This is the first Independence Day in recent memory that fell on a Thursday, thus giving the week more of a Thanksgiving Day rhythm than the typical federal holiday pattern of a three-day weekend. Which is to say that life appears to be slow on Internet and the street.
So while we Yanks are still in an autonomous mood, here are a few more considerations about Calvinism and the American Revolution. Paul Helm offers a minor correction to the point made here that American colonial Calvinists were likely following John Locke more than John Calvin. His conclusion is sufficiently mild that Christian nationalists and 2kers might both claim Helm’s agreement:
Yet it can be argued that for all his personal conservatism, there were, in Calvin’s view of civil society, enough chinks and fissures through which a case for rebellion against civic injustice could be developed. Calvin himself was certainly not an advocate of rebellion. Far from it. But what of those who came after? That this is the road that some Calvinists trod can be seen from Quentin Skinner’s The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Volume 2: The Age of Reformation.
Whatever Calvin taught, and however later Calvinists justified their politics, some scholars have actually looked at the citations of the American founders to see which authors they were reading and following. Almost thirty years ago, Donald Lutz came up with the following scorecard:
1. Montesquieu
8.3%
2. Blackstone
7.9
3. Locke
2.9
4. Hume
2.7
5. Plutarch
1.5
6. Beccaria
1.5
7. Trenchard & Gordon
1.4
8. Delolme
1.4
9. Pufendorf
1.3
10. Coke
1.3
11. Cicero
1.2
12. Hobbes
1.0
Everyone else on Lutz’s list of 36 “Most Cited Thinkers” comes in at less than one percent. For those curious, Calvin did not make the cut. (I have to admit that some of these names were obscure to me, hence the links. For the record, Delolme and Beccaria find no results at American Creation, while Trenchard & Gordon do. Our smart guy TVD is not responsible for the posts on T&G.)
Lutz also compares the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in their citations of groups of authors. The Federalists (Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Adams) cited Enlightenment figures 34% of the time, Whigs 23%, and Classical 33%. They did not cite the Bible.
In contrast, the Anti-Federalists (who? i.e., Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Luther Martin) cited the Bible 9% of the time, Enlightenment 38%, Whig 29%, and Classical 9%.
No smoking guns here, but maybe a few matters to ponder while smoking a stogie on the hammock.
Old Life 
I’ve actually traced the doctrine of the right of resistance back much farther than Calvin. As I noted at: http://www.increasinglearning.com/we-the-people.html, this doctrine can be found throughout the Old Testament, and it was advocated by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine and Aquinas.
LikeLike
Yet it can be argued that for all his personal conservatism, there were, in Calvin’s view of civil society, enough chinks and fissures through which a case for rebellion against civic injustice could be developed. Calvin himself was certainly not an advocate of rebellion. Far from it. But what of those who came after? That this is the road that some Calvinists trod can be seen from Quentin Skinner’s The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Volume 2: The Age of Reformation.
Since “radical” Two Kingdoms theology is absolute, this is more than a “mild” correction. It shatters the glass.
LikeLike
Those links to Tom Van Dyke’s posts at the American Creation blog are fantastic! Keep up the good work!
LikeLike
Lutz also compares the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in their citations of groups of authors. The Federalists (Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Adams) cited Enlightenment figures 34% of the time, Whigs 23%, and Classical 33%. They did not cite the Bible.
In contrast, the Anti-Federalists (who? i.e., Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Luther Martin) cited the Bible 9% of the time, Enlightenment 38%, Whig 29%, and Classical 9%.
BTW, Darryl, your essay here may leave a false impression. The figures you cite apply to the Constitution, which left religion to the states and is indeed strictly speaking “godless.” However,
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg9.htm
LikeLike
Tom, with Word Press software, including links is really a cinch. You guys at American Creation need to upgrade. The separate pages for comments is so 2005.
LikeLike
Tom, and what impression does your selective quotation give (other than that you are the David Barton of L.A. — go Dodgers!)
LikeLike
A quick break for a short message on the consequences of having a government who wants to take care of us all at any cost. As an accountant I am reasonably sure I will not lack for work for the rest of my life.
British Company Is Awarded Contract to Administer Health Rollout
WASHINGTON — Racing to meet an October deadline, Obama administration officials said Thursday that they had awarded a contract worth as much as $1.2 billion to a British company to help them sift applications for health insurance and tax credits under the new health care law.
The company, Serco, has extensive experience as a government contractor with the Defense Department and intelligence agencies, and it also manages air traffic control towers in 11 states and reviews visa applications for the State Department. But it has little experience with the Department of Health and Human Services or the insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, where individuals and small businesses are supposed to be able to shop for insurance.
Serco will help the Obama administration and states determine who is eligible for insurance subsidies, in the form of tax credits, and who might qualify for Medicaid. Tasks include “intake, routing, review and troubleshooting of applications,” according to the contract.
“This is a huge undertaking,” said Alan Hill, a spokesman for Serco’s American unit, in Reston, Va. “We have some tight deadlines to meet.”
The exchanges are supposed to be in operation in every state by Oct. 1. Under the contract, Mr. Hill said, Serco and its subcontractors will immediately begin hiring 1,500 people.
Since the government first invited proposals, the importance of the exchanges has grown for several reasons. Many states have decided not to expand Medicaid, and the White House announced this week that it would delay, until 2015, a requirement for larger employers to offer coverage to employees. In addition, many states have decided not to set up exchanges, leaving the task to the federal government.
Several insurance and health policy experts said they were surprised at the selection of Serco because it did not have experience with the exchanges. But that may have helped the company win the contract. In the last six months, federal health officials expressed concern that companies already working with exchanges could have an unfair competitive advantage because they had access to nonpublic information about how the government was setting up its eligibility and enrollment system.
Serco will also help the administration decide who is entitled to exemptions from the tax penalties that can be imposed on people who go without health insurance starting next year.
White House officials say that in many cases federal and state computers will be able to verify a consumer’s income and citizenship status and determine eligibility in a matter of minutes. But contract documents indicate that federal officials still expect that one-third of the 19 million applications in the first year will be filed on paper.
One of Serco’s biggest tasks will be to run a giant mail room, where it will receive paper applications, supporting documentation, and correspondence from individuals requesting coverage and from employers and employees seeking insurance. Serco is supposed to make digital copies of the documents and then destroy most of the originals.
Under the contract, the company is also supposed to help consumers and the Obama administration resolve “complex eligibility issues.”
Contract documents say that Serco must be ready for an increase in the volume of work, as some states planning to run their own exchanges may need extra help from the federal government.
