Frazer Replies to Knapton II
Jonathan Rowe on Oct 6th 2007 10:36 am |
Gregg Frazer has replied to Richard Knapton’s latest reply. For context, it would help to first read Knapton’s reply, then my reply to Knapton, and then Frazer’s reply below:
I apologize, again, for responding tardily, but this is the first bloc of time I’ve had.
First of all, Mr. Knapton, my name is “Frazer.”
Second, Mr. Knapton is the first person I’ve encountered who denies real significance and influence to deism in 18th-century America. In fact, the standard view among scholars is that most of the Founders — including Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington — were deists. I’m sure that Jonathan Edwards, who wrote about the danger of deism and John Leland, who wrote a two-volume work on deism in 1764 and Elihu Palmer, who wrote the “bible” of deism in 1801 would all be shocked. As would Peter Gay, Kerry Walters, E.Graham Waring, and other scholars who have written sizable works on its influence.
Third, if, as he says, Mr. Knapton’s reference to Locke was not presented as proof to contradict my statement, then he offered no proof and my statement stands.
Fourth, I have not heard of “copy and past.” I have, however, heard of copy and paste — but my dissertation is in WordPerfect format, so copy and paste will not work in this context.
Fifth, I, too, really dislike “cherry picking” and that is not what I did in presenting the quotes from Adams. The significance I gave to the quotes is precisely what the context demands, although Mr. Knapton’s interpretation is quite creative. The point of the letter is to address the BASIS for the beliefs of the various groups. The portion left out in Mr. Knapton’s transcription is very illuminating (and important). After identifying the BASIS for the beliefs of the first set of groups (“real or pretended revelation”) , Adams addresses a belief of some Greeks [where Mr. Knapton simply puts "About the Greeks"]. There Adams says “On what prophecies they found their belief, I know not” [emphasis, again, on the BASIS for their beliefs]. He then identifies the BASIS for his belief and that of Jefferson IN COMPARISON TO that of the others and proclaims that he and Jefferson’s “faith may be supposed by more rational arguments than ANY [my emphasis] of the former.” The Christian belief which he mentioned [along with all of the others -- including the Greeks] is, of course, based on revelation. So, he is affirming that his belief places rationality above revelation (of various types — including the Bible).
I did not launch into this discussion the first time because I thought the quotes clear enough to stand on their own.
Concerning the second quote: since Jonathan Rowe has commented (keenly) on Mr. Knapton’s curious, but creative interpretation, I won’t add anything except to wonder why one who purports to really dislike cherry picking left out the final sentence of the paragraph in his transcription. There, after saying nice things about the Bible and Christ, he says: “Where is to be found theology more orthodox, or philosophy more profound, than in the introduction to the Shasta [sic]?” The Shastra is a Hindu text! Also, he does not say that his philosophy is “derived from the Bible” — he says that it “contains more” of his philosophy than all other books. And, in saying that he will further investigate the parts of the Bible which “seem not to be reconciled with his philosophy,” he reveals that he does not accept them on the basis of being revelation, but must “investigate” them to see if they can be made to fit within his philosophy — in other words, his reason trumps revelation.
Finally on this point, I have a PhD in political philosophy and my understanding of Locke was good enough to get me through PhD qualifying exams and several courses with nationally-recognized scholars. The fact that my “understanding” of Locke is different than that of Mr. Knapton perhaps says more about Mr. Knapton’s “understanding” than mine.
Sixth, if Mr. Knapton was not suggesting that my term is illegitimate because it didn’t exist at the time and was stating, instead, that the concept “simply has no foundation,” then we have another case of Mr. Knapton simply declaring my arguments invalid without offering any proof for his claims. I have 440 pages of evidence from the Founders and 18th-century American preachers — he has offered no evidence except thoughts of English empiricists, his creative interpretation of one of them [Locke], and his assurance that the American Founders believed everything that those British philosophers said. I’ll take what the Founders actually said they believed over what Mr. Knapton simply claims they believed and I’ll let the observant reader decide for him/her self.
Seventh, Jonathan addressed the “reason” question, so I won’t bother except to remind Mr. Knapton and interested readers that there is a distinction between what I, as an evangelical Christian, believe and what the Founders believed. I place revelation above reason and I do not “want to use the term as a magic wand by which whatever you touch truth is revealed.” The Founders used it as a basis for discovering and determining truth. If Mr. Knapton has a problem with that idea, he should take it up with the Founders — not me.
