Post on important John Adams letter

[Jon]

Recently mydh12 wrote something that I think needs further
addressing.

"Again Jon, I don't care if the FF were not orthodox Christians. They
recognized the absolute need for Christianity as the basis for the
morality that would provide the underpinning for an "ordered freedom"
in their new democracy. You don't seem to do that."

This is arguably absolutely wrong and it all depends on what
Christianity means. Remember, according to folks like TL, (and
perhaps YOU should believe this as well) if you aren't an orthodox
Christian, you aren't a Christian period. What we have termed
"theistic rationalism" or "unitarianism" often presented itself under
the AUSPICES of Christianity. And it was that -- theistic rationalism
NOT "orthodox Christianity" that they key Founders chose to undergird
America's civil institutions. Theistic rationalism isn't necessarily
hostile to orthodox Christianity. Rather it blurs the line between
that and other non-Christian religions. So, you are wrong, the key
Founders chose "religion in general" not necessarily "Christianity" in
particular to provide the moral basis for republican government. The
following is my most recent post detailing a letter from John Adams
which explicates this theory. And I'll note, Jefferson & Franklin
without question believed in Adams' sentiments. Religion could mean
"Christianity." Or it could mean "Hinduism" or Zeus worship. That's
what the FFs meant when they said the Constitution was made for a
"religious" (not necessarily "Christian") people. And everything
Washington and Madison publicly or privately wrote is consistent with
the following from Adams:

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/08/founders-religion-and-context.html

The Founders, Religion, and Context

Context is everything. I see the Christian America side as utterly
misunderstanding context when they quote the key Founders in favor of
their thesis. Yet, when I offer brief quotations invariably I get
accused of the same thing; or in the absence seeing the entire
passage, folks skeptical of my ideas refuse to believe my conclusions
in the absence of seeing the context.

I believe context is clearly on my side; but ultimately it's in the
eye of the beholder. Right now, I am going to post a link to an entire
letter of John Adams' -- to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813. What
follows will be Gregg Frazer's exegesis of the letter. This way all
readers can check Frazer's interpretation with the original and
hopefully will conclude that he is being faithful to context. The
letter is one of Adams' clearest explications of "theistic
rationalism" or "unitarianism." Yet, it also contains a quotation that
the Christian America side loves to quote out of context. Dr. Frazer
originally explained the context on this Internet forum. The context
of the debate is a brief quotation found in that letter where Adams
finds "Christian principles" in Hinduism and essentially says Hindus
worship the same God as Christians. As Adams put it:

-- Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more
profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]?
“God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning,
without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence,
resulting from his eternal designs. — Search not the Essence and the
nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and
presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You
adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.” --

A Christian America apologist could hope that the quotation could be
explained away in context. But, rather the context demonstrates Adams
was a theistic rationalist who believed most or all religions,
including Hinduism, worshipped the same God as Christians. As Dr.
Frazer wrote to a "Christian America" apologist:

-- Re the Adams Hindu quote: the only way FOR YOU to understand
Adams’s quote is to “ASSUME” what he clearly did not mean (if one
knows the context — which I do). In context, he has just said:
“Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original
revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. … no subsequent
revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede
it.” [the latter refers, of course, to the Bible and its inferiority
to philosophy] He goes on to say: “Philosophy looks with an impartial
eye on all terrestrial religions” and then talks about the Bible
further. About the Bible, he then says: “such parts of it as I cannot
reconcile to my little philosophy, I postpone for future
investigation.” He then talks about Joseph Priestley (his spiritual
mentor) and about various religious systems he and Priestley have
encountered, including Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Plato, the
Brahmins, and then the Shastra — and the quoted commentary on the
Shastra. A paragraph later, he says “these doctrines, sublime, if ever
there were any sublime, Pythagoras learned in India, and taught them
to Zaleucus and his other disciples.” Earlier in the same letter, he
said: “The preamble to the laws of Zaleucus, which is all that
remains, is as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s ….” This
is critical because Priestley is Adams’s (& Jefferson’s) spiritual
mentor and because the laws of Zaleucus were supposedly handed down to
pagans from Athena! SO YOU SEE THAT HE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED
CHRISTIANITY IN THE COMPARISON! Further, if a set of laws supposedly
handed down from Athena 600 years before the birth of Christ can be
considered “Christian” — what real meaning does the term have for
Adams? See, you have to find out what THEY meant by the terms they
used. --