The government said it could expand and extend the initial 12-month contract, bringing its potential value to $1.2 billion over five years. Mr. Hill said the contract could be “one of the largest we’ve won” in the United States, where Serco has 8,000 employees and more than $1.2 billion in annual revenue.
Even as the Defense Department and other agencies face across-the-board budget cuts, the health law has been a boon to contractors. It would be virtually impossible for the administration to carry out the law without contractors to run a call center, a “data services hub” and a public-relations campaign.
The Government Accountability Office found that the administration had spent $394 million on contracts to establish federal insurance exchanges. More than three-fourths of the money went to 10 companies. They include CGI Federal, a subsidiary of a Canadian company, the CGI Group ($88 million); Quality Software Services Inc. ($55 million); and Booz Allen Hamilton ($38 million).
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 5, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink
Tom, and what impression does your selective quotation give (other than that you are the David Barton of L.A. — go Dodgers!)
First, Barton does not report the most relevant evidence from Lutz’s article: in addition to their general citation count from 1760 to 1805, Lutz and Hyneman compile a count specific to political debate on the Constitution between the years 1787 and 1788 (the years corresponding to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution). According to Lutz, this sample “comes close to exhausting” the literature written on the Constitution during this period (Relative Influence, p. 194). If the founders believed that the Bible was truly relevant to the Constitution, Biblical citations should appear in abundance in this sample, but, they don’t. On the contrary, Biblical citations are virtually nonexistent in this sample. According to Lutz, federalist (i.e., pro-Constitution) writers never quoted the Bible in their political writings between 1787 and 1788. Conversely, anti-federalist writers quoted the Bible only 9% of the time. According to Lutz:
The Bible’s prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of government, but the Federalist’s inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant….The debate surrounding the adoption of the Constitution was fought out mainly in the context of Montesquieu, Blackstone, the English Whigs, and major writers of the Enlightenment (Relative Influence, pp. 194-195, emphasis ours).
Additionally, Barton omits Lutz’s breakdown of sources for his 34% figure. Three fourths of the Biblical citations in Lutz’s 1760 to 1805 sample come, not from secular sources, but from reprinted sermons (one of the most popular types of political writing during these years). Conversely, the Bible accounts for only 9% of all citations in secular literature, about equal to the number of citations from classical authors (Origins, p. 140). Hence, were it not for the political activity of religious clergy, the Bible would be tied for fourth place among source citations during 1760 and 1805.
Interestingly, Barton’s reference to Lutz’s work in Original Intent is not to Lutz’s article, but to Origins, Lutz’s later book. Lutz’s book reports his 1984 data in abbreviated form, and does not refer to his citation count for the years 1787 to 1788, or the conclusions he draws from that count. A reader that simply follows Barton’s citations, in other words, would be ignorant of this data. At the same time, no reader of Lutz book would likely come away with the feeling that the Constitution was written with the Bible particularly in mind. As Lutz documents, by the time of the Constitution, American political theory was a rich tapestry of ideas drawn from many different sources; the Bible and colonial covenant theology were simply two of many influences that played in the minds of the American founders.
In the end, Lutz’s work is far more supportive of separation than of accomodationism. Did the founder’s quote the Bible in their political writings? Of course they did, and there is nothing remarkable about that fact. Lutz’s data suggest that, whatever the cultural influence of the Bible, it did not play much of a role in the construction of the Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution is a secular document concerned with the nuts and bolts issues of how to create a workable nation in a land of economic, cultural, and religious diversity. It simply did not touch on matters relevant to the Bible.
That doesn’t really distract from your own error, Darryl, but, well actually it does distract from your own error. But a more generous man might credit me for serving you up such a softball with my own link to Jim Allison, who although extremely hostile to anything resembling “Christian America,” does admirable and meticulous work. I’ve differed with Allison on his conclusions, but never on his facts.
I’m not much of a Lutz man anyway, or of trying to find the Bible in the Constitution per se. The sources of “Christian thought” are far more subtle–Aquinas was 500 years before the Revolution, and the Calvinist theology is found more directly in the English civil wars of the 1600s. By the time of the Revolution, the theology was pretty much settled.
You’re getting there, grudgingly, but getting there. Props.
LikeLike
Tom, condescendingly passive.
LikeLike
whoa, whoa, whoa! Leave the Dodgers out of this.
They are out of last place, and a measely .001 behind the Phillies. Even with Barton’s math skills, that’s a virtual tie.
LikeLike
Let me point out three admitted inadequacies of the Lutz numbers:
1) “Excluding the proceedings of legislatures and conventions, upon which the sample does not draw…”
2) “A citation for purposes of the study is defined as any footnote, direct quote, attributed paraphrasing or use of a name in exemplifying a concept or position.”
3) “A weakness of the citation-count method is that it cannot distinguish among citations that represent the borrowing of an idea, the adapting of an idea, or an appeal to authority … this inability to distinguish the nature of a citation does not matter if all one is trying to do is systematically establish which European writers were consulted and with what frequency.”
The first statement is very revealing, for it shows that, in the Lutz analysis of 1787-1788, he neglected to consider any of the debates in either the federal convention or the various state ratifying conventions. It seems to me that Lutz should have either included these pivotal conversations in his analysis, or he should have refrained from making the comment about the Bible not being quoted during this time.
The second statement tells us that Lutz only counted paraphrases which were attributed to a particular source. This must necessarily have skewed his results in regards to the Bible for I have found it to have been a common practice of that time to use paraphrases of the biblical account without any attribution. Several examples of this can be seen in Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention as I pointed out here: http://christian76.com/constitutional-convention/
The third statement shows us that Lutz did not distinguish between citations made in favor of a particular source and citations made in opposition to that source. Thus his numbers cannot be used to say whether the Enlightenment authors, for example, were cited with approbation or with denunciation.
LikeLike
Brian, and then there are the Angels. Doh!
LikeLike
Bill F., so you’re saying that a framer would quote from Scripture in debate but then refrain from appealing to Scripture when he committed words to writing? This seems to be an inadequacy of your psychology.
LikeLike
No, I am saying that Lutz erred in this particular conclusion for two reasons. First, he placed an unrealistic limitation on the size of his sample, and second, he failed to account for Scripture references which were unattributed. It is interesting to note, however, that in spite of these two limitations, his total count for the 1780’s still ranked the Bible at 34%.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 6, 2013 at 8:49 am | Permalink
Tom, condescendingly passive.
Darryl, dumbfounded by facts again.
LikeLike
Tom, aggressive.
LikeLike
Bill F., and so what does 34+% do for you? Does it make the U.S. a Christian nation? Madison an evangelical? Washington orthodox? Contemporary America on its way to Sodom and Gomorrah?
