The Reasonableness of Christianity with a Discourse of Miracles & Part of a Third Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke, I.T. Ramsey (Editor), I. Ramsey (Editor)

A new and manageable edition of Locke has been badly needed. Professor Ramsey's judicious editing of these important texts fills the need and greatly enhances the value of the texts for the modern reader. Included are The Reasonablesness of Christianity, A Discourse on Miracles, A Further Note on Miracles, and some passages from A Third letter concerning Toleration. Each work is prefaced by an introduction,giving the background of its writing and indicating its contemporary significance.

Genres: Philosophy, Christianity, Religion, Theology, History, Nonfiction, Politics

102 pages, paper

First published June 1, 1958

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.

John Locke was an English philosopher. He is considered the first of the British Empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.

Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and "the self", figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first Western philosopher to define the self through a continuity of "consciousness." He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas.

Reviews

[Manasseh Israel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I agree with John Locke on everything in this book excepting his view that the image of God for Man is immortality. I think it is rather Man’s unique ability to reflect and exhibit the rule, and character, of God over creation. Immortality will happen but it is not essential to bearing the image of God. We can probably chalk that small position up to latent unexamined philosophical assumptions—which for him had to be very few.

Otherwise Locke is very sharp. Every Christian should read his work—even his political treatises can help for understanding the Gospel of the Kingdom.

If I were to sum this book up in a sentence: John Locke holds that all that is necessary for salvation is to believe that Jesus is the messiah, the coming King and judge of the world, and to repent of our sins and start obeying his laws. It is a simple message with the common denominator being the poor: a message so simple that anyone can assent to it without need for education or leisure to acquire vain nuanced propositions that are unnecessary to salvation and not found explicitly in the scriptures.

I highly recommend this book, and Locke’s other writings. A brilliant man. Can’t wait to meet him in the Kingdom.

[Ryan Linkous · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unlike many modern philosophers, Locke writes clearly and has some interesting ideas. However, his ideas are very dangerous and counter-intuitive to the Christian faith (and I recognize that I have been shaped by some of these throughout the years). Why so dangerous? Mainly because he uses Christian language to undermine the faith. He doesn't light the fuse, but he lays the TNT for others to.

What's the big deal?
1. Locke makes Scripture and the Christian theological tradition subservient to reason. So long as Scripture accords with his definition of his reason, that's great. But you can imagine (as is happening now in the same-sex marriage debate in the USA), how once public reason contradicts Scripture, it no longer seems plausible. With Reason in the driver's seat, whatever one deems the most reasonable is actually one's authority. [This is problematic b/c as the Apostle Paul says in Romans 3:4, "Let God be true though every one be a liar!"]
2. For Locke, this means that certain ideas such as original sin are worth questioning and denying because they are not reasonable. "How can God punish people who are born sinful?"
3. Locke puts forth a Pelagian or semi-pelagian view of salvation. Man's job is to obey the "law of works." No man can do that. Thankfully, faith in Jesus Christ serves as a stop gap that allows for our failures and does the rest of the work we couldn't do.
4. He speaks about the Messiah Jesus, his kingship and salvation, his miracles and resurrection, yet ends up in such a wrong place. Jesus' divinity is of a second order of importance. Also Jesus' primary ministry to the world is to usher in the Kingdom of God by showing morality to the world in a way that monotheistic Judaism couldn't. The end of the Christian faith isn't worshipping the Triune God but is to live morally and to let God make up for your failures.
5. He believes that a primitive Christianity is all that is required. Believe what Jesus said, but distrust the Epistles because they have corrupted pure and simple doctrine. Theologians and the Christian tradition (for Locke, mainly priests and ceremonies) have corrupted the simple faith. Certain facets of truth (like the Trinity) aren't essential for saving faith. Just believe the message of Jesus (that he is the Messiah) and obey his morality as well as you can and you'll receive salvation leading to immortality. It's all fine and good if you eventually get to the Trinity, but that's not important.

So why 3 stars?
1. This book is really important.
2. Locke writes clearly and is definitely brilliant.
3. Locke's ideas are very dangerous for the Christian faith. I want to give this book 4.5 stars but it's not one to change my life and could adversely impact the faith of others.

Takeaways?
Christians (and especially my fellow Baptists who are eager to engage in evangelism and missions) should be very careful about boiling down the gospel and Christian faith to the "lowest common denominator."

Note on the edition: This edited and abridged edition was great b/c the crux of the argument is presented clearly.

[ZaRi]

"...when I had gone through the whole, and saw what a plain, simple, reason able thing Christianity was, suited to all conditions and capacities ; and in the morality of it now, with divine authority, established into a legible law, so far surpassing all that philosophy and human reason had attained to, or could possibly make effectual to all degrees of man kind ; I was flattered to think it might be of some use in the world ; especially to those, who thought either that there was no need of revelation at all, or that the revelation of our Saviour required the belief of such articles for salvation, which the settled notions, and their way of reasoning in some, and want of understanding in others, made impossible to them. Upon these two topics the objections seemed to turn, which were with most assurance made by deists, against Christianity ; but against Christianity misunderstood. It seemed to me, that there needed no more to show them the weakness of their exceptions, but to lay plainly before them the doctrine of our Saviour and his apostles, as delivered in the scriptures, and not as taught by the several sects of Christians. "

[Jeremy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not convinced that Locke really proves the reasonableness of Christianity. He assumes many things that philosophers who followed him (e.g., David Hume) did not assume (e.g., the reality of miracles). Locke is an important figure in the genealogy of philosophy, but I wouldn't go to him first to see the reasonableness of Christianity.

Furthermore, Locke seems to enjoy taking shots at systematic theology. But, really, all he is doing in this book is his own systematic theology.

62: authority
69: poetry/myths/tales
71-75: Epistles; "fundamental articles"
73: "promiscuous" (cf. Canons of Dordt)