Eighth, in my “vain-glorious rush for acceptance,” I was using sarcasm. I apologize if it was not biting enough to be recognized.
Ninth, Mr. Knapton suggests that I need glasses because he says that he did not make a particular claim about what I had said. First, I have glasses already. Second, I referred to HIS comments about my statement in which he changed a key word in the point I made and replaced it with another word IN HIS COMMENTARY ON IT. A little “cut and paste” will show that he did what I said he did: my statement was: “Because virtually all religions promote morality, they believed that most religious traditions are valid and lead to the same God.” His commentary was: “However, they did not see all religious moral codes equal.” So, I accused him of defeating a straw man argument because he attacked the idea that the Founders saw “all religious moral codes EQUAL [my emphasis],” but I did not make that argument. I made the argument that they believed that MOST religious traditions are VALID and lead to the same God [my emphases]. So, he changed MOST to ALL and VALID to EQUAL — and, therefore, did not address my actual point, but rather one of his construction. I did not engage in “miss-quoting” — or misquoting.
Tenth, contrary to Mr. Knapton’s assertion, I do not assume for myself the right to decide who is a Christian and who is not. In fact, to avoid any such notion, I use the creeds, catechisms, and confessions ascribed to by the actual churches in America in the 18th century. As to Arianism, it was not declared heretical by the Catholic Church (in today’s sense of the term), but by the ONLY church at the time (before the Protestant Reformation) — a quite different church than that of the Middle Ages and one that has always been recognized as legitimate by Protestants. Furthermore, IN THE 18TH CENTURY (which is the period we’re talking about), BOTH PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS CONSIDERED ARIANISM HERETICAL and recognized the Trinity and deity of Christ as A (not THE) central belief of Christianity.
Mr. Knapton then accuses me of saying that the Trinity is “the central tenant of the Christian faith.” First, I said nothing about tenants (people who rent property), I talked about tenets (fundamental beliefs). Second, I did NOT say (again) what Mr. Knapton indicates that I said. I said that the Trinity is A central tenet — I did not say that it is THE central tenet. For those who want to look it up, here’s another “cut and paste”: [most people can skip the following bracketed part]
[Eighth, Mr. Knapton accuses me of "unintended sophistry" in pointing out that the theistic rationalists did not believe that Jesus was God and he suggests that there was "a strain of Christian thought" which taught that Jesus was subordinate to God. Methinks the sophistry is one the other foot, however. Mr. Knapton refers, apparently, to the Arian or Socinian heresies, which the church had declared to be heresies — and not Christian doctrine — centuries before. On page 10 of my dissertation, I have a chart which outlines the basic core beliefs of the Christian denominations in 18th century America as expressed in their own creeds, confessions, and catechisms. Every Christian denomination in 18th century America affirmed the deity of Christ and the Trinity as basic core Christian beliefs. Mr. Knapton's suggestion might appeal to groups which came along later and who CLAIMED to be Christians, such as Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses; but it doesn't stand up to 18th century scrutiny. There were, of course, those who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity (including the theistic rationalists), but they were considered "infidels" by 18th-century Christians.
If Mr. Knapton thinks that Christianity is "all about" Jesus being the savior of the world independent of His being God, then he and I have very different conceptions of what Christianity is "all about" — but, more importantly, he has a very different view than those we are discussing: 18th century American Christians.]
Note that I called the Trinity and the deity of Christ “basic core Christian beliefs” [plural], but did not in any way suggest or indicate that they were THE central beliefs — but, rather, 2 of the 10.
Furthermore, I would not approach a Buddhist priest for a definition of Christianity — apparently another difference between Mr. Knapton and myself. And Christians were called “Christians” because it means “little Christs,” which is what Christians were recognized as aspiring to be — followers of Christ (who, by the way, THEY understood to be God). Arianism didn’t come along until the 4th century, so there was no reason to highlight the Trinity above other fundamental doctrines. Mr. Knapton’s Christianity 101 course is quite different from my (an evangelical Christian) Christianity 101 and also quite different (and this is the point where this discussion is concerned) from the Christianity 101 course of 18th-century Americans.
