Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
Happy Saturday!
Today’s quote is from a movie: “All I’m saying is families are inevitable. They’re like death or taxes.”
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top341 Comments to “Whirled Views 7.19”
Don’t know about the movie quote, but here’s a good one:
“A free society cannot work unless people take charge of their lives and assume responsibility for their actions.” — Jim Powell
Report comment to moderator
Cheaper by the dozen?
Report comment to moderator
There’s a devastating article about Obama by Charles Krouthammer on townhall.com
Link to front page below, then look for Krauthammer’s link:
http://www.townhall.com/
Report comment to moderator
I hope everyone has a great weekend. Anyone have any special plans? (I don’t.)
Report comment to moderator
We’re headed for a week in a cabin in the north Georgia woods tomorrow. So today is washing and packing.
Report comment to moderator
I plan on getting my home office organized. I have a lot of engineering manuals that need to be labeled, shelved, etc. Then I plan on working some in the yard. Then I plan on getting a good night’s sleep before I got to Sunday worship
Report comment to moderator
Karen O,
Being over 50, having no special plans is no barrior for me to having a great weekend. I hope yours is a great one too, regardless of which side of 50 you might be on (smile)!
Our church attendance may double! Some of our Liberian families are having a big family reunion and this could attract hundreds to our new building on Sunday.
So I guess our church family (coming together from all parts of the world) DOES have special plans after all–to worship God as a bigger family than usual!
Report comment to moderator
Plans:
We are just back from a week of camping in the mountains. Checking on things, picking up another child or two or three, and are off to the mountains again in a few days for another week. Left the camping gear in the truck but will have to add some food and a couple more tents and bags.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #3: There’s a devastating article about Obama by Charles Krouthammer on townhall.com
I read it and don’t see what’s supposed to be so “devastating.” Obama meets with CEOs? Not sure where the scandal is.
The really interesting part comes in the next section:
Evangelicals and their allies, dominating last weekend’s Iowa Republican state convention, dumped their critic, Sen. Chuck Grassley, from the state’s delegation to the national convention in St. Paul, Minn. The five-term senator is Iowa’s senior Republican elected official.
Grassley has aroused the ire of Christian conservatives by launching a Senate Finance Committee investigation of six televangelists for alleged lavish spending. Leading conservatives, headed by Paul Weyrich and Ken Blackwell, have charged Grassley with violating the First Amendment religious freedom guarantee.
Could the hypocrisy be any more naked? Here are people who claim to be about honesty and integrity and accountability, but immediately move to punish a Congressman who seeks to shine the light of truth on possible dishonest practices.
This kind of buffoonery really does not help the credibility of evangelicals.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Enjoy your virtual iced coffee!
Report comment to moderator
Oh wait … I was reading Robert Novak, not Krauthammer.
Report comment to moderator
OK, read Krauthammer. Just a recycling of the same anti-Obama talking points we’ve been hearing for months. Nothing new.
Oh, it does have one bit of nice intentional misunderstanding: After all, in the words of his own slogan, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which, translating the royal “we,” means: “I am the one we’ve been waiting for.”
But of course, Obama wasn’t using the “royal ‘we’” … he was referring to the people who support him. The message is that rather than waiting for someone else to come fix our problems, we are the ones who can and must.
So another example of conservative mendacity swallowed whole.
Report comment to moderator
I think Musing beat me to the quote (as usual).
No plans this weekend. Next weekend we are going to a Friday night wedding, where there will be fireworks afterwards. The groom is majoring in chemistry with an emphasis in explosives, so I think he is making his own fireworks. Then, we are going to spend a few days in the Ozark mountains at my brother’s house. A little hiking is planned there.
Report comment to moderator
Krauthammer’s piece is a riot. I laughed all the way through. Obama is a good orator, but he can’t hide who he is much as he’d like.
Obama at the Brandenburg gate is right up there with Clinton amking a cross out of the rocks on the beaches of Normandy. Great photo op, no substance.
Report comment to moderator
That should read making a cross not amking a cross:)
Report comment to moderator
Weekend plans: we are getting together with friends who just moved back to So Cal from So Car. They said the difference between southern California and South Carolina in the summer is 15 degrees and a lot of humidity.
Report comment to moderator
Evidently SteveG read the Novak article and not the Krauthammer one. So let me comment on that article first. No scandal there? Sure, no scandal, but there is the revelation that Obama spoke with the CEOs to reassure them the same way he had his guy speak with the Canadians about NAFTA. Obama wants to tell the people one thing to get elected, but then reassure those he’s been dissing to the people that he really doesn’t mean it. He’s a liar who wants to play both sides of the fence.
I, too, found the Krauthammer article amusing. As someone of German descent, first generation American, I know what the Brandenburg signifies. Obama doesn’t show respect. One sentence I wanted to highlight is:
“Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times.”
Nothing amusing about that at all. Tells me he won’t do anything as President either.
Report comment to moderator
Krauthammer should have called his piece “The Audacity of Scope.”
Report comment to moderator
Kristen Chapman post 10,
Lynn always gave me a virtual fizzy coke.
Can I ask for a replacment for the virtual iced coffee?
Report comment to moderator
NJL, if Obama gets elected, I suspect the less he does, the better for us, or maybe U.S.
Report comment to moderator
Ok this being whirled views and all, and essentialy an open thread, a comment was made last night on McGloughlin group which reflected back on an earlier conversation with Llama.
So Mort Zuckerman noted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were leveraged at 65:1 (apparently $1 of capital for every $65 of borrowing). I need to run this down to confirm Mort’s statement, but am not sure even where to begin.
And the combined assets of both is apparently abut $5.5 Trillion.
Now llama asserted that the loans they are holding were valuable in and of themselves.
As I look at this, however, there appear to be several problems with llama’s analysis:
1) one of the issues has been that a larger percentage of loans that was expected were considered nonperofrming. In some cases as high as 25% apparently. With 65:1 capital ration, this might lead one to believe that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are already bankrupt (no obvious capital reserves large enough to match the expected nonperforming loans)
2) even if they have adeqaute capitalization to match their expected losses, such a high leveraging is suggestive of liquidity problems if lenders lose confidence in these two corporations
Now as I understand it the U.S. government for a variety of reasons is forced to back these entities up, and indeed in the main the Federal government has done so, hobbled perhaps a bit by some Republican issues in the Senate.
But a quick look at the numbers suggest that we are talking about a potential liability of perhaps $18,000 for every person in the U.S. This would seem to make the Savings and Loan crisis look like a sandbox squabble.
And now despite llama’s earlier assurances of the stability of the system, it strikes me that we are still walking a tightrope facing perhaps the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
And as victoria and outkast apparently observed earlier, it is not obvious that even the Federal government has the resources to fully manage this particular crisis.
Report comment to moderator
And as victoria and outkast apparently observed earlier, it is not obvious that even the Federal government has the resources to fully manage this particular crisis.
I never even remotely suggested anything of that sort, Musing, so please stop lying about what I have or have not said on this blog. What I have said, and will continue to say, is that the Federal government should be returning more and more responsibilities and duties to the individual states, as the Constitution reads.
Report comment to moderator
A spectral figure interrupted my usual early morning insomnia.
“Come with me,” it whispered quietly enough so it didn’t wake my wife as she made her little “poofing” noises in her sleep.
The ghost crooked a finger at me and I felt myself drawn into the air and following the figure into the clouds. Like my guide, I had turned into an insubstantial specter.
“Who are you?” I bleated.
“I am the ghost of coming attractions,” he muttered to me in a low, croaking voice. As we emerged from the clouds I saw a highway far below, running alongside the ocean. As we descended, I saw a long, low bus, moving very slowly indeed.
BADYEAR blimp continues at
http://tiny.cc/BADYEARBLIMP
Report comment to moderator
We saw Wall-E last night at the enthusiastic encouragement of a friend who works for a Pixar-like computer animation company (now working on the Chihuahuas of Beverly Hills which he describes as “sickening”).
While it had amusing touches, for the most part I found the film melancholy and sad. We were seeking diversion–our 16 year old was injured in New Orleans yesterday when the upper bunk she sat on apparently broke a bracket, dumping her onto her head. CAT scans looked good, she sounded good, but my varsity volleyball player had pains radiating down her neck and into her back.
They fly home today. Could you pray-ers pray for her, please? Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
I will join you in prayer, an injury like that can completely change an athletes’ abilities but not necessarily. We will see how the Lord works.
Report comment to moderator
RN, you forgot to ask the “Ghost of Coming Attractions” if this could be prevented.
His answer, of course, would be the dreaded words, “Drill”. (Not our Drill, as much as we love him, but “Drill” as in “Drill here, Drill now”.)
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
Hopefully I’m going to get interesting discussion today on my American Creation blog (we have two Mormon contributors) about just how divinely inspired Mormons believe the American Founding to be. You all are more than welcome to contribute.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com
Here is a taste of my most recent post:
Mormonism is a great analogy to the religious beliefs of America’s key Founders. As the American View website says: “’Bible Answer Man’ Says Mormons Not Christians; Use Our Words But With Different Meanings.” The same thing can be said of America’s key Founders. They often used “Christian terminology” that masked heterodox sentiments. According to a strict orthodox Trinitarian view that holds Mormons not to be “Christian,” even though Mormons call themselves “Christians,” America’s key Founders — Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris and a few others — were not “Christians” even though they at times called themselves “Christians” and presented their heterodox theology under the auspices of “Christianity.”
Report comment to moderator
Former Senator Phil Gramm (R-ENRON) has “resigned” his position as Co-Chairman of the McCain campaign.
Gramm is Vice Chairman of the Swiss UBS Investment Bank which on Wednesday was implicated in orchestrating a multi-billion dollar tax evasion scheme for its wealthy US clients.
Gramm was last seen lying in a corn field with tire tracks on his backside as the Double-Talk Express roared off into the night. McCain was later heard to say, “Phil who? My friends, I don’t know anyone named Phil.”
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
Done.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 22,
so I guess I must have misundersatood you apparent agreement in post 1 of economimc seasaw:
“1. by outkast 07.16.08 at 3:30 pm
. . . it might be that even the power of the United States government is no match for juggernaut market forces.
Fine. The U.S. government needs to stop meddling in most of these affairs, because the government tends to just screw up things even worse when it becomes involved.”
Perhaps you can clarify what you meant then?
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 22,
you should probably think through your apparent knee jerk reaction of disagreeing with me just to diagree with me.
Report comment to moderator
#26
My wife and I bought some stock in the Brazilian oil company Petrobras.
The good news is that Petrobras claims to have found a pool of oil off the Brazilian coast that contains at least 1/4 as much oil as the known Saudi Arabian reserves.
The not so good news is that Petrobras estimates it will be at least ten years before they have the technology to get the oil up from such a deep site. As I am about to retire on modest means, I’m hoping that there’s a way to speed up the process of extracting the oil, as perhaps does everyone who drives a car or heats with oil.
The weird news is that dead baby penguins are drifting ashore on Brazilian beaches in large numbers. Scientists are debating the causes, but oil pollution is one suspicion.(Maybe it’s penguin abortions?)
Your mileage may vary, but I suspect it won’t be very high, whatever it is.
Report comment to moderator
#27
Just as volcanoes erupt from time to time, allowing us to understand how ancient ranges were formed and ancient disasters such as Pompeii took place, I suspect that religions such as Mormonism and Scientology erupt from time to time, giving us a clue how older religions formed.
Joseph Smith claimed to Divine Inspiration. L. Ron Hubbard claimed to have discovered new laws of science.
Both accumulated many followers who would do whatever they told them to do. Both accumulated great wealth and enjoyed the favors of many women.
Smith was martyred by a mob. Hubbard died old and rich (and probably crazy).
People here believe their religious leader was really pure and led a life of poverty and taught everyone how to live and how to achieve eternal life.
I’m a radical agnostic, so I really doubt that’s what really happened.
Report comment to moderator
Musing 31
Report comment to moderator
SteveG- If I remember right, we had a post on the issue of financial accountability for ministries. All the Christians I know of are in favor of that, & not pleased to see ministers living “the high life” on the donations of the faithful.
Report comment to moderator
Well, the government has been complicit in not following basic common sense and, in my opinion, was stupid to allow all the banks to merge and form a few big ones. Citibank is having second thoughts and now plans to sell off some of its divisions. But it’s a little late now that the eggs in the one basket are all cracked.
I am not as worried about Freddie and Fannie as I am about the big banks. This is not the time to panic people into believing their going to lose their homes if they are paying their mortgages. They are not.
RN, I suppose your “penquin abortions” phrase is meant to insult and hurt those who consider killing babies an important issue. This was not even a remotely funny comment.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 36,
I agree with you completely here:
“the government has been complicit in not following basic common sense and, in my opinion, was stupid to allow all the banks to merge and form a few big ones.”
And I suggest that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and the big bank problems (say IndyMac as the first peek) are highly related issues.
Report comment to moderator
Plans – I said I didn’t have any, but if finishing up some cleaning projects & doing laundry counts, then I do.
But I’m also making time for reading. (And this blog, of course.)
I’m currently reading The Shack, the controversial book that Christians are divided on. Some claim it is so wonderful & will deepen one’s faith in God; others claim it is sacrilege. So I decided to check it out for myself.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle, you have my prayers. Please make sure your soccer player takes a few days to really heal out.
Report comment to moderator
Karen O at #35: All the Christians I know of are in favor of that, & not pleased to see ministers living “the high life” on the donations of the faithful.
I would hope so. It would be consistent. But then what Krauthammer reports doesn’t square. If they’re really in favor of financial accountability, why punish a Congressman trying to look into it?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #17: Evidently SteveG read the Novak article and not the Krauthammer one. So let me comment on that article first.
I did at first, but then I realize my mistake and commented on Krauthammer in #12.
Report comment to moderator
Gah. #40 should refer to what Novak reports. I have confused myself.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle post 24,
our wishes and prayers for your little one.
Report comment to moderator
Weekend plans – mostly the usual, getting laundry done, going to church, getting a little extra sleep. Plus I need to get ready for next weekend, which is my younger son’s 9th birthday party, which will be a Spy party. We need to practice collecting fingerprints, and I need to work up the clues they have to follow (to find the missing 9 candles) and set up the badges they’ll wear (have to wait till they show up to do the photo for the badge and print them out).
Report comment to moderator
#9, StevbeG wrote: “This kind of buffoonery really does not help the credibility of evangelicals.”
1. You read the completely wrong article, but your conclusions about the wrong article are wrong too.
2. I see no such buffoonery Steveg. If there is “ire” among Iowa Christian conservatives about Grassley, it is not necessarily because televangelists are receiving scrutiny for their spending, but because they believe this is not a responsible use of the Federatl gov’t time and money. The senators may not be respecting the separation of powers. If these televangelists broke the law, then our judicial system (not US senators) should hold them accountable. The televangelists may also be subjected to the open scrutiny of the press or to the people who support.
But senate committes should probably be focused elsewhere.
SteveG asked, “Could the hypocrisy be any more naked?”
I don’t necessarily see any hypocrisy! Iowa’s Christian conservatives have every right to hold their senator (Grassley) accountable to them (as voters) as they see fit.
SteveG have not demonstrated that the Christian conservatives of Iowa actually have any problem with shining the light of truth on anyone. But they do have a right to advocate against a process that they believe has it’s priorities distorted.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
If the ministries or individuals within them have committed tax improprieties, then it is the job of the IRS to straighten it out, right? I don’t see how it’s in Congress’ purview (as if they didn’t have enough to do).
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: Sounds like a very fun party. Michelle: I pray your daughter will heal quickly.
Report comment to moderator
Lumps,
Well it looks like I was right, again. You cannot negotiate with people who aren’t really interested. But at least Bush tried. And in the process showed how clueless Obamas stand on negotiating with terrorists is. He’s an amatuer. A rather naieve one at that.
http://tinyurl.com/5897ky
From the MSNBC link;
“But doubt was cast over the value of talks less then an hour after they started, when Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, appeared to indicate that Tehran was not prepared to budge on enrichment.
“Suspension — there is no chance for that,” he told reporters gathered in the courtyard of Geneva’s ornate City Hall, the venue of the negotiations.
There also appeared to be little progress inside the talks.”
Report comment to moderator
#27, Earth to Jon Rowe: you are not God!
Whether America’s key Founders — Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris and others — were “Christians” is now officially God’s call, not yours, Jon. I disagree with your dogmatic judgmentalism toward them.
If a debate 200 years from now occurred over whether I mayself was a “Christian,” I would hope it might be clear that I was. But I also realize that anyone could collect examples, deeds and statements of mine that may cast that conclusion in doubt. A lot depends on how those examples are selected and conveyed.
Jon Rowe went so far as to write (at #27); “…even though they at times called themselves “Christians” and presented their heterodox theology under the auspices of ‘Christianity.’”
In other words, the Founders themselves would clearly not appreciate Jon Rowe’s dogmatic judgments against their own stated claims 200 years later.
Report comment to moderator
The WSJ:
According to the Field Poll, 51% of California voters surveyed said they would oppose Proposition 8, a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus banning same-sex marriage. Forty-one percent of voters surveyed said they would vote “yes” on the measure, according to the statewide survey that was completed this week.
Report comment to moderator
Since the Founders, in large measure and by Jon Rowe’s own admission, claimed to be “Christians,” I’ll take that as a positive sign of the positive influence of Christianity on them and coming from them. Beyond that, God’s judgment on their “Christianity” is the only one that will stand.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle: My prayers also.
Musing: #30. I agree, government just messes things up.
Along that line: Cameron and Joel Mark. Correct, probably the IRS and Justice Dept. should be investigating this. However, if it keeps congress from passing new laws, it’s probably worth the taxpayer expense. Better they go on a boondoggle, but they can’t do that in an election year.
Report comment to moderator
Okay fine Joel. But the following is an example of what “Christianity” meant to them. As Franklin put it, “Christianity” rejects original sin:
But lest they shou’d imagine that one of their strongest Objections hinted at here, and elsewhere, is designedly overlook’d, as being unanswerable, viz. our lost and undone State by Nature, as it is commonly call’d, proceeding undoubtedly from the Imputation of old Father Adam’s first Guilt. To this I answer once for all, that I look upon this Opinion every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. ’Tis absurd in it self, and therefore cannot be father’d upon the Christian Religion as deliver’d in the Gospel. Moral Guilt is so personal a Thing, that it cannot possibly in the Nature of Things be transferr’d from one Man to Myriads of others, that were no way accessary to it. And to suppose a Man liable to Punishment upon account of the Guilt of another, is unreasonable; and actually to punish him for it, is unjust and cruel.
(1735 A Defense of Mr. Hemphill’s Observations)
Or as John Adams put it, all “good people” are “Christians.”
I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.
– John Adams to Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.
Or as Thomas Jefferson put it, Christianity teaches men are saved through works and not grace:
My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.
– Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, May 15, 1819.
So the question is: Is this “Christianity”? And if not, then history gives me every right examine and so categorize these Founders as “not Christian” even though they themselves presented their heretical ideas under the auspices of “Christianity.”
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
Praying for you and your daughter.
I wanted to see Wall-E. The trailers were cute, and the writeup in WORLD looked interesting. But the friend with whom I usually see movies saw it with her daughter, and they found it slow.
My weekend plans: Mow. (Check.) Go to the bank. (Check.) Clean house. Finish up one work project. (Check.) Start another work project. Pack to go out of town tomorrow afternoon. Leave my roommate notes on care of the dog (since she isn’t a dog person and won’t necessarily figure out on her own that the dog needs fresh water and won’t drink the water from yesterday or the water that’s too low in the bowl). Go to church. Drive to see relatives.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, give us a book report on The Shack.
I’m presently reading Willful Blindness, buy Andrew C. McCarthy. It’s an interesting, but difficult book about the war we’re in. It didn’t start at 9/11, but has been going on a long time. I’m only on Ch. 9. as I said, it isn’t easy, not a fun book, but I consider it an essential read for those interested in the mess we’re in.
He doesn’t just blame Clinton. He blames everyone, the FBI, CIA, State Dept. Everyone.