I’m not sure what’s at stake.
LikeLike
No, all of that comes from other evidences. The 34% figure simply tells us that, even without taking into account unattributed references, the Bible was by far the most quoted source of the 1780’s.
LikeLike
Using Mr. Fortenberry’s critical method of being mindful of unattributed quotations and paraphrases, note many of those philosophers, especially John Locke were likewise cited without attribution.
LikeLike
That is undoubtedly true, Jon. After all, most scholars that I have read claim that Jefferson’s reference to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” in the Declaration was taken from a letter that Lord Bolingbroke wrote to Alexander Pope. Of course, very few scholars are willing to point out that Bolingbroke defined that phrase as following “God in his works, and in his word.”
LikeLike
Jon Rowe
Posted July 6, 2013 at 7:19 pm | Permalink
Using Mr. Fortenberry’s critical method of being mindful of unattributed quotations and paraphrases, note many of those philosophers, especially John Locke were likewise cited without attribution./i>
When Washington writes to the Jews of Savannah [1790]
Is that counted as “citing the Bible?”
Regardless, it tells us much of the national religion, which was more than a “ceremonial deism” [to use Justice O’Connor’s unfortunate phrase]. It had quite a specific G-d in mind.
LikeLike
Tom, could you do me a favor? Your italics make your comments quite confusing because I can’t tell who is saying what because often the italics go beyond the intended text. If you can either stop using italics or get them under control that would help.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 6, 2013 at 8:44 pm | Permalink
Tom, could you do me a favor? Your italics make your comments quite confusing because I can’t tell who is saying what because often the italics go beyond the intended text. If you can either stop using italics or get them under control that would help.
Sorry. Darryl has occasionally edited my copy. I’m sure that if you ask him nice, he’ll fix the occasional HTML error.
But I appreciate you reading what I write despite your manifest hostility to it, Mike. Cheers.
LikeLike
“But I appreciate you reading what I write despite your manifest hostility to it, Mike”
I like the drama and the all-about-youness.
LikeLike
Mr. Fortenberry,
It’s debatable whether scholars ARE unwilling to credit Bolingbroke or his influence on Jefferson for that part of the Declaration of Independence. What Bolingbroke meant and believed doesn’t prove what, I understand, you’d like it to (Christian nationalist political theology).
If we had three broad categories with 1. strict Deism on one end; 3 orthodox biblical Christianity on the other; and 2. something in between (whether termed “Christian-Deism,” “theistic rationalism,” “unitarianism,” or what have you), Bolingbroke is on the fence between 1 and 2. He’s just barely a “Christian-Deist,” if that. It surprises not that he would so influence Jefferson’s writing of the DOI. Giving him authorial credit for that part of the DOI reinforces your nemesis’ (Gregg Frazer’s) thesis.
LikeLike
‘But I appreciate you reading what I write despite your manifest hostility to it, Mike. Cheers.’
MM, I was going to go with psychic jackass. But that’s me.
LikeLike
TVD: “It had quite a specific G-d in mind.”
Yes, GW termed God “Jehovah” in only ONE letter addressed to Jews who believed in Jehovah God. He also termed God “The Great Spirit” TWICE when addressed to unconverted Natives. I’d say putting those two (and other) examples together counts as GW playing the ceremonial deism card (or something like it) quite artfully, even if it sincerely reflected his own personal religious belief system that Jews, Christians, Muslims and unconverted Native Americans all worshipped the same God.
LikeLike
Jon, before we can determine whether any given individual was a Deist, a biblical Christian or something in between, it is necessary to define what we mean by Deist as well as what we mean by biblical Christian. In our discussion of Bolingbroke on American Creation, I provided you with the same historical definition of Christianity that I included in my book The Founders and the Myth of Theistic RationalismThe Founders and the Myth of Theistic Rationalism and concluded according to that definition that “it is therefore fully in line with the teachings of Scripture to conclude that Bolingbroke’s belief in the gospel was sufficient to make him a Christian and that he remained a Christian even when he strayed into heretical ideologies.” You expressed no argument against my definition at that time, and your comment here makes me wonder if you have discovered a reason for rejecting my conclusion.
LikeLike
By the way, Washington’s reference to God as the “Great Spirit” is no different than Paul’s reference to Him as “the unknown God.”
LikeLike
Bill, what’s at stake?
Maybe Tom can help you out even if he doesn’t special in the public defense of the Bible and its application to American society.
LikeLike
I’m afraid that I don’t quite understand your question, Darryl. The conversation has taken several different turns, and I’m not entirely sure which statement you are asking about.
LikeLike
Oh, and my screen shows that I have a comment awaiting moderation. Is that something that you can check on for me?
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 6, 2013 at 9:08 pm | Permalink
“But I appreciate you reading what I write despite your manifest hostility to it, Mike”
I like the drama and the all-about-youness.
Not everybody is stupid, Mike. Some see why you were punking my HTML. Your tone was quite transparent.
LikeLike
Bill, what is at stake if the founders quoted the Bible more than 34%? Why is this important?
LikeLike
Tom, aggressively aggressive.
LikeLike
I suppose that it’s not all that important in the grand scheme of things. I simply noted it as an interesting fact about Lutz’s numbers. Personally, I’m much more interested in quality than in quantity.
LikeLike
Jon Rowe
Posted July 6, 2013 at 9:25 pm | Permalink
TVD: “It had quite a specific G-d in mind.”
Yes, GW termed God “Jehovah” in only ONE letter addressed to Jews who believed in Jehovah God.
Hold on right there, Jon. Then you have the Jefferson and Franklin, the two least Christian-ly orthodox of the marquee Founders, also choosing the image of a pillar of fire leading the Israelites.
http://www.greatseal.com/committees/firstcomm/
We have zero proof, not even a suggestion, that either man thought the story was a fiction, even Jefferson*.
*My own guess is that Jefferson probably thought it was an allegory, but not Franklin. Franklin surprises you. He hated doctrine, but was damned religious.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 6, 2013 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
Tom, aggressively aggressive.
Tom, a rose in the fisted glove, Uncle Darryl.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 6, 2013 at 9:23 pm | Permalink
‘But I appreciate you reading what I write despite your manifest hostility to it, Mike. Cheers.’
MM, I was going to go with psychic jackass. But that’s me.
Ditto, sean.
LikeLike
Tom, it’s Uncle Dr. Darryl to you.
LikeLike
By the way, Washington’s reference to God as the “Great Spirit” is no different than Paul’s reference to Him as “the unknown God.”
