrase of Saint Thomas. I have been thinking a great deal about this quote, and I am having a hard time deciding exactly what it means. I guess it might mean that, if I am strongly convinced that it is wrong to receive the Body and Blood, I should not receive it, even if I think I should do it in faith. However, Catholics for Free Choice would not be helped by this verse. Why, they have been blessed with the full revelation of God in the Catholic Church (so you might say). Therefore, they would have no reason to reject the Church’s teaching. However, if one had not the full revelation, they would be required to rely on the revelation they have received to the best of their ability. It is therefore feasible that a pagan somewhere could believe abortion is right based on a warped conscience, but those of us with the full revelation cannot claim ignorance or plead for mercy based on our warped consciences.
Actually, as I read your post for about the sixth time, I guess what I would really like is clarification of what your point is. What exactly do the two quotes you cite have to do with each other? Sorry, I am sure I am missing something. What am I missing?
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
What Kind of Union? God in the SOTU [Rick Barry]
Today was my first day at the American Enterprise Institute working with Michael Novak, a great conservative Catholic scholar. One of the things I did today was just sit around and read some of his work, and one book I was looking at was his On Two Wings. The book is about how both religious faith (specifically Jewish metaphysics) and "common sense" were the two wings by which our country was founded.
Later I went to a debate at AEI between Janne Haaland-Matlary, the most influential Roman Catholic woman in Europe (so they said) and Christopher Hitchens, a militant anti-theist. The proposition they were debating was "Europe's Militant Secularism Is a Bigger Threat to Western Civilization Than America's Religious Revival." Turns out the debate was not very good, as neither of the two debaters addressed the question at all, and Mrs. Haaland-Matlary was not at all aggressive in defending the Catholic faith, or its role in public life.
What stands out most about the debate was Mr. Hitchens absolute hostility towards any theology, blaming it for about every evil in the world. He was utterly sarcastic and negative throughout. He brought up anything he could to embarrass Rome, constantly ridiculing theism and how he says it has caused such evil (evil? What's that?). For example, all of the issues between Palestine and Jerusalem would melt away if there was an outbreak of atheism. Religion is the great evil of the world.
He did not say anything too original or surprising. Unfortunately, Mrs. Haaland-Matlary did not do a nearly adequate job defending the view that without Christian theology there could be no democracy or capitalism or freedom. The debate was one sided and disappointing. Anyway, during his remarks, Mr. Hitchens said that America is, actually, a secular nation with a completely secular founding. Now, because I have been reading Novak's book, I know how utterly false that is. (Novak was in the audience, and I am sure he nearly flipped as Hitchens went on and on about the secularism of America's founding).
So what, you ask? Well, what I want to talk about, in the context of the President's speech, are the references to God throughout. Here are some examples:
*I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.
*The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
*The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable -- and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.
As I remember it, there were other references as well. I believe that George Bush has developed...or should I say, rediscovered the fundamental foundations of our freedom. We, in this nation, have rights and freedoms, not just because we are "humans" (a mere arrangement of the DNA slightly different than monkeys) but because we were specifically given our freedom by God. We hold it to be self-evident that all people, not just Americas, have fundamental right to freedom, and to life. Therefore, it seems that George Bush is making the argument that our freedoms are grounded in a very Jeudo-Christian view of God, a view that is very different that the views of many other religions.
In the contexts of tonight's debate, I wonder how the endlessly sarcastic and nasty Mr. Hitchens defends the basic concept of liberty for all. It seems clear to me that Mr. Hitchens is under a self-imposed delusion when he imagines that all religion enslaves and is evil. We have seen the very opposite in Christian history: Christianity has been continually setting the captives free. George Bush has made it clear that what happened in Iraq is simply the continuation of the great Christian story of breaking shackles and freeing slaves. Atheism, or worse, the anti-theism of Mr. Hitchens has no such history, and it never could.