We’re still in denial about the nature of the conflict.
Nick Peters made a correct statement a few days ago when he said our enemy is militant Islam. But I disagree that we can’t win it. We can, but we won’t the way we’re going about it.
We didn’t fight a politically correct war in WW II, and our side did some bad things, but we won.
Report comment to moderator
In an interview with SPIEGEL, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Barack Obama’s 16 timeframe for a withdrawal from Iraq is the right one.
Report comment to moderator
Incidentally, McCarthy echoes the same comments made by “Anonymous” in Terrorist Hunter, and Robert Baer in See No Evil. See No Evil,, BTW is an interesting and easy book to read. It is real cheap on Amazon right now. Baer was a CIA field man in the middle east. Some interesting insights there.
Report comment to moderator
Musing –
As Outkast noted #22 “I never even remotely suggested anything of that sort, Musing, so please stop lying about what I have or have not said on this blog.”
I agree with Outkast, – this simply isn’t true. Musing I have said nothing of the kind, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!
Report comment to moderator
Michelle, I’m praying for your daughter. I hope you get a second opinion when she gets home.
God bless you and your family.
Report comment to moderator
5,151 U.S. troops have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
So far.
Report comment to moderator
Should Susan Atkins be let out to die in the care of family? I’m inclined to say no. I saw the first pix of the interior of the Polanski home. Anyone who could slash open the abdomen of a woman 8 mos pregnant deserves to rot behind bars.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner
I tend to agree with you. That was a horrible murder.
Report comment to moderator
I think Susan Atkins should have been executed a long time ago.
Report comment to moderator
ATTENTION – WARNING The picture in this article is very GRAPHIC – it is the picture of Sharon Tate murdered.
Report comment to moderator
“IMAGINE THE LIABILITY”
Those are the words Andrew C. McCarthy uses to start his book, Willful Blindness. And they are the driving force concerning American security. McCarthy was the prosecuting attorney in the case against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and other jihadists wrt the 1993 Twin Towers bombing. It turns out, the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. He had been productive and helped prevent attacks which aren’t discussed. However, the jihadist wanted him to help with explosives. The FBI terminated him. Imagine the Liability if it was learned that an FBI informant had participated in an event which actually succeeded? They terminated Salem.
But Carson, the man who made the observation, was right. After all, “Rule #1: Avoid Accountable Failure”. The press, congress, and everyone would have been on their necks. “The FBI’s default position was that an unruly informant would not have empowered the government, but left it vulnerable.” McCarthy says, ”Unwittingly, he (Carson) was speaking to our exercise in national self-immolation-now fifteen years and still going strong-which regards alien security threats as if they were legal issues to be spotted and adjudicated rather than enemies to be smoked out and defeated before they can kill.”
“In the war against radical Islam, the great calling of our generation, what was true when the enemy declared war fifteen years ago remains true today. If we are too obsessed with the law, and liability, we are shrinking from our highest duty: to protect lives.” But still have to factor in lawyers.
And I’m only on chapter 9.
But the recent Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo has strong ramifications here.
Report comment to moderator
Credit where credit is due.
White House sends press corps al-Maliki praise for Obama plan
Report comment to moderator
Musing, there is no doubt that Fannie and Freddie and the Banks are connected: Fannie and Freddie are insuring a lot of loans that the bank’s own. I predict that there will be more bank failures.
Just to let you all know, Congress can investigate anything it wants to investigate, including the televangelists. But I do agree with Cameron that they could leave it to the IRS and do some of the work that has more priority!
Chas’ post at 65 is important — it’s why the Congress should be acting to clean up the habeas problem with new legislation rather than inquiring into televangelists. And I want to read that book.
Jon Rowe: there were a lot of people who wigned or voted on the Declaration and the Constitution, including “regular” people, who would be considered dyed-in-the-wool Christians. You want to establish, for some odd reason, that only a few men who “weren’t Christians” established this country, and that simply is not true. What you keep forgetting about those documents is that they refer to the form of government, i.e., the three branches and that the government arises from the people. Those people, by and large, were Christians. I fail to see why it is so important to you to establish that a few men who put pen to paper and wrote a document that had nothing to do with religion (Constitution) didn’t fit your definition of “Christian.” They didn’t act alone. Every one of those paragraphs was debated by a lot of people, most of whom would pass the Christian “test.” They were voted on by the people. This Nation, no matter what you are trying to say, was overwhelmingly started by Christians.
Report comment to moderator
That’s signed not wigned.
Report comment to moderator
Does John McCain remember what he said in 2004? Will he keep his word and support the Obama-Maliki plan?
Peterson: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.
McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
Because ideas have consequences. And even though you correctly point out the Declaration and US Constitution were vetted by traditional Christians, it was enlightened heretics who pushed those ideas forth.
Report comment to moderator
“This Nation, no matter what you are trying to say, was overwhelmingly started by Christians.”
Something else interesting that I’ve found is that whereas 98% of the population was “Protestant” in some formal or nominal sense of the term, America during the Founding era was a distinctly unchurched nation. Some studies have found that only 17% of the population belonged to a “Church.”
So yes, America was overwhelmingly “Christian” in a formal nominal sense. But it is not at all clear that the majority of the population were “Christian” in an orthodox or regenerate sense. Indeed, your own Bible teaches true Christianity is a “narrow path.”
Report comment to moderator
Maliki said: “Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
You said “Something else interesting that I’ve found is that whereas 98% of the population was “Protestant” in some formal or nominal sense of the term, America during the Founding era was a distinctly unchurched nation. Some studies have found that only 17% of the population belonged to a “Church.””
Listen, you’re way smarter than me, I’ll admit it. But sometimes I ask myself, “how come smart people miss the obvious easy answer?” This is one of those times. What you are missing here is that these Christians were fleeing religous persection from a state sanctioned church. The Church of England. If I were them, I’d be in no hurry to join up again with organised religion. Do you think maybe that could explain why no one was interested in “church”? All those people on the Mayflower in 1620 are a good example. Here’s a link I’ve been reading from Mark Canada from the UofNCatP.
http://tinyurl.com/5zesa7
You should read it.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, as long as they weren’t Christians in a “degenerate” sense, I won’t pass judgment. There was a lot of church goin’ whether you want to admit it or not. I think you’re really pushing it when you use the words “not at all clear.” I have not doubt that there were slackers back in the day, too.
You also seem to forget that the guys had the English government as a prototype, not to mention the ancient Greeks. Our Founders didn’t think this up on their own out of the blue. They used old ideas and built on them. They may not have literally written Christianity into the founding documents, unlike countries that have state religions, but without Christianity, this country wouldn’t exist. And it won’t continue to exist as it was envisioned without it either. Just sayin’.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #45: I see no such buffoonery Steveg. If there is “ire” among Iowa Christian conservatives about Grassley, it is not necessarily because televangelists are receiving scrutiny for their spending, but because they believe this is not a responsible use of the Federatl gov’t time and money. The senators may not be respecting the separation of powers. If these televangelists broke the law, then our judicial system (not US senators) should hold them accountable. The televangelists may also be subjected to the open scrutiny of the press or to the people who support.
But senate committes should probably be focused elsewhere.
Well that would be a nice explanation, if it was true. But according to Novak, that’s not their reason at all. According to Novak:
Leading conservatives, headed by Paul Weyrich and Ken Blackwell, have charged Grassley with violating the First Amendment religious freedom guarantee.
Also, you appear not to understand the purpose of Congressional investigations. Grassley, as former chair and current ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee, has a legitimate interest in federal tax policy, including the policy that governs money controlled by non-profit groups. An investigating like this one is almost always about understanding a situation so that if there are loopholes in the law, they can be identified and addressed legislatively. It’s fact-finding, not punitive.
But if the ministries really are taking in money from donors and spending it extravagantly, I can understand why they and their supporters would not want to talk about it in a public hearing.
Report comment to moderator
Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris were diverse, Jon Rowe, socially, physically, spiritually, emotionally, and theologically. It is poor scholarship to just lump them all together to simplistically and dogmatically judge their standing of faith or their “Christianity”, even in contradiction to many of their own claims and statements.
Is their record of statements and actions mixed? Of course, and so is my own record! And that diversity is my point. Not only were these men different from each other in matters of faith conviction, but they changed their notions themselves over time.
Sorry, Jon, but they are not around to take your own personal “Christianity” test, and you wern’t around then to give it to them. And the only test that matters is the one God can give and grade — Did they truly repent of their sins and for the many ways they (as humans) “missed the mark” (which is the original definition of ’sin’) in their deeds, words and convictions. Being wrong from time to time is not what condemns anyone. That’s all of us (even the Founders)! But refusing to repent and reconcile with God does condemn us in the end.
Report comment to moderator
AJ,
I think you are right that you could be a non-Church member and still be a Christian. I’ve also heard it argued that low church membership was due to a shortage of ministers and consequently churches. I just wanted to point out that just because 98% of the Country may have been “Protestant” in some formal sense didn’t necessarily mean all or even most of them were “Christian” in a devout orthodox regenerate sense.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg,
If Weyrich and Blackwell have charged Grassley with violating the First Amendment religious freedom guarantee, then that fits what I said at #45. What i see is some sort of strange need in you to bash evangelical conservatives by presuming something in their motives that may not be there at all.
In any case, the Iowan Republicans who are trying to convey their grievances to Grassley have every right to do so (and I realize you never said otherwise) as citizens and you don’t have to like it either. If you see hypocrisy or buffoonery, I think is it your prior projections upon Christian conservatives and not based on anything they have siad or done. if you disagree with them, try do so respectfully.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
You miss the point of my exercise: It’s not to inquire as to whether ANY of them had some end of life conversion to orthodox Christianity like the thief on the cross (though Hamilton does evince this). Rather to assess what it was they believed over their lives and in particular, when they were busy Founding the nation.
And my test isn’t complex: It’s Trinitarian orthodoxy as found in the Nicene Creed and other doctrines of orthodox confessions. In fact, it’s not my test, but tests that the orthodox Churches voluntarily adopted. And accordingly, none of those above mentioned Founders meets the definition of “Christian” according to these Trinitarian creeds.
Report comment to moderator
As a member of the conservative GOP voters in Iowa, I can affirm that we’re not very happy at all with what Grassley is doing to undermine the conservative base. In fact, there’s a lot of talk about finding a good conservative to challenge him in his future reelection campaigns. Stay tuned.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I know a lot of wonderful Christians who differ in their understandings of “original sin.” Some see it as biological, others do not (and many other variances can come into play in the honest human struggle to understand our nature and our behavior).
But what matters to God, in my view, is that you honestly confront yur own sin in repentance and claim the power of Christ’s blood to wash your sins away and then go forth in the power of the Holy Spirit to live free from your slavery to sin.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe is historically incorrect.
Those who composed, debated and signed the Declaration were not all “enlightened heretics.” That’s irresponsibly simplistic and sweepingly dogmatic. The truth is that those ideas were vetted, pulled, refined and confirmed by a mixed set of men with many different ideas between them, and this included traditional Christians.
And none of them ever took Jon Rowe’s ‘heretic’ test.
The Declaration would never have come about had this not been a Christian country full of Christian influences and convictions. But other influences circulated as well. Nothing new there! Regardless of their diverse convictions, they all united in the belief that the unregulated circulation of free convictions of faith would yield the best course for our nation and our search for truth.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, you might really enjoy McCarthy’s book. He is a lawyer and there is lots of legalies. He tries to make it understandable, but I’m sure there’s much I don’t get.
Report comment to moderator
Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin were a majority of the drafting board with Jefferson as the author. They were enlightened heretics who rejected Christian orthodoxy.
This is my historical claim which is correct.
Report comment to moderator
They did not take your heresy test, Jon. They were diverse and those three did not work alone on the Declaration by any means.
Report comment to moderator
“[It] demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised.” ~ Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933), 30th U.S. President, speech on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of independence, July 5, 1926, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Report comment to moderator
* “It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world.” ~ Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933), 30th U.S. President, speech on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of independence, July 5, 1926, Philadelphia.
Report comment to moderator
“[The Declaration of Independence] is the product of the spiritual insight of the people.” ~ Calvin Coolidge, 150th anniversary of the Declaration of independence, July 5, 1926.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
You keep on saying “my heresy test,” when it is nothing of the sort. It’s the very test of “heresy” that was settled by the early church in 325 AD and found in such venerable creeds as the Westminster Confession. Those three did take and flunk that test. And you have to wonder if their religion was so different than the others’ why were they the ones chosen to write the Declaration.
Report comment to moderator
Conservative Libertarian columnist Andrew Sullivan has an interesting article here discussing the blurring of the positions of Obama and McCain
“Something very strange and a little unnerving is happening in American politics on the question of foreign policy. Everyone seems to be agreeing with one another, while adamantly refusing to admit it.”
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see the doctrine of original sin in either the Apostles’ or the Nicene Creed.
Report comment to moderator
Okay — original sin is negotiable. However, the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement are not. And America’s key Founders rejected these doctrines.
Report comment to moderator
I do see that Jon wants to prove that Christianity is feckless and couldn’t possibly have anything to do with such a great accomplishment as the Declaration of Independence and the nation it birthed.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 58,
you mean like your post 11 in Economic See Saw in response to outkast’s post 1?
“11. by Victoria 07.17.08 at 1:59 am
Outkast
Maybe the price is to high even for socialism. ”
But it would probably help to keep your stories straight on what you have and haven’t said.
outkast has a long history of this class of issue. I generally find that you keep your stories much straighter.
Report comment to moderator
That’s not my goal. However, I think the value I bring to Christians on these threads is I help you distinguish between Americanism and Christianity. If what you believe in is True then God doesn’t want you to look to America’s Declaration of Independence on how to deal with government but Romans 13. The Bible nowhere says that the “ends” of government are unalienable rights to life, political liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that “the people” have a right to abolish governments that don’t meet these ends. In fact, the Bible never intimates that governments receive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed (and often intimates the very opposite). Again if what you believe in is true, God doesn’t want you acting as though this man made document — the Declaration of Independence — teaches divinely inspired principles when its ideas are totally alien to the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Here is Thomas Fleming of Chronicles Magazine on the Declaration. THIS, I would argue, is an authentic orthodox Christian understanding of the Declaration (article is no longer available online).
Whatever Mr. Jefferson and his colleagues thought they were doing (other than restating Enlightenment platitudes that have nothing to do with Christianity), they were not writing the fundamental law of a nation that did not yet exist. If they had been intending to establish Christianity at the center of the American system, they would have used Christian language instead of such deistic phrases as “Nature’s god.”
Report comment to moderator
“I help you distinguish between Americanism and Christianity”
And we thank you. You always bring a well reasoned and sourced perspective that is welcome by most.
Report comment to moderator
It is my pleasure!
Report comment to moderator
John McCain told a joke about a woman who was brutally and repeatedly raped by a gorilla and left to die in the street. His punch line was that she really enjoyed it and wanted to be raped more! Funny guy. It has now made the MSM, and McSame’s campaign says this is just an example of McCain being authentic McCain.
Here is the joke being read on the news. There was a person here who thought it “inappropriate,” but it should be heard by everyone who thinks McCain should be president. How anyone but a very deranged person would find this funny I will never understand.
Authentic McCain
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 94
Your error is in trying to mix up the posts from one thread to another – then bringing bits and pieces from what suits your purpose to yet another thread-
In order to keep order on these threads you must give a LINK, and POST NUMBER to the exact THREAD-
Do not rephrase my comments to meet your needs, I hope you understand this request.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 100,
I am sure I am. And if so, you can easily explain what it was that you and outkast meant and correct my misunderstanding.
No I am not wrong to quote people from other discussions groups: what is said in the context of a discussion in this blog is said in a discusison in this blog and if of course available for quoting latter: many posters including you have done it.
You and outkast have been knee jerk asserting my errors apparently without thought. This was a test. You and outkast failed.
You might think first before you post.
And you might remember that what you say in this blog can be referenced and quoted if you attempt to arbitrarily change your statements and positions.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote: “You miss the point of my exercise: It’s not to inquire as to whether ANY of them had some end of life conversion to orthodox Christianity ….”
That a few Founders may or may not have been orthodox Christians when the overwhelming number were proves what? They weren’t setting up a religion. They were setting up a mere government. You make the same mistake the Jews of Jesus’ time made. They saw the Messiah as a political person, they wanted a political Deliverer — and that’s not what God sent them. You now want to prove that there was no Christianity in the founding of America because a few men weren’t orthodox Christians. That’s not true, because the Christianity was there not through the Constitution, but in the people. The US government is not the Deliverer. That’s not it’s purpose, nor did anyone envision that it should be. The Constitution is a framework for a limited, secular government, and everyone at the time saw it that way. It wasn’t created to take the place of Jesus Christ, the Deliverer. It’s not the purpose the US to perform that function — though there are many liberals here who would substitute the US Govt. for the teachings of Christ, if not Christ Himself. They are two very different things with very different purposes, and those who created the US Govt. understood that. They didn’t see themselves as God. They weren’t substituting the Constitution for Him either; they understood very well that it is a “lesser” document, just a framework for a limited government. They also believed it could be destroyed and overthrown if it failed to do so.
You think we want to elevate “Americanism” to the level of Scripture. They are not equal, but part of Americanism is Christianity, whether you see that or not. I would submit to you when you state: “…God doesn’t want you acting as though this man made document — the Declaration of Independence — teaches divinely inspired principles when its ideas are totally alien to the Bible.” that you limit Americanism to two pieces of paper. America is its people, and throughout its history, belief in Christ has been a part of those people.
Does the Bible use the words “inalienable rights?” No — but it does tell us that God created us in his image, it does tell us God wants us to be free through the sacrifice of Christ. All the early Americans who came here for religious freedom were trying to do in putting the Constitution together was to provide a framework for a government that would NOT inhibit their beliefs, that would not try to control that. They essentially said, we’ll give this government just so much power because they understood something you don’t, that the freedom preached by Christ is eternal, but any freedom a government can provide is very small in comparison to that and that governments are corruptible where the Eternal is not. That’s why they limited the government’s power.
What the Founders came up with is bupkis compared to the Scripture. You think it is so “great,” and indeed, so far the experiment has worked, though we debate that here every day. It is certainly not without flaws. I submit to you that the flaws in the American government come from the fact that your favorite Founders failed to seek true freedom — they chose the 3/5s compromise over true freedom to keep the economy growing. They chose evil over good, and we’ve been paying the price for that since the beginning. If anything, the concepts of true freedom were alien to your favorite Founders, not the Bible. Your boys, for all their intelligence, failed to see that because they DIDN’T believe, and they built it oppression into the Constitution. Your boys did the same thing non-believers always do. They didn’t understand the theme of the Bible, and they didn’t understand who Christ is. Take Christ out of this Country, out of the people, and you are left with a Constitution that can be use in as tyrannical a way as anything offered by the Soviets or the Jihadists. The people have always provided for this country what your heroes could not — belief in Christ — because without Him, the experiment fails, and it is failing today because of a lack of faith. The “others” who signed onto the Constitution signed on because they knew the government can’t provide the Christian aspect, that that comes from the people themselves, and they acted accordingly. You can’t base Americanism on two pieces of paper, the Declaration and the Constitution. It’s larger than that. It’s faith, it’s personal responsibility.
Others can add to this. I have to go now.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #103: throughout its history, belief in Christ has been a part of those people.
Right. PART of those people. But even at the founding there were significant numbers of Jews, Unitarians, Deists and others.
I am truly not interested in what religion this or that founder followed. I read a long exchange on another Web site a few years back about whether Thomas Jefferson was a Christian or a Deist. I didn’t see the point … regardless of what he personally believed, he helped create a country dedicated to the principle that each of us should be free to believe as our conscience dictates.
And that’s the key point. America is a country of religious liberty, for people of any or no faith.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 103,
a very clear and deep post. I find the following comment most informative:
I submit to you that the flaws in the American government come from the fact that your favorite Founders failed to seek true freedom — they chose the 3/5s compromise over true freedom to keep the economy growing. They chose evil over good, and we’ve been paying the price for that since the beginning. If anything, the concepts of true freedom were alien to your favorite Founders, not the Bible.”
