Mentioning of Christianity and reference of specific Christian doctrine?

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Jon said this:
"You may believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the trinity,
incarnation, atonement, and eternal damnation, but when our Founders
mentioned "religion" or even "Christianity" don't assume they
necessarily referred to these things."

Is this true that they referred to them or not?

[Jon]

What you have to do is examine the context thoroughly to see what they
really meant. I've got some quotations from them that show when they
referred to "Christianity" they did NOT necessarily mean traditional
orthodox Christianity. The most notable quotation we'll examine is
John Adams "the general principles of Christianity" quotation that
Barton likes to cite. We'll see there he was NOT referring to
orthodox Trinitarian Christianity but rather the "amorphous theism" as
the one commenter termed it.

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Ok. I can see why you would bring John Adams.

What about George Washington?

[Jon]

Washington is tough because he didn't write in nearly as much detail
as did Jefferson, J. Adams, & Franklin. I have concluded (and you may
disagree) that when Washington used the term "Christian" he equated it
with mere morality not orthodox doctrine, putting him in the same camp
as Jefferson, J. Adams, & Franklin. I argue my case in detail here:

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/07/george-washington-on-christianity.html

I can also show you GW doing something much worse than praying to
"Allah" (I'm assuming the Christian posters don't believe "Allah" is
the same God Christians worship). Allah at least claims to be the God
of Abraham. I have evidence of GW praying to a God who doesn't even
claim that. Primary sources available on request.

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

I will check out your case.... meanwhile, please provide the"Primary
sources available on request."

I mean, I find it odd to pray to a Christian God that isn't known to

be the God of Abraham.

On Jul 21, 4:26 pm, Jon <rowjonat...@aol.com> wrote:
> Washington is tough because he didn't write in nearly as much detail
> as did Jefferson, J. Adams, & Franklin.  I have concluded (and you may
> disagree) that when Washington used the term "Christian" he equated it
> with mere morality not orthodox doctrine, putting him in the same camp
> as Jefferson, J. Adams, & Franklin.  I argue my case in detail here:
>

> http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/07/george-washington-on-chr...

[Tigerlilly66]

Pray tell what "kind" of Christianity were the founding fathers
speaking of if not "orthodox"? I'd be the first to admit that many
things called "Christian" are anything but! Just as millions who
profess to be "Christians" are not. This isn't because I say so, but
because both camps fail the basic test of Christian faith. Among
those tenets are belief and acceptance of the Virgin Birth, the Blood
Atonement, Christ's Bodily Resusrrection and Second Coming, etc.
Sorry Jon, but a spooky, ghostly, vague theism was NOT the case.
Break down their quotes carefully and the old argument that "the
majority of those signing the Declaration were 'deists', not
evangelical Christians" just won't hold water. As the saying goes
"things that are different are not the same". Trying to minimize the
strong Christian forebears of this nation only muddies the water, not
clears it! Only those with an agenda will try to disassociate America
from her clearly Christian heritage...what a shame.

> > Is this true that they referred to them or not?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Ok, I've glanced over your paper, and yes I totally disagree. You
should look at GW's Political Prosperity passage.

Well, that's not the topic, so I'll skip it.

Ok, let's start off like this:

List most if not all of what GW refers to when he mentions
Christianity?

Or simply pick from my list:
believes (that):
in Jesus
obeys Jesus' commandments
Jesus is LORD
Jesus is Son of God
Jesus has done miracles such as healing, forcing out demons, walk on
water
resurrection
virgin birth
-
inerrancy of the Bible
the trinity,
incarnation
atonement
eternal damnation,

[Jon]

I see absolutely no evidence that this is what GW meant when he
referred to "Christianity." I seriously doubt he believed in any of
these things. Check out my links to the primary sources where
Washington praises a Universalist Church that denied eternal damnation
and claimed whatever it was about "religion" that supported republican
government, they had it.

Like the other theistic rationalists I have concluded GW disbelieved
in eternal damnation, thought men were justified through works, not
faith. That "good people" went to Heaven immediately, the bad
temporarily punished, eventually redeemed. This heretical system
often presented itself under the auspices of "Christianity."