Yes it is. Paul was referring to the Greek’s deistic reference. When Paul himself refers to the true God, he is very specific. Plus, Paul was inspired and writing to the church, Washington wasn’t inspired as was writing to a nation. Differences galore.
LikeLike
Bill Fortenberry
Posted July 6, 2013 at 9:49 pm | Permalink
I’m afraid that I don’t quite understand your question, Darryl. The conversation has taken several different turns, and I’m not entirely sure which statement you are asking about.
That’s what they all say.
NobodyNo oneNobody expects the Calvinist Inquisition!LikeLike
Paul’s statement regarding the unknown God was, “Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” Thus, he equated the God of the Bible with the unknown God of the Athenians just as Washington equated Him with the Great Spirit of the Indians.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 6, 2013 at 10:11 pm | Permalink
Tom, it’s Uncle Dr. Darryl to you.
Careful, kids. Old Uncle D’s hitting us over the head with his diploma again.
LikeLike
“Some see why you were punking my HTML.”
Atta boy. See, I don’t even know what this means but I enjoyed reading it. But tiffs are typically tiresome so don’t let me sidetrack you; you’re more than capable of that without me.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 6, 2013 at 10:21 pm | Permalink
“Some see why you were punking my HTML.”
Atta boy. See, I don’t even know what this means but I enjoyed reading it. But tiffs are typically tiresome so don’t let me sidetrack you; you’re more than capable of that without me.
That’s better, Mike. I prefer hostility unmasked. Unless it’s funny, but if you take the trouble to be witty, you’re probably not all that hostile to other fellow afterall. You took the time and effort to try and make him laugh while you were giving him a well-earned spanking.
That’s love, bro, that’s how it works.
LikeLike
Listened to Michael Medved on the Boston Tea Party tonight while I mowed the lawn. Interesting history.
LikeLike
Tom, don’t be all Neil Young about it, what about the band? That’s how it is when you wanna get back to the garden.
MM, conflict is creation. I sense a bender. Pure Cycling dropped Froome and then Froome dropped everyone else. It smells like USPS, acts Like USPS, rides like USPS but it can’t be. LeMond wants numbers. I want mutants.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 6, 2013 at 10:33 pm | Permalink
Listened to Michael Medved on the Boston Tea Party tonight while I mowed the lawn. Interesting history.
Cheers, EC. Heard that one; I adore Medved. He runs his history shows on the American holidays and July 4’s is running all this weekend in 3-hour cycles @
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 6, 2013 at 10:40 pm | Permalink
Tom, don’t be all Neil Young about it, what about the band? That’s how it is when you wanna get back to the garden.
If it’s OK, Mr. Moore, just pick whether you’re going to baldly keep insulting me to your pals or if you and I are having a continuing conversation.
I really came here for the Darryl G. Hart, who is published by the Yale Press and has a doctorate and everything. The rest of you are just a sometimes delightful bonus.
LikeLike
Come on Tom, I left it to be taken either way; “but that’s just me”. Lighten up. You’re NPD slip is showing.
LikeLike
Tom, I’m really after Muddy. You’re just a gambit.
MG, Froome starts with an F like a certain doctor you know. Actually two doctors you know.
LikeLike
“conflict is creation. I sense a bender. Pure Cycling dropped Froome and then Froome dropped everyone else. It smells like USPS, acts Like USPS, rides like USPS but it can’t be. LeMond wants numbers. I want mutants.”
Sean, I did some heavy stuff, too. You know, back in the day. You and me should get in a car and just start driving. It don’t matter where.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 6, 2013 at 11:01 pm | Permalink
Tom, I’m really after Muddy. You’re just a gambit.
Muddy Gravel
Posted July 6, 2013 at 11:04 pm | Permalink
“conflict is creation. I sense a bender. Pure Cycling dropped Froome and then Froome dropped everyone else. It smells like USPS, acts Like USPS, rides like USPS but it can’t be. LeMond wants numbers. I want mutants.”
Sean, I did some heavy stuff, too. You know, back in the day. You and me should get in a car and just start driving. It don’t matter where.
OK, I hear you, sean. And per Mr. Muddy, let’s go Erik Charter here. This concert tour* in particular [which I recorded off DirecTV], this song in particular, have just made me want to start writing again. I weep at its beauty.
*Joe Jackson & the Bigger Band, available somewhere.
LikeLike
Muddy, that’s a twilight zone car ride. I like it.
LikeLike
TVD, back at ya. Little more my style;
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 6, 2013 at 11:46 pm | Permalink
TVD, back at ya. Little more my style;
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ7Ctdl3QnA&feature=related
Brother. I hear that too. But we get so far into our own head that we forget that girls just want to have fun. Girls just want to have fun. And when they don’t, it’s usually our fault, not theirs.
Don’t you know that it’s different for girls? [Another achingly beautiful Joe Jackson song.]
To Erik, from Mamet’s The Verdict:
INT. O’ROURKE’S BAR – NIGHT
Galvin holding forth at the bar of a seedy drinking-man’s
establishment, THREE DRINKERS, acquaintances, standing around
him, appreciative.
GALVIN
Pat says, ‘Mike… there’s a new
bar, you go in, for a half a buck
you get a beer, a free lunch, and
then take you in the back room and
they get you laid.’
The bartender, JIMMY, comes up to Galvin.
JIMMY
Another, Frank…?
GALVIN
(gestures to include
group)
…everybody. Mike says, ‘Pat, you
mean to tell me for a buck you get a
free lunch and a beer, and then you
go in the back and get laid?’ ‘That’s
correct.’ Mike says, ‘Pat. Have you
been in this bar ?’ Pat says, ‘No,
but my sister has…’
(gestures to Jimmy)
Everyone. Buy yourself one too.
Cheers to the pub herein gathered. Somebody put Joe Jackson on the jukebox. Here’s a
quarterdollar, on me.LikeLike
Paul’s statement regarding the unknown God was, “Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” Thus, he equated the God of the Bible with the unknown God of the Athenians just as Washington equated Him with the Great Spirit of the Indians.
But, Bill, note the point about ignorance. While there may be some intuitive sense of the true God, some correction is going on, which means equality doesn’t exactly describe the situation. And why declare unto anybody anything if the triune God and the unknown god (and Great Spirit) are one and the same? Why not live and let live? Probably because Paul wasn’t doing statecraft but building churches. Again, differences galore.
LikeLike
Tom, what about “you” don’t you understand?