No NJLawyer, we are not about to institute a Christian theocracy inh the U.S.
Report comment to moderator
And no one is suggesting that, Musing. No one wanted that then, and no one wants that now. But they did, and I do, want LIMITED government. If you read the whole post, hopefully you understand that what I’m saying in response to Jon is that “Americanism” is that it consists of more than two documents or the people who put pen to paper. Others debated, reworded, voted on the Declaration and the Constitution.
What founded this country was a group of people who were very Christian, and understood Christian doctrine and value to be the way to live. They felt no need to put that in the Constitution, except in two clauses of the First Amendment — and even then, it was to let everyone believe what they want to believe. But you you being disingenuous, and so is Jon, if you discount the fact that the overwhelming number of Americans did not bring their Christianity to the table. Christianity (and by that, I include the Old Testament as well) is the moral underpinning to our country. Those teachings are the teachings, the way of life, that were rolling around the heads and hearts of the early Americans, not secularism, not socialism. They didn’t want a theocracy nor did they vote one in. They wanted, bluntly, to keep government at bay, and the Constitution was about all they wanted to hand over, and they didn’t want to do that much. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought because the Founders — and I think this is one thing they were wrong about — were naive enough to think, well, if we don’t mention it, it’s not a government power, simply because we didn’t write it down. The Bill of Rights people wanted that extra assurance, and without it, there would have been no Constitution.
How you can even think that I am suggesting a Christian theocracy is beyond me. You are just as limited in your view of history as Jon is. Jon wants to fit certain Founders into a point of view that he believes in, not necessarily that they believed in, and you want to believe that any mention of Christianity means theocracy. It doesn’t. But don’t lie about our history. The early Americans, the ones who founded this country — and make no mistake that our Founders include more than a few well-known names, it is really the people — were Christians, and Christianity is what informed their way of life and the government they wanted to form. There were some who were less “faithful,” and we have those people today still, and these wanted the government to be established more than they wanted freedom for all, so they compromised. Everyone, however, went along with the Constitution because they ALL understood that it was only PART of their lives, a part they wanted to limit giving power to.
When you deny the Christian heritage of this country, you are denying the history of its people. That’s not anti-theocracy. That’s anti-American, and if you continue denying those truths, if you deny the importance of Christian faith in this nation, you will make the experiment fail.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I thank you for your thoughtful comment however I must take umbrage with this (I could take umbrage with other things, like calling me “disingenuous” but I’ll let that pass).
Jon wants to fit certain Founders into a point of view that he believes in, not necessarily that they believed in, and you want to believe that any mention of Christianity means theocracy.
This is NOT at all true. I painstakingly describe what Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin believed in, what THEY believed, not what I want them to believe with meticulous references to the primary sources.
Report comment to moderator
Also NJL,
I am not trying to deny the cultural influence of Christianity on America. All of the things you mention are important and apt. Rather I’m analyzing the ideological bases for the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers and concluding that Christianity was not the prime ideological source for the thought in those documents.
That’s all.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 106,
I suggest that when yor comment is of the form:
” If anything, the concepts of true freedom were alien to your favorite Founders, not the Bible.””
then it would appear that you are arguing for inclusion of the bible as part of our model of governance. and my comment stands.
If, however, I have misconstrued you and you do not want the Bible incorporated as part of our model of governance, then my apologies.
You post and quote appeared to suggest otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 106
now if the primary issue is limited gopvernment asd would appear to be included in your comment:
” But they did, and I do, want LIMITED government”
I find this an interesting comment to justify Biblically?
Did not Jesus arguye render to Ceasar that which is Ceasars’? Did not Paul argue for respecting government?
And in their times the government was an empire of the form which we have not seen often in this world.
So it would seem that your concept of limited government comes from other sources than Biblical teaching, or perhaps you can provide some references I am missing.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 106/Jon Rowe post 107,
I can second Jon Rowe’s cpomments about his painstakingly researching the religious beliefs of Washington, Franklin and Adams. His research here is very deep indeed.
I have looked at these three idividuals myself and they are not Christians in the sense of how Christian is typically used in this blog.
Frankln, based on materials from shortly before his death, is explicitly not a Christain.
Adams of course espoused what we now call Unitarian theologies.
Jefferson wrote the Jefferson bible which removes all traces of miracles form the Gospels and looks suspiciiously like an early verion of the materials now considered as “Q”.
I suggest never tackling Jon head on unless you are prepared to provide detailed references to support your position. I did not see these references in your post.
Report comment to moderator
” If anything, the concepts of true freedom were alien to your favorite Founders, not the Bible.””
And indeed, much of what I’ve written here supports this contention. To a Christian true freedom is not political liberty, what the Declaration of Independence speaks of, but spiritual liberty or freedom from sin (or sin’s consequences, however you want to put it). However, one can be “free” in Christ and a chattel slave. Every time the Bible speaks of “liberty” it is always in the context of spiritual liberty, never “political” liberty.
Report comment to moderator
So this being whirled views and all, topics can range.
So I would like to ask a question:
1) it was stated on Friday that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are leveraged at a 65:1 ratio
2) Wed. the Massachusetts senate voted to repeal a bill restricting marriages in Massachusetts to out of state couples if the marriage were ot to be legal in their home state
3) Friday Bush agreed that a time table of withdrawal from Iraq was required
4) It looks like Sat. Der Speigel released an interview in which Al Maliki is reported as saying that the U.S. should set a timetable of perhaps 16 months for withdrawal
5) Saturday U.S. negotiators met in multiparty talks which included Iran
as a minimum.
And the last articles in Sat WMB are “Movies: Bonnie and Clyde and Will?” and “Sports: My favorite player”?
These are indeed interesting topics, but they do not seem to be of the imnport of the breaking news occurring during this time.
Report comment to moderator
re: #112
“Every time the Bible speaks of “liberty” it is always in the context of spiritual liberty, never “political” liberty.”
“For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery;” – Patrick Henry, “Give Me Freedom or Give Me Death” speech.
1Cor 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
This verse speaks of spiritual liberty?
Report comment to moderator
Yes. And don’t forget Paul told believers who are slaves to obey their Earthly masters. Their political unfreeness was no big deal given that they were already “free” in Christ. Patrick Henry’s words sound nice and he was an orthodox Christian. But his notion of give me political liberty or give me death is not a biblical idea but an 18th Century Whig idea.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
It’s your heresy test and you think you are the omniscient almighty judge and jury of people accross centruies of time, people you never knew, and people who would would surely not appreciate or affirm your dogmatic concusions.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “I think the value I bring to Christians on these threads is I help you distinguish between Americanism and Christianity.”
Our need for you to help us make that distinction is in your mind, Jon, not in reality. It shows me that you don’t understand your audience, except by your own shallow stereotypes of us.
The Lord does not mind us looking at the Declaration, Jon. Honest Christians can disagree over it too. Honest Christians can interpret Romans 13 differently from you too, Jon. Imagine that!
Maybe you can’t.
The Bible is not primarily a political document Jon. And Christians can come away from it with different political priorities. Your view of it the Bible far too narrow. It leaves us more options as free people than you seem to think.
You are incorrect Jon. Many good Christians believe that the principles of the Declaration (which makes references to “Nature’s God” and humans being “created” and “the Supreme Judge of the world” and “Divine Providence”) are quite compatible with the principles of Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I see that GODLUMPS did actually need your help to distinguish between Americanism and Christianity. I guess there is always someone out there who does not yet know the barest of basics so you are providing a service for some.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe post 155/Joel Mark posts 116 and 117,
you seem to be doing fine so far. I am disinclined to comment so long as you seem to be making the argument so well.
I will add one question:
Joel is this your position or are you referencing others?
Report comment to moderator
Musing wrote; “we are not about to institute a Christian theocracy inh the U.S.”
You may be if you are voting for Obama.
* In South Carolina on October 7, 2007, Obama said: “Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics. Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God… I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”
* Obama also cites the Word of God to advocate his political policies. He recently told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. After citing the Sermon on the Mount, in the next breath, he usurped divine authority and specifically dismissed another part of the word of God that he didn’t like (Romans One).
* In Philadelphia, Obama said; “In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.”
Note the last phrase: “…let our politics reflect that spirit as well.”
Report comment to moderator
Fine post at #103, NJL.
Indeed, our Founders were setting up a government, not a religion and not a competitor with religion. Many of them were Christians and all of them were positively influenced by Christianity.
NJL correctly wrote; “…part of Americanism is Christianity, whether you see that or not… America is its people, and throughout its history, belief in Christ has been a part of those people.”
Our Founders believed that our Declaration and Constitution were worthless for a people without strong faith or morality already in place foundationally among the people.
Report comment to moderator
#107, Jon Wrote; “I painstakingly describe what Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin believed in, what THEY believed, not what I want them to believe with meticulous references to the primary sources.?
No. You selectively describe what YOU THINK they beleived and your descriptions often defy their own claims that they indeed WERE Christians.
I agree with NJL. I also think that Jon seeks to fit certain Founders into a point of view that suits his bias and his image of them. It’s called historical revisionism.
Report comment to moderator
Bonus Quote of the Day
“Could I mention the presence of my friend, Congressman Steve Pearce, who I believe will be joining me in the United States Senate?”
– Sen. John McCain, quoted by Politico at one of his town hall charades, apparently planning to still be in the Senate next year.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I’ve already explained myself and see no reason to go back and forth. I’ll just say that honest readers know what you assert is not right. I’ve already outlined the test for heresy and have shown it is not mine but orthodox Christendom’s — the same test to which most WMB bloggers Churches adhere. And an honest reading of the historical record shows that Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin flunked that test in no uncertain terms.
“The Trinity was carried in a general council by one vote against a quaternity; the Virgin Mary lost an equality with the Father, Son, and Spirit only by a single suffrage.”
– John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812.
And:
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 120,
when yo say:
“Musing wrote; “we are not about to institute a Christian theocracy inh the U.S.”
You may be if you are voting for Obama. ”
I suggest ou would need to provide significant data to back this up.
You are doing an excellent job, however, of showing that Obama has mastered the language of the evangelical community.
Can you go to his issue site and show that this is indeed as you describe and interpret his statements part of his program?
Besides, eveyrone “knows” that Obhama is a muslim.
The misinformation being spread about Obama is too amazing to be believed, but keeping trying. McCain is increasingly looking like he is cooking himself and he needs all the help he can get.
Report comment to moderator
Jeol Mark post 122,
this is easy. Please provide countervailing quotes and material from these men to prove your point.
We are awaiting your posts.
Report comment to moderator
Musing-
Good luck with your wait.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 102
Repeating my post/REQUEST post 100, please give LINK to thread and POST NUMBER.
Musing – 94
Your error is in trying to mix up the posts from one thread to another – then bringing bits and pieces from what suits your purpose to yet another thread-
In order to keep order on these threads you must give a LINK, and POST NUMBER to the exact THREAD-
Do not rephrase my comments to meet your needs, I hope you understand this request.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
Repeating my post/REQUEST post 100, please give LINK to thread and POST NUMBER.
Musing – 94
Your error is in trying to mix up the posts from one thread to another – then bringing bits and pieces from what suits your purpose to yet another thread-
In order to keep order on these threads you must give a LINK, and POST NUMBER to the exact THREAD-
Do not rephrase my comments to meet your needs, I hope you understand this request.
Report comment to moderator
-
-
Report comment to moderator
Ever wonder why the Bushies now love McCain, the man they hated and slandered in 2000?
FINEMAN: If you’re in this White House, you want another Republican administration to follow. You don’t want a Democratic administration coming in there while the evidence is still fresh, so to speak. To look at it the way…
MATTHEWS: With the subpoena power…
FINEMAN: With the subpoena power and looking through all the records and looking at all the decisions that were made. You want to cover over your two terms with a third term the way Ronald Reagan did with George HW Bush.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I went and looked at the thread “Economic See Saw” – you have certainly taken liberties on this thread with those remarks.
I might add YOU Musing didn’t even post on that thread but tried to twirl the whole thing over here on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
Good luck trying to get Musing to see that all he/she does is misquote others in an attempt to confuse the issues we discuss. Everyone who does the research can see it for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Victoarrhea,
Musing has on at least two occasions said that he may have misunderstood and would like you and Outkast to clarify the intent of your comments. Have you clarified your comments? Not that I can see. (hint- channeling Linda Blair does not elevate the discussion.)
30 “so I guess I must have misundersatood you apparent agreement in post 1 of economimc seasaw:”
102 “I am sure I am. And if so, you can easily explain what it was that you and outkast meant and correct my misunderstanding.”
Please do clarify your comment and move on.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast, you’re right of course.
Mix/match/twirl/whirl everything together, throw it into a malt machine, then sit back and watch everyone UNSCRAMBLE the mess, if they even bother to try — normally I just don’t bother. What a waste of time.
Report comment to moderator
Lumps – 134
I’m going to do it my way
Have a nice day!
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
I left you a question in repsonse to your assertion that gas prices fell all week after Bush lifted his dad’s offshore drilling moratorium (comment 58). This is on the 7.18 WV. I’d appreciate a reply when you have a moment.
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/18/whirled-views-718/#comments
Report comment to moderator
Victoarrhea,
Thank you for exposing your true intent.
I am having a nice day. Thank you. You as well.
Report comment to moderator
Musing wrote; “I suggest ou would need to provide significant data to back this up.”
I certainly did back up my comment with three documented quotes. Did you miss it? People can interpret them as they wish, but they do clearly incline toward theocratic tendencies.
Report comment to moderator
“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. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies.” –John Adams, June 21, 1776.
Report comment to moderator
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” John Adams
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 129,
see my post 94 in this thread for complete data.
Also of course we discussed this in some detail in “New Rules of Engagement”
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 41,
very good.
But does this religion have to be Christain?
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 129,
my apologies for not responding earlier in this thread.
You and I were in a fascinating discussion in the “New Rules of Engagement” thread.
Report comment to moderator
Adams was clear that the religion didn’t necessarily have to be Christianity, though he had no problem if Christianity were the religion. Here Adams states how pagan Greco-Roman religion could be the “religion and morality” that republics need for support:
“This preamble [to the laws of ZALEUCUS] instead of addressing itself to the ignorance, prejudices, and superstitious fears of savages, for the purpose of binding them to an absurd system of hunger and glory for a family purpose, like the laws of Lycurgus, places religion, morals, and government, upon a basis of philosophy, which is rational, intelligible, and eternal, for the real happiness of man in society, and throughout his duration.”
– John Adams, DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1787-88.
The laws of ZALEUCUS were supposedly revealed by Athena 600 BC.
Report comment to moderator
Here is Adams, in his letter to Jefferson dated Oct. 4, 1813, finding “Christianity” in Pagan Greek philosophy [I did the best I could with the Greek letters]:
“θέμίς was the Goddess of honesty, Justice, Decency, and right; the Wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations and Counsells. She commanded all Mortals to pray to Jupiter, for all lawful Benefits and Blessings.
“Now, is not this, (so far forth) the Essence of Christian devotion? Is not this Christian Piety? Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence? of a righteous Administration of the Government of the Universe? And what can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?”
Report comment to moderator
The following members of the military were killed in war this week. Please pause today and offer a prayer for each of their, families, friends and loved ones that they might find comfort in this tragic time. May the Lord bless them and their families.
Corporal James Hayward Arnal, Canadian Army
1st Lieutenant Jason D. Mann, age 29
Private 1st Class Willington M. Rhodes, age 23
1st Lieutenant Jonathan P. Brostrom
Sergeant Israel Garcia, age 24
Corporal Pruitt A. Rainey, age 22
Corporal Jason M. Bogar, age 25
Corporal Matthew B. Phillips, age 27
Corporal Jonathan R. Ayers, age 24
Corporal Jason D. Hovater, age 24
Private First Class Sergio S. Abad, age 21
Corporal Gunnar W. Zwilling, age 20
Master Sergeant Mitchell W. Young, age 39
Tech. Sgt. Jackie L. Larsen, age 37
Aviation Boatswain Mate Third Class Petty officer Daniel R. Verbeke, age 25
Tech. Sgt. Jackie L. Larsen, age 37
Staff Sgt. David W. Textor, 27
Staff Sgt. Jeremy D. Vrooman, 28
Lance Cpl. Jeffery S. Stevenson, 20
Three others pending identification or confirmation
Report comment to moderator
godlumps post 138,
victoria always does it her way.
Report comment to moderator
Christianity and America are two different wonderful things on two very different levels of significance and purpose. Christianity does not need America in order to thrive, but I think America definitely needs Christianity to survive and thrive. The Founders were careful to use the phrase “religion and morality” instead of the more specific word “Christianity” to make this point, but in their day, ‘religion and morality’ were mainly (but not exclusively) Christian oriented.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 146
YOU WRITE:
I just heard from a VERY good friend of mine who found an interesting site, she too does research. It seems you have posted this material before. Your mentioning “Greek letters” was amusing.
Below is the site, and the link, plus the dates you posted.
6.12.2007 12:24am – 6.12.2007 12:42am
The Volokh Conspiracy – A Flawed Atheistic Defense of Religion:
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1181594170.shtml
Report comment to moderator
Jon
You even make the same comment.
“Oct. 4, 1813 (I did the best I could with the Greek):”
in your post in the above site I mentioned in post #150.
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 149,
now this statement does indeed appear to be your belief:
“but I think America definitely needs Christianity to survive and thrive.”
but on what evidence do you base this belief?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: You can back up your claims with sources all you like. Musing and Godlumps will simply ask for more and more sources, no matter what you provide.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – Posts 145 and 146
Much of what you have posted come from your blog or several other blogs. Just exactly what reputable books/documents does your ‘information’ come from?
A few people are looking very critically at your sources, and information which you are posting regarding Adams.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast – Are you still following the “Changing Attitudes” thread? Victoria & I have made peace & agreed to start over. I am grateful to God for helping us in this.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Yes I have posted this material numerous times on numerous websites. And by all means tell your friend to get in contact with me or to read my blogs if she is interested in researching these issues.
I welcome the challenge and assure you everything I post is vetted in the primary sources.
Don’t forget I’m published prestigious national publications. I know there are a lot of cranks on the Internet who peddle unsubstantiated nonsense. But that’s not me. Everything I quote from is meticulously documented in the primary sources, even if you might disagree with my interpretation.
I learned about Adams’ quotations in post 124 from James H. Hutson’s book of quotations which I briefly reviewed for First Things Magazine and now my name appears on the back of the paperback published by Princeton University Press. You can read my blurb; it’s the 4th one down.
Why don’t you buy Hutson’s book at your local bookstore and I can tell you the pages to look up that have those quotations. Anyway Hutson’s book is very informative. I hope all readers here get themselves a copy.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8013.html
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
This might be a dandy book, there are millions of books, however, the quotes you are posting are found only on blogs - they can’t be found on sites which publish material which can be checked out.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe said, “The same thing can be said of America’s key Founders. They often used “Christian terminology” that masked heterodox sentiments. According to a strict orthodox Trinitarian view that holds Mormons not to be “Christian,” even though Mormons call themselves “Christians,” America’s key Founders — Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris and a few others — were not “Christians” even though they at times called themselves “Christians” and presented their heterodox theology under the auspices of “Christianity.””
Hey, Jon! Just two quick questions. (1) Have you read the Westminster Confession of Faith? (2) If so, do you not find it remarkable that the Founding Fathers speech and writings was sprinkled with nearly identical phraseology, metaphors, and idiomatic expressions?
Just asking.
Report comment to moderator
Re post 146 with the Greek letters, Adams to Jefferson dated Oct. 4, 1813, it’s in the Lester Cappon Ed. of the Jefferson-Adams letters. If anyone has that book on them please look up the letter from that date and confirm my Greek is okay.
Re 145, Adams’ quote from 1787, you can read the primary source for yourself here:
http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_51.htm
Report comment to moderator
Musing asked, “But does this religion have to be Christain?”