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/06/george-washington-praised-infidel.html

[Jon]

Tigerlilly,

First, realize that when you accuse someone of having an "agenda" and
then discount what they say you engage in a logical fallacy known as
"the genetic fallacy" or "poisoning the well." I could just as easily
accuse you of having an "agenda" for the "Christian Nation" and then
wave away with my hand everything you write.

Second what often presented itself as "rational Christianity" in the
Founding era, arguably wasn't "Christianity" at all, at least not
according to orthodox standards. This system believed in an active
person God (so they were "theists" not "deists") that Jesus was not
God, but a great moral teacher, and that most if not all religions
were valid ways to God. Further, it denied eternal damnation and held
that men were justified thru works not grace, the good went to Heaven
immediately upon death, the bad, temporarily punished eventually
redeemed. Finally, this system held that the Bible was only partially
inspired (thus errant) and that man's reason was the ultimate arbiter
of truth and determined valid revelation. As noted, this system often
present itself as "rational Christianity." And it was believed in by
Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin, Madison, Washington, Wilson, G. Morris,
and Hamilton (before his end of life conversion to orthodox
Christianity). Some of those figures (Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin,
and G. Morris) without question believed in this theological system.
The others -- there is room for debate -- but I can show how all of
their words and deeds were consistent with this system.

Dr. Gregg Frazer, an evangelical scholar who heads the political
studies at The Masters College (perhaps a college some of you will
attend), did his PhD thesis on the matter from Claremont Graduate
University (I own his PhD thesis which hopefully one day will be
turned into a book published by a highly distinguished academic
publisher) and argued even though this system oft-presented itself as
"rational Christianity," this theology was not "Christianity" but
"theistic rationalism" -- a mean between orthodox Christianity and
Deism with rationalism as the trumping element.

His thesis is meticulously detailed with footnotes to the primary
sources and I know virtually all of those footnotes and can reproduce
them here. If you stick around long enough, you will encounter the
evidence.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com
http://positiveliberty.com
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com

[Jon]

Washington prays to the Native America's "Great Spirit." Twice when
speaking to unconverted Indians he speaks of God as "the Great Spirit"
exactly as they did (the "Great Spirit" is not the biblical God, but
the Indians' pagan God). And once he goes so far as to pray to this
pagan God. From a biblical Christian perspective this is worse than
speak of God as "Allah" and praying to "Allah" by name. The following
are the links to the primary sources:

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&act=surround&offset=44088206&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+35:+TALK+TO+THE+CHEROKEE+NATION&query=the+great+spirit&id=gw350154

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&act=surround&offset=44334425&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+35:+To+THE+CHIEFS+AND+WARRIORS,+REPRESENTATIVES+OF+THE+WYANDOTS,+DELAWARES,+SHAWANOES,+OTTAWAS,+CHIPPEWAS,+POTAWATIMES,+MIAMIS,+EEL+RIVER,+WEEAS,+KICKAPOOS,+PIANKASHAWS,+AND+KASKASKIAS&query=the+great+spirit&id=gw350211

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Hey Tiger and Jon.

Reading both your comments...
Yes, I hope all of us will not use our agendas to distort truth in any
way or undermine arguments that are truly strong, as the Rules say.

Anyhow. Jon, you have some radical research, but curious if it's true,
I'll keep my mind open. however I'm a killer when it comes to bad and
weak arguments.

<b>Jon,I have listed out everything in this post about your system
that you mentioned.
Page: Jon's Research on "theistic rationalism"
:</b>

Please edit it and see if you can insert the quotations from FFs that
support each element of the system. I'd like to examine them.
Please, I am much interested in George Washington, Benjamin Rush, and
John Marshall, if you can find quotes on them.
I'm not interested in Thomas Jeffereson, Benjamin Franklin and John
Adams (although they were FFs).

Tiger, let's see if he provides good quotes that prove his point.

----------
Note that I've just prayed to God to keep the discussion smooth.
Sometimes I spend twice as long figuring out the right things to
say.

> http://americancreation.blogspot.comhttp://positiveliberty.comhttp://jonrowe.blogspot.com

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"the "Great Spirit" is not the biblical God, but the Indians' pagan
God"

< Sorry, I disagree. Even though "the Great Spirit" isn't a common
term in the Bible (from my knowledge), it is such a vague term and it
works EASILY well with God Almighty of the Bible. In fact, what GW did
was similar to what St. Paul did when he came across the Greeks.