I reproduced this except at Positive Liberty and a reader, skeptical
of Dr. Frazer's interpretation, quoted out of context from that very
letter, the passage that the Christian Nation crowd loves to quote.
Adams did indeed write:

-- I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my streightened
means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the
Bible is the best book in the World. It contains more of my little
Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have seen: and such Parts of it as
I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future
investigation. --

The Christian Nation crowd usually stops after "best book in the
world," because what comes next begins to belie the message they want
to read into Adams' sentiments -- that he was a Christian who believed
the Bible infallible. But, again, the context, demonstrates otherwise.
As Dr. Frazer put it:

-- Re Adams’s comment about the Bible...: he declares the Bible “the
best book in the world,” but that doesn’t change the fact (as he has
just asserted) that it does not supersede philosophy. Indeed, he says
it is the best BECAUSE it contains more of HIS philosophy than any
other — not because it is inspired or infallible — but because it
agrees with him! Then, having established that the Bible does not
supersede philosophy and having determined that it is the best book
BECAUSE it “contains more of my little philosophy” than any other, he
says that there are parts which he cannot reconcile to his philosophy
— which means they’re wrong! They cannot supersede philosophy and what
is best is HIS philosophy. --

Again, the context of Adams' Dec. 25 1813 letter to Jefferson shows
him to be not an orthodox Christian, but a theistic rationalist. If
you are skeptical, check the context.

[Tigerlilly66]

I'll take a lot less time and space Jon does to comment on his last
post. He states...

1. "...it all depends on what Christianity means". What is it about
Jon and others like him that they just will not (not cannot) abide the
notion that Christianity never was and never will be a "big tent"
religion? Forgive the use of the word "religion" as it is a very poor
indicator of what Christianity is all about, but to Jon and others
like him, it is all a muddled mass of belief systems...choose your
poison. I've said this before and I'll say it again...BIBLE
Christianity is a far cry from "theistic rationalism", "Unitarian
philosophy", etc. The mere fact that Jon brings up Hinduism,
Confucianism, Plato, Snoopy and Charlie Brown only underscores the
fact that he just doesn't get it, and neither does the eminent Dr.
Frazer either.

2. "Theistic rationalism isn't necessarily hostile to orthodox

Christianity. Rather it blurs the line between that and other non-

Christian religions". Case in point...exactly what I referred to
above. Why Jon thinks this lends credence to his position is a
mystery to me. The kind of Christianity mydh12, nsvictor, and myself
adhere to is not smorgasbord religion..I'll take a little of this,
some of that, none of the other, and lo and behold, I have the belief
system of the "key" founding fathers! I'm still waiting for the
criterion as to what constitutes a "key" FF! Apparently, one that
quotes scripture, longs for the Second Coming, and uses the name of
Jesus freely are disqualifying traits.

3. "Religion could mean Christianity." Or it could mean Hinduism or
Zeus worship". I'm sorry, but pass the bread...the BALONEY has
already been around! This is just a smoke-screen to again, imply that
anything calling itself "religion" is the equal of the Christianity.
I doubt even Unitarians like Jefferson and others would be so bold as
to offer this disjointed "evidence". Even a cursory examination of
the key points of Unitarianism quickly show its antipathy to Bible
Christianity.

4. "Context is everything. I see the Christian America side as utterly

misunderstanding context when they quote the key Founders in favor of

their thesis". How interesting that Jon would use the very argument
that Christians use in defense of a proper reading of
scripture...context! At least he concedes that it is indeed subject
to one's own a priori, but that argument only goes so far. Otherwise,
there can never be anything stated as an absolute because others may
not "read" it the way I do. The context of the many statements of
FF's that I've already cited, plus many others I haven't just as
clearly point to what Jon cannot seem to see.

5. Concerning this quote by Adams..."I have examined all, as well as

my narrow Sphere, my streightened means and my busy Life would allow
me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World.
It contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have
seen: and such Parts of it as
I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future

investigation". Both Frazer and Jon say that the philosophy of Adams
is the key element here, and that his reference to the Bible is just
for effect. Funny...I read it just the opposite! Once again, Jon is
not content to take the words of the person quoted at simple face
value. Both he and Frazer must find a smoking gun or subterfuge
somewhere. He couldn't possible MEAN what he said, could he? I hear
Adams clearly saying that his philsophies that don't square with
scripture need to be re-examined in light of the "Best book in all the
world". I wonder why the scriptures of Hinduism, Confucius, and all
the other "isms" that Jon/Frazer are so wont to bring up were not
mentioned?