No. Still, when the common person of that day read the phrase “religion and morality,” they most thought in terms of various denominations of Christianity and Adams knew that when he wrote it.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
Yes I am familiar with it. But you are going to have to help me out and point out the similarities. I don’t doubt there could be some; Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn identifies Protestant Christianity as one of the 5 or so most influential ideological sources for America’s Founding ideas. And “theistic rationalism” — the term I use for the religion of America’s key Founders — includes elements of Protestant Christianity.
However their rationalistic approach was cafeteria in its method; it thought it could take what it wanted, what it thought rational from whatever source, including Christianity, and discard the rest. What they did not take from Christianity however, were the elements of orthodoxy like original sin, the trinity, the incarnation, the atonement, the infallibility of the Bible, which did not pass America’s Founders test of “reason.”
So yes, Christianity did indeed influence Jefferson, Adams et al., but it was a qualified influence that stripped Christianity of its orthodoxy and intermixed pagan or otherwise non-biblical elements into the mix.
I am NOT arguing Christianity did not influence the Founding, which would be absurd. But rather, when it came to 1) the ideas in America’s Founding documents, and 2) the personal religion of the key Founders, Christianity was not the primary influence, but took a back seat to non-Christian ideas, like Enlightenment, Whiggery, and Greco-Romanism.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 160,
ah but what do you mean by various denominations of Christianity?
Adams own Unitarianism?
Jefferson’s Christian theism?
Franklin’s tolerance for Christianity as a method for maintaining morality?
I suggest that religion was valued BUT that it was certainly not only traditional Christianity of the times and it most assuredly was not the conservative Christianity of today.
And of course the resting point for this argument is the writings by Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin, but here Jon Rowe has much better mnaterial than I.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 160,
in short, it would appear based ont he writings introduced so far no argument will bring you to the position that it was orthodox Christinaity as we know it today which was at root of the American establishment of democracy among as a minimum Jefferson, Franklin, or Adams.
And these were perhaps three key idiviudals for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Well you can always buy the book and then we can talk. Or I can tell you the pages and you can run to the Barnes and Noble and see if the book is there and look it up.
Or what you can do — what your friend may be doing — is take bits and pieces of the quoted material and put it in search engines. Something from for instance googlebooks may come up. Or only my websites might come up.
If that’s the case, it could be that Adams’ material from which I am quoting has not yet been digitized. Almost everything Washington and Jefferson said on religion has been digitized but not so with John Adams.
But, in any event, if I give you the footnote to the book, it seems to me, my burden is satisfied. Now, do you want those pages?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark wrote: “I think America definitely needs Christianity to survive and thrive.”
Musing asked, “but on what evidence do you base this belief?”
Fiar question, Musing.
1. It’s my opinion and it does not mean I advocate any posicies that fail to respect the essential voluntary nature of Christianity.
2. I must be simplistic here for the sake of tiem but the French Revolution shared many political ideals with the American Revolution. The reason I think ours was so much more successful and humane in the long run was that we had a strong Puritan and Christian base upon which to build our democratic ideals and forms of governing.
3. The best soil from which helathy democratic principles of liberty, equality and the rule of law can grow is soil that is already nourished iwht Christian values. I said the “best” not the “only” (my opinion). When the USSR fell apart and some democratic forms of governing were tried in Russia, the reason they have not prospered well is because those forms took root in a culture wherein atheism had been too strong for too long (and there were too many mafia forces intertwined).
4. The greatness of America is mainly due to the fact that enlightenment ideals had the opportunity to take root in a culture wherein Christian values provided a stronger moral foundation for the American experement.
5. The reason Euriope is slowly falling to Islam is that Islam is exploiting a religious vacuum (Europe was post-Christian). Secularism does not offer the moral fiber it would have taken to resist the rising dominance of Islam.
It America loses its base of Christian faith, I don’t give herr much hope at all in the long run. Political ideals alone will not hold her together.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 164
I am very capable when it comes to research, that’s what I do. Your blog and other blogs are not counted as true evidence.
As far as “quotes” as you say:… “If that’s the case, it could be that Adams’ material from which I am quoting has not yet been digitized.”
The statement above could hold some water, however it’s not holding when it’s YOUR quotes which are found only on blogs.
There were 204 Founding Fathers, of that group you are trying to make a case using a very few. I find this interesting, but not surprising.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I’ve already told you about the Hutson book. Here the Amazon URL for the Cappon book:
http://www.amazon.com/Adams-Jefferson-Letters-Complete-Correspondence-Jefferson/dp/0807842303
Either buy those two books or get them from a library and then we’ll talk either on these threads or you can email me. Go to http://jonrowe.blogspot.com and you’ll see my email. I’ve told you the reputable sources where I’ve taken my Adams material from. The burden is now on you to get your hands on those books and so confirm.
Re the other Founders, yes, I am selectively citing only a few. I’ve discovered that John Witherspoon, John Jay, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, and Elias Boudinat were orthodox Christians.
Almost all of those 204 were formally or nominally associated with Christian Churches and this includes the “infidel” Jefferson and the “orthodox” Henry, both of whom were affiliated with Anglicanism/Episcopalianism.
The problem is formal affiliation doesn’t tell you whether those founders were orthodox Christians who believed in “regeneration.” You have to pour through their private letters and other contemporaneous sources in order to determine this and such has not been done with all two hundred and some FFs. It’s only been done with the more notable Founders.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 167
Now you are assuming you know the hearts of the other men who belonged to very strong Biblical Churches.
It took 204 men to deligently work, and you throw this pet phrase towards the others as if they don’t COUNT? “It’s only been done with the more notable Founders.”
U.S. Founding Fathers Religious Affiliations and the number of each in any given religion or denomination.
Episcopalian/Anglican 88
Presbyterian 30
Congregationalist 27
Quaker 7
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6
Lutheran 5
Catholic 3
Methodist 3
Unitarian 3
Huguenot 2
Calvinist 1
A TOTAL of 204 men.
You see Jon, you are intent on making a statement which puts a very dim view on the very hearts, convictions of dozens and dozens of men. I don’t buy it, and I doubt any other Bible Believing Christian does either. You have taken your ‘very few’ trying to make a case, and it doesn’t hold water.
Report comment to moderator
No Victoria — you can’t judge the hearts of those men, for instance all of those Episcopalian/Anglicans as real regenerate Christians, when the Bible teaches the true path is narrow. You and everyone else here are aware that most folks sitting in the pews of Churches are “nominal” as opposed to “regenerate” Christians.
The fact is we don’t know, I don’t know and you don’t know, based simply on formal affiliation’s. We have to dig through the primary sources, meticulously examine their writings and other contemporaneous evidence and then so categorize. Under the above list Thomas Jefferson, a man who rejected every single tenet of orthodox Christianity gets categorized as an “Episcopalian/Anglican.” That he may have been. But he was not a “Christian” as you understand the term.
I have meticulously studied the religion of Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Wilson, Hamilton and a few others — in other words, the major Founders — and have concluded either they weren’t orthodox Christians (J. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, G. Morris) or no evidence shows them to be orthodox Christians with some uncertainties (Washington, Wilson, Hamilton before his end of life conversion to orthodox Christianity).
Henry, Boudinat, Jay, S. Adams and Witherspoon, they were orthodox Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
YOU WRITE:…” You and everyone else here are aware that most folks sitting in the pews of Churches are “nominal” as opposed to “regenerate” Christians.”
I don’t know that at all, especially the churches I have been affiliated with, that’s an assumption on your part, and that of many who would like to believe what you have posted.
Those who are Unitarian, athiest, agnostic secular individuals are only to happy, willing to exclude and minimize the political and private religious lives of the Founding Fathers. It comes as no surprise that you and others are only too willing to grasp at any straw which you feel might make your point regarding the Christian heritage, strong Biblical beliefs these men held.
You can spend your life trying to prove that Washington and others weren’t Believers, what will it profit you Jon? You have no proof of their heart, just your deep need to find them unBelievers in the full sense.
Report comment to moderator
I have their words Victoria (and their deeds). That’s all I have to go on.
This is my forte, my “avocation.” This is the area of research for which I have found a passion.
Now you tell me. I know you don’t believe “Allah” is God. Well George Washington, twice, did something worse than referring to “Allah” as God. At least Allah claims to be the God of Abraham. When speaking to unconverted Native Americans, Washington referred to God as “the Great Spirit” exactly as they do. Unlike “Allah” the “Great Spirit” never claimed to be the God of Abraham! Washington actually prays to this what you would regard as a false pagan god.
“I now send my best wishes to the Cherokees, and pray the Great spirit to preserve them.”
– TALK TO THE CHEROKEE NATION, August 29, 1796.
“I now sincerely wish you a good Journey and hope you may find your [families and] Brothers well on your Return, and that [the Great Spirit above] 55 may long preserve your Nations in peace with each other and with the United States.”
– To THE CHIEFS AND WARRIORS, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WYANDOTS, DELAWARES, SHAWANOES, OTTAWAS, CHIPPEWAS, POTAWATIMES, MIAMIS, EEL RIVER, WEEAS, KICKAPOOS, PIANKASHAWS, AND KASKASKIAS, November 29, 1796.
Report comment to moderator
And by the way. Both of these links are found in GW’s official papers. You can read them for yourself:
Link 1
Link 2
Report comment to moderator
#169, Jon, your judgmentalism is arrogant and unscholarly. For one, there has never been just one standard definition of “orthodoxy” (which is why Christendom remains diverse) no matter how much you presume yourself to be the ultimate and final arbiter of it for all time. Two, human beings are not products to be labeled by your biased definitions either since their beliefs change over time. Three, no one would want to be publically judged so dogmatically on the basis of selecting isolated lines from private letters. Four, you are not God, no matter how much you think you are.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 172
You managed to mess up the thread with your EXTRA long LINKS. Very timely,
Do you know how to use http://www.TinyUrl.com its not
to hard to learn. Give it a try.
Report comment to moderator
TO ALL who want to continue posting on this thread, I would
advise you to write short lines and then manually bring the
sentence back so we don’t have to follow this mess just to post.
Report comment to moderator
Joel – 173
BRAVO!
Report comment to moderator
Ooops.
If the editors want to reformat what I’ve reproduced, have at it. It wasn’t my intention to do this.
There is nothing arrogant, unscholarly or “judgmental” about what I’ve reproduced. Rather I go on what the Founders said and did and call them as I see them.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
On orthodoxy. You are a minister. As Brad Hamilton said to Jeff Spicoli on “Fast Times at Ridgement High”: “Learn it. Know it. Live it.”
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe (161): Yes I am familiar with it. But you are going to have to help me out and point out the similarities. I don’t doubt there could be some…
If Adams, Jefferson, et al. were simply Deists, why would they use so many idioms from the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)? For example, google “divine providence” in conjunction with any of the Founding Fathers (e.g., John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc.). then study Chapter V of the WCF.
Since most of these guys were Episcopalians and Presbyterians, you can bet they were thoroughly taught the WCF along with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. They clearly show no discomfort using a lot of the Theology from the WCF–something that I think they would eschew if they no longer accepted the doctrine.
Now you could argue that they were simply politicians pandering to the people, but then you are impugning motives to them rather than presenting facts. The facts are that Jefferson, et al. were familiar with the WCF and used its Theology to explain the world to themselves and others. True Deists would never do that.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the insightful and well researched posts, Jon. We are learning a lot here.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave
Your post is hard to read so I have fixed it so that the
sentences aren’t so long. All is exactly as you posted it.
__________________
Dr. Dave’s post # 179
Yes I am familiar with it. But you are going to have to help me out and point
out the similarities. I don’t doubt there could be some…
If Adams, Jefferson, et al. were simply Deists, why would they use so
many idioms from the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)? For example,
google “divine providence” in conjunction with any of the Founding Fathers
(e.g., John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc.). then study Chapter V of the WCF.
Since most of these guys were Episcopalians and Presbyterians, you can bet
they were thoroughly taught the WCF along with the Larger and Shorter
Catechisms. They clearly show no discomfort using a lot of the Theology
from the WCF–something that I think they would eschew if they no longer accepted
the doctrine.
Now you could argue that they were simply politicians pandering
to the people, but then you are impugning motives to them rather
than presenting facts. The facts are that Jefferson, et al. were
familiar with the WCF and used its Theology to explain the world to
themselves and others. True Deists would never do that.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 177
There are 204 Founding Fathers, not three or four, that’s your
PROBLEM Jon, you aren’t able to see that you have
dozens and dozens of men who were dedicated men.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
We appreciate your time and apologize for
Report comment to moderator
Hey Jon,
Do you know what http://www.tinyurl.com does?
It shortens gargantuan links that totally
screw up viewing the forums…
You know, like that huge one
you posted in #172 that makes us
scroll across two screens worth of forum now?
You know how short it is after tinyurl
gets through with it?
Here: http://tinyurl.com/5o59s3
Take 5 seconds and learn it.
If you don’t then put on your
dunce cap and sit in the corner
for 15 minutes.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote: “On orthodoxy. You are a minister. As Brad Hamilton said to Jeff Spicoli on “Fast Times at Ridgement High”: “Learn it. Know it. Live it.”
Jon, you come off as profoundly arrogant.
As a minister and as a Christian, I don’t get my theology from “Fast Times…” I get my theology and my understanding of orthodoxy from the Bible, not from human creeds, theologians and posturing.
Jesus pointed to the greatest commandments which call for our love of God and our love of neighbor.
In the Bible, what you do with your sin is far more important than how smart you think you are or how well you think you understand theology.
The Bible never expects us to fully grasp the mystery of God’s nature (though we can try) but it does demand that we humbly repent of our sins, and God is the only one to judge that in a man’s heart.
Jesus and Paul both strongly desired unity among believers and excessively parcing each others’ alleged “orthodoxy” does not always get us there.
The Bible leaves all final judgments to God and I respect that.
Report comment to moderator
#178 – “Learn it. Know it. Live it.”
So this is Jon’s answer to my contention that he is irresponsibly dogmatic and judgmental toward the “Christianity” or the presumed “orthodoxy” of other human beings (which he often condemns as if he is their judge) who lived centuries before he was born.
It is arrogant to make such presumptions regarding other peole’s “orthodoxy” (which Jon presumes to define for them and for all). This marginalizes people on false pretenses and it does not increase understanding.
The phrase: “Learn it. Know it. Live it” just comes off as arrogant. To apply it to one’s quest for Christian “orthodoxy” is beyond the pale. For one, it lacks the word “love.”
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
The answer is they weren’t simply Deists. But they weren’t “Christians” either (in the orthodox Trinitarian sense). They were “theistic rationalists” which is a mean between Christianity and deism with rationalism as the trumping element.
“Providence” is a classic generic term in which the Deists, Unitarians and orthodox Christians could all use. It was part of their “lingua franca.”
BTW: I won’t post any long URLs here anymore; I didn’t expect that to happen. I’ll use tinyurl or embed them in the text.
Report comment to moderator
No Joel. My answer was the Nicene Creed. The quote (a great movie by the way) from Fast Times was just a rhetorical flourish given that I’ve explained myself over and over again and you keep coming back with this falsely asserting that something is “my test” for orthodoxy, when in reality it’s Christendom’s.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Joel Mark and I (and others) have meticulously (Jon loves that word, you might notice) debated Jon on the subject of whether the Founders were Christians.
You might notice that he is meticulously proud and even arrogant, but it’s still fun to watch him try to argue the meticulous nuances of Christianity with theologians and other meticulous students of the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: A virtual fizzy coke it is then.
Report comment to moderator
Jon’s problem is that he has a higher standard
for identifying a ‘founder’ as a
Christian (Bible-
believing, as we understand here), then
is possible to ascertain.
If any given founder was not
vigorously
thumping a tub with
a Bible every day of the week
and shouting hosanna’s in the
Continental Congress at the
top of his lungs,
Jon immediately categorizes
said founder as a
heathen or a deist or a
Buddhist or a Hindu or a
Wiccan, but definitely NOT
a Christian.
It suits the company line,
these days, I guess.
What in the blue blazes
is going on with the
lines on this thread????
Report comment to moderator
Ms. Chapman (Kristen):
How about some help with my post # 172 which messed up the formatting on this thread? Could you do something to fix so others can more easily read and be enlightened by this discussion?
Report comment to moderator
Jeff/Outkast:
Admit it. You laughed when I quoted from Fast Times At Ridgemont High (one of the best movies of all time).
I did not mean this as an insult to Mr. Mark. Rather I was just trying to inject some humor into the debate.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
The problem with ‘LINES’ – Jon made a post #172 with a link,
perhaps 3 feet LONG, without a http://www.TinyUrl.com – SOOOO we have a thread
thats difficult to read.
The only way to post NOT having to read across three feet is:
Type a line and a half, for each line on the ‘Preview’ that seems to
take care of it, until Kristen can fix this mess.
KRISTIN would you please fix Jon’s post #172 with the long link.
THANKS
Report comment to moderator
Jon: Sorry, I didn’t even chuckle.
Fast Times is WAY down the list
of all-time best movies, IMO,
and even further down the list
when I look for spiritual guidance.
Report comment to moderator
Jeff,
You’ve just proven yourself to have no sense of humor.
Report comment to moderator
The entire debate regarding the Founding Fathers plus the added sprinkling of
others later, such as President Lincoln with the theme these men were not
Believers, and then Lincoln’s goal not being (by some atheists, Unitarians, etc,)
‘to free slaves’ carries with it an undercurrent.
It’s well documented that George Washington had slaves, and when he married
Martha, she too had slaves which she brought with her. Those who are
adamant in proving the un-Christian, beliefs of the early Founders, etc,
appears very STRONGLY to suggest that the underlying anger and
resentment is ridden with reverse racism and a need to undermine the beliefs
of those who worked tirelessly to develop the rules and laws that would govern
the United States of America.
Report comment to moderator
It didn’t prove anything of the like, Jon. We simply have different tastes in movies, that’s all.
If you think I have no sense of humor, why don’t you try calling someone here in Dubuque and ask if I have one? Try City Hall, for instance, and ask anyone in the planning department.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe- Last week you asked what I had against you, or something to
that effect. In the hopes that you don’t take
this wrong I will preface my comment by saying I
do not know anything about you but what I read
here. For all I know I might enjoy sitting down
over dinner with you and having an enlightening,
enjoyable conversation. Mind you, all I have are
perceptions, which may or may not reflect reality.
However, what I have against you here is that you come
across as pompous and arrogant. Your chosen
gravatar does not help change that. I see your
picture and think of someone looking down his nose on us.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: You’ve just proven yourself to have no sense of humor.
Outkast has a sense of humor. It’s just that it’s largely about imagining himself to be superior to others and then laughing at their presumed inferiority.
Report comment to moderator
I see myself as a fallen creature deserving of
eternal damnation as much as anyone
else, SteveG. I’m not the best writer, nor the
best speaker, nor the best husband. But I do
have the best Savior, who has forgiven all my
faults and now calls me of of His own.
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
Sorry if I come across that way. But I think you really do misread me. I am intense, and I suppose a bit arrogant in these debates. I am the antithesis of “pompous” or of someone who looks his nose down on anyone. Perhaps I should change my gravatar to a goofier picture. But then, I do want people taking what I have to say here seriously.
The whole thing with the Fast Time joke wasn’t to insult or demean Mr. Mark, but make a wisecrack that we ALL could have fun with.
Report comment to moderator
the errors
in formatting
on this whirled views
thread
make some people’s
posting
seem to resemble
modern poetry
the kind HSK likes
and Drill and Llama
don’t
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe:
You need to do a demographic check
on ‘making a wisecrack we ALL could
have fun with’.
I NEVER even heard of “Fast Times at Ridgemont
High”.
And I bet George Washington did not, either.
Report comment to moderator
JBH:
You are right.
This is a fiendish plot
To make me
Something I am not:
A modern poet,
Arbitrarily
Breaking lines
Here
And there.
Report comment to moderator
#193, Jon wrote; “I did not mean this as an insult to Mr. Mark. Rather I was just trying to inject some humor into the debate.”
And I did not take it as an insult to me, but as profoundly arrogant considering the context. It never occurred to me that it was a joke, nor does it seem like one now either.