Act 17:23 As I was going through your city and looking at the things
you worship, I found an altar with the words, "To an Unknown God." You
worship this God, but you don't really know him. So I want to tell you
about him.
Act 17:24 This God made the world and everything in it. He is Lord of
heaven and earth, and he doesn't live in temples built by human
hands.
---------

Also, Allah is supposed to be the same God of Christianity that
Muslism pray to. It's just that Muslims describe God differently than
we do.

If you disagree, think about how Liberals and Conservatives describe
George Bush. Even though it's a different description for both, it's
still the same person they are talking about.

Now, I will agree that the moment GW prays to a foreign god, is:
1) he prays to multiple gods, like the greeks
2) GW says it's not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (now I
understand why the Bible says that).
3) worships Satan
etc.

I'll look at the sources if you disagree.

On Jul 21, 11:56 pm, Jon <rowjonat...@aol.com> wrote:
> Washington prays to the Native America's "Great Spirit."  Twice when
> speaking to unconverted Indians he speaks of God as "the Great Spirit"
> exactly as they did (the "Great Spirit" is not the biblical God, but
> the Indians' pagan God).  And once he goes so far as to pray to this
> pagan God.  From a biblical Christian perspective this is worse than
> speak of God as "Allah" and praying to "Allah" by name.  The following
> are the links to the primary sources:
>

> http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/en...
>
> http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/en...

[Jon]

Terms like "God" and "Providence" are very generic. One reason why
the FFs tended not to say "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" when publicly
speaking of God but rather "God," "Great Architect," "Supreme Disposer
of All Events," is that the latter were generic terms in which all
sorts of folks -- orthodox & heterodox -- could believe. However, I
don't see "The Great Spirit," as so generic and that's because this
was the specific term the Natives used for God. Google "The Great
Spirit," and it's all Native American spiritual sites.

I see Washington as pretty clearly intimating that unconverted Indians
worship the same God that Christians do, in a similar way that George
Bush told Muslims they worship the same God Christians do.

You may be able to still reconcile this with orthodox Christianity.
Indeed, Bush is an orthodox Christian and presumably believes
Christians and Muslims worship the same God. And the text you cited
from Paul gives biblical support for a more "inclusive" understanding
of Christianity and other faiths.

I'm sure some Christians really do believe non-Christians worship
their "God" even though they don't know his name. But what I tend to
hear coming from the orthodox crowd is that non-biblical religions (be
it Hinduism, Islam or Native American spirituality) worship false
gods.

[Jon]

Washington's probably going to take a while to get through because he
is a tough nut to crack.

I can tell you the deal on Marshall and Rush. I wouldn't term either
of them "theistic rationalist." Rush was an orthodox Trinitarian
Christian -- at least as far as his Christology was concerned. But he
was also a Universalist who denied eternal damnation, though people
would be temporarily punished eventually saved. He was also thought
the Bible abolished the death penalty.

Marshall thought of himself as a "Christian" and believed in the Bible
as revelation, but was a theological unitarian. He was, like Joseph
Story a "biblical unitarian." They believed Jesus was God's Son and a
savior, but not in the Trinity. Do you want to see the quotations
from Marshall, Story and Rush?

> >http://americancreation.blogspot.comhttp://positiveliberty.comhttp://...

[Tigerlilly66]

You sound like you have some basic intelligence. At least you can
communicate without once throwing the "F bomb" that so many revert to
when pressed. I'll give you credit for that, if nothing else! You
present some interesting points that I will have to research, then
respond to you about. I think this whole matter of what constitutes
the "Christian" origins of America, and what kind of "Christianity" it
consisted of is a tempest in a tea pot. I say this because my a
priori (we all have one and so do YOU) is that the kind of
Christianity our FF's (founding fathers) had in mind was anything but
amorphous and ghostly. I marvel at the lengths people will go to to
avoid having to give the God of the Bible ANY credit whatsoever in the
formulation of this country. Sort of reminds me of debating
evolutionists/atheists...the things they'd have us believe require FAR
more faith than is necessry to accept the account of "thus saith the
Lord". Be that as it may, I'm confident that between myself, nvsvic,
and perhaps a few others that truth will prevail. Not because we say
it, but because the evidence is simply too strong to explain away.
Are any of us honest and objective enough to let the facts be the
facts? We'll see...