Eleventh, Mr. Knapton then assured us again that deism and natural religion “died” in the “first half of the 18th-century” (no evidence, just his assurance) and that the idea that God PRIMARILY revealed Himself through nature died at the same time — with no evidence to support such an astonishing claim — just his affirmation.
Twelfth, regarding what Jefferson said about his approach to the Bible: I started to write a lengthy refutation of Mr. Knapton’s argument on this point, but I’ll just leave it to those who can read the earlier quotes from Jefferson making reason the sole judge with a fair and open mind and the following additional Jefferson quotes: “man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous,” and “gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck” and “No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards RATIONAL Christianity.” [my emphasis]
FINALLY, Mr. Knapton sums things up by suggesting that we’ve “learned” 6 things, but they’re not very revealing and suggest that we’ve wasted a lot of time — if, indeed, that’s all we’ve “learned.”
#1 [deism not significant] is a mere assertion on his part for which he gives no evidence and which flies in the face of the views of 18th-century contemporaries and modern scholarship.
#2 [cherry-picking charge] has been demonstrated in this entry to be false.
#3 [concept of theistic rationalism didn't exist] is another of his assertions without evidence and is circular logic — using as evidence what you’re trying to prove.
#4 [reason not magic wand] is meant as a shot at me, but misses the mark because I don’t believe it to begin with — and is irrelevant to the discussion because no one believes or believed it the way it’s written.
#5 [I'm not doctor of divinity] is quite true — but entirely irrelevant and, to my knowledge, no one has claimed the contrary. So, we’ve “learned” something that no one had an interest in learning and that many already knew.
#6 [Jefferson's motivation/method] is Mr. Knapton’s conclusion which he arrived at (apparently) by completely ignoring the extensive evidence presented from Jefferson’s own words concerning the role of reason in determining and evaluating potential revelation. His “un-rationalistic” remark also indicates that Mr. Knapton is under the false impression that there is only one kind/type of rationalism — a misconception which has been dealt with in previous threads of this discussion. One can’t help but wonder how Jefferson came to a “belief” that John 1 was mistranslated, since no sect was teaching such a “belief” and since, according to his own account, he made that determination himself based on his own personal analysis and would have been offended if someone suggested it were merely a “belief” and not a result of rational processes.
I submit that only Mr. Knapton has “learned” his six lessons.
Filed in Uncategorized
1. To begin with I sincerely apologize to Dr. Frazer for miss-spelling his name. Being close to British Columbia I’m quite familiar with names such as Fraser river and Fraser University. That is no excuse and in the future I will pay special attention to write his name correctly.
2. I made no such denial. I dislike ’straw men’ arguments almost as much as cherry picking.
3. His assertion of uniqueness fails in that he failed to show that these thoughts were in any way unique. Just a word about the list of creeds on page ten. He is comparing the popular beliefs of the forefathers against the formal creeds of the period. This is apples to oranges. What needs to be done is to compare the popular creeds of our forefathers against the popular creeds of their fellow citizens.
4. Given the nature of the medium we use here I have always refrained from highlighting misspellings of others. Too bad that courtesy could not have been extended to me.
5. John Adams to Thomas Jefferson
“Sir,–I thank you for your favor of the 12th instant. Hope springs eternal. Eight million Jews hope for a Messiah more powerful and glorious than Moses, David, or Solomon; who is to make them as powerful as he pleases. Some hundreds of millions of Musslemen expect another prophet more powerful than Mahomet, who is to spread Islamism over the whole earth. Hundreds of millions of Christians expect and hope for a millenium in which Jesus is to reign for a thousand years of the whole world before it is burnt up. The Hindoos expect another final incarnation of Vishnu, who is to do great and wonderful things, I know not what. All these hopes are founded on real or pretended revelation. The modern Greeks, too, it seems, hope for a deliver who is to produce them–the Theomistocleses and Demostheneses–the Platos and Aristotles–the Solons and Lyeurguese. You and I hope for splended improvements in human society, and vast amelioration in the condition of mankind. Our faith may be supposed by more rational arguments than of the former.”
The spellings are those of Adams. If there are misspellings take them up with Adams. This text is supposed to show that the founders believed “Revelation was designed to complement reason.” It seems to me that Adams is saying all these religions are prophesizing a time of “splendid improvements” once their messiah returns. Adams says our faith in splendid improvements are based on much more rational arguments. In other words all these religions base their expectation of better times on real or pretended revolution. We on the other hand also believe in better time but we based that on rational arguments. There is no revelation designed to compliment reason.