I could go on and on, but I've made my point. Jon and Frazer on the
other hand again rely on rhetoric, shucking and jiving, and what the
FF's must have meant, but just never got around to saying.

TL66

> http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/08/founders-religion-and-co...

[Jon]

Very spirited reply. I think in some way you misunderstand my/our
position. Frazer believes in the same Christianity that you do and he
in no uncertain terms says theistic rationalism is NOT Christianity.
He simply argues that was the religious beliefs of America's key
Founders and the political theological driver for the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution.

Did you see in Adams' letter where he states Hindus and pagan Greco-
Romans worship the same God that Christians do? That alone should
disqualify Adams as being a "Christian"in your eyes.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

Also TL. Do you need me to pull out the quotations where Adams
confidently declares himself a lifelong "Unitarian"?

On Aug 16, 8:51 pm, Tigerlilly66 <panzerleh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Tigerlilly66]

How funny that we all seem to see/hear what we want to see/hear. It
seems not to matter what is said, or how it is said, we "hear" it with
an ear attuned to ourselves first and foremost. As a means of
comparison, the man known as "America's Preacher", Billy Graham not
very long ago basically renounced the essentials of what his 50+ year
preaching career has supposedly been all about...check it out for
yourself if you wish at: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mC2WPR7q4pU.

I'll not go into a lot of detail about him, but if someone like that
can do a 180 in the twilight of not only his ministry, but his life
period, I can forgive Adams for a very incorrect statement. Can a
person believe that there is one "God" of all, regardless of what they
believe and still be a Christian? Not for me, Frazer, or you to judge
as we cannot see the inner recesses of that person's heart. I can
sure tell you it is a very negative indicator of what seems to have
been on the inside, and was directly opposed to the teaching of
scripture, but FINAL judgement is up to the Creator alone. People
like Graham and Adams would seem to deserve the title of "apostate".
Whether they are/were does not detract in the slightest whatever
biblical truths they have believed and espoused prior to that place in
their lives. You see, our salvation isn't based upon our works,
however righteous we or anyone else might believe they are. If Adams
was in fact a true believer, he now knows how wrong he was in taking
such a position.

None of this really changes anything so far as we are concerned. Our
firmly held positions are still so. Perhaps it's time to write it off
as an "agree to disagree" issue and move on to greener pastures?

TL66

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Tigerlilly66]

Not at all. Do you need me to re-quote myself from just a few hours
ago when I dealt with this very point? Just another example of us
hearing what we want to hear much of the time. The ability to quote
and appreciate scripture is not reserved to only bible-believers!
Nikita Khruschev had memorized much of the four Gospels, yet he was a
committed Communist till his dying day. George Patton considered
himself to be on very personal terms with "the Almighty" even though
he was a foul-mouthed, unrepentant reprobate.

The preponderance of evidence clearly speaks to FF's with an
overwheming CHRISTIAN world view. Nothing you have produced to date
gives me cause to change this opinion. Am I just hearing what I want
to hear, or is the evidence really there? I guess only the God that
knows both of our hearts and motives can say with certainty.

TL

[Jon]

"The preponderance of evidence clearly speaks to FF's with an
overwheming CHRISTIAN world view."

Heh. I bet you don't even know the term "worldview" has a Germanic,
Nietzschean, relativistic etiology.

Check out the latest link I got from Andrew Sullivan.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/who-was-the-fir.html

And btw, Billy Graham never denied the essentials of Christianity as
fervently as John Adams did. Graham isn't even is serious an apostate
as Benjamin Rush who CLEARLY stated that all men get into Heaven.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Tigerlilly66]

I'll bet you can't say GermanicNietzscheanrelavisticetiology five
times in a row without spraining your tongue! No...I was not aware of
this bit of linguistic gymnastics...and the point of it all?

Please send text/context of Rush's alleged statement that "all dogs
(oops, men) go to heaven"!

I'll just ask you straight up...(should have done this several weeks
ago, actually):

What expanation do YOU offer for the numerous FF's who freely quoted
scripture, made evangelical comments that sounded like they actually
believed them, and otherwise sounded a lot more fundamental than Rick
Warren ever has? Were they just trying to fool us 21st Century types
that they figured would be going bats trying to determine what they
really believed?