TL66

> http://americancreation.blogspot.comhttp://positiveliberty.comhttp://jonrowe.blogspot.com

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Jon]

Yes, I hope the truth does prevail and what I can't claim a monopoly
on it, I have meticulously studied the historical facts.

Regarding my "some basic intelligence" I don't know how much of it I
have. I can tell you what I do have: 3 graduate degrees, -- a JD,
MBA, and LL.M. advanced law degree all from Temple University. And I
am a licensed attorney in PA and NJ. But I only practice part time.
I am a full time community college professor in my day job. Moreover,
I am a published scholar on this very issue.

I wrote the brief review for the following book of quotations on the
matter (mine is the 4th blurb down) for First Things Magazine. Even
though I am not a conservative Catholic, when a magazine that features
the writings of Ivy League professors and Supreme Court Justices asks
you to write for them, you generally don't say "no." If you are
serious about this debate this is a book you should ALL have. You
should go to your bookstore and buy it or order it online. Look for
my name on the back of the paperback.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8013.html

> >http://americancreation.blogspot.comhttp://positiveliberty.comhttp://...

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"Washington's probably going to take a while to get through because he
is a tough nut to crack."

< Haha. I'd expect that. I've got 2 books on him, one of them
containing his original quatations: "Maxims of Washington"
and the other called "George Washington's Sacred Fire"

I really want to talk about Washington, because he is pretty
significant in this topic.

"I can tell you the deal on Marshall and Rush."

< With all the descriptions you've mentioned, I think it's a good idea
to create a table of the FF's individual beliefs. I might create it
myself.

"Do you want to see the quotations from Marshall, Story and Rush? "

< Sure, list them up.

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"Not because we say it, but because the evidence is simply too strong
to explain away. "

< I agree with Tiger in most things he/she said (sorry, I really
don't know your gender :(

Jon, as long as you're honest about your research, I welcome that,
because it does seem the evidence is pretty strong so far. (I assume
you're a guy, right?)

On Jul 23, 10:05 pm, Tigerlilly66 <panzerleh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://americancreation.blogspot.comhttp://positiveliberty.comhttp://...

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Well, your choice of words, research, and links already gave away a
part of you.

Yeah, you do have "some basic *courtesy*" because you are the few that
don't resort to F'ing like a lot of people in the Web.

Anyhow, with all your research, as I've already said, show us your
points, and we'll consider it.

" If you are serious about this debate this is a book you should ALL
have. "

< Yeah, I totally serious. I'll give it a view.

As for me, I'm a major in Computer Science and have done numerous
studies on logic and categorizations. So, as you know, I will try to
spot out any logical inconsistencies in your arguments.

I also have 2 serious Computer Science projects to get done before
summer ends (hence a little lack of time)

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"this was the specific term the Natives used for God. "

Sure, but it is still consistent with God Almighty. Spirit goes
together with God, so I see no problem.

Had I not know it was an Indian's term, and someone said "Do you still
worship the Great Spirit", I'd know who that person is talking about.

"But what I tend to
hear coming from the orthodox crowd is that non-biblical religions (be
it Hinduism, Islam or Native American spirituality) worship false
gods. "

< 1) Well, Hinduism worships many gods like Greeks, so the orthodox
crowd is fine.

2) Islam is a bit of a different story. While true it's the "same"
God, the different descriptions make it problem. I think you should
know how different descriptions can make this into a new topic in
regards to nomenclature.

Yeah, Pat Robertson says that Allah is a terrible God as if it's a
different God. But to be consistent, what Pat is really saying is that
Islam's description of this "Great Spirit" describes it as a terrible
Spirit, hence it's a bad description, or a bad God.

And it's a fact, the Islamic God is a branch off the Jewish God...
it's just that the Jews don't believe in the Islamic description and
the Muslims don't *completely* believe in the Jewish description.

3) If Native Americans worshiped multiple gods, then it will trigger a
problem. Show me GW worshiping multiple gods, like "the god of sun
kissed the god of wind, and made more gods. " If you show me this,
then I'll be stunned (this doesn't include Jesus, so don't bring it
up).

Keep in mind that different names don't constitute a different God. It
must be clear that there are multiple gods, like how the Greeks and
Hinduists says it.

Anyhow, based on my previous post, esp with what St. Paul did, what GW
did was clearly not worshiping a different God, but was an act of
connection and evangelism.