LikeLike
BF:
“Jon, before we can determine whether any given individual was a Deist, a biblical Christian or something in between, it is necessary to define what we mean by Deist as well as what we mean by biblical Christian. In our discussion of Bolingbroke on American Creation, I … concluded … ‘it is therefore fully in line with the teachings of Scripture to conclude that Bolingbroke’s belief in the gospel was sufficient to make him a Christian and that he remained a Christian even when he strayed into heretical ideologies.’ You expressed no argument against my definition at that time, and your comment here makes me wonder if you have discovered a reason for rejecting my conclusion.”
I don’t need to argue against your “definition.” You have your sophisticated way of setting these goal posts definitions. And others have theirs. As someone not conventionally religious, I don’t care who gets to be a “Christian” — if we want to call Richard Dawkins, Mitt Romney, Ghandi, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and the Pope all “Christians” — I have no problem with it.
I did note to you at AC and others — in fact, I noted this in person in front of Drs. Gregg Frazer, Mark David Hall, Gary Scott Smith, Daniel Dreisbach, Anthony Gill, and others (CPS May 2012 Conference, where I was an invited presenter to present on Dr. Frazer’s book) — that for the sake fairness and genuineness we should use either broad definitions of Christianity and Deism or narrow definitions. Thus broadly defined, the key Founders could be both Christians AND Deists, hence “Christian-Deists” (Dr. David L. Holmes’ term). Or narrowly, NEITHER Christians NOR Deists, hence “theistic rationalists.”
It’s less fair, and more disingenuous to do what YOU DO, and what some secular scholars do, that is, use a broad definition of one, but a narrow definition of the other to try and “capture” more Founders for their side.
[Note: I know Mr. Fortenberry will come back with something like, “we should define this term by what the Bible actually says.” Regarding the CPS scholars; NONE of them seemed to ascribe to Mr. Fortenberry’s novel and eccentric biblical definition of what it means to be a “Christian”; and a strong majority of them seemed to sympathize with the notion that Christianity defines itself, at minimum, as belief in a Triune God; disbelieve that, and you aren’t a “Christian,” regardless of what you call yourself.]
And I did provide loads of evidence and “reason” for my assertion that “Bolingbroke is on the fence between [strict deism] and [Christian-Deism/theistic rationalism]. He’s just barely a ‘Christian-Deist,’ if that.”
Some it can be found here.
I know many devout biblical Christians read these threads. And I’ll let them make up their own minds. I suggest they google the terms “Bolingbroke” and “Deist” and also understand that Bolingbroke used his own reason to conclude that the vast majority of the Bible was not validly revealed. (He influenced Jefferson in this regard when TJ used his razor to cut out from the Bible that which he didn’t believe.) The only parts of which Bolingbroke ended up believing were the Gospels. He also thought St. Paul was full of it. And while he had great respect for St. John, he thought the Book of Revelation is bogus too and therefore could not have been written by St. John.
Yet, Mr. Fortenberry, contrary to everyone else who has studied Bolingbroke concludes he was not a “Deist,” not a “Christian-Deist,” but a “Christian” simpliciter. Because he believed in a small amount of revelation, I’m at least willing to term Bolingbroke a “Christian-Deist.”
LikeLike
Well, Jon, I’m not nearly as concerned about broad and narrow definitions as I am about using definitions that are accurate. Unfortunately, I have a very difficult time getting you to provide any definition at all. It’s almost as if you just expect your terminology to be accepted without any justification. I’m sure that’s not the case. It’s just the impression that you seem to be conveying.
Our discussion of Bolingbroke is an excellent example. You claimed that he was a Christian Deist without providing any definition of Christianity or Christian Deism by which your readers could validate your claim. In my responses, I provided documented definitions of both terms to prove that Bolingbroke was a Christian and not a Christian Deist. You have not presented a single flaw in either of those definitions, nor have you provided any counter definitions, yet you continue to insist that Bolingbroke was not a Christian but rather a Christian Deist.
In regards to the manner in which I defined the term “Christian,” let me remind you that my rebuttal of Frazer’s work included a definition which is both biblically accurate and which is stated in all but one of the creeds which Frazer cited. If you happened to overlook that definition, you can find it online at: http://www.increasinglearning.com/theistic-rationalism.html
LikeLike
Bill F., I don’t see a definition of Christian in what you wrote. I see a lot of long-winded animus directed at Frazier. So you disagree with him on how he evaluates the founders. Do you have to go on so long about it?
Ask yourself, would George Whitefield think George Washington needed to be converted? Think nominal Christianity.
LikeLike
Here is an excerpt in which I explain the proper definition of the term “Christian”:
To obtain an accurate definition of Christianity, it is necessary to consider the original usage of that term as recorded in the Book of Acts. In that portion of Scripture, we read that “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch,” and from this we can see that the name of Christian was given to those who were in another place called “the disciples of the Lord.” This, however, is not to be understood as a reference to the original twelve disciples only, for none of the original twelve were in Antioch at this time, and further, it is stated earlier in the Scriptures that the number of disciples on the morning of Pentecost was “about an hundred and twenty.” The proper understanding of which individuals were called Christians in Antioch can be seen in the phrase which precedes that statement. Just before we are told that the disciples were called Christians, we are informed that Paul and Barnabas traveled to that city and “assembled themselves with the church.” It was thus the members of the church that are here said to have been previously known as disciples and which were, from then on, known among the heathen as Christians.
Consideration must now be given to the means by which these disciples became members of the church. This is also explained in the Book of Acts where we read that “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” The means of this salvation by which individuals are made Christians and added to the church is stated in another place to be “the gospel of Christ” which is clearly defined in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”
This gospel, or good news, is the means by which an individual is able to become a Christian, but he must first believe it to be true as is stated in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
“For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.”
It is for this reason that we read in the Epistle to the Romans that this gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” and not simply to everyone regardless of his belief. Of those who refuse to believe this gospel, the Scriptures tell us that the Lord will come “in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But all of those who believe are promised salvation by which they are made members of the church, disciples of Christ and Christians in the purest meaning of the word.
It is this belief which produces salvation and Christianity that is referred to by the first four of Mr. Frazer’s groups when they speak of justification by faith. The Augsburg Confession states this doctrine in this manner:
“Our churches further teach, that man cannot obtain forgiveness of sin, and be justified before God by his own strength, merits or works; but that he obtains the forgiveness of sins, and is justified before God, through grace, for Christ’s sake, by faith; if he believes that Christ suffered for him, and that his sins are remitted for Christ’s sake, who made satisfaction for our transgressions by his death. This faith God imputes to us as righteousness, as Paul says. (Rom. chap. iii. and iv.)”
In the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, we read:
“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.”