Dr Frazer states “The point of the letter is to address the BASIS for the beliefs of the various groups.” There is only one belief being addressed and that belief is that better times will come after the arrival of some kind of messiah-like personage. By not identifying what the belief Adams is talking about, Dr Frazer has tried to make it look like Adams is talking about all the beliefs of these religions which is not the case.
6. Dr Frazer points out I had left out a sentence: “Where is to be found theology more orthodox, or philosophy more profound, than in the introduction to the Shasta [sic]?” The Shastra is a Hindu text!” (my emphasis) I had already discussed this with Jonathan. I also didn’t want to embarrass Dr Frazer. However if he insists then I will simply point out that there is no Hindu text call the Shastra. Dr Frazer would have known this had he researched the issue. In Sanskrit, shastra means knowledge or rules. There is Vastu Åšhastra which are the rules for the placement and design of a house similar in nature to feng shui. There is Naadi Shastra, or the rules of astrology. Bhaarata Shastra is about the use of weapons. Artha Shastra is a treatise on statecraft, war and economics. This one I have read. This is part of what is called the Dharma Shastras. One of the other major books of the Dharma Shastras is the Manu Smriti, still consulted in Indian law. According to my source, there are eleven principle Hindu text: the shruti (that which must be heard): the four Vedas, the 108 Upanishads, and the Vedanta Sutra. The shruti are canonical. Then there are the four smriti (that which must be remembered) which include the Itihasas (histories or epics), the Bhagavad-gita (philosophy), the Puranas (stories and histories) and the Dharma Shastra (law books). Not everyone agrees as to the categories which make of the smriti. Finally there are four other texts the Vedangas (limbs of the Vedas), the Upavedas (following the Vedas), sectarian texts (e.g. agamas, tantras), and vernacular literature.
Notice there is no ancient Hindu book called the Shastra. To the best of my knowledge none of these ancient Hindu texts comes with an introduction. In other words, the invention of the introduction hadn’t been made yet. I know for a fact that the Artha Shastra was not written with an introduction. I believe the ‘introduction’ was an invention of the Renaissance. It would seem the passage Adams quotes is from a modern (18th-century) book discussing the various Hindu shastras. It is from the introduction of this modern book that the specific quote is from. The book may even have been written by Priestly. Priestly was known to have been interested in Hindu religious writings. Once again Dr Frazer’s research come up short.
With regard to Adams quote “It [the Bible] contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen: and such parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little philosophy I postpone for future investigation” you think that his further examination of the Bible and his philosophy indicates the reason triumphs revolution? It seems to me that all he is going to do is reconcile the discrepancies. He places no privilege position on his philosophy. The implication is that either his interpretation of the Bible or his philosophy may be in error. Unless Dr Frazer can show that Adams privileges his philosophy over his interpretation of the bible, Dr Frazer’s own interpretation of this text is in error.
As to Dr Frazer having the correct understanding of Locke because he has a PhD is simply not impressive. I much prefer chapter and verse.
As to Dr Frazer’s 440 page proof, if he will send me a digital copy I will be happy to address his proof. He should be able to convert the file from WordPerfect to text. I know I can handle text files. What the hell, I can probably handle the WordPerfect files. The one thing I won’t do is pay for the privilege of pointing out his errors.
8, Too silly to respond.
9. Valid and equal. What I was doing was not changing his thought but, rather, providing an additional thought. Let me give an example. (man I feel like I’m teach grammar school) Thomas Jefferson may have thought that all moral codes to valid. However, he did not think they were all equal. He believed the Christian moral code to be superior to the others.
10. Wrong again. Not all Protestants believed in the Trinity. I admit they were small in number but as time went by they grew in number. Adams was one of the Protestants who did not believe in the Trinity. This, however, did not disqualify him as a Christian. As late as 1820 he considered himself a Congregationalist.
11. Which Dr Frazer marks as eight. Dr Frazer: Mr. Knapton refers, apparently, to the Arian or Socinian heresies, which the church had declared to be heresies — and not Christian doctrine — centuries before.