So do you agree?

[Jon]

I'm probably one of the few people who has read all 1200 pages of
Peter Lillback's book and have blogged about it many times. I
conclude he does indeed demolish the "Deist" thesis, and didn't need
1200 pages to do so (Michael and Jana Novak do it in less than 300).
However, he by no means convincingly proves GW was an orthodox
Trinitarian Christian.

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Ok. I've ordered the book from Amazon. I hope this shows how serious I
am.

Hehe. I think I should ask you to get a specific book :)

Maybe not now.... sometime later.

On Jul 24, 1:34 pm, Jon <rowjonat...@aol.com> wrote:

[Jon]

Heh.

Great. I reply on Marshall and Rush tonight or tomorrow. A word on
GW. He doesn't have the "smoking gun" quotations that J. Adams,
Franklin, & Jefferson do. Though everything he says and does, I'd
argue, was consistent with theistic rationalism. The fact that he was
so reticent to speak in religious specifics, for me, points in the
direct of his theistic rationalism. However, if you are looking for
smoking guns to convince you, you probably won't be convinced that GW
was a theistic rationalist. For instance on the Trinity, he never
denies it like Adams, Jefferson or Franklin do. But he never affirms
it either (again in words coming out of his mouth as opposed to his
church's). Peter Lillback would argue GW does affirm Trinitarianism
in certain perfunctory oaths; but we'll get to that later. You simply
do not see GW talking in explicitly orthodox Trinitarian terms, but
rather uses generic philosophical terms for God.

[Jon]

I don't see the evidence for Barton's Christian Nation idea as strong
at all; in fact his notion is all but laughed off by serious scholars
of history. I do see strong evidence that the Founders were more
"religion friendly" than strict secularists allow for. But 1) the God
of the "public religion" of the American Founding was NOT necessarily
the Triune biblical God but a more generic inclusive one. Think of
our conversation on GW & "the Great Spirit"; okay perhaps is
consistent with biblical Christianity; but he's speaking of God in
generic, not explicitly biblical terms. That's what the God of the
American Founding is all about. 2) America's key Founders weren't
orthodox Christians but "theistic rationalists" (which could be viewed
as a theologically liberal, heretical form of Christianity, or some
broader form of Deism); though a lot of the actual FFs were orthodox
Christians; And 3) "Christian" or biblical ideas were not the primary
ideological source for the Declaration, Constitution, and Federalist
Papers.

On those three points, I think I have overwhelming evidence. Anything
beyond those three points (i.e., modern notion of constitutional
"separation of Church & State"; the idea that the Founders were non-
religious "Deists" like Thomas Paine) I do not endorse.

[Tigerlilly66]

Once again, I ask you for your a priori. No one taking the time to
offer the "proof" you say you have for opposing a Christian foundation
for this country does so without a reason. Is it that you just want
to save us poor, deluded fools from ourselves? Or perhaps is it that
you have such a thirst for truth and righteousness that you cannot
abide the "myths" that your exhaustive research has uncovered? What
do you hope to gain if you are right and the rest of us are wrong?
Will America be a better country if everyone buys into the "religion-
neutral" position you take? It never ceases to amaze me the entent to
which people will go to disprove the obvious, but then again, Jeremiah
17:9 is still in the book, is it not? Have you ever read RG
Ingersoll? I detect a strong resemblance to his atheistic viewpoint
and writing style in what you say.

Pray tell - name me one of the "serious scholars" who "laugh off"
David Barton? Last time I checked, he qualified as just that to
anyone without an a priori. Something along the lines of not being
able to see the forest for the trees, if I may be so bold. Of course,
I don't have nearly the academic credentials you boast. I only have a
couple of BA's...please forgive my incompetence to challenge you
intellectually.

Lastly - If your premise is correct, why are the many scriptures
(BIBLE, not Koran or any other "holy book" writings) literally etched
in stone upon many government buildings in Washington, DC? Why would
Deists or name-only "Christians" do such things if they really wanted
a SECULAR society? Seems very odd to me, but then again, I wasn't
there and NEITHER WERE YOU!