I challenge you to find any politician in the last century that has
even remote leanings toward Unitarianism, Theistic Rationalism, or any
other "ism" you care to add to the list that will say the kind of
things that Rush, Hancock, Boudinot, etc. are on record as having
said. It just does NOT occur.

On Aug 18, 8:07 pm, Jon <rowjonat...@aol.com> wrote:
> "The preponderance of evidence clearly speaks to FF's with an
> overwheming CHRISTIAN world view."
>
> Heh.  I bet you don't even know the term "worldview" has a Germanic,
> Nietzschean, relativistic etiology.
>
> Check out the latest link I got from Andrew Sullivan.
>

> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/who-was-...

[Jon]

How about George Bush as an example of a President who seems
influenced by unitarianism. He asserted Muslims worship the same God
Jews and Christians do.

Re the evangelical Founders, yes Witherspoon, Boudinat, S. Adams, and
others were orthodox Christians. They were second tier Founders, not
the "key Founders" like the first 4 Presidents and John Adams.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

Here is what Rush wrote in his autobiography, "Travels through Life":

"At Dr. Finley's School, I was more fully instructed in these
principles by means of the Westminster Catechism. I retained them but
without any affection for them 'till abut the year of 1780. I then
read for the first time Fletcher's controversy with the Calvinists in
favor of the Universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to
admit the doctrine of Universal salvation, which was then preached in
our city by the Revd. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my
ancient calvinistical, and newly adopted Armenian principles. From
that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of
all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from
reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White,Chauncey, and
Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the
Scriptures. I always admitted with each of these authors future
punishment, and of long, long duration."

> ...
>
> read more »

[Tigerlilly66]

While I might concede that Bush does indeed talk like a Unitarian,
that is not what I asked. I said you cannot name ONE American
politician over the last century that has talked like my "second tier"
founders with (1) direct scripture quotations; (2) evangelical
statements; or (3) unreserved invocation of the "J word". The reason
I can say this with confidence I'll not be proven wrong is that
theological liberals of ANY stripe would sooner take a public flogging
than to say something that might tie them to the RRF (religious right
fundamentalists). I've never heard Bush say anything even close to any
of these at any time, unfortunately. I cannot make it any more
plain. Scripture says that "out of the fullness of the heart, the
mouth speaks". Want to know what makes a person tick? Want to know
what is in their heart? Easy! just listen to what they say and how
they say it. Far too many FF's, regardless of their status among each
other or those of us 200+ years later, talked like bible-believing,
evangelical Christians for the claim of "religious neutrality" to even
come close to sticking. What is the point of taking pains to
systematically record the very words of someone if those specific and
pointed comments can be dismissed out of hand at the whim of the
reader? For crying out loud, only 60+ years after WWII, we have bozos
telling us that the Nazi death camps were but a hoax and never
occurred! If this can happen when many of the survivors are still
living, how easy is it for the words of men no longer able to say it
aloud to be rendered null and void.

Let the FF's BE the FF's! It's not your job nor mine to re-invent the
wheel. They did a damn fine job of it themselves, if I may be so
blunt!

TL

[Tigerlilly66]

My only comment on this quote, taking you at your word that it is
authentic, would be that it seems that Rush was indeed a confused
man. I'm glad he listed the five men he learned the erroneous
doctrine of Universal Salvation from. I wonder which scripture it is
he refers to "attentive perusal" of...it certainly didn't come from
the Bible! His last sentence is confusing. How can there be
Universal Salvation if there is punishment of long duration? This
quote engenders more questions than answers.

TL

[Jon]

Vic can confirm this as it's in Hutson's book which he bought. pp
221-22. Right after Rush there is a quotation from Roger Sherman
taking the view that you support.

Re the long duration, the theory is "unsaved" men are temporarily
punished for a long time and eventually come to Christ in the
afterlife.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

I wonder if you've read MacArthur's book on why politics can't save
you. MacArthur's approach utterly rejects David Barton (what I see
as) revisionism and the Christian Right's aggressive involvement in
politics. He argues (correctly in my opinion) that overpoliticization
will invariably pollute the purity of the Gospel's message.

America's Founding political theology, I strongly believe, has
UNITARIAN overtones. As such a President is going to feel pressure to
pretend that all religions worship the same God (what America's
Founding civil religion is all about).