This same church declared Protestant doctrine heretical and not Christian doctrine. If Dr Frazer wants to be consistent and use the yardstick of the pronouncement of the church then our forefathers were not Christians because they were Protestants. Dr Frazer, in opposition to what was going on during the reformation, wants to define the church as all those who believe in the trinity. Even the Pope won’t go that far.
There is hope. Dr Frazer does admit that Christians are those who follow the teaching of Jesus Christ making Jesus the focal point of who is and who is not a Christian.
12. (Dr. Frazer’s 11) The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
13. (Dr Frazer’s 12) Nice quote. However it says nothing about Jefferson’s approach to the Bible. I mean something like what I present below. While it doesn’t discuss his bible directly it does discuss how he would separate the wheat from the chaff. Curiously he doesn’t mention reason but rather self-evidency. Perhaps you can come up with a quote in which Jefferson does say he used reason as his selection tool.
Jefferson: “But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man; outlines which it is lamentable he did not live to fill up.”
I’m not going to discuss the rest of Dr Frazer’s reply. All it does is try to attack my summary. Since Dr Frazer failed to adequately defend his points upon which the summary was based, there is no need to duplicate my efforts.
So, what have we learned this time.
1. Dr Frazer is proficient in creating straw men.
2. Dr Frazer failed to prove the tenets of his so-called Theistic Rationalists were exclusive to this group thereby questioning the need to even classify them as a unique group.
3. Once again Adams is misinterpreted.
4. Evidently Dr Frazer doesn’t really know some of the things he is asserting, ancient Hindu text for one thing.
5. Dr Frazer seems to have a propensity to misread text. This time it was mine.
6. He seems a bit confused about what Protestantism is all about.
7. All is not lost. He seems to agree with me that the identifying principle of Christianity is too be a follower of Jesus Christ.
8. What can I say, he asked and I supplied.
9. Dr. Frazer seems to be at a loss to find textual evidence that Jefferson made the selections he did, in creating his bible, on the basis of reason.
Well that’s it boys and girls.
Rich
OK, Mr. Knapton, I apologize for pointing out your misspellings. I confess that I was a little miffed at the tone of some of your remarks about me and the carnal part of my nature kicked in. I’m sorry.
Now, to more substantive matters:
In Mr. Knapton’s first criticism of my work, he said that he did not know what I meant by “natural religion”; he then gave a description and said that “no such concept existed in the 18th century.” I responded to him by giving my definition and noting that “the primary expression of natural religion in the 18th century was deism” and “surely Mr. Knapton does not deny that deism or natural religion so defined existed in the 18th century — in the colonies.” Mr. Knapton then responded with a paragraph beginning with “Ah yes, deism and natural religion” in which he asserted that it impacted “a small group of thinkers” “at the turn of the 18th-century” and that it “pretty much petered out around the middle of the 18th century.” I then said that Mr. Knapton is the first person I’ve known who “denies real significance and influence to deism in 18th-century America.” Now, he says that he “made no such denial” and that I’ve built a straw man. If the tone of his “Ah yes” remark and if his assertion that deism was a matter for a “small group” and that it “petered out around the middle of the 18th century” do not constitute a denial of “real significance and influence to deism in 18th-century America,” then he indeed made no such denial.
I don’t know what the “uniqueness” comment is about.
Re creeds of the period: I don’t know where to find the “popular creeds” of which Mr. Knapton speaks — perhaps he can point me to them. The “formal creeds” (as he puts it) were ascribed to by all members of those congregations and were the official beliefs of Christians in the 18th century — irrespective of a few who claimed to be Christians while denying those beliefs. A mere claim of Christianity does not a Christian make.
On the Adams quote: AGAIN, Mr. Knapton left out a key part of the quote (this time without ellipses to indicate something was missing). Between the sentence Mr. Knapton highlights about the Greeks and the sentence about Adams & Jefferson’s beliefs, Adams says “On what prophecies they found their belief, I know not.” Then, following his statement of his & Jefferson’s belief, he comments on the basis of their faith. So, the structure of the paragraph is to give examples of beliefs of various groups and then note the BASIS for their faith. The others are all some sort of revelation — “real or pretended” and “prophecies” — but Adams’s and Jefferson’s is based on “rational arguments.”
As to whether only one belief is addressed in the paragraph and I’m trying to make it look like Adams is talking about all of their beliefs: I did not say — and I don’t think I implied — that ALL of their beliefs were being dealt with. I said “beliefs” because numerous beliefs were expressed — the fact that they were beliefs about a common SUBJECT does not make them the same belief!