And in both the Philadelphia Confession and the Westminster Confession, we find:
“Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons, as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death, for their whole and sole righteousness; they receiving, and resting on him, and his righteousness by faith.”
In addition to the creeds mentioned by Mr. Frazer, we could also point out that all of the other confessions from the various Baptist churches agree with these. The Standard Confession, for example, contains this declaration:
“God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3.9. and the knowledge of the truth, that they might be saved, I Tim. 2. 4. For which end Christ hath commanded, that the Gospel (to wit, the glad tydings of remission of sins) should be preached to every creature, Mark 16.15. So that no man shall eternally suffer in Hell (that is, the second death) for want of a Christ that dyed for them … The way set forth by God for men to be justified in, is by faith in Christ, Rom. 5.1. That is to say, when men shall assent to the truth of the Gospel, believing with all their hearts, that there is remission of sins, and eternal life to be had in Christ. And that Christ therefore is most worthy their constant affections, and subjection to all his Commandements, and therefore resolve with purpose of heart so to subject unto him in all things, and no longer unto themselves, 2 Cor. 5.15. And so, shall (with godly sorrow for the sins past) commit themselves to his grace, confidently depending upon him for that which they believe is to be had in him: such so believing are justified from all their sins, their faith shall be accounted unto them for righteousness, Rom. 4. 22, 23, 24. Rom. 3. 25, 26.”
Nowhere in any of these creeds is there to be found any other belief which is necessary for salvation, and as we have already shown, this salvation is the only requirement given in the Bible by which an individual can become a Christian. All of the other points in these various creeds are stated to be items that particular churches believe to be true, but none of them are said to be necessary to be believed in order for someone to be a Christian. The only belief necessary in order for someone to be a Christian is a belief in the truth of the gospel.
LikeLike
Bill, what does this have to do with Washington, Jefferson, or Madison where the Church of England was their ecclesiastical choice, or with John Adams where the Standing Order prevailed. You are making this much harder than it is. Look at the late 18th century and see what the standards were then. That doesn’t mean that the question is easy. But to judge Washington or Frazier by the Book of Acts is to go all Bible College.
Plus, you really need to think about whether George Whitefield would have thought George Washington needed to be born again (since I suspect you are some variety of born-again Protestant).
LikeLike
Ah, I forgot to answer your question about Whitefield. If I’m not mistaken, it was Franklin not Washington that Whitefield kept pressuring to be converted, but in any case, it must be remembered that when Whitefield spoke of conversion he was referring to a grand conversion experience rather than to a change of belief systems. He seemed at times to be of the opinion that such an experience was necessary for salvation. It has been several years since I studied any of his work, so I’m afraid I can’t be much more specific than that at the moment, but I will try to get back with you on it in the near future.
As for my definition of a Christian, it is absolutely necessary to return to the Bible in order to properly understand what that term means. Would you expect someone to accurately define a “Muslim” without referencing the Qur’an? Nonetheless, if you read the entire section that I pasted above, you will notice that I also referenced the very same creeds from which Frazer claimed to have drawn his definition. All but one of those creeds agrees with the definition which I derived from Scripture.
LikeLike
Well Bill, you didn’t come back with “we should define this term by what the Bible actually says,” like I predicted but you did come back with “I’m not nearly as concerned about broad and narrow definitions as I am about using definitions that are accurate” which was something close. The problem is, there is no one way of understanding these terms that is “accurate.” Rather there are multiple, competing, disagreeable definitions.
For instance, some argue you must believe in the Trinity to be a “Christian” Some argue you can disbelieve in the Trinity and still be a “Christian.”
I thought my understanding of these terms was clear enough.
1. Small o orthodox biblical Christian means belief in orthodox biblical doctrine an obvious part of which is the Bible (that is the entire biblical canon) is Word of God. Within this tradition, if you don’t believe in this, you aren’t a “Christian.” There is a long distinguished line of thought from St. Athanasius to CS Lewis that believes in something very close to this. Dr. Frazer’s late 18th Century test for “Christianity” is also something similar to this.
3. Strict deist with its belief in a God that rarely if ever intervenes and who gave no special revelation.
2. Something in between 1 and 3 would be “Christian-Deist”; “unitarian”; “theistic rationalist” or some other perhaps better term.
Bolingbroke might be a “Christian-Deist” because he appeared to believe in at least a small portion of the Bible; he’s clearly not in 1 and probably not in 3.
LikeLike
By the way, here is St. Athanasius on why Arius was not a “Christian.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm
CS Lewis, as far as I understand, in “Mere Christianity” argued something similar, that you need to believe in a Triune God to be a Christian.
LikeLike
Here is Dr. Frazer’s 10 point test for late 18th Cen. Christianity.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_n6ahLSqrQAg/SdZQ_JkdeHI/AAAAAAAAAFw/86upXVrqDvc/s1600-h/18th+cen+chr.BMP
LikeLike
Here’s Rev. Robert Sirico on who is a “Christian.”
— Christianity is and always has been a religion that “receives” its faith rather than one that “invents” it. Hence, a basic definition of “Who are the Christians?” begins with an adherence, doctrinally, to the ancient Creeds of the Church, beginning with the Apostles Creed (believed to have been of apostolic origin, the Apostles having in turn received their mandate from Christ Himself) and continuing on to the faith articulated at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Orange, Hippo and Quicunque Vult (aka, The Athanasian Creed), all of which were formative for the belief of Christians. The traditions that would agree with this ecumenical Trinitarian confession (most Catholics, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, et al.) have historically recognized that whatever other doctrinal differences may separate them, this is the meaning they share when they use the term “Christian.” —
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2012/04/rev.html
LikeLike
Here is John Locke on Christian Deism:
“As men, we have God for our King, and are under the law of reason: as christians, we have Jesus the Messiah for our King, and are under the law revealed by him in the gospel. And though every christian, both as a deist and a christian, be obliged to study both the law of nature and the revealed law, that in them he may know the will of God, and of Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent; yet, in neither of these laws, is there to be found a select set of fundamentals, distinct from the rest, which are to make him a deist, or a christian. But he that believes one eternal, invisible God, his Lord and King, ceases thereby to be an atheist; and he that believes Jesus to be the Messiah, his king, ordained by God, thereby becomes a christian, is delivered from the power of darkness, and is translated into the kingdom of the Son of God; is actually within the covenant of grace, and has that faith, which shall be imputed to him for righteousness; and, if he continues in his allegiance to this his King, shall receive the reward, eternal life.”
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2010/05/john-locke-on-christian-deism-here.html
As I noted, there are multiple, competing definitions of these terms.