MacArthur's fundamentalism isn't my cup of tea at all. But it appears
to be yours TL. MacArthur would NEVER let politics lead him to eating
his words which is exactly what happened with John Hagee. Both
MacArthur and Hagee believe the Roman Catholic Church is apostate. I
think MacArthur's approach is far more rational sounding and based on
traditional evangelical Protestant differences with Roman
Catholicism. Hagee's is more novel and strange (the entire book of
Revelation strikes me as strange, but MacArthur does a good job at
conservatively staying within the lines of longstanding tradition).

Because of his involvement in endorsing McCain, Hagee recently ate his
words and reached out to Roman Catholics, and diluted his theological
message. MacArthur would NEVER do this. And that's because he
doesn't let politics interfere with theology. When you get in the
political bed as the Christian right encourages this is invariably
what happens.

Many ministers did indeed do this in the Founding era, and Dr. Frazer
in his PhD thesis shows just how un-authentically biblical and
orthodox those Founding era political sermons were.

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

I guess since my name's mentioned, I should butt in :)

Yes, it does say a counter-response as Jon stated:

I think Dr. Chauncey's sentiments on that subject [universal
salvation- Ed.] very erroneous, & if believed will tend to relax the
restrains on vice arising from the threatnings of the divine law
against impenitent sinners. It is true I did declare it to be my
opinion at first in the case of Dr. Beardsley, that such an opinion
ought not to exclude a person from communion, but on further
consideration of the matter, & finding a former determination of our
church in point against my opinion I have viewed it in different point
of light from what i did at first. I think we are as much bound to
believe the threatnings, as the promises of the gospel.

-Roger Sherman to David Austin, March 1,1790. Sherman Papers, Yale
University Library.

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"Many ministers did indeed do this in the Founding era, and Dr. Frazer
in his PhD thesis shows just how un-authentically biblical and
orthodox those Founding era political sermons were. "

< I'm slightly confused. By this statement, you mean that the Founding
era sermons were contradicting their messages because of politics, or
that they were mixing politics and religion together, and that's
what's bad and un-authentically biblica?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

What I meant was when the ministers attempted to use the Bible and the
Christian religion to justify the "American Cause" they ended up
playing games with scripture and used some pretty unorthodox arguably
heretical biblical arguments. By way of analogy, imagine (well you
don't have to imagine because some preachers do this) use of the Bible
to justify homosexual marriage. Founding era preachers similarly
abused the bible in this manner to justify the American cause.

As Dr. Frazer put it in his WND article quoting his PhD thesis:

"When reading these sermons carefully, one is struck by the frequency
with which passages of Scripture are interpreted in a manner
convenient to the argument being made, but unrelated or opposed to
their clear sense. …[T]he ministers were little concerned with
standard rules of interpretation; such as adherence to context,
comparison with similar passages, and fidelity to the clear sense of a
passage when the terms are not ambiguous."

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71614

> ...
>
> read more »

[Tigerlilly66]

No, I haven't read MacArthur's book. I have a lot of respect for John
MacArthur and believe he is right on target in most cases. Having not
seen his book, I can only comment on your observations. What is it
that he sees as a problem with the "Christian Right's aggressive
involvement in politics"? One of the major reasons our nation is now
in the amoral condition it now finds itself is due to many Christians
deciding that they have no business being involved in politics!
Conversely, I also agree with the notion that too much focus on a
political solution to our problems will indeed weaken the influence of
the Gospel. I look at it this way...without a conservative, Christian-
respecting government in the US, my rights as a Christian are in
jeopardy. Unfortunately, Muslims are accorded more civil rights in
America today than Christians, out of misguided fear of "offending" a
system that openly advocates our overthrow! Even a cursory look at
Obama and what he would like to do as President sends cold chills up
my spine! The day of Christians being relegated to 3rd class status
in America (we're already 2nd class) isn't far off if liberals take
over the government. There is a distinct difference between political
activism for righteousness, and jumping "into bed" as you state it.

I just as strongly believe that America's political theology was that
of BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANITY. I refuse to accept that the only
True and Living God had any intention of establishing this nation upon
a theology that denies the very essentials of what He is all about!