[Jon]

I explained my motives here:

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/04/am-i-tackling-a-strawman-or-why-i-do-what-i-do.html

Re the stuff carved in stone, there is plenty of pagan and non-
Christian stuff including Mohammad found there. For instance, check
out the Supreme Court frieze.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

Laughing off David Barton:

How about Republican Senator Arlen Spector who has a Yale Law degree,
who wrote the following in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public
Policy (a conservative, Federalist Society publication). He said
Barton's “pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let
alone disproving, were it not for the fact that it is taken so very
seriously by so many people.”

On Jul 26, 9:00 am, Tigerlilly66 <panzerleh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Well, you're getitng me curious:
what constitutes "explicit orthodox Trinitarian terms"?
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
Three persons in one?

[Jon]

See the Nicene Creed, 325 AD (or CE).

[Tigerlilly66]

Point noted. I did not catch your MO if it was included in an earlier
missive. For me, without a feel for the "why", I have a hard time
grasping the "how" in any debate. No disputing the evidence as it
concerns the Supreme Court. I hadn't meant to imply that ONLY
Christian verses, etc, were present on government buildings, but that
in concert with a lot of other information, make an "orthodox"
Christian world view the only logical conclusion for me.
Unfortunately for the purposes of us all, such a wide-ranging
interpretation of what the word "Christian" meant to the FF's does
indeed muddy the water. I doubt seriously that the "anything and
everything" attitude many have today in attaching the title
"Christian" was anything close to the mindset of those in the late
18th Century. I doubt that we'll ever come to a consensus on this
point. In my mind, one claiming to be a Unitarian is tantamount to
being a modern-day atheist. Even a cursory study of the basics of
Unity will quickly indicate how far from a bible-centered world view
it was/is. About as far as east is from west is not overstating the
case one iota.

One issue I'm grappling with is why yourself and others dismiss, yea,
TRASH the scholarship of David Barton. I have found that he more than
adequately documents his research in every case I've studied. Still
working through that one...

In any event, my thanks for your response. I'm sure the days/weeks to
come will be most interesting. I bid you good day.

On Jul 26, 10:15 am, Jon <rowjonat...@aol.com> wrote:
> I explained my motives here:
>

> http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/04/am-i-tackling-a-strawman-or-wh...

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

[Jon]

My pleasure!

[Tigerlilly66]

I came across these quotes by Samuel Chase and Ben Rush while doing
some research. I have literally many dozen more from A to Z of the
key players in our country's founding. Each and every one, to one
degree or another, speak of the role and place of Christianity. The
Chase quote may be looked at from more than one angle. To some, it
might seem to endorse the foundation of a "state church", which as you
no doubt know, was something the FF's determined to avoid at all
costs. Again, the discussion reverts back to one's definition of what
"Christian" means. People like myself, NSVictor, Barton, etc, see
these quotes, especially Rush's, and a plethora of others to, when
taken as a whole, point to what I'd call a clear "conservative,
evangelical Christian" world view:


"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established
religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed
upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in
their religious liberty".

Samuel Chase


Benjamin Rush

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SURGEON GENERAL OF THE
CONTINENTAL ARMY; RATIFIER OF THE U. S CONSTITUTION; “FATHER OF
AMERICAN MEDICINE”; TREASURER OF THE U. S. MINT; “FATHER OF PUBLIC
SCHOOLS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION”

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just
conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey
them in all situations! . . . My only hope of salvation is in the
infinite transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death
of His Son upon the Cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my
sins [Acts 22:16]. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come
quickly! [Revelation 22:20]

"I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of
inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a
Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New
Testament."

"By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon
all moral subjects… It is the only correct map of the human heart that
ever has been published."

"[T]he greatest discoveries in science have been made by Christian
philosophers and . . . there is the most knowledge in those countries
where there is the most Christianity".

"[T]he only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican
forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the
principles of Christianity by means of the Bible".

"The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never
invented a more effective means of limiting Christianity from the
world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the
Bible at schools".

"[C]hristianity is the only true and perfect religion; and… in
proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts, they
will be wise and happy".

"The Bible contains more knowledge necessary to man in his present
state than any other book in the world".

"The Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent
period of life… [T]he Bible… should be read in our schools in
preference to all other books because it contains the greatest portion
of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and
public happiness".