Later I went to a debate at AEI between Janne Haaland-Matlary, the most influential Roman Catholic woman in Europe (so they said) and Christopher Hitchens, a militant anti-theist. The proposition they were debating was "Europe's Militant Secularism Is a Bigger Threat to Western Civilization Than America's Religious Revival." Turns out the debate was not very good, as neither of the two debaters addressed the question at all, and Mrs. Haaland-Matlary was not at all aggressive in defending the Catholic faith, or its role in public life.
What stands out most about the debate was Mr. Hitchens absolute hostility towards any theology, blaming it for about every evil in the world. He was utterly sarcastic and negative throughout. He brought up anything he could to embarrass Rome, constantly ridiculing theism and how he says it has caused such evil (evil? What's that?). For example, all of the issues between Palestine and Jerusalem would melt away if there was an outbreak of atheism. Religion is the great evil of the world.
He did not say anything too original or surprising. Unfortunately, Mrs. Haaland-Matlary did not do a nearly adequate job defending the view that without Christian theology there could be no democracy or capitalism or freedom. The debate was one sided and disappointing. Anyway, during his remarks, Mr. Hitchens said that America is, actually, a secular nation with a completely secular founding. Now, because I have been reading Novak's book, I know how utterly false that is. (Novak was in the audience, and I am sure he nearly flipped as Hitchens went on and on about the secularism of America's founding).
So what, you ask? Well, what I want to talk about, in the context of the President's speech, are the references to God throughout. Here are some examples:
*I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.
*The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
*The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable -- and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.
As I remember it, there were other references as well. I believe that George Bush has developed...or should I say, rediscovered the fundamental foundations of our freedom. We, in this nation, have rights and freedoms, not just because we are "humans" (a mere arrangement of the DNA slightly different than monkeys) but because we were specifically given our freedom by God. We hold it to be self-evident that all people, not just Americas, have fundamental right to freedom, and to life. Therefore, it seems that George Bush is making the argument that our freedoms are grounded in a very Jeudo-Christian view of God, a view that is very different that the views of many other religions.
In the contexts of tonight's debate, I wonder how the endlessly sarcastic and nasty Mr. Hitchens defends the basic concept of liberty for all. It seems clear to me that Mr. Hitchens is under a self-imposed delusion when he imagines that all religion enslaves and is evil. We have seen the very opposite in Christian history: Christianity has been continually setting the captives free. George Bush has made it clear that what happened in Iraq is simply the continuation of the great Christian story of breaking shackles and freeing slaves. Atheism, or worse, the anti-theism of Mr. Hitchens has no such history, and it never could.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Hi everyone! Well, I thought I would explain how to post on the blog. When you want to post, all you have to do is click on the small icon on the left hand side of the screen that says "Powered by Blogger". This will bring you to their home page. On the right hand side of the screen there is a blue box that says, "Your Blogs". Sign in if necessary. Then you will see the name of this blog, Flirting with Sophia, listed in orange. Click on that name, and it will take you to the Create New Post section. Give your post a title, write it up, then click preview post, then Publish Your Post. Done. It is easier than it sounds. Try it today! Maybe I will post some questions later tonight, maybe based on the election or the Station of the Union.
The First Message [Rick Barry]
Hello, welcome to Flirting With Sophia. I have been semi-obsessed with creating this blog lately. I thought it would be really interesting if my friends and I had a place to have intellectual conversations during the school year. I have always said, one of my favorite places on earth is a camp fire, because around camp fires I have had so many great conversations. While the computer screen is no camp fire, I hope that through the internet I can continue some of those conversations. So, Danny, Joe, I have invited you to invite some of your school friends onto this site. We will have a small web of us three Toll Gate alumni, and our friends from school. Among the people in that web are orthodox Catholics and Protestants. In the end, I just hope we can have some really fun debates and conversations on whatever we are each reading or thinking about. How about as each person joins they give a short bio of themselves. I will write a short bio on me tomorrow.