Regarding the Shastra: I’m not embarrassed. The Oxford English Dictionary (THE source for English words and usage throughout the ages) says under “Shastra”: “Any one of the sacred writings of the Hindus.” Regarding usage, it says (by period): “1698 Phil. Trans. XX. 275 The Shastram being to them what the Bible is to Christians. 1763 SCRAFTON Indostan (1770) 4 A comment thereon [i.e. on the Vedas], called the Shahstah. 1838 [MISS MAITLAND] Lett. fr. Madras (1843) 198 They know that the Bible is our Shaster, and suppose it to be as good for us, as their own Shasters are for them. 1845 Encycl. Metrop. XXI. 673/1 Those who study the Védas..are styled Waïdik,..when learned in the six Sástras they are called SástrÃ. 1872 SHERRING Hindu Tribes I. 3 The Brahman..possesses..the holy canon{em}Vedas, Shástras, and Puránas.”
What matters for our discussion is what the word “Shastra” meant to Adams — not what Mr. Knapton thinks of it. If there was no introduction to the Shastra, what was Adams talking about? If Adams didn’t mean what was clearly standard usage in the period, the burden is on Mr. Knapton to explain what Adams DID mean. I’d be interested to hear his (no doubt creative) interpretation.
Next, I have ALREADY shown that Adams favors philosophy over the Bible. He said that philosophy is “the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature” and that “no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it.”
Re our relative understandings of Locke, appeal to “chapter and verse” only shows the passages on which we disagree — it sheds no light on whose understanding is correct. My point in mentioning my PhD was to emphasize that I learned Locke from nationally-recognized scholars.
Re the “valid” versus “equal” point: OK, I (quite naturally, given the fact that Mr. Knapton was attacking my arguments throughout) thought that Mr. Knapton was attacking my statement — not simply adding to it. I am glad that he recognizes that they believed that most religions are valid and lead to God. That, of course, is not the Christian belief.
When I said that Protestants and Catholics believed in the Trinity, I, of course, was not referring to every single person who identified him/herself as a Protestant — I, of course, meant the official position of all of the Protestant churches in 18th-century America. There may be a Protestant who believes that the Sun Myung Moon is God, but that doesn’t make it incorrect to say that “Protestants” believe differently.
It is also important to note two things: a) “Protestant” does not equal “Christian” and b) self-identification is not definitive. Adams’s self-identification as a Congregationalist is not very meaningful when he denies fundamentals of the Congregationalist creed. I’m talking about belief systems — not club memberships.
The church that declared Arianism to be heretical was NOT the same church that declared Protestant doctrine heretical. The church that the Protestants rebelled against did not develop until hundreds of years after the Arian heresy. As I mentioned before, Protestants today still recognize the legitimacy of the church that outlawed Arianism. Mr. Knapton’s notion would make the Congress that passed the Fugitive Slave Law the same Congress that passed the 13th Amendment. It was the same INSTITUTION, but hardly the same Congress. Likewise, the Supreme Court which decided the Dred Scott Case was hardly the same Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education. They are the same in NAME only.
Mr. Knapton’s statement that I want to “define the church as all those who believe in the trinity” is patently false — as anyone who’s followed this torturous argument will attest. AGAIN, I do not make the Trinity THE central tenet of Christianity (or belief in it THE DETERMINING ELEMENT in one’s destiny). Belief in the Trinity is A central tenet of Christianity — a necessary, but not sufficient belief. Satan believes in the Trinity — but that doesn’t make him a Christian.
Apparently, Mr. Knapton and I agree that Jesus Christ is the focal point of who is and is not a Christian. The problem is that one must have a proper understanding of Who Jesus is — either He’s God or He isn’t. His identity is not ultimately open to debate — one cannot simply choose to identify with whatever Jesus he/she chooses. God does not share worship with anyone else! The key is being a follower of Jesus Christ, but not just anyone’s conception of Jesus Christ — only Who He really is!
Mr. Knapton gives us an actual source for something when he points us to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for his claim that deism died out in the first half of the 18th century. Without comment on the use of internet encyclopedias — especially with the following statement at the end: “The author of this article is anonymous,” let’s look at what the article says. It says: “The Deistic controversy died out in England about the middle of the eighteenth century.” Please note the phrase “in England” — this is irrelevant for our discussion (even if the unknown author [maybe Mr. Knapton?] is authoritative in some way) because we’re talking about American deism!