Report comment to moderator
Well Drill then you have to go out and rent it. One of the best movies ever. I think you’ll see that you can be a little like Mr. Hand sometimes.
Report comment to moderator
Oukast,
At #196 you have been officially judged by Jon
Rowe the omnipotent (small-case ‘o’) as a
self-proven humorless man.
Be glad you are not a Founder because your very Christianity would have been dismissed by now too.
I totally missed the so-called proof of which Jon
speaks, but then I have never though much of
Jon’s perceptions of “proof” in the past
either. He’s constantly claiming proof
for his dogmatic judgments and I never seem
to know what he’s talking about.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I do not believe it is the intent of the
Nicene Creed to use our own personal
interpretations of it as a pretext for
condemning or denying the Christianity of men
who lived centuries before (or people today
either). Some of those men claimed to be
Christians too. And even if some 4th century
creed-makers did mean it for such abuses,
the Bible does not justify such a divisive and
dogmatic use of such things.
Either singling the Founders out for judging their “Christianity”
or lumping them together to do so is arrogant nonsense.
One can do lots of study, write a lot
and have many interesting discussions in search
of greater understanding the Founders
without pronouncing so many “orthodoxy” judgments on them.
So the Nicene Creed does not justify your
personal judgmentalism, nor does it
justify your sweeping use of the word “they” to
pidgeon-hole the Founders in their faith.
Pointing to your interpretation of the Nicene
Creed and to selected excerpts from private letters
at certain point in some men’s lives
(that may contradict other excerpts in their
public lives) just does not justify your all too
smug claims about the faith of men you never knew.
It’s YOUR orthodoxy test”, Jon, and you know it.
Report comment to moderator
No Joel,
You are digging yourself in a hole and you know it. Fact: The Nicene Creed settled as elementary orthodox Christian doctrine the notion of the Trinity and non-Trinitarianism as “heresy.”
Fact: John Adams et al. denied the Trinity and the Nicene Creed. Adams went so far as to bitterly mock it:
“The Trinity was carried in a general council by one vote against a quaternity; the Virgin Mary lost an equality with the Father, Son, and Spirit only by a single suffrage.”
– John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812.
Conclusion: John Adams was a “heretic” according to the terms established by Christianity’s historic orthodoxy, settled at the Council of Nicea at 325AD.
2+2 = 4.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “The Nicene Creed settled as elementary orthodox Christian doctrine the notion of the Trinity and non-Trinitarianism as ‘heresy.’”
So? Who said otherwise, Jon? Please read my posts more carefully. You are missing the point badly.
I beleive in the doctrine of the Trinity but do NOT agree that it is sufficient grounds to accuse anyone of heresy or condemn fellow believers. After all, NONE of us fully understand the true nature of the God of the universe, the Nicene Creed, notwithstanding.
Sometimes, just a little intellectual humility is all we need to stop condemning and judging each other so much. I recommend it, Jon.
I am not in the business of dogmatically judging others (whom I never met) of heresy unduly. You are. If John Adams honestly doubted the doctrine of the trinity but still truly repented of his sins, I would not refuse my right hand of fellowship to him on that basis alone.
Report comment to moderator
187 (Jon Rowe): “Providence” is a classic generic term in which the Deists, Unitarians and orthodox Christians could all use. It was part of their “lingua franca.”
Wrongo!! In today’s vernacular, “providence” may be a pretty generic term, but in the 18th Century and even into the early 20th century, it was a powerful term loaded with deep meaning. From Chapter 5–Of Providence–of the WCF (1646; American Revision, 1789):
“I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.”
“II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.”
“III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.”
“IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.”….There’s more, but this will do for us.
No Deist would subscribe to the above–he would absolutely deny it. And there is no way he/she would use the term “divine providence” in his/her speech unless he/she was dissembling. And the one thing you cannot impugn in the founding fathers was their integrity. Sorry.
Moreover, your “theistic rationalists” would be absolutely Schizophrenic.
By the way, the Congregationalists (the third largest group of the founding fathers) adopted the WCF as did the Baptists of England. I’d forgotten that.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 165,
so these are unsupported opinons then.
Excellent.
Thanks for clarifying.
I do think I will take Jon Rowe’s documented case, for which I have found partial corroboration on my own, to your unsubstantiated beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Kirsten Chapman post 190,
thanks so much for the coke!!!
That really hit the spot on this summer day!!!
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe post 177,
any answer which does not match certain preconceptios in some peoples mind does seem at times to be considered unscholarly, arrogant and judgemental.
I am not nearly as well versed in this material as you are but those pieces which I have been able to check independently stand up under scrutiny.
You have done a simply marvelous job in compiling this material and I commend you for your courage in presenting and defending it.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks much for this Musing.
Nice try Dave, but I’ve meticulously [I know Outkast loves when I use that term but it is applicable] studied the primary sources and can attest that “Providence” was a generic reference to God and didn’t necessarily mean the specific things written in the Westminster Confession. Though the WC is good evidence that orthodox Christians felt perfectly comfortable using the term “Providence.” Do you want me to quote the Deists using the term “Providence”?
And whatever you want to call the “theistic rationalists,” they were a reality. They believed in an active personal Providence, that Jesus was not God but a great moral teacher, that the Bible was partially inspired (in other words it was errant, but some revelation was true) that man’s reason superseded revelation as the ultimate arbiter of truth and determined which parts of the Bible were legitimate. Further, they believed most or all religions were valid and led to the same God. And finally one of their most common terms for God was “Providence.”
For instance, here is the theistic rationalist Thomas Jefferson using “Providence” and speaking as though he worshipped the Biblical God (as a theistic rationalist, Jefferson thought most or all religions worshipped the same Providence, that’s why he could honestly speak as though the Israel’s God was the true God one minute, and that some pagan God was the true God the next, without thinking he contradicted himself):
“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.”
– TJ Second Inaugural Address.
And now note this letter to William Short where Jefferson rejects every single orthodox tenet that is found in the Westminster Confession.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_short.html
TJ names exactly what it is he rejects and I quote him:
“The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.”
People who rejected these things had no problem using the term “Providence” for God.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, #213,
I have no idea what your point is. Are you responding to my comment at 165?
You said, “Thanks for clarifying,” but it remains undlear to me what your are thanking me for.
Musing, I made a serious and respectful reply to your question at #165 but got some kind of cryptic or quirky comments from you.
Fine.
Report comment to moderator
#187, Jon Rowe writes: “But they weren’t “Christians” either (in the orthodox Trinitarian sense). They were “theistic rationalists” which is a mean between Christianity and deism with rationalism as the trumping element.”
Another unscholarly misuse of the word “they” to lump up a diverse group of human beings who helped found the USA in order to categorize them theologically according to Jon Rowe’s current agenda.
But this time it may not be so bad. After all, I am also a “theistic rationalist” and I am an orthodox Christian, as best as i can attest for myself. I am rational and a theist and so were the Founders (beyond that, they were rather diverse). The problem is that Jon Rowe seems to want to be the only one to define what “theistic raqtionalists” are and what they all have to believe so he can make lumps of people to fit into his whims and categories. He also seems to have a category for people who use the word “Providence” and gets uncomfortable when others use that very word to connect with other categories of people.
Let’s see if Jon Rowe tells me I cannot use the words I did this way because he is in charge of defining phrases for us theologically as well as judging the orthodoxy of various categories of people he never knew. O well.
#212, Solid post Dr. Dave. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Once again, Jon tells us how “meticulously” he has studied the primary sources and we are supposed to trust him. I have to concur with Peter L at #199.
And Thomas Jefferson was more diverse than most. We really need some vague terms to nail him down theologically. But he’s still jellow no matter what nail you use. But I trust that God knew how to judge him, since I don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent points at 219, Joel Mark. Beyond that, from the research I’ve meticulously conducted, comments that certain Founders made at one time in their lives were often opinions they recanted later in their lives, particularly in the case of Thomas Jefferson. (I’m from Jefferson’s home state of Virginia, so I know about that case in particular.)
Report comment to moderator
216 (Jon Rowe): Nice try Dave, but I’ve meticulously [I know Outkast loves when I use that term but it is applicable] studied the primary sources and can attest that “Providence” was a generic reference to God and didn’t necessarily mean the specific things written in the Westminster Confession. Though the WC is good evidence that orthodox Christians felt perfectly comfortable using the term “Providence.” Do you want me to quote the Deists using the term “Providence”?
By all means. But please provide quotes where they specifically say that by Providence they mean a “generic reference to God.”
Every child of “landed gentry” in those days had to attend church and had to learn the larger and shorter catechism as well as the WCF in order to be confirmed in the faith. That included the Founding Fathers. They would be able to recite the answers to the questions in the Catechisms without breaking a sweat. If you can demonstrate with data that a significant number of the Founding Fathers were not confirmed in a church, then you might have some ground to stand on. But not much. You really need to remove the post-modern filters from your mind and immerse yourself in the culture of the period. Your cultural bias is showing.
Report comment to moderator
216 (Jon Rowe): And whatever you want to call the “theistic rationalists,” they were a reality.
Since you use lower case in “theistic rationalists,” it implies that you are not invoking the Rationalism of Voltaire. If so, then, Joel Mark is right, all orthodox Christians are “theistic rationalists.”
They believed in an active personal Providence, that Jesus was not God but a great moral teacher, that the Bible was partially inspired (in other words it was errant, but some revelation was true) that man’s reason superseded revelation as the ultimate arbiter of truth and determined which parts of the Bible were legitimate. Further, they believed most or all religions were valid and led to the same God. And finally one of their most common terms for God was “Providence.”
So you say. I say this is your imagination hard at work. And your quote from Thomas Jefferson is taken out of context–both of the letter and his entire life. How do you square your active imaginative construction with Jefferson’s letters in the beginning and the end of his life (there is no doubt that Jefferson went through a period of angry doubting–many of us do).
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave you mustn’t be reading very carefully. I love it how you write off my meticulous references to the primary sources as “my imagination.” Yes, I “imagined” too that George Washington was the first President.
Jefferson denied the Trinity his whole life and towards the end was as heterodox as ever. And no, orthodox Christians were not “theistic rationalists” as the theistic rationalist denied almost all of the tenets of orthodox Christianity, while still positing an active personal Providence.
Let me repeat what the theistic rationalists believed in:
They believed in an active personal Providence, that Jesus was not God but a great moral teacher, that the Bible was partially inspired (in other words it was errant, but some revelation was true) that man’s reason superseded revelation as the ultimate arbiter of truth and determined which parts of the Bible were legitimate. Further, they believed most or all religions were valid and led to the same God. And finally one of their most common terms for God was “Providence.”
This was the religion of the key FF’s — Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Wilson, G. Morris, and Hamilton, before his end of life conversion to orthodox Christianity.
If you scroll up you’ll see I’ve already provided evidence that “Providence” was a generic marker for God. Here Adams speaks of “Providence” as including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and pagan-Greco-Roman worship:
“θέμίς was the Goddess of honesty, Justice, Decency, and right; the Wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations and Counsells. She commanded all Mortals to pray to Jupiter, for all lawful Benefits and Blessings.”
“Now, is not this, (so far forth) the Essence of Christian devotion? Is not this Christian Piety? Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence? of a righteous Administration of the Government of the Universe? And what can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?”
– John Adams to Jefferson dated Oct. 4, 1813.
Dave I strongly suggest you read the entire thread and all of the evidence I’ve already provided before commenting again.
Report comment to moderator
Jeff/Outkast:
Please inform us of comments that the FFs made that they later recanted.
Here is part of John Adams’ letter to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818, where he uses “Providence” in a generic sense and makes it clear that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worshipped the same God as all have “religion”:
“It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”
Report comment to moderator
Thomas Jefferson, by the way, didn’t just doubt but hated the orthodox doctrines found in the WC. Here is a letter of his Dec. 8 1822, where he calls the Trinity a three headed monster, belief in which wrecks the mind:
“No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs….In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_smith.html
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 217,
well in post 165, you appeared to be i ndicating that your beliefs on these subjects was not supported by facts or data.
I appreciate the clarification.
Opinions are wonderful, as some one I know once said, but facts and data are so much more valuable.
I am delgithed at Jon Rowe providing such detailed facts and data. Now if I can only keep up with him!
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 220,
then I will echo Jon Rowe here.
since you have meticulously researched this material I am sure you can provide us with detailed references and comparisons showing this recanting.
I look forward to your material.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe post 225,
does your research never stop?
I brutalized myself to find the late in life letter from Franklin discusisng Christinaity and here you are with ease bringing up item after item!
Report comment to moderator
No the research never stops. This is my major avocation, how I spend most of my free time. I’m hoping to write more scholarly articles in peer reviewed journals in the future. Though, that I have no PhD and am not a humanities prof. at a 4-year college are two strikes against me in that regard. I do have JD and teach at a 2 year college where I teach some humanities related material.
These debates though are part of my own “peer review” process. Critical feedback is necessary for producing solid research.
Report comment to moderator
JOn rowe post 229,
so I never give anyone a free pass!
I will keep looking for opporutntiies to challenge you, but I sadly fear that I am seriously outmatched here.
My hat is off to you! Thanks for your efforts!
P.S. and a JD does not match the academic qualifications of a PhD? It always did in my book!
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: Musing is easily impressed, I have noticed, whenever someone agrees with his pre-conceptions regarding whatever subject is being discussed.
So I would be careful not to let his gushing admiration get to your head.
He also has the bad habit of using the plural to denote ‘agreement’ when he is about the only person on the planet (maybe excepting George Soros) who holds to a view.
So someone will carefully point out how all the facts show ‘A’.
Then Musing will hilariously make a statement like “So WE have concluded ‘B’”. Or “WE can therefore see ‘B’ and move on.”
I was once lucky enough to be at a presentation at a conference where some colleague was presenting the somewhat dubious results of his paper (he was the sole author). He kept using statements like ‘WE measured this’ and ‘WE inferred’ and ‘WE can plainly see’. It got to the point where I imagined some enormous army of collaborators. Anyway, when he wrapped it up and it came time for questions, the Session Chair, who was an old-fashioned no-nonsense type, asked the inevitable question: “So exactly how MANY of you are there?” For me, anyway, that made the registration fee for the conference worth it.
As I have pointed out before, you sure demand a lot out of the Founders, before you will call them ‘Christians’. In viewing things from my own experience, I could easily compare my own grandfather (who was a reticient and very private man) to, say, George Washington, in terms of direct mention of things spiritual. And yet I can assure you, based on my knowledge of my grandfather, he was a Christian, better than most, certainly much better than I. Now if you let 200+ years go by and start trying to ‘determine’ whether or not my grandfather was a Christian, you would be utterly unable to do so, in my opinion.
The best you could say was that (based on existing records and sources) he was a Christian in temperment, sometimes went to church, disagreed (generally in stubborn silence) with the hierarchy about doctrines and details, got excommunicated from some denominations for a few pithy and unorthodox statements, lived in a Christian-influenced culture, that sort of thing.
But I guess you know my opinion of your ‘avocation’, at least in assessing someone’s Christianity from that distance. I personally don’t have any problem with it, and generally appreciate your links, when I have time to chase them.
I do, however, think you have an agenda. I think it is the sort of agenda that will take you some distance given today’s revisionist atmosphere in academia and bias against all things Christian. I wish you all the best luck in your academic career, but not in your agenda, as I perceive it, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 231,
you are so right I am easily impressed, so long as there is data to support the thesis, a sound foundation for the argument, and a clear and well posed argument, I am very easy to impress.
In fact, as I have noted, I am impressed by savedgygrace, Pualine, Jon Rowe (who on certain issue I disagree with fauirly stonrgly if I reacall), vynette, coyoteblue, erasmus, random name, steveg, and some I am sure I have overlooked. And yes they span a wide variety of perspectives.
Yup, good arguments are so easy to make that I am indeed easily impressed!
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Well, WE’RE moving forward, somewhat. You used first person singular.
Interesting, the only non Left-Winger I recognize on your list is Pauline. I don’t know about savedgygrace or vynette. So I am not sure about the ‘wide variety of perspectives’.
Report comment to moderator
I suggest that many of the of the right wing presentations may not have sound foundations, inadequate data, and a poorly formed argument.
I am reminded of recent arguments about:
- skin cells fomring embryos
- the impact of home ownership on poverty
- the place of Biblical inerrancy in argumentaton
- the impact of Iraqi wishes on American troop deployments in Iraq
And observationally the posed conservative arguments have been unsupported by facts and have generally involved faulty logic.
I could add Mr Meaner who was indeed a very conservative individual with whom I used to argue, but certain personal insults from certain conservative Christians apparenlty caused him to focus his efforts elsewhere, so his conservative voice of reason has been lost to this blog.
vynette and savedbygrace are Christians with a strong model of Biblical inerrancy.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: This is an opinion blog, not a doctoral dissertation.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: I have noticed that your brand of ‘logic’ is usually somewhat suspect, to say the least. So I suspect that the four topics you list are not quite as certain as you indicate.
But not having been involved in them, I can’t comment.
Except I believe that embryos (or clones) can be formed from skin cells, at least in principle.
And if two people are equal in everyway except one owns a home, the one who owns a home is further from poverty. Now there is a real tough one.
Or if I accept Biblical inerrancy as an axiom, I certainly can use it in an argument. The person with whom I am arguing may not want to accept that axiom, but that is their look out, not mine.
You have me on the impact of Iraqi wishes on American troop deployments in Iraq. I know that conservatives have always said that when things were stabilized in Iraq and the Iraq’s were seeing that they could control the situation, then we would begin an intelligent withdrawal. That is now happening in Iraq, thanks to the Surge and the military policies pursued by conservatives, and frantically blocked (or after attempted blocks) by the left wing. But I don’t know what you are talking about, so maybe that is not it.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 235,
oh you mean facts aren’t required?
We can say anything even when its not true?
My heavens, I am sure that improves one’s credibility!
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 236,
I am always happy to have someone show me rigorously an error in my logic.
I try, but I know I will sometimes fail, and your assistance is always most appreciated.
Report comment to moderator
Drillpost 236,
now this point:
“And if two people are equal in everyway except one owns a home, the one who owns a home is further from poverty. Now there is a real tough one.”
was discussed in great detail in:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/papers/!homeown.pdf
(make sure you include the !homeown.pdf )
and one of the interesting observations in the analysis is that it may undersome conditions be cheaper to rent than to own. Owning one’s own home was shown to increase th epovety numbers, not decrease it.
But do read the link to understand the point.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 236,
and of course:
“Or if I accept Biblical inerrancy as an axiom, I certainly can use it in an argument. The person with whom I am arguing may not want to accept that axiom, but that is their look out, not mine.”
but two points:
1) I don’t have to accept our axion
- you proof will not be valid for me
2) for a set of axioms, inclusion of this axiom may be shown to be inconsistent
- if the set of axioms are shown to be inconsistent then there is a difficuly with the set of axioms
And of course no set of axioms is granted immunity for challenge in this blog or in the world.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 236,
but what you are doing is showing that you are rigorous.
I will add this to my material for consideration moving forward.
Thanks for your response.
Report comment to moderator
Druill post 236,
so you state:
“You have me on the impact of Iraqi wishes on American troop deployments in Iraq. I know that conservatives have always said that when things were stabilized in Iraq and the Iraq’s were seeing that they could control the situation, then we would begin an intelligent withdrawal. That is now happening in Iraq, thanks to the Surge and the military policies pursued by conservatives, and frantically blocked (or after attempted blocks) by the left wing. But I don’t know what you are talking about, so maybe that is not it.”
I note that Al Maliki in a variety of forums has been askingfor withdrawal plans with dates of 2010 included in part of his materials.
So no matter what the U.S. opinion is, since as I understand it our UN mandate runs out in Dec and is unlikley to be renewed, we have no basis for staying in iraq save an agreement with the iraqi government.
And if the Iraqi government asks for withdrawal timetables, and they did yesterday:
Al maliki statement on pullout
then we have little wiggle room.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, if the conditions are being met for stability in Iraq, which it appears that they are thanks to the Surge (no thanks to the Democrats in the US), certainly we can BEGIN to talk timetables, with military input. That is an EXCELLENT development – it is EXACTLY what we have been pushing for since day one, and it may be happening as we speak.