LikeLike
Note, above I SHOULD have said (sorry the coffee hasn’t yet kicked in) “Many notable figures within this [small o orthodox] tradition, argue if you don’t believe in this, you aren’t a ‘Christian.'”
I’d imagine many readers and commenters here believe that Christianity defines itself by belief in a Triune God and that, if one doesn’t believe in the Trinity, one isn’t a Christian regardless of what he calls or how he understands himself.
LikeLike
A couple questions from a non-historian:
1) Is there a “majority position” among historians on how to designate a “Christian”?
2) What is the weight of church membership, if any, on whether to designate a person a “Christian”?
LikeLike
Bill, this is a-historical. Christians after Pentecost and after 400 ad are all interpreting the Bible. Your interpretation is not going to settle anything. The pope’s doesn’t anymore, not even for RC’s (as least in the U.S.). And the Qur’an isn’t going to settle the problem of Muhammad’s successor, which goes to the heart of Sunnis and Shi’as.
LikeLike
Jon, I don’t think Locke’s definition would even catch the uncatchable Tom.
LikeLike
M&M, the American Historical Association or the Organization of American Historians don’t put out guides on such definitions. They would likely say this is a question for the churches, not an academic question. Then you have the religious historians (as in historians of religion) who are sometimes trained in religious studies. After the 1960s these folks also tend to regard such a question as too much from the seminary classroom. (If your interested in the recent origins of religious studies as an academic field and its anti-Christian move since the 1960s I can’t help but recommend The University Gets Religion.)
So it’s all ad hominem. A scholar goes with what he thinks is Christian. And the rule of thumb seems to be if a historical actor claims to be a Christian, he is. Good or bad Christians only become issues on matters of slavery, organized crime, the Holocaust, or other such ethical biggies.
LikeLike
Jon,
I think the historic creeds are a minimal definition of Christianity. It’s a base line, which would leave out all deism. After that, it seems you’d have to abide the individual communions historic confessional statements in order to characterize appropriately. So, rather than Calvinist, probably Reformed would be a better designation and adherence to WCF(Westminster Confession of Faith) or the three forms of unity(Belgic, Dordt, Heidelberg), Anglican(39 articles of Religion), Lutheran (Augsberg confession), RC (Trent-counter reformation, Bellarmine cat.). It would seem since this was how adherents, particularly historically, defined themselves, it would be a-historical or even anachronistic to divide them up elsewise. In the american scene, particularly frontier-wise, you could start to distinguish or recognize a non-confessional or experiential element that was a forerunner of modern day evangelicalism. Not exhaustive obviously but just a sign post of how others may view this enterprise.
LikeLike
Interesting. When I have seen “Christian” in historical accounts I guess I’ve just assumed a “Mere Christianity” or ecumenical creeds kind of definition, at least for wide-focus generalizations.
LikeLike
M&M, it is oddly interesting that scholars who study religion want to stay away from believers or ecclesial institutions for the same reason that Tom distrusts doing theology. So what do you do then? Make it up? Some people call that theologizing.
LikeLike
Take a minute to review the definitions which you provided, Jon. The terms which you defined were not “Christian,” “Deist” and “Christian Deist.” The terms you defined were “orthodox Christian,” “Deist” and “Christian Deist.” By your definition, orthodox Christians believe in orthodox biblical doctrine, and you admit that it is only within this tradition that those who do not accept orthodox doctrine are not considered “Christians.” According to that definition and considering only Bolingbroke’s opinion of the Scripture, you could, perhaps, create a new category and label him as an (orthodox-Christian) Deist. You have not, however, provided a definition which would demonstrate that he was not a Christian.
Now, let’s consider the other definitions which you provided.
1. Athanasius’ rejection of Arius as a Christian falls within the Catholic tradition, and as I pointed out in my rebuttal of Frazer, the Catholic creed was the single creed in Frazer’s list which stated that no one could be a Christian who disagreed with the doctrines of the church. According to this creed, Frazer himself is not a Christian, I am not a Christian, nor were the vast majority of the Americans at the time of the Revolution. You may hold to this view if you like, but it is certainly not an easily defended position, and I doubt if it accurately represents your opinion on the matter.
2. I have already provided you with a lengthy analysis of Frazer’s definition. According to that analysis, his definition resolves to one of two possibilities: either Theistic Rationalism is synonymous with Christianity or all those who claim to be Christians are really Theistic Rationalists. In either case, his definition is shown to be invalid.
3. Robert Sirico’s definition violates its own standard in that it begins with the supposed reception of the Apostle’s creed by the followers of the Apostles rather than beginning with the reception of Christianity by the Apostles from God. If Christianity is and always has been a religion that receives its faith, then a proper understanding of that religion must trace its origin all the way back to a reception of the faith from God. Sirico’s definition falls short of this and is therefore self-contradictory.
4. I don’t believe that Locke was defining Christian Deism in the quote which you provided. He appears to be using the term “deist” as the opposite of the term “atheist.” Today, we would use the term “theist” in this place and refer to the person he is describing as a Christian Theist. Locke actually holds to a definition very similar to mine in that he defines a Christian as one who repents of his sins and accepts Christ as his Messiah.
LikeLike
BF:
“1. Athanasius’ rejection of Arius as a Christian falls within the Catholic tradition, and as I pointed out in my rebuttal of Frazer, the Catholic creed was the single creed in Frazer’s list which stated that no one could be a Christian who disagreed with the doctrines of the church. According to this creed, Frazer himself is not a Christian, I am not a Christian, nor were the vast majority of the Americans at the time of the Revolution. You may hold to this view if you like, but it is certainly not an easily defended position, and I doubt if it accurately represents your opinion on the matter.”
St. Athanasius was a Roman Catholic, as in Roman Catholic Church? Really? I didn’t know evangelicals believed the Roman Catholic Church began that early. Was he the first Pope?
If instead you meant to say St. Athanasius was a “catholic” with a small c, then I think we’d find little disagreement there. But you err in saying that Gregg Frazer would be excluded as “Christian” under this definition. And neither would D.G. Hart, and the NT Wright (Anglican) or perhaps even yourself. Anyone who believes in the small c catholic as in “universal” church is a catholic Christian. Calvinists, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Wesleyans, Lutherans, and perhaps I am wrong, I think Baptists too (at least the ones who believe in the ecumenical creeds which involve the universal church) are all small c catholics like St. Athanasius was.
2. “I have already provided you with a lengthy analysis of Frazer’s definition. According to that analysis, his definition resolves to one of two possibilities: either Theistic Rationalism is synonymous with Christianity or all those who claim to be Christians are really Theistic Rationalists. In either case, his definition is shown to be invalid.”