I said I was done on Jefferson’s approach to the Bible, but here’s one last stab I was trying to avoid typing at length — for those who have an open mind.
“We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for other what they had not understood themselves. … I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.” He claimed that it was easy to make such determinations because “there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.” He abstracted “whatever has the stamp of the eloquence and fine imagination of Jesus.” He relied on the “style and spirit” of the writings to determine what was “genuine, and his own.” When he found “passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence,” he judged them to be legitimate words of Jesus.
“READ THE BIBLE, THEN, AS YOU WOULD READ LIVY OR TACITUS. … THOSE FACTS IN THE BIBLE WHICH CONTRADICT THE LAWS OF NATURE, MUST BE EXAMINED WITH MORE CARE, AND UNDER A VARIETY OF FACES. HERE YOU MUST RECUR TO THE PRETENSIONS OF THE WRITER TO INSPIRATION FROM GOD. EXAMINE UPON WHAT EVIDENCE HIS PRETENSIONS ARE FOUNDED, AND WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS SO STRONG, AS THAT ITS FALSEHOOD WOULD BE MORE PROBABLE THAN A CHANGE IN THE LAWS OF NATURE.” After numerous examples, he continues: “In fine. I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected it or believed it. YOUR OWN REASON IS THE ONLY ORACLE GIVEN YOU BY HEAVEN, AND YOU ARE ANSWERABLE, NOT FOR THE RIGHTNESS, BUT UPRIGHTNESS OF THE DECISION. … Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and YOU ARE TO JUDGE THEIR PRETENSIONS BY YOUR OWN REASON, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics.”
Re his new set of conclusions: Again, I’m not sure anyone but Mr. Knapton is confident of his conclusions.
[...] Rich Knapton replied to Gregg Frazer and Frazer responded here. What I find strange about Knapton’s argument: I understand the criticism that I or Dr. Frazer overly focus on certain “key Founders,” and I understand the criticism that Washington and Madison and some others didn’t quite detail their creed specifically enought which ought to leave some doubt as to their orthodoxy or lack thereof. But Franklin, Jefferson and Adams, in no uncertain terms explained exactly what they believed. There is no doubt as to what Jefferson and Adams, writing in the early 19th Century believed because they went on at ponderous length detailing their creed. And they clearly disbelieved in the Trinity and believed God primarily revealed Himself through Nature, that the Bible was fallible and that man’s reason thus supersedes revelation as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Knapton doesn’t just deny Adams was such a “man of reason,” but denies Jefferson was as well! As Dr. Frazer notes, clearly revealing Jefferson to be such a man of reason: “We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for other what they had not understood themselves. … I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.” He claimed that it was easy to make such determinations because “there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.” He abstracted “whatever has the stamp of the eloquence and fine imagination of Jesus.” He relied on the “style and spirit” of the writings to determine what was “genuine, and his own.” When he found “passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence,” he judged them to be legitimate words of Jesus. [...]
[...] Rich Knapton replied to Gregg Frazer and Frazer responded here. What I find strange about Knapton’s argument: I understand the criticism that I or Dr. Frazer overly focus on certain “key Founders,” and I understand the criticism that Washington and Madison and some others didn’t quite detail their creed specifically enough which ought to leave some doubt as to their orthodoxy or lack thereof. But Franklin, Jefferson and Adams, in no uncertain terms explained exactly what they believed. There is no doubt as to what Jefferson and Adams, writing in the early 19th Century believed because they went on at ponderous length detailing their creed. And they clearly disbelieved in the Trinity and believed God primarily revealed Himself through Nature, that the Bible was fallible and that man’s reason thus supersedes revelation as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Knapton doesn’t just deny Adams was such a “man of reason,” but denies Jefferson was as well! As Dr. Frazer notes, clearly revealing Jefferson to be such a man of reason: “We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for other what they had not understood themselves. … I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.” He claimed that it was easy to make such determinations because “there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.” He abstracted “whatever has the stamp of the eloquence and fine imagination of Jesus.” He relied on the “style and spirit” of the writings to determine what was “genuine, and his own.” When he found “passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence,” he judged them to be legitimate words of Jesus. [...]