Iraq may actually become a success story (in greater or lesser degree) thanks PURELY to the policy of the current administration (McCain more so than the Bush administration, actually).
The problem is, the Left – and its media machine – which has consistently tried to get us to lose this war from day one, is suddenly pretending that they had something to do with its success.
And the American people, not being having a corporate memory much longer than a week’s span, may just buy the spin; or enough of them anyway to elect the man who wanted us to fail and worked hard to make it happen – instead of the man who knew the truth and fought to win the war.
But, I know in advance that you absolutely reject that.
So, the question is, why did I bother to write it?
On the other issue, I would find it hard to imagine that someone who actually OWNS their home (has equity) is worse off than someone renting, if all else is equal between them. I suspect the thread you referenced is more nuanced then that.
I am curious on the first issue – what is or was the disagreement on skin cells – cloning you inferred?
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 243,
so the correct answer in my mind is that after several long years of policy failure in Iraq, Bush was challenged: he either had to make progress OR announce plans for withdrawal.
During this period there was already a change in tactics occurring in Iraq which was slowly building inroads into the Sunni commuity in particular.
In parallel with this change in tactics Bush, over the objections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, instituted the surge.
The surge was a half hearted measure, but it was the number of troops which cold easily be mobilized for a modest period of time (approximately 1 year).
I personally have always advocated from the beginning of the war for going in heavy: 400,000 type troop numbers to be exact. This based on standard American anti-insurgency doctrine, and was indeed recommended initially by the U.S. military. It appears to have been Rumsfeld which nixed this approach.
The outcome of the surge and change in tactics has been a reducton of violence in iraq.
Is this due to the surge or due to the change in tactics? No one can say for sure.
Is this reduction in violence temporary or permanent? No one can say for sure.
What we can say for sure is that Iraq is increasingly asserting its sovereignty. One aspect of this is the push for a withdrawal plan.
And without Iraqi agreement for our forces to be in Iraq after December 2008, my understanding is we haven no legal basis to keep the troops in Iraq. So we will get an agreement to which the Iraqi government is comfortable or we will find ourselves in precipitous retreat. I think the outcome here is obvious.
So what forces led to U.S. apparent acceptance of Iraqi desires?
It clealry was not Bush. He has been fighting this up until Friday, and continues to try to soften the statement even today.
If there were people on the scene around whom this decison got made it was Al Maliki and Obama. And that is how the material increasingly reads.
Is this a fair assesment of Bush’s participaton? Possibly not.
Is this a fair shake for McCain who committed so much to the surge (although initially apparently advocating about 400,000 troops and then settled for the 30,000+ of the surge)? Possibly not.
Did McCain and Bush attempt to thwart the Iraqi desires here: very clearly they did.
And in so doing left themselves open to pressure form Al Maliki when he saw an opening.
The AP article is an interesting dicussion around this set of actions by Al Maliki.
The short lesson here is do not try to throttle a nation’s aspirations for too long: they will work out some way of expressing their aspirations. Or, in simpler words, we were overly stubborn with respect to Iraq policy.
And the game has now been played. There is an end game and there will be efforts to finesse, but the basic structure of the outcome is reasonably clear.
And the only serous question going forward is how will we creatively and effectively operate in this new reality. I have laid out some of the possible consequences, and it looks dire for some of Bush’s middle eastern policy directions.
And of course from the perspective of the election, all sides are in rough agreement on the path forward. That suggests that this will be diminished as a campaign issue going into November.
Again, is this in some sense fair? Probably not. Does it matter? No. Should McCain and Bush have ben more creative in their responses to the Iraq situation so they could have forestalled this: almost certainly yes.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 243,
well the skin cell embryo case was a most interesting discussion.
I initially raised, without reference, the report I had heard of creating an embryo from skin cells. This was an obvious extension, which I predicted last fall, from the skin cells to stem cells issue which was raised in WMB. I was told at that time that this could not happen.
When I raised it this time, I was again told that it could not happen, and in somewhat forceful language as it appeared to me.
I extended the post stream a couple of rounds exploring the issues which this might raise, being informed each time that this could not have happened.
I then posted the link to the story.
The reuslt ewas interesitng.
In short, however, I knew that the creation of an embryo from skin cells had happened all the while being told that such a situation could not occur.
And of course it already had.
My first observation is that for some posters there seems to be a decided tendency to believe that what they believe to be true is actually true. Foundation in fact or dat ais not required.
My second observation is that some posters apparently do not take the trouble to check when new material pops up. This is relatively easy to do in this internet age.
My final amusement was the inability of some posters to apologize for their error. Rather, they would prefer to remain in their error and rationalize their way arond the new data.
And while this is understandable, it is not rational or logical.
And this has taught me much about what is sometimes called logic in this blog.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 243,
now I have actually run this experiment four times in this blog, each with varying levels of crispness of the test.
I have found a certain level of consistency in the type of poster who takes such bait.
And of course this does impact my list of posters who provide logical and supportted arguments.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 243,
the ownership of a house involves a great number of costs outside of the actual rent or motgage for the building.
And as I read the article, if one considers total cost of ownership and comparable rental opportunties, the ownership of a house actually increased the poverty rate.
I have provided the link and it is a report which makes for interesting reading. I have read it once and did not immediately find any error. But I will be rereading it again.
As an aisde, similar studies have been done with rental cars vs. car ownership. Under some situations it is better to rent cars than own one.
There is of course for both home ownership and car ownership the emotional issues. I can say that I could not find any treatment of the emotional issues of owning ones own home in the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: On the last issue, it is a moot point then. Certainly it may be wiser to rent than to ‘buy’ if by buying we mean really just owing money, i.e. having little or no principal or real ownership. That certainly makes sense to me. If all else is equal except one person HAS equity, then owning is good, or so it seems to me.
As far as skin cells to clones, I have heard of this and assume it can happen. It is a travesty and a horror, but Man is pretty good at generating travesty and horror. The bizaare and surreal ‘advances’ in bio-tech with the possible – no read that as CERTAIN – evil consequences is as good an argument for the soon return of Christ as any, in my opinion. Not being certain on such things (time-line or event-wise) I still worry for the sake of the children and their children). You will find that amusing, I am sure.
I am still not sure of the ‘religious’ ramifications beyond what I just said without going back and reading whatever thread it was on.
Once again you lost me in the end on the Iraq question, although I tend to agree with you on many of the facts, I think. As I have pointed out elsewhere, recent developments are plainly a vindication of the Adminstration’s policy (McCain’s maybe more). The question of how it is going to be spun by the media which is squarely in Obama’s camp and completely unobjective, is yet another.
The fact is that if Obama had been in charge since the war began, we would have lost the war.
If, on the other hand, he would have been in charge BEFORE the war, we would presumably not have begun it.
One can argue about the wisdom or lack of wisdom there.
Personally, I think the Iraqi war bled off the terrorists from attacking the US directly. That was a good thing from the standpoint of the US homeland, which was protected.
On the other hand, many Iraqi’s would think it a bad thing, and I could not entirely disagree with them. Many, however, think it is a good thing (I know some Kurds, who REALLY have an interesting perspective on the war that you will NEVER hear).
Report comment to moderator
drill post 248,
well posed and indeed well argued.
I agree with the bulk if not all of it.
The ironies and pardoxes of Iraq are perhpas the most complex of your observations.
My sense is the real challenge began with Gulf War I when the U.S. failed to destroy the Republican guard.
Had we destroyed the Republican guard, there are reasonable indications that Saddam Hussein would have been overthrown. As a minimum we should not have abandoned the Shia in the South when they rose up. And we should never have allowed Saddam Hussein to use armed helicopters.
Having failed to resolve Saddam Hussein effectively during Gulf War I, we were left with a problem which was only partially resolved with the no fly zones. It was succesful in establishing an independent Kurdish region. It was far less successful in the South AND we continue to pay a price for this failure.
So there were many mistakes made over at least three administraitons, and now we are where we are.
From which ever argument one arrives at the conclusion, from a practical perspective we have an unusally close consensus on the path forward.
It is now time to execute on the path forward rather than fighting over how we got here.
I would hate to repeat the mistake we made during the first year of occupation: we need to keep our eyes carefully on the complex challenges ahead of us.
Report comment to moderator
drill post 248,
do you have any links to material on the Kurish perspective?
I would be most interested in reviewing it.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
Your grandfather simply cannot have been a Christian, unless Jon Rowe first attests to it. Why don’t your send Mr. Rowe a sampling of his private letters so he can meticulously study them and pronounce your grandfather “orthodox” or not.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, you’re right, everything should be tested by the Jo/Ro method, that way we would all get it right, after all he’s the judge of everything, at least he THINK’S so. He’s read everything there is to read to make all decisions regarding ones faith.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
I wonder if your grandfather ever prayed to Allah by name. My links in post 172 (that we think Kristin for fixing) show George Washington praying to “The Great Spirit” by name when addressing uncoverted American Indians. This is worse than praying to “Allah” by name because at least Allah purports to be the God of Abraham whereas the Great Spirit does not.
[In case you can't tell I'm implicitly replying to posts 251 & 252].
Report comment to moderator
223 (Jon Rowe): If you scroll up you’ll see I’ve already provided evidence that “Providence” was a generic marker for God. Here Adams speaks of “Providence” as including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and pagan-Greco-Roman worship: “θέμίς was the Goddess of honesty, Justice, Decency, and right; the Wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations and Counsells. She commanded all Mortals to pray to Jupiter, for all lawful Benefits and Blessings.”
“Now, is not this, (so far forth) the Essence of Christian devotion? Is not this Christian Piety? Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence? of a righteous Administration of the Government of the Universe? And what can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?”
I cannot believe this! You are apparently so immersed in your position that you do not even bother to read what I wrote or to understand the quotes you are posting. I ask you to provide a quote where some Founding Father defined Providence as a generic name for God and you repeat a quote that does no such thing. In fact, it directly refutes your position and you do not even see it. Please read Chapter 5 of the WCF again and then read your quote above. If you cannot see the difference, you are as blind as the Pharisees.
Because it is clear that you will still not get it, here is where you obliviously contradicted yourself:
1. WCF Chapter 5–Of Providence–describes God’s “instrumental means of achieving His will”. That is what “Providence” means, period. It is not a generic reference to God Himself.
2. In your quote, Adams states, “…Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence?…[Emphasis Mine]. Note that Adams refers to God as “a Supream [sic] Being,” not as Providence. Please think about that for more than a second.
3. Now note also that Adams uses the term “universal Providence” with a capital P. He is directly acknowledging the WCF Chapter 5 meaning of Providence–the instrumental means by which God accomplishes His Will and Purposes. You cannot possibly misconstrue this if you read and actually understand what Adams said.
Report comment to moderator
224 (Jon Rowe): Here is part of John Adams’ letter to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818, where he uses “Providence” in a generic sense and makes it clear that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worshipped the same God as all have “religion”: “It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”
Again, Adams is not using “Providence” in a generic sense or as a “generic marker for God.” Here is why:
1. Adams is using “first Cause” and “Universal Cause” to refer to God. He is definitely not using “Providence” to refer to God.
2. It is even clearer in this quote that Adams understands that “Providence” is the instrumental means by which God accomplishes His will and Purposes. He most emphatically does not use Providence as a generic term.
What Adams is actually asserting is the truth of Romans 1:18-20: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
That is, Abraham was the instrumental means by which God revealed Himself “not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans [sic]“
Report comment to moderator
So I suppose that the WC teaches that not just Christians but Jews and Muslims are teach God’s revealed religion.
Further I suppose the WC ALSO agrees that the WC teaches that pagan-Greco-Roman Zeus worship is “the Essence of Christian devotion” and of “Christian Piety.”
Hmmm. I didn’t see those things in the WC.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry should have read:
“So I suppose that the WC teaches that not just Christians but Jews and Muslims also teach God’s revealed religion.”
BTW, the context of Adams’ quotation is quite clear to any objective reader. “Providence” and “religion” are generic markers of which “Christianity, Judaism, and Islam” are encompassed. In the other quotation I gave Adams includes Zeus worship under the broad rubric of “Providentialism.”
I’ll let the readers decide for themselves the appropriate context. I’ll just say that most folks will see (I believe) when Adams uses the term “Providence” it is the furthest thing from the orthodox use of “Providence” in the WC.
Report comment to moderator
Finally Dave,
Adams blatantly rejected the orthodox Christology of the WC, in the most blasphemous way in his private letters:
“The Trinity was carried in a general council by one vote against a quaternity; the Virgin Mary lost an equality with the Father, Son, and Spirit only by a single suffrage.”
– John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812.
And:
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
These were the sentiments of a man who commonly used the term “Providence” when referring to God.
Report comment to moderator
225 (Jon Rowe): Thomas Jefferson, by the way, didn’t just doubt but hated the orthodox doctrines found in the WC. Here is a letter of his Dec. 8 1822, where he calls the Trinity a three headed monster, belief in which wrecks the mind: [followed by the quote as extracted from a Stephen J. Gould website]“
There is no doubt that Jefferson quarreled vehemently with several of the foundational doctrines of Christianity. I acknowledge that. However, my request that you describe the immediate context of your quotes and entire context of Jefferson’s letters still stands.
Here is the general context as I understand it: Jefferson, Adams, and others had to contend with strong opposition from clergy to the idea that citizens could rebel against their government. This clerical opposition stemmed directly from the admonitions against rebellion in Chapter 13 of Romans (verses 1-7): “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
There appears to be little doubt that the clergy supporting England’s right to tax and govern the colonies far outnumbered the clergy who supported rebellion. If you read Jefferson’s and Adam’s letters in that context, you will find that much of their ire is directed at the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In Jefferson’s case this led to his own version of the New Testament; not so much because of His own apostasy, but mostly because the parts he cut out were the very things that the “Tory” clergy were using in the pulpit against the revolution.
In light of this context, I want to point you to two sets of letters. The first is between Dr. Benjamin Rush and John Adams and the second is a set of exchanges between Adams and Jefferson following the recommendation by Dr. Rush that they resume their correspondence. There is plenty of fuel for your fire in these letters. I just wonder if you can break out of your blinders and see the forest and not just the trees. The links are:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=10152
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/livingrev/
religion/text3/adamsjeffersoncor.pdf
Note: You will have to join the two lines in the bottom link.
Report comment to moderator
I messed up both of those clauses in post 256. This one should have read.
Further I the WC teaches that pagan-Greco-Roman Zeus worship is “the Essence of Christian devotion” and of “Christian Piety.”
Here’s another doozy of Adams’ blaspheming the Trinity:
“If I understand the Doctrine, it is, that if God the first second or third or all three together are united with or in a Man, the whole Animal becomes a God and his Mother is the Mother of God.
“It grieves me: it shocks me to write in this stile upon a subject the most adorable that any finite Intelligence can contemplate or embrace: but if ever Mankind are to be superior to the Brutes, sacerdotal Impostures must be exposed.”
– John Adams to Francis van der Kemp, October 23, 1816. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress. Taken from Hutson, The Founders on Religion, p. 223.
Report comment to moderator
Btw, you assertion that I have “blinders” is just another variant of the genetic fallacy, or poisoning the well. I could just as easily accuse you of having “blinders” on in believing the “agenda-based scholarship” of David Barton and the other Christian Nation hacks. And then we would be even in our use of the genetic fallacy.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
It appears to me that you haven’t read the Jefferson-Adams correspondence as I have (I have the Cappon Ed.; what ed. do you have?) because your sentiments in post 259 aren’t quite right.
You don’t need to direct me to secondary sources as I already have and have read the primary sources.
There is a kernel of truth in what you write. Yes, Jefferson and Adams were fervent Whigs. Yes, the Christian Tory theologians with their interpretation of Romans 13 were their political enemies. But NO Christian Tories theologians were not the primary impetus for Jefferson’s and Adams’ sometimes hostility to ecclessiastical authority. In Jefferson’s case, most of his bitterness was directed towards Federalist clergy supporters of John Adams in their 1800 election who branded Jefferson an “atheist” and an “infidel.” And as far as Paul and Romans 13. That wasn’t a problem for Jefferson as he believed the Bible only partially inspired and explicitly noted he didn’t believe a word of what Paul spoke as legitimately revealed scripture. He called Paul one of the first corrupters of Christianity.
Likewise Adams also clearly noted that he believed the Bible only partially inspired and directed most of his invective not against mere Toryism but against Trinitarianism itself, in particular Roman Catholicism and Calvinism which Adams found particularly distasteful.
Report comment to moderator
Let me try this one more time:
Further I suppose the WC also teaches that pagan-Greco-Roman Zeus worship is “the Essence of Christian devotion” and of “Christian Piety.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
There are many men who know what their talking about, as to the subject at hand, and Dr. Dave, is one of them.
Well if I can compliment Dr. Dave, he does bring up a good point that many of the traditional devout Christian ministers were indeed “Tory loyalists” and their notion that the American Revolution was a “sin” based on Romans 13 was arguably an authentic “Christian principle” against the American Revolution and in favor of the British.
Of course, reasonable minds can differ over how to properly interpret Romans 13. Jefferson had no problem with Romans 13 though. They were Paul’s words (not God’s) and, according to Jefferson, Paul was a fraud. Therefore, Romans 13 wasn’t on Jefferson’s conscience.
Report comment to moderator
257 (Jon Rowe): “So I suppose that the WC teaches that not just Christians but Jews and Muslims also teach God’s revealed religion.”
No. It teaches Romans 1;18-20. From the WCF Chapter 1–Of the Holy Scripture–Paragraph I: “Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.”
Note that is God’s creation and God’s providence that makes known to men the existence of God.
Jon adds: BTW, the context of Adams’ quotation is quite clear to any objective reader. “Providence” and “religion” are generic markers of which “Christianity, Judaism, and Islam” are encompassed.
Religion certainly. That is even true today. However, you are totally wrong about “Providence.” Providence, as I said above, is the instrumental means by which God accomplishes His will and Purposes. That is why you will never see the Founding Fathers use the word, Providence, without a prefix such as “God’s,” “Divine,” etc., or a qualifier that appears elsewhere in the sentence or paragraph including “God,” “First Cause,” “Creator,” “Universal Cause,” etc. In fact the WCF sprinkles these terms throughout the document as the Westminster Assembly had an aversion to using the name of God for fear of taking His name in vain.
Jon continues: In the other quotation I gave Adams includes Zeus worship under the broad rubric of “Providentialism.”
Boy are you clueless! Adams is simply affirming WCF Chapter 1. That God’s providence was the means by which the Greeks were given moral precepts very similar to what was given by the Word of God to Jews and Christians. He also includes the followers of Mohammad in God’s general revelation which is very much what is taught in orthodox Christianity. See Romans 1:18-20.
Report comment to moderator
Dave,
Providence simply means a “Providential God,” and no less. Whatever “more” that can be added to “Providence” (for instance all of those things in the WC) perfectly fall withing the ambit of the meaning of “Providence.” The problem is Adams, Jefferson and the handful of America’s key Founders DIDN’T believe “the rest” as described in the WC. They believed in “Providence,” but disagreed with most of the WC.
Here is Adams saying that all good people are Christians. Tell me, is this what the WC teaches?
“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”
– John Adams to Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.
What does the WC teach on the Trinity? Did you see my quotations of Adams’ bitterly mocking the Trinity?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
A word on “pride” and “arrogance.” Many of my footnotes to the primary sources I’ve learned of through Dr. Gregg Frazer’s PhD thesis (along with many other sources including James H. Hutson’s book of quotations, Lenny Brenner’s reproduction of Jefferson’s and Madison’s writings on religion, the Cappon Ed. to the Jefferson, Adams correspondence and many other sources). Frazer is a fundamentalist/evangelical, indeed a six-day creationist and heads the political studies at John MacArthur’s college.