Your either/or is a false dichotomy. Just claiming to have proven something doesn’t make it so. As far as I’m concerned, you shot and missed. Frazer’s definition states Arians and Socinians are not Christians even if they believe Jesus is Messiah and understand themselves as such. This is not a controversial opinion among Christians who believe in a Triune God.
3. Robert Sirico’s definition is exactly like CS Lewis’s. Note, Sirico is a Roman Catholic; but he’s not saying “only Roman Catholics are true Christians.” He’s saying Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelicals, etc. are all “Christians.” Again, ecumenical Trinitarianism as a minimal non-negotiable basis for “mere Christianity,” which is all Sirico seems to be asserting, is not some off the wall self contradictory idea.
4. Yet Locke explicitly uses the term “Deist.” And he seems to define it as someone who believes in one God and understands His attributes through the use of “reason” alone. This was a valid common definition of Deism during his time period. Which reinforces my point that there are multiple competing definitions of these terms.
As far as Bolingbroke as an “orthodox Christian-Deist” show me that he believed in the Trinity and those ecumenical creeds of the early Church while still cutting and carving out all of the Bible that he did and maybe the term would stick. I’m fairly certain that Bolingbroke did NOT believe in the Trinitarian creeds because he explicitly noted that he thought the early church that formulated them was corrupt. He thought the early Church Fathers who selected the canon — supposedly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit — were nuts as well.
Some Christian.
LikeLike
Let me reinforce, for the sake of clarify, on a personal level, I don’t have a problem terming Bolingbroke a “Christian.” Or Jefferson a “Christian.” Or Bishop John Shelby Spong a “Christian” or Mormons “Christians.”
I’m simply noting what I thought was an utterly uncontroversial point until I met Mr. Fortenberry: That there is a BIG tradition within historic Christianity to define “Christianity” as, at minimum, containing the doctrines of the ecumenical Trinitarian creeds. And therefore, if you reject the Trinity, you are excluded from the label “Christian” regardless of what you call yourself and how you understand yourself.
LikeLike
Edmund Morgan Dies (from John Fea):
Posted: 09 Jul 2013 07:50 AM PDT
Edmund Morgan, one of the greatest early American historians to ever practice the craft, passed away last night at the age of 97.
It is hard to summarize Morgan’s prolific career. Many of his books, including American Slavery, American Freedom (1975) and The Stamp Act Crisis (1953–written with his wife Helen) continue to resonate in the field. Earlier this year I taught it for the fourth time in my career. Scholars of Puritanism still wrestle with The Puritan Dilemma (1958), Visible Saints (1963), and The Puritan Family (1944). While the argument of these books have been challenged by more recent scholars of Puritanism, they continue to inform some of my lectures on colonial New England. Just a few weeks ago, after a visit to Newport, R.I., I ordered a copy of The Gentle Puritan: A Life of Ezra Stiles (1962).
Perhaps Morgan’s greatest legacy is the impressive group of graduate students that he taught. Off the top of my head, this group included John Murrin, John Mack Faragher, Joseph Ellis, Christine Heyrman, T.H. Breen, John Blasingame, and Karen Halttunen. (I am sure I am missing many, many others, please add them to the comments section).
Here is a taste of the New York Times obit:
Edmund Sears Morgan was born on Jan. 17, 1916, in Minneapolis. His father, Edmund Morris Morgan, was an expert on the law of evidence and served as chairman of the committee that drafted the first uniform code of military justice for the armed forces in 1948.
Edmund grew up in Arlington, Mass., where the family moved after his father began teaching at Harvard’s law school. He enrolled in Harvard intending to study English history and literature, but after taking a course in American literature with F. O. Matthiessen, he changed to the newly offered major of American history and literature, with Perry Miller as his tutor. He received a bachelor’s degree in 1937, and, at the urging of the jurist Felix Frankfurter, a family friend, he attended lectures at the London School of Economics.
In 1942, he completed a doctorate in Harvard’s new program on the history of American civilization under Professor Miller’s supervision. His dissertation, on the domestic life of the Puritans, became his first book: “The Puritan Family: Religion and Domestic Relations in 17th-Century New England” (1944).
In 1939 he married Helen Theresa Mayer, who died in 1982. He is survived by their two daughters, Penelope Aubin and Pamela Packard; his second wife, the former Marie Caskey, a historian; six grandchildren; and seven great-grandchildren.
Although a pacifist, Professor Morgan became convinced, after the fall of France, that only military force could stop Hitler, and he withdrew the application he had submitted for conscientious objector status. During World War II, he trained as a machinist at the M.I.T. radiation laboratory, where he turned out metal parts and instruments for radar installations.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 8, 2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink
Jon, I don’t think Locke’s definition would even catch the uncatchable Tom.
Actually, I’m pretty good with it. I don’t think Christians get to vote who is and who isn’t when it comes to socio-history. They’re always voting each other out. Your own JG Machen says the mainline Protestants don’t practice Christianity, and Sproul says Catholics aren’t Christians.
Ludicrous. We shall not leave history to the theologians.
The Founding-era unitarians believed the Bible was the Word of God and Jesus was the Messiah. Close enough for government work.
Whether this gets you into Christian heaven is above the historian’s pay grade, but “Christian” is the term that comes closer than any other.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’d appreciate if you’d erase the above post, to which I inadvertently signed my email address. Internet webcrawlers pick up email addresses and spam them. I’m probably already screwed.
LikeLike
Too late, Tom. How is your first devotional based on the Westminster Shorter Catechism?
LikeLike
Erik, thanks for that. Sad news. Great (not pretty good) historian.
LikeLike
tvd, if only you were as easy to fix as a comment.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 9, 2013 at 9:19 pm | Permalink
tvd, if only you were as easy to fix as a comment.
Heh. Thank you kindly, D. We’ll see whose wagon gets fixed.
Mr. Mike, since when has the Book of Common Prayer not been good enough?
Well, since 1640 [“The Calvinists are revolting!”], but you know what I mean… 😉
LikeLike
Jon,
1. The Catholic Church did not originate with the first Pope: it was already established by the time of the Council of Nicea. This can be seen in the frequent recurrence of the terms “Catholic Church” and “Catholic and Apostolic Church” throughout the Canons of that council. Canon 8, for example, states:
“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained are found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop’s dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two bishops in the city.” [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm]
The Cathari were Christian dualists, and it is important to note that while they were considered by the Catholic’s to be Christians, they were not considered to be part of the Catholic Church. This Canon shows us very clearly that the Catholic Church which met at Nicea was not catholic with a small c, but rather Catholic with