John Locke's Bit of Redemption?

[HammerStone]

Really enjoyed this quick article at First Things about John Locke.

So, while for Locke political authority does come from God alone, he insists that the Scriptures are not clear—intentionally so—about where that authority properly comes to reside. That question has to be decided on other grounds. This is exactly the point that John Calvin made in treating the issue of political authority. When the Reformer insisted that civil magistrates “have been invested with divine authority, and are wholly God’s representatives, in a manner acting as his vicegerents,” he explicitly warns that this does not settle questions about the merits of a specific form of government. To get clear about those matters, Calvin says, “depends largely upon the circumstances.”

Let's not go off on a John Calvin tangent. I know them's fightin' words to bring his name up.

That said, it's interesting that Locke who was a Deist (I believe if memory serves), found that even with his complex theory that authority comes ultimately from God. I think really acknowledging this and pondering the reasons for why America has a Constitution and representative system is worthwhile.

 

[tom55]

If Locke was a Deist I could see why one would question how he came to that conclusion (authority comes ultimately from God). But since he wasn't a Deist it is easy to understand.

One example of him not being a deist is when he wrote in section 134 Of the Extent of the Legislative Power "...so that laws human must be made according to the general laws of nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of scripture, otherwise they are ill made."

Second example is in his First Treatise of Government he extensively invoked the bible.

I assume you mean a deist to be someone who believes in a God (creator) that doesn't interfere in human affairs thru miracles or human supernatural revelation or denies a revealed religion?

 

[HammerStone]

Locke was a Christian Deist in the Jeffersonian sense that he held to the moral dimension of Jesus, but would discount the supernatural side and likely deny the divinity/deity of Jesus. This thought pattern is probably best illustrated by Thomas Jefferson's Bible which basically excised all of the references to miracles but retained the moral statements of Jesus. So it would not be a departure for him to talk in terms of natural law from Scripture. In addition to this, he would operate in the sort of framework of the day, which was Scripture.

In An Essay concerning Human Understanding, Locke talked about humanity not having universal assent to the existence of God, meaning that knowing God was not innate. This would arguably contradict Romans 1:18-20 and the concept of Imago Dei. He also clearly denied original sin in On the Reasonableness of Christianity. In Locke's view, God could be supposed to exist because we had our cognition and ability to know that we existed, thus God would exist because, simply, something cannot come from nothing.

 

[tom55]

Now I think I see what you are saying! A "Christian Deist" which would be a person who subscribes to the moral teachings of Jesus but doesn't believe in the miracles of Jesus?

It appears he (Locke) may have believed in the miracles of Jesus when he also said in his writings On the Reasonableness of Christianity:

"The evidence of our Saviors mission from heaven is so great, in the multitude of miracles he did before all sorts of people, that what he delivered cannot but be re-ceived as the oracles of God, and unquestionable verity. For the miracles he did were so ordered by the divine pro-vidence and wisdom, that they never were, nor could be denied by any of the enemies or opposers of Christianity."

And when he said in his writings in A Discourse of Miracles:

"So likewise the number, variety, and greatness of the miracles wrought for the confirmation of the doctrine delivered by Jesus Christ, carry with them such strong marks of an extraordinary divine Dower, that the truth of his mission will stand firm and unquestionable, ..."

(I apologize if I am misunderstanding your definition of Christian Deist)