His thesis from Claremont Graduate University is very much “descriptive” not “prescriptive.” He’s writing to a scholarly crowd — an academically minded audience and merely describes what the key Founders believed and their political theology. And he terms it “theistic rationalism” — not Deism or Christianity, but a form of theological unitarianism that is a mean between those two systems with rationalism as the trumping element.
[Notice how I didn't fall into Dr. Dave's "Voltaire" trap. Yes, I know these Founders were just as removed from Voltaire's Deism as they were from Calvin's "Christianity."] To say that your only two choices are Deism or Christianity draws the classic “false dichotomy.”
Though, Dr. Frazer’s thesis isn’t entirely devoid of his orthodox evangelical worldview. He notes, in elevating man’s reason over revelation, the key Founders at times expressed a profound ARROGANCE For instance, in one letter Adams writes to Jefferson, Adams states even if he were with Moses at Mt. Sinai and God HIMSELF revealed the doctrine of the Trinity to Adams, he still wouldn’t believe it because man’s reason proves 1+1+1 = 3. Or Jefferson creating his “Bible” where he used his OWN REASON to decide which parts were legitimately revealed, which weren’t. And simply cut out from the Bible that which he deemed not valid revelation (most of the miraculous stuff, but he left in the Lord’s Prayer). Or Franklin in his letter to Ezra Stiles (in his 80s months away from death) noting he didn’t need to “busy” himself with the question of the Trinity or of Jesus’ divinity because he’d know soon enough. Or Washington systematically getting up and turning his BACK on communion in his church.
These examples arguably illustrate a profound prideful arrogance on the part of America’s Founders towards the Christian religion. The question is, as Christians, why do you seem so desperate to make excuses for the prideful arrogance of America’s Founders that they showed in regard to your orthodox religion.
Report comment to moderator
260 (Jon Rowe): Here’s another doozy of Adams’ blaspheming the Trinity: “If I understand the Doctrine, it is, that if God the first second or third or all three together are united with or in a Man, the whole Animal becomes a God and his Mother is the Mother of God.
“It grieves me: it shocks me to write in this stile upon a subject the most adorable that any finite Intelligence can contemplate or embrace: but if ever Mankind are to be superior to the Brutes, sacerdotal Impostures must be exposed.”
Sorry Jon. Without context, this is appears most likely to be a diatribe against certain Catholic Church doctrine regarding Mary the Mother of Christ. Are you familiar with Catholic prayers to Mary and Marionist beliefs? The clue is in Adams’ reference to “sacerdotal imposters.” Sacerdotal here means “emphasis on the authority of Priests or pertaining to the authority of Priests.” As opposed to the scriptures or Word of God.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave. Let’s focus on the following:
“Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.”
What you don’t appear to understand is some Deists, but more importantly the theistic rationalists perfectly agreed with the BOLD passage of what was written above, but discarded what is not in bold. So it may well be that “Providence” is an authentic Christian idea, just as belief in God (obviously) is. The theistic rationlists took this much from the Christian religion and decided that much of the rest was “unreasonable.” They elevated man’s reason over revelation and held that the the light of nature (not scripture) was the primary way in which God revealed himself to man. Revelation’s role was to be secondary, to support the findings of man’s reason. Those parts of revelation that didn’t support reason could be discarded. This isn’t strict Deism. But it is the personal and political theology of Jefferson-Adams et al.
Report comment to moderator
Nope — I’ve read the context. It’s not mere anti-Catholicism. To Adams the Roman Catholic Church and John Calvin were practically of one accord (though he hated the RC Church more than Calvin, because many of his ancestors whom he loved were Calvinists). It’s bitter anti-Trinitarianism. Adams by the way was a proud, lifelong Unitarian.
Report comment to moderator
262 (Jon Rowe): It appears to me that you haven’t read the Jefferson-Adams correspondence as I have (I have the Cappon Ed.; what ed. do you have?) because your sentiments in post 259 aren’t quite right. You don’t need to direct me to secondary sources as I already have and have read the primary sources.
That’s wonderful, Jon. Since you have the Cappon Ed., use that instead of my references. I am genuinely curious to have you lay out the context of the letters referenced and comment on that and then the content of the letters. I don’t care where you get the documentation. The two links I gave you describe letter exchanges on which I am particularly interested in your thoughts.
Since you have studies the entire set of letters so thoroughly, this should not be a significant effort.
Report comment to moderator
Dave,
Your point also shows how Protestantism and the reformation bled into the unitarian heresy in which America’s key Founders embraded. Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics both agree on the Nicene Creed and doctrines of Trinitarian orthodoxy. The Reformers believed such things as Marionism (at other Romanish things) were the result of extra-biblical creeds and teachings. Roman Catholics said just you wait, if you put the Bible in the hands of ordinary folks, they’ll use scripture alone to attack Trinitarian orthodoxy. And that’s what some 18th and 19th Century American Protestants did. Original Sin, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement…All of these were now attacked (by some notable dissidents) as extra-biblical creeds, just like Marionism.
Look at the context of the quotations I’ve offered: Adams isn’t attacking Roman Catholicism but the Nicene Trinity itself as creedal nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
271 (Jon Rowe): Nope — I’ve read the context. It’s not mere anti-Catholicism. To Adams the Roman Catholic Church and John Calvin were practically of one accord (though he hated the RC Church more than Calvin, because many of his ancestors whom he loved were Calvinists). It’s bitter anti-Trinitarianism. Adams by the way was a proud, lifelong Unitarian.
Jon, I am a skeptic of the most profound sort. You are going to have to give the surrounding context including the letter that prompted Adams response. The quote, as it stands, appears to a vehement rejection of certain Catholic doctrinal beliefs. In light of that, I do not accept your explanation nor am I obligated to do so.
Report comment to moderator
Dave,
Gladly…though I’ll note that this is cutting into my work time a little. I’ve already researched and blogged about most of those letters, so let me direct you to past posts of mine which deal with the context.
This one is important. It addresses Adams’ much spread quotation about the US revolution being founded on “the general principles of Christianity.” The context clearly shows Adams was not referring to orthodox Christianity but what Dr. Frazer terms “theistic rationalism.”
If “Christianity” means those things articulated in the WC, half the groups Adams speaks of as being “united” under “the general principles of Christianity” utterly reject elements of the WC and Adams goes so far as to assert that Deists, atheists and Protestants who believe in nothing were united under the “general principles of Christianity.”
Here is One of the first reviews I did of their correspondence with lots of great quotations.
And in this post, I discuss Jefferson’s letter to Adams where he discusses cutting the Bible up. I’ll do more later. I’ll try to find a post I did where I show Adams receiving the Jefferson Bible, approving of it, and noting if he had the time, Adams would make his own version. In one of the letters, I note in an above link, Adams said he loved the Bible, that it was his favorite book. Not because it was infallible. But because it agreed with Him and his own “philosophy” which was the result of reason!
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 268
It is obvious that you believe Dr. Gregg Frazer to be an authority, and you are favorable to John MacArthur’s college, which name is, – “Masters College” – I’m well acquainted with this college –
I am not impressed for a number of reasons, which shall be nameless for the time being.
Report comment to moderator
Evangelical Christianity/fundamentalism/Young Earth Creationism aren’t my cup of tea at all. However I have studied historic Christianity and its orthodoxy and can attest that MacArthur/Frazer et al. do the best job I have seen at keeping fundamental, biblical Christianity free from corrupt from foreign influences like “Americanism.”
If you aren’t such a Christian — for instance if you are a liberal cafeteria Christian — then laud the Founders and their heterodox theology all you want.
But if you want to say true to historic biblical orthodoxy, once you start to try to make apologies for what John Adams et al. believed in, it can only lead you down the road to corrupting historic biblical orthodoxy.
Report comment to moderator
Dave,
How do you handle this one?
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
Or how do you handle the fact that Adams was a proud lifelong Unitarian (and also note how Adams reveals that his own Congregational ministers were unitarians and thus disbelievers in the WC).
I thank you for your favour of the 10th and the pamphlet enclosed, “American Unitarianism.” I have turned over its leaves and have found nothing that was not familiarly known to me.
In the preface Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New England. I can testify as a Witness to its old age. Sixty five years ago my own minister the Reverend Samuel Bryant, Dr. Johnathan Mayhew of the west Church in Boston, the Reverend Mr. Shute of Hingham, the Reverend John Brown of Cohasset & perhaps equal to all if not above all the Reverend Mr. Gay of Hingham were Unitarians. Among the Laity how many could I name, Lawyers, Physicians, Tradesman, farmers!
– John Adams to Jedidiah Morse, May 15, 1815. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress.
And:
We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than sixty Years, do not indulge our Malignity in profane Cursing and Swearing, against you Calvinists; one of whom I know not how long you have been. You and I, once saw Calvin and Arius, on the Plafond of the Cathedral of St. John the Second in Spain roasting in the Flames of Hell. We Unitarians do not delight in thinking that Plato and Cicero, Tacitus Quintilian Plyny and even Diderot, are sweltering under the scalding drops of divine Vengeance, for all Eternity.
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816, Ibid, reel 430.
Report comment to moderator
SO Jon, you try and tie the whole thing up to your thinking, and if those of us who are Evangelical don’t agree with you, Frazer or ‘Masters College’ we just haven’t arrived.
In checking the internet, I noticed you make lots of ‘party’ over Frazer and his work, what a surprise.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, he is one of my biggest influences on the matter. So what? If we were debating eternal damnation or gay rights, Frazer, MacArthur and YOU would be squarely in one corner and I’d be in the other.
If you don’t agree with me fine. Let’s just get the facts on what the Founders said, what they believed on the table.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 279,
but I suggest that if you don’t agree with Jon, the solution is simple: go produce the documentary evidence wich disputes him.
outkast was in the same situation: I have not seen his documentary evidence. Evidently outkasts meticulously researched material is thinner than outkast originaly thought.
So lets see your documentary material.
I look forward to its detailed presentation with links/complete references to where you found your material.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe: I am PRETTY sure that my grandfather was not a Muslim.
Although I do know he frequently chopped heads off, which, come to think of it, makes one wonder, doesn’t it?
Usually on Sunday, if I recall, sometime after church, so that Grandma had time to cook the chicken up for Sunday dinner.
I am pretty sure that those chickens would have been infidels, too. (Most chickens, are, presumably).
Dang.
So, thanks a lot, Jon Rowe. You just ruined my entire perception of my family history.
Next you will probably dig up some obscure records indicating I am the long-lost half-brother of Barack Obama, or Rev. Wright, or Louis Farrakhan, or Bin Laden.
Oh, but they are all brothers anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Re Kurds; I have not actually looked much on the web, sorry.
My knowledge of the Kurds is personal – I know several Kurdish families; an ex-student of mine (I was his advisor on his Master’s degree) was Kurdish – out of Iran, actually. I became close to him (he became a citizen while he was working with me) and to some of his people, who made it over here. Essentially, they fled – otherwise they would have been persecuted at best, killed at worse. That was a number of years ago.
Let me just note that they (many Kurds) viewed (and still view, I believe) the US as liberators on the grand scale.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
YOU WRITE:… “If we were debating eternal damnation or gay rights, Frazer, MacArthur and YOU would be squarely in one corner and I’d be in the other.”
That’s TRUE, but that’s not what we are discussing and YOU KNOW IT, different subject.
Report comment to moderator
Well Victoria,
Since you seem interested in discussing and debating the matter why don’t you check out my latest post at American Creation where I show that when the Founders spoke of a God given “higher law” to which all man made law had to conform, they were chiefly referring to “reason” and not “revelation.”
Report comment to moderator
To Jon Rowe in response to posts 268, 270, 275, 278, and 285:
You are quite a piece of work, Jon. I’m impressed with your doggedness and the narrowness of your focus. Unfortunately, it doesn’t help that you continue to undermine your own credibility. Let me explain:
Your Post 285:
You provide a link to your latest post in which you state, “Though Hamilton quotes Blackstone, he does so in the context of arguing the ’state of nature’ theory, which is Hobbsean/Lockean in origin, and, as Leo Strauss put it, ‘wholly alien to the Bible.’”
Yet in your post, you post a link to the actual letter by Alexander Hamilton which begins, “I shall, for the present, pass over to that part of your pamphlet, in which you endeavour to establish the supremacy of the British Parliament over America. After a proper eclaircissement of this point, I shall draw such inferences, as will sap the foundation of every thing you have offered.
The first thing that presents itself is a wish, that “I had, explicitly, declared to the public my ideas of the natural rights of mankind. Man, in a state of nature (you say) may be considered, as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, and, then, the weak must submit to the strong.”
[there follows a paragraph where Hamilton essentially suggests the man to which he is responding is an ignoramus which, nevertheless, does not expunge the man's guilt. Hamilton then suggests some books that the man should read.]
Hamilton continues: “There is so strong a similitude between your political principles and those maintained by Mr. Hobb[e]s, that, in judging from them, a person might very easily mistake you for a disciple of his. His opinion was, exactly, coincident with yours, relative to man in a state of nature. He held, as you do, that he was, then, perfectly free from all restraint of law and government. Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he run into this absurd and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe.”
In view of the above paragraph, where do you derive that Hamilton “does so in the context of arguing the ’state of nature’ theory, which is Hobbsean/Lockean in origin…” My reading of the paragraph suggests you clearly did not read very carefully the entire letter.
Your Post 275:
After I ask you to provide the full context of one of your quotes, you provide me with three links to things you have written which are littered with quotes and no context except your own interpretation of the quoted material. In light of the problem in your link of post 285, should I not question the depth of your scholarship?
In an attempt to track down the context of several of your quotes, I find that the only place they exist is in your posts in blogs on the Internet. I understand that the full letters of Adams and Jefferson from which you quote may not exist on the Internet yet (I did a search using other criteria than your quotes and could not find them). However, as you have stated, you have the Cappon Ed. Why not take at least one letter containing one of your quotes (and the letter that provoked it) and do an exegesis.
Your Post 278: More “cherry-picked” quotes without context. Jon, you claim to be a scholar of the Founding Fathers. Why not demonstrate you skill and do as I suggest above.
Your Post 270:
You state, “What you don’t appear to understand is some Deists, but more importantly the theistic rationalists perfectly agreed with the BOLD passage of what was written above, but discarded what is not in bold.”
I am uncertain what you mean by the term “theistic rationalists,” but I am absolutely certain that a Deist would go apoplectic if anyone suggested they believed in God’s Providence. Deists believe that God created the universe and then left it alone, period.” That God intervenes in the world to achieve His will and Purposes would be such an alien concept to their Theology that they would immediately ridicule such a silly idea.
Your Post 268:
You state in a response to Victoria, “[Notice how I didn’t fall into Dr. Dave’s “Voltaire” trap. Yes, I know these Founders were just as removed from Voltaire’s Deism as they were from Calvin’s “Christianity.”]“
That was not a trap, Jon. It was a reference to a statement by Adams in one of his letters to Dr. Benjamin Rush that was in one of the links I asked you to comment on. The statement in Adams’ letter was, “Do you wonder that Voltaire and Paine have made proselytes [converts]? Yet there was as much subtlety, craft and hypocrisy in Voltaire and Paine and more too than in Ignatious Loyola”
Don’t worry, Jon. I am not “cherry picking” here. I am going to do what you so far have refused to do–an exegesis of the letter from which the above quote comes.
Report comment to moderator
For Jon Rowe:
Exegesis of John Adams’ letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, December 21, 1809
General Contest
It is 1809, Jefferson has just left the presidency. He and John Adams are still very bitter towards each other stemming from the bitter election of 1800 where Adams lost to Jefferson. Dr. Benjamin Rush, a devout Christian (although only a four-and-a-half-point Calvinist–he rejected “limited atonement.”), and a co-signer of the Declaration of Independence ,loved both men as a brother would and was deeply desirous of their reconciliation. To accomplish this, he initiated a correspondence with Adams and Jefferson separately urging them each to reconcile. Prior to the letter I am going to exegete, Dr. Rush wrote to Adams stating his desire that Adams and Jefferson reconcile. In the major section of the letter (dated October 17, 1809), Dr. Rush relates a dream that he had. Dr. Rush relates the content of the dream as follows:
“‘What book is that in your hands?’ said I to my son Richard a few nights ago in a dream. ‘It is the history of the United States,’ said he. ‘Shall I read a page of it to you?’ ‘No, no,’ said I. ‘I believe in the truth of no history but in that which is contained in the Old and New Testaments.’ ‘But, sir,’ said my son, ‘this page relates to your friend Mr. Adams.’ ‘Let me see it then,’ said I. I read it with great pleasure and herewith send you a copy of it.”
Dr. Rush then relates the content of the page of history he saw in the dream.
“1809. Among the most extraordinary events of this year was the renewal of the friendship and intercourse between Mr. John Adams and Mr. Jefferson, the two ex-Presidents of the United States. They met for the first time in the Congress of 1775. Their principles of liberty, their ardent attachment to their country … being exactly the same, they were strongly attracted to each other and became personal as well as political friends…. A difference of opinion upon the objects and issue of the French Revolution separated them during the years in which that great event interested and divided the American people. The predominance of the party which favored the French cause threw Mr. Adams out of the Chair of the United States in the year 1800 and placed Mr. Jefferson there in his stead. The former retired with resignation and dignity to his seat at Quincy, where he spent the evening of his life in literary and philosophical pursuits, surrounded by an amiable family and a few old and affectionate friends. The latter resigned the Chair of the United States in the year 1808, sick of the cares and disgusted with the intrigues of public life, and retired to his seat at Monticello, in Virginia, where he spent the remainder of his days in the cultivation of a large farm agreeably to the new system of husbandry. In the month of November 1809, Mr. Adams addressed a short letter to his friend Mr. Jefferson in which he congratulated him upon his escape to the shades of retirement and domestic happiness, and concluded it with assurances of his regard and good wishes for his welfare. This letter did great honor to Mr. Adams. It discovered a magnanimity known only to great minds. Mr. Jefferson replied to this letter and reciprocated expressions of regard and esteem. These letters were followed by a correspondence of several years in which they mutually reviewed the scenes of business in which they had been engaged, and candidly acknowledged to each other all the errors of opinion and conduct into which they had fallen during the time they filled the same station in the service of their country. Many precious aphorisms, the result of observation, experience, and profound reflection, it is said, are contained in these letters. It is to be hoped the world will be favored with a sight of them. . . . These gentlemen sunk into the grave nearly at the same time, full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.”
It is worth noting that this is exactly what happened; only the date of reconciliation (1809) is wrong. The reconciliation did not take place until 1812 after an exchange of letters between Adams and Jefferson. The letter we are going to exegete below was written in response to Dr. Rush from Quincy on December 21, 1809.
Exegesis of John Adams’ Reply:
The letter opens with a short description of the happenings and adventures of members of the Adams family including a description of the daring feats of his son on the sea (John Quincy Adams was then at sea).
John Adams then asks how things are going in Philadelphia for the Rush family especially Richard’s wife who is expecting. He expresses admiration for Dr. Rush’s medical accomplishments and then turns to the matter of the dream/prophesy reported by Dr. Rush:
“But my friend there is something very serious in this business. The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth.”
Note that Adams acknowledges the existence of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit)–the third person in the Trinity. Apparently, Adams is not completely convinced of Unitarianism as some suggest. Unfortunately, Adams immediately slips into a diatribe against ecclesiastical authority as the only authority allowed to administer the sacraments in which the Holy Spirit plays a role. Thus, Adams continues:
“Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a Sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the Bishop on the heads of candidates for the Ministry. In the same manner as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London. There is no authority civil or religious: There can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. Although this is all artifice and cunning in the secret original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lie down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagots [a bundle of pieces of iron or steel] for it.”
Notice that Adams’ anger is not directed against the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, but against the agents of the church that claim that they are the only ones who have the authority to invoke the Holy Spirit in the Sacraments, in the anointing of governments, etc. That Adams’ target is Ecclesiastical Authority and its usurping of the power of the Holy Spirit. Adams continues:
“Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe human nature. There is so much king craft, priest craft, gentlemen’s craft, people’s craft, doctors craft, lawyers craft, merchants craft, tradesmen’s craft, laborers craft and Devil’s craft in the world that it seems a desperate and impractical project to undeceive it.”