[Jon]

Benjamin Rush no doubt, was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian.
However, as my quote showed, he did convert from Calvinism to
Arminianism to theological Universalism believing all would be saved
through Christ's Universal Atonement. He was a Trinitarian
Universalist.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

"One issue I'm grappling with is why yourself and others dismiss, yea,
TRASH the scholarship of David Barton. I have found that he more than
adequately documents his research in every case I've studied. Still

working through that one...."

Well, I think you are right that this is kind of a vice. My
acquaintance Chris Rodda has done meticulous work debunking Barton and
company in a book entitled "Liars For Jesus." Rather than use such
harsh "trashing" I'm aiming at more civilized criticism. But
sometimes I can't help myself. We are all biased in some way or
another, but Barton goes over the top viewing these things thru his
"Christian Nation" lens. And he's made some factual errors (his
"unconfirmed quotations") and distortions.

He's not at all well-respected in the academy and I suppose some of
the secular leftist academics can be just as bad with their
distortions. But, Barton's managed to carve out huge influence in
certain political and religious circles such that he has a big target
on his back.

On Jul 26, 2:55 pm, Tigerlilly66 <panzerleh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Tigerlilly66]

Your reply confirms my earlier point...with so many differing opinions
as to what constitutes "Christian", it may well nigh impossible to
reach any kind of consensus on this issue. How someone could be a
"Trinitarian Christian" as you state in your first sentence, then
become (?) a "Trinitarian Universalist" in your last is way over my
head. Sort of like asking an elephant to become a blue whale...they
have absolutely nothing in common. One can never be the other. If
what you say about Rush is true, he didn't have a clue WHAT he
believed, but he sure SOUNDS like a "Bible Christian" in his comments
sent earlier, with scripture quotations to boot! The confusion as to
what a Christian is and is not is so unnecessary when scripture makes
it clear in language a 5 year-old can understand.

I think it was Mark Twain that said "It's not those portions of the
Bible I don't understand that I worry about - it's those that I DO
understand that greatly bother me". I believe that 99.9% of those who
reject the Bible as the only reliable source of the revealed words of
the one-and-only God do so because of their own pre-suppositions, not
because of any lack of clarity or continuity in the Bible itself.

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Yeah, I agree, he does provide numerous documentations and reference
that I have researched. I would say at least he has been 85% accurate
(if not 95%) as far as my verification goes.

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

".... but that in concert with a lot of other information, make an
"orthodox" Christian world view the only logical conclusion for me. '

< I agree. I'll always reflect on that fact if I ever come close to
being convinced of the opposite.

"I doubt seriously that the "anything and
everything" attitude many have today in attaching the title
"Christian" was anything close to the mindset of those in the late
18th Century. "

< I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean, Can you elaborate
what you mean by "anything and everything" attitude"?

On Jul 26, 5:55 pm, Tigerlilly66 <panzerleh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

True, there is pagan figures.

But is it true that there was more emphasis and respect on Judeo-
Christian figures?

Consider these:
http://www.ten-commandments.us/promote/publicdisplay.php

On Jul 26, 12:15 pm, Jon <rowjonat...@aol.com> wrote:
> I explained my motives here:
>

> http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/04/am-i-tackling-a-strawman-or-wh...

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"But, Barton's managed to ***carve out huge influence in
certain political and religious circles*** such that he has a big
target
on his back. "

< I think that's a good thing since the strict secularists started it
and twisted our knowledge terribly and effectively.

"He's not at all well-respected in the academy "

< I don't know if this is true, but I think a very important reason
why he's not respected much has a lot to do with the people not liking
where he's going with it... if he's actually right, it could mean a
big uncomfortable change. In other words, natural bias interfering
with respect where it's due.

But since I haven't done much research as you, I can only assume.

BTW, my info on Barton's work is limited by the American Heritage
series, and that's it (it's his latest work). So I don't if he did
extra distortions in other places. Please let me know if that's the
case.

Please show us the distortions he makes so that we can evaluate.

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"True, there is pagan figures. "

Sorry about my English, I really don't proof read for grammar, esp due
to a lack of time.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

Since Unitarians deny the Trinity (they are not orthodox in their
Christology) they don't merit the label "Christian." However Rush was
orthodox in his Christology -- that is he believed in the Trinity. He
was a Universalist in that he believed all would be saved THROUGHT
CHRIST'S Universal as opposed to "limited" Atonement.

This is what he wrote in "Travels through Life," his autobiography:

"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."