I believe John Hagee and others that would endorse any political
candidate indeed DID blow it bigtime! He embarrassed himself and his
ministry by caving in to public pressure and retracting his comments
about the Catholocism. His biggest error is in calling it
"apostate". To be apostate, one must first be orthodox. The RCC has
never been orthodox, even in the loosest use of the word (see The
Inqusition if you doubt me here!)

As to the FF's and what some of them may have said along the lines of
Hagee and others, I say...so what? So they may have stepped over the
lines of proper "religious" deportment in some cases. Ever wonder why
the term "Christian firebrand" is used of men like these? It is
because their evangelistic fervor induced them to lay it all on the
line, which even the eminent Dr. Frazer would no doubt concede. We
have 200+ years in which to retroactively examine what they said and
did and point out all their missteps. The God who oversaw the
foundation of this nation saw fit to permit them to do so, knowing
that they were but imperfect beings, but who had the glory of His name
pre-eminent in their thinking!

[Jon]

There are many things I could say in response. I would simply ask:
From a demographic standpoint America was a nation full of Christians
in the same sense that Great Britain was a nation full of Christians.
Two "Christian Nations" fighting it out. Why do you assume the
Christian God was on America's side? Romans 13 is a pretty obscure
and unimportant text re central orthodox Christian doctrines.
However, re who had the stronger biblical case, it becomes central to
just how authentically "Christian" the American Founding was. There
were many (indeed 1/3 of the American population) who were devout
Christian Tory loyalist who remained loyal to Great Britain precisely
because of their Christian convictions.

John MacArthur believes America sinned by rebelling against Great
Britain. He believes God blessed America not because of its Founding
act of rebellion but in spite of it. And MacArthur -- as you know the
penultimate orthodox biblical scholar -- believes as he does because
of a longstanding tradition in biblical orthodoxy re the proper
interpretation of Romans 13. Indeed, MacArthur's position is exactly
that of Calvin's!

Christian nationalists Brannon Howse called MacArthur's position
"nuts." And he did so in the context of noting how much he respects
MacArthur as a theologian. Can't you see a problem here? Is
MacArthur really likely to put forth an idea that is "nuts" from an
orthodox biblical perspective? No! The problem is with the Christian
Nationalist view of history and how it corrupts both history and
orthodox biblical theology.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Tigerlilly66]

You raise some good points, many of which come down to, as we already
have established, one's on a priori. I'll not rehash any of those
here as we've beaten the tar out of them many times. Why do you take
my comments as an assumption that God was "on our side"? In fact, I
DO believe so. If you haven't heard about the Battle of Brooklyn
Heights, read about it and decide for yourself whether God was "on our
side" or not during the war! I refer you to The Light and the Glory
by Peter Marshall/David Manuel (Revell Press, '77) for lots of
enlightenment on this and many other topics we've discussed! No doubt
there were many authentic believers on both sides of the Atlantic
during the 1700's. Even though I did not cite nor allude to Romans
13, I will say that no portion of scripture is "obscure and
unimportant". Concerning the context of that chapter in relation to
MacArthur, I believe that God has often blessed what conforms to His
plan in spite of the feet of clay of those that execute it (Psalm
103:14).

Sorry, but I DON'T see a problem with respecting much of what
MacArthur has to say and yet disagreeing with him on this point. A
rather strong case can be made for the fact that the break from
Britain took place directly as a result of the one exception to Romans
13...an authority requiring believers to violate scripture as a
whole. If the "powers that be" require me to refrain from speaking of
Christ, I would have to disobey that law, and thus be "guilty" of
violating the commands of Romans 13. Would you have me believe that
the colonists and FF's thought otherwise? I quote an unnamed Crown-
appointed Governor - "If you ask an American, who is your master? He
will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ". This
quote likely gave rise to the rallying cry which was soon heard up and
down the land by the Committees of Correspondence: "No king but King
Jesus!"

Perhaps you're too idealistic to accept the thought that God is
perfectly fine with permitting sinful and imperfect men to accomplish
His will. I'm not talking of those who call themselves his own, but
those that are his avowed enemies. The great thing about God is that
he sees the end from the beginning, all in the present, and has
everything working in precise synchronization! Sorry, but I just
don't see any "corruption" of bible orthodoxy and/or American history
by accepting the clear and distinct hand of God in the formulation of
our country. Again, read the account of Brooklyn Heights and repeat
that charge to me!

Good day!