Adams despairs of every changing the way the world views the Priestly classes. He next comments on the ability of Deists like Voltaire and Paine to draw converts because the church has so badly corrupted the doctrine of the Holy Spirit:
“Do you wonder that Voltaire and Paine have made proselytes [converts]? Yet there was as much subtlety, craft and hypocrisy in Voltaire and Paine and more too than in Ignatious Loyola.”
Adams follows his condemnation of the church of his fathers by also condemning Deists and Catholic theologians. Clearly, he is upset with the authority vested in all church Ecclesiastical Hierarchies. Yet he also implies his acknowledgment of the role of the Holy Spirit as a significant agent in God’s Providence. We shall leave for later a discussion of Adams’ view of Jesus Christ, the second person in the Trinity.
Adams continues:
“This letter is so much in the tone of my friend the Abby Raynal [Abbe Raynal- a French writer] and the grumblers of the last age, that I pray you to burn it. I cannot copy it.”
Adams recognizes the intemperance of the previous paragraph, compares it to other bad-tempered people and writers, repents, and suggests that Dr. Rush burn it. I suspect his diatribe is an embarrassment to him. The paragraph does, however, show the deep bitterness he feels regarding how he was treated.
Adams continues:
“Your prophecy, my dear friend, has not become history as yet. I have no resentment of animosity against the gentleman and abhor the idea of blackening his character or transmitting him in odious colors to posterity. But I write with difficulty and am afraid of diffusing myself in too many correspondences. If I should receive a letter from him however I should not fail to acknowledge and answer it.”
First, note that Adams acknowledges that Dr. Rush’s dream is a prophesy. In addition to the Holy Spirit, he seems to accept the reality of prophesy as well. Second, notice how he politely refuses to be the first to attempt to breach the wall of separation between himself and Jefferson. His bitterness is deep indeed.
Adams then closes the letter with thanks and acknowledges his deep feelings of friendship for Dr. Rush. It is worth noting in closing this exegesis that Dr. Rush was eventually successful in bringing the two former friends back together.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for this Dave. I almost missed your replies completely.
I’ll have much to say on the matter. However, you have a funny term (4.5 pt Calvinists) for Arminians as Rush was. Rush btw, though a Trinitarian, denied not just limited Atonement but eternal damnation itself. Yes, I have quotations.
Report comment to moderator
Let me also briefly note Dave that you know how to waive away smoking gun evidence with empty rheotical flourishes like “cherry picked quotations” and not in “context.”
I assue you if you research this further, you are eventually going to concede that John Adams was a fervent theological Unitarian — denier of the Trinity. Whatever Adams thought of the Holy Spirit, he did not believe such to be the 3rd person in the Trinity as Adams bitterly rejected, and mocked the Trinity.
Report comment to moderator
Okay Dave,
To meet your challenge where I take one of those quotations that are supposedly “cherry picked” and feature the entire letter that illustrates the context. You will see the context vindicates my assertions and explains the theistic rationalism or unitarian position that was neither Deism nor Christianity but in between with rationalism as the trumping element.
And btw, you say you don’t know what theistic rationalism is even though I explained it numerous times on these threads. So I am just going to cut and paste what I’ve already written.
The theistic rationalists believed in an active personal Providence, that Jesus was not God but a great moral teacher, that the Bible was partially inspired (in other words it was errant, but some revelation was true) that man’s reason superseded revelation as the ultimate arbiter of truth and determined which parts of the Bible were legitimate. Further, they believed most or all religions were valid and led to the same God. And finally one of their most common terms for God was “Providence.”
I’ll add as warm theists, they tended to be very religion friendly and thought “religion” in the absract sense provided republican government vital support.
This was the religion of the key FF’s — Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Wilson, G. Morris, and Hamilton, before his end of life conversion to orthodox Christianity.
Now, onto John Adams’ letter from post 278. The entire letter is available online and I blogged about it here and reproduced it in its entirety. Here it is:
“DEAR DOCTOR,
“I thank you thank you for your favour of the 10th, and the pamphlet enclosed, entitled, ‘American Unitarianism.’ I have turned over its leaves, and found nothing that was not familiarly known to me. In the preface, Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New-England. I can testify as a witness to its old age. Sixty-five years ago, my own minister, the Rev. Lemuel Bryant; Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, of the West Church in Boston; the Rev. Mr. Shute, of Hingham; the Rev. John Brown, of Cohasset; and perhaps equal to all, if not above all, the Rev. Mr. Gay, of Hingham, were Unitarians. Among the laity how many could I name, lawyers, physicians, tradesmen, farmers! But at present I will name only one, Richard Cranch, a man who had studied divinity, and Jewish and Christian antiquities, more than any clergyman now existing in New England. More than fifty years ago, I read Dr. Clarke, Emlyn, and Dr. Waterland: do you expect, my dear doctor, to teach me any thing new in favour of Athanasianism? — There is, my dear Doctor, at present existing in the world a Church Philosophick, as subtle, as learned, as hypocritical, as the Holy Roman Catholick, Apostolick, and Ecumenical Church. The Philosophical Church was originally English. Voltaire learned it from Lord Herbert, Hobbes, Morgan, Collins, Shaftsbury, Bolingbroke, &c. &c. &c. You may depend upon it, your exertions will promote the Church Philosophick, more than the Church Athanasian or Presbyterian. This and the coming age will not be ruled by inquisitions or Jesuits. The restoration of Napoleon has been caused by the resuscitation of inquisitors and Jesuits.
I am and wish to be
Your friend,
JOHN ADAMS”
Quincy, May 15th, 1815.
Now, the context: The “Doctor” to whom Adams addresses is one Jedidiah Morse, a Calvinist theologian and an enemy of the emerging Unitarianism in the state of Mass. and in New England at the time. He writes a pamphlet around 1815 attacking Unitarianism claiming it is only about 30 years old. Adams responds by noting Unitarianism actually has been around for 65 years (since 1750) and that Adams himself is a fervent Unitarian and his own minister and a variety of other New England ministers were Unitarians around that time (mid 18th Century).
Note Adams attacks a number of different religious and philosophical systems in his letter. He looks to his left and sees the Deists whom he terms the “Church Philosophick,” and names a number of famous Deists as being part of that system. So Adams clearly notes he isn’t a Deist.
YET, he looks to his right and sees not just Roman Catholics, but Calvinists and the entire system of Trinitarian Christianity, with which he also disagrees. He terms them the “Church Athanasian.” If you are familiar with the term “Athanasian” it refers to Athanasian Creed which is shorthand for orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.
And indeed, Adams teases Jedidiah Morse, not a Roman Catholic but a CALVINIST with lines like “do you expect, my dear doctor, to teach me any thing new in favour of Athanasianism?”
So the context of Adams’ letter illustrates that he just as strongly disagreed with orthodox Trinitarian Christianity as he did with strict Deism. He saw his “unitarianism” as a rational middle ground position in between the two.
So in the spirit of John Adams, I would ask you, do you expect, my dear Dr. Dave, to teach me anything new in favor of the Christian America thesis or of the religion of America’s Founders? As you can see, I’ve clearly done my homework on the matter.
Report comment to moderator
Dave,
Let me briefly explain the whole Hobbes thing. You aren’t aware of the scholarly study that has been done on the matter. I never said Hamilton was a fan of Hobbes. In fact, few of the Founders were fans of Hobbes almost ALL were fans of Locke. What I said, (read carefully) was that the state of nature was a Hobbsean-Lockean idea not a biblical one, which is accurate.
You see it was Hobbes that first posited the revolutionary “state of nature” concept. Along come John Locke who disagrees with Hobbes understanding of the concept positing his own “state of nature” idea. And then Rousseau enters and disagrees with both of their conceptions and posits his own. The point is, all three argued under rubric of “the state of nature,” and HOBBES was the first to posit this notion. The Founders, of course, endorsed Locke’s understanding of the state of nature. But whenever you see ANYONE invoke this concept be it Hobbes’, Locke’s or Rousseau’s, they are invoking a concept that is, in the words of Leo Strauss, “wholly alien to the Bible,” an Enlightenment philosophical notion that originated with Hobbes.
That’s how the Founders could invoke a Hobbsean-Lockean concept while condemning Hobbes and praising Locke.
This is not any kind of novel idea on my part. Some of the most prominent scholars of political science — Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom, Francis Fukuyama, Walter Berns, Harvey Mansfield, Thomas Pangle, and Michael Zuckert — have been noting this for years.
Report comment to moderator
291 (Jon Rowe): “Let me briefly explain the whole Hobbes thing. You aren’t aware of the scholarly study that has been done on the matter. I never said Hamilton was a fan of Hobbes. In fact, few of the Founders were fans of Hobbes almost ALL were fans of Locke. What I said, (read carefully) was that the state of nature was a Hobbsean-Lockean idea not a biblical one, which is accurate.”
No, I am not aware of the “scholarly study” you mention. However, I have read Locke’s “An Essay concerning Human Understanding” and “On the Reasonableness of Christianity.” I had to read the former as a graduate student and I read the latter out of curiosity. I also have read excerpts from Thomas Hobbes. Locke was interested in providing extra-biblical evidence for God, the Trinity, and man’s need for a Messiah among other things. He felt he had done so. He calls Jesus the Son of God. He wrote against Thomas Hobbes finding all of his claims inadequate. It doesn’t make any sense to suggest there is something called a Hobbsean-Lockean concept unless you strip Locke’s work of everything that was admired by the Founding Fathers.
Jon continues: “That’s how the Founders could invoke a Hobbsean-Lockean concept while condemning Hobbes and praising Locke.”
That is just silly. There is no “Hobbes-Lockean concept” invoked by the Founding Fathers. It is a figment of modern scholarship and, so far as I can tell refers to interlinking sovereign, social and contractual relationships. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs. To reinforce this, see Hamilton’s Letter at your link. Hamilton mentions several authors that the man needs to consult so he can understand why Hobbes is such a bad Philosopher. I quote: “I shall, henceforth, begin to make some allowance for that enmity, you have discovered to the natural rights of mankind. For, though ignorance of them in this enlightened age cannot be admitted, as a sufficient excuse for you; yet, it ought, in some measure, to extenuate your guilt. If you will follow my advice, there still may be hopes of your reformation. Apply yourself, without delay, to the study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your perusal, Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui. I might mention other excellent writers on this subject; but if you attend, diligently, to these, you will not require any others.”
Hamilton invokes Locke, indeed. However, he also invokes Grotius, Puffendorf, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui. Grotius was a philosopher and Christian apologist. Puffendorf was a Jurist and orthodox Christian who wrote on Natural Law and also advocated uniting the Dutch Reformed and Lutheran Churches (Calvin & Luther). Montesquieu was the French Philosopher that advocated separation of powers and he had a profound influence on James Madison (and, apparently, Alexander Hamilton as well). Burlemaqui was a Swiss Jurist and staunch Calvinist who wrote a treatise on Natural Law based on Calvin’s doctrine of the two kingdoms.
When one looks at Hamilton’s list of authors to study, it is very clear that his thoughts are very far from Hobbes and could never be construed as non-biblical, period!!!
Jon then says, “This is not any kind of novel idea on my part. Some of the most prominent scholars of political science — Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom, Francis Fukuyama, Walter Berns, Harvey Mansfield, Thomas Pangle, and Michael Zuckert — have been noting this for years.
They have, eh! What do they have to say about Hamilton’s real point in the letter–that the person he was writing to was a fool to pay attention to Hobbes when there were so many good Christian writers who wrote on Natural Law and its source in God and the Scriptures.
Report comment to moderator
290 (Jon Rowe)
First, let me say that I agree that John Adams was sympathetic to Unitarianism. Now let me add some additional context to your post.
First, Dr. Jedidiah Morse, in addition to being a Calvinist, was the father of Samuel F. B. Morse (father of telecommunications). He was also an ardent supporter of John Adams in the election of 1800 because he feared Jefferson’s sympathy for the French Revolution. He considered John Adams a friend and I assume this was reciprocated. He also feared that the Unitarians would take over Harvard (which they did). He later founded Andover as a place to train Orthodox Christian ministers. It would, therefore, be very interesting in your exegesis if you had included the comments on the content of Dr. Morse’s letter than prompted Adam’s reply. It would greatly aid in fully understanding the content of Adams’ letter.
Secondly, I am quite familiar with the Athanasian Creed. It is required reading for my class on Theology at the church I attend. And John Adams attack on it was an attack on the Catholic, Anglican, and, indirectly, the Presbyterian Churches (Adams was a Congregationalist initially which is why he was familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith).
Finally, I am again struck by the antagonism John Adams expresses against Ecclesiastical Authority on the one hand and Deism on the other as you point out. Again, I am reminded that in Massachusetts at the time of the Revolution, it is estimated that very few Orthodox Churches support the Revolution. That, to me is the strongest sense I get from the letter.
Now to summarize what we have learned. Adams was a Unitarian. Hamilton’s religious preference is still unclear, but from the letter we’ve both quoted, he was deeply sympathetic to Orthodox Christianity as it supported Natural Law.
Report comment to moderator
Okay I’m glad we are for the most part agreed on Adams. It’s my contention that this middle ground theology that was neither Deism nor Christianity — it often went by the name “unitarianism” but some believers in this creed didn’t seem to identify as such — was the dominant one among the key Founders.
Re Hamilton…heh, you might not want to read Mark Lilla’s new book on political theology as it will probably make your head explode. You utterly reject the thesis to his book!
Instead of getting hung up on how “Hobbsean” America’s Founding was, I would just simply assert 1) Hobbes first posited the concept of the state of nature’ 2) Locke, however much he differed from Hobbes, nonetheless made the concept of “state of nature” key to his theory; and 3) “state of nature” is not biblical, that is it is not found within the Bible’s text. Though it might be compatible with biblical Christianity. It is “a-biblical” not necessarily “anti-biblical.”
Report comment to moderator
Re Hamilton my research shows that he believed in the generic unitarianism or theistic rationalism until the end of his life after his son died in a duel when he converted to orthodox Christianity. The following statement typifies what I mean by “unitarian” in not so many words. Hamilton discusses what he looks for in a wife. As he wrote to John Laurens in Dec. 1779: “As to religion, a moderate streak will satisfy me. She must believe in god and hate a saint.”
Report comment to moderator
A note on Locke: I don’t know what you mean by “Locke was interested in providing extra-biblical evidence for…the Trinity,” as believed in neither original sin nor the Trinity. Locke was a closet Arian.
Report comment to moderator
296 (Jon Rowe): “I don’t know what you mean by “Locke was interested in providing extra-biblical evidence for…the Trinity,” as believed in neither original sin nor the Trinity.”
You know what, Jon. Secondary sources on the political and religious philosophy of the Founding Fathers, particularly ones written in the last 100 years or so, are really suspect in my view. I think the reason they are so erroneous is that the authors seem to know little or nothing about the concepts they glibly toss around. So lets you and I take a look at what Locke really said. First, the Trinity. In Locke’s own words.
Here is what Locke wrote in response to an individual who suggested in writing that Locke was “Anti-Trinitarian”:
“And if your lordship has brought in the mention of my book in a chapter, intitled, “Objections against the Trinity, in Point of Reason, answered;” when, in my whole Essay, I think there is not to be found any thing like an objection against the Trinity: I have the more to acknowledge to your lordship, who would not let the foreignness of the subject hinder your lordship from endeavouring to set me right, as to some errours your lordship apprehends in my book; when other writers using some notions like mine, gave you that which was occasion enough for you to do me the favour to take notice of what you dislike in my Essay…If your lordship had showed me any thing in my book, that contained or implied any opposition in it to any thing revealed in holy writ concerning the Trinity, or any other doctrine contained in the bible, I should have been thereby obliged to your lordship for freeing me from that mistake, and for affording me an opportunity to own to the world that obligation, by publicly retracting my errour.”
Or consider this Postscript to a letter from Locke to Right Rev. Edward…concerning some passages relating to Mr. Locke’s ‘Essay on Human Understanding.’”:
“The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture. But I must confess to your lordship, that I do not perceive any such contrariety in any thing in my Essay of Human Understanding.”
So Locke himself, in his own words was a Trinitarian and, not only that, he apparently considered the Bible to contain “infallible truth” suggesting he believed in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Now you might argue that Locke was dissembling in order to avoid excommunication, but I think we should give Locke the benefit of the doubt, don’t you.
Report comment to moderator
Continuing with 296 (Jon Rowe): …
Now let us consider Locke’s view of Original Sin. In Locke’s own words again.
Unfortunately, the quote is too long to reproduce here, but the link is to Google Books and it is Locke’s essay entitled, “The reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures.” The link is:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3Crow53pEzUC&dq=%22John+Locke%22+%22
The+Reasonableness+of+Christianity+as+Delivered+in+the+Scriptures%22
&pg=PP1&ots=b4Ftm3cStA&sig=-MKynaDMNbJP0GAEEQ0iofub5CI&hl=en&sa=X&
oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PRA1-PA10,M1
You will have to rejoin the four segments of the URL. Please do me the favor of reading pages 5 through 12 and the first paragraph from page 13.
Now what can we deduce from John Locke’s own essay. These are the things I take from his own words:
John Locke did not reject the concept of Original Sin, but he did reject the concept of “Total Depravity”; that is, WCF Chapter IV–Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof–which states in part:
I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.
Section II. defines the doctrine of “Total Depravity” and it appears to be that to which Locke is objecting. Locke says in part, “I must confess by Death here I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of Life and Sense. Such a Death came on Adam and all his posterity by his sin (Romans 5:12). [Here Locke quotes the verse] But here will come the common objection, that so many stumble at: How doth it consist with the Justice and Goodness of God, that the posterity of Adam should suffer for his sin; the Innocent be punished for the Guilty? Very well, if keeping one from what he has no right to, be called a Punishment. The state of Immortality in Paradise is not due to the posterity of Adam more than to any other creature. Nay, if God afford them a Temporary Mortal Life, ’tis his Gift, they owe it to his Bounty,they could not claim it as their Right, nor does he injure them when he takes it from them. Had he taken from Mankind any thing, that was their Right; or did he put Man in a state of Misery worse than not being, without any fault or demerit of their own; this indeed would be hard to reconcile with the Notion we have of Justice, and much more with the Goodness and other Attributes of the Supreme Being, which he has declared of himself, and Reason as well as Revelation must acknowledge to be in him; unless we will confound Good and Evil, God and Satan.”
The quote starts at the bottom of page 8 and continues into page 9. What Locke is clearly endorsing is Original Sin (the wages of Sin is Death). What he clearly objects to (and I don’t have time or space to quote it, but it is on pages 6, 7, and the remainder of 9) is “Total Depravity.” This latter concept is introduced in Section II of WCF Chapter 4 (see above). WCF Chapter 4, Section III (see above) states that both the “death in sin” (Original Sin) and “corrupted nature” (Total Depravity) are imputed to all of Adam’s posterity. Locke accepts the first and rejects the second.
However, so did large numbers of early Christians (Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians) and it is common in many modern groups of Christians.
In summary, Hamilton was right to include Locke with the other Christian writers on Natural Law. It is truly sad the the secondary sources perpetuate the notion that Locke rejected Original Sin. What is really going on is that the secondary sources don’t understand Original Sin or Total Depravity and thus they make fools of themselves and deceive their readers in the process.
Report comment to moderator
295 (Jon Rowe): Re Hamilton my research shows that he believed in the generic unitarianism or theistic rationalism until the end of his life after his son died in a duel when he converted to orthodox Christianity.
That would suggest that Hamilton became a Christian in 1801 (Hamilton himself was killed by Aaron Burr in 1804 and his son was killed 3 years before). How then do you explain this quote from Hamilton in 1795:
“PRINCIPLES [of the New York Manumission Society]:
The Benevolent Creator and Father of Men having given to them all, an equal Right to Life, Liberty and Property; no Sovereign Power, on Earth, can justly deprive them of either; but in Conformity to impartial Government and Laws to which they have expressly or tacitly [by implication] consented –
OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY:
It is our duty, therefore, as Free Citizens and Chr