[Jon]

Aha! Now I understand why there is such a stumbling block for you.
Perhaps you might want to consider that Marshall and Manuel get
things, not just wrong, but drastically wrong. Here is Dr. Frazer on
"The Light and the Glory."

"It became the classic text of that camp. Its historiography is
abominable; it is a collection of speculations, suppositions, personal
musings, and 'insights' with little or no proof or documentation for
extraordinary claims." PhD thesis, p. 38.

Here is a post that I did on Peter Marshall:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/30/12585/9653

> ...
>
> read more »

[Tigerlilly66]

Surely you don't think I'm agast that you would say of Marshall/Manuel
what you've basically said of every other source I've cited from day
one...myself and Frazer are right, and they are wrong? I expected you
to say what you did, and you did not disappoint. The same onus
applies here as elsewhere...you believe they're wrong and misrepresent
what they say, fine! I'm sure the incontrovertible documentation will
be provided to back it up. Until such time as i see said
documentation, you'll forgive me for continuing on in my ignorance.
As we've already seen, what you may consider to be damning proof may
or may not necesarrily be so. I'm still waiting to hear how
Unitarians/Deists, and RT's somehow mastered the art of
"Christianspeak" in an era when doing so was undeard of (same as
today, BTW).

TL

[Tigerlilly66]

BTW, Jon - I know Peter Marshall personally and interviewed him at
length about Light & Glory some years ago. Rest assured I will be
making every effort to ascertain the truth of both your charges and
those of Frazer. When I have done so, one of us will hopefully be
man enough to apologize for the things we've said and retract them in
the same public forum in which they were made!

TL

On Aug 29, 7:36 pm, Tigerlilly66 <panzerleh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Surely you don't think I'm agast that you would say of Marshall/Manuel
> what you've basically said of every other source I've cited from day
> one...myself and Frazer are right, and they are wrong?  I expected you
> to say what you did, and you did not disappoint.  The same onus
> applies here as elsewhere...you believe they're wrong and misrepresent

> what they say, fine!  I'm sure incontrovertible documentation will
> be provided to back it up.  Until such time as I see said

> documentation, you'll forgive me for continuing on in my ignorance.
> As we've already seen, what you may consider to be damning proof may

> or may not necesarily be so.  

I'm still waiting to hear how Unitarians/Deists, and RT's somehow
mastered

the art of Christianspeak" in an era when doing so was unheard of

[Jon]

Okay fine. But you've got an uphill battle. I've already caught
Marshall with his pants down just recently passing on a phony
quotation from Patrick Henry that David Barton admonished his
followers to no longer pass back in 2000. I quote Marshall:

"For example, Patrick Henry, a great Founding Father, and one of the
strongest evangelical Christians of his time, said that 'It can not be
too often repeated, or too strongly emphasized that America was not
founded by religionists nor on any religion, but by Christians on the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.' This is a statement that never shows up in
the history books that are read by the vast majority of American
schoolchildren."

Here is David Barton's article on the matter:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126

And here is my discussion of "Peter Marshall, Christian Nationalist."

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/30/12585/9653

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

"I'm still waiting to hear how Unitarians/Deists, and RT's somehow
mastered the art of Christianspeak" in an era when doing so was

unheard of...."

I don't see how this should be so surprising or unheard of. For
exhibit A I turn to Ben Franklin, a fervent theological unitarian who
believed the Bible only partially inspired (thus errant) and a
quotation of his that I'm sure you are familiar with as the Christian
Heritage sites love to pass it (when they can cite it accurately). As
he said at the Constitutional Convention:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more
convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs
of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice,
is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been
assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the
House they labour in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I
also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this
political building no better, than the Builders of Babel:"

Isn't this "Christian speak?" Because he/they believed the Bible only
partially inspired, Franklin et al. could quote the Bible one minute
(the parts of it in which he/they believed) and the next minute talk
about how "corrupted" the original text was.

[Tigerlilly66]

There is a big difference between an "unconfirmed" quotation and a
"phony" one. One is just that...not verified, while the other is a
distinct and intentional effort to deceive. How odd that you would
decide that the Henry quote is the latter without providing any proof
to that effect. How odd that Barton, whom you have ripped and railed
against repeatedly throughout this entire debate, would voluntarily
put forth a detailed discussion of alleged "unconfirmed" quotes and
their use. I also noticed that he offered plenty of documented
citations in support of the "unconfirmed" ones. Could it be that he
is not the shyster and revisionist you and Frazer have pronounced him
to be? I rather think that even IF the alleged "unconfirmed" quotes
are indeed bogus, the case of Barton Marshall/Manuel & Co. has not
been harmed in the least. For now, they will remain "unconfirmed"
pending your production of the "smoking gun" needed to put them to
rest once and for all. I eagerly await that evidence!

TL

[Tigerlilly66]

Okay, Jon...I wrote Peter Marshall and asked him point blank about
what you and Frazer have said and included your quotes. He answered
me today. What follows are his own words about it all...not a
paraphrase by me, but a direct quotation from PM:

"Well, it’s nothing but an attack of flying garbage – no specific
references, nothing but personal slams – typical of people who
disagree with the ideas and conclusions, but have nothing with which
to refute them. We stand by the historical accuracy of the book.
You’ll be interested to know that there is a major revision of the
book coming out early next year, published by Baker, who published the
original edition. We added material (Roanoke, Jamestown is completely
rewritten, added Samuel Adams, more on Patrick Henry, more on
Washington’s Christian faith – and corrected a few minor historical
errors: removed supposed Washington prayers (they were not in his
handwriting), changed a few dates we had gotten wrong, added an
appendix on Washington’s Christianity, and another on the Christianity
of a number of Founding Fathers). Most importantly, we edited the
entire book and focused our points more clearly, making it clear that
we were not in any way promoting a “my country, right or wrong”
philosophy. I’m not surprised this guy is a John MacArthur disciple.
I’m not a fan of his – I have serious problems with some of his
theology – he’s not nearly as Biblically orthodox as he thinks he is.
And he’s always been wrong about the Founding Fathers – still
maintains in the face of plenteous evidence to the contrary that they
were all Deists, which is simply spouting the secularist baloney that
he must have swallowed in college. But that’s neither here nor there.
A major point for you to remember is that we are interested in what
the truth is – if we had found that the Pilgrims were hypocrites, or
the Founding Fathers were Deists, we would either have said so, or
would not have written the book we did. As a historian, I reject
totally any attempts to shoe-horn historical evidence to fit one’s
thesis – that has no moral integrity whatsoever, and I refuse to ever
indulge in it, despite Frazer’s ignorant accusations".

There you have from the "horse's mouth" as it were. Do please forward
this to Dr. Frazer...I'm sure he'd find it interesting.

TL

[Jon]

I'll forward and I'll answer your above reaction. However, in his
reply Marshall very likely gets one fact wrong -- that MacArthur

"still maintains in the face of plenteous evidence to the contrary

that they were all Deists...," if he ever did. Perhaps he once did,
yet, it's highly unlikely that he presently does because Dr. Frazer is
their Church's authority on the creed of the key Founders. Dr. Frazer
has lectured on theistic rationalism at his church and key to this
thesis is that such is neither Christianity NOR Deism, but something
in between with rationalism as the trumping element. Marshall is
right that the secular academy gets it wrong if/when they attempt to
portray all of the Founders as "Deists"; however he and his peddle as
much of a myth when they try to portray all but Jefferson and Franklin
as "Christians." Let's see Marshall come clean on John Adams, and how
he clearly wasn't a Christian, but believed in the same system that
Jefferson and Franklin believed in, whatever we call it. I challenge
him to do this. And if he so cares, I'll debate in writing or orally
on a radio show on the matter.

BTW: Something else you can ask Marshall for me: Where is the
evidence for his claim that GW passed out copies of the Fundamental
Orders of Conn. at the Constitutional Convention? Because as far as I
understand, it's another myth with no foundation in the primary
sources that he peddles.

[Jon]

No TL. They are bogus. "Unconfirmed" was a euphemism for "bogus."
And I have zero obligation to prove them "fake" instead of
"unconfirmed" because you know damn well it's impossible to prove a
negative. That's great that Barton admitted to them being
"unconfirmed" in the primary sources; but if he didn't white wash the
message with the euphemism "unconfirmed" perhaps more folks would have
taken the message to heart. People still cite the phony quotations
like wildfire, and Peter Marshall is one of them who did so as
recently as a few months ago.

If he includes the "unconfirmed quotations" in his new edition of "The
Light and the Glory" it's going to get hammered as engaging in shoddy
historiography and you can tell him that.

> ...
>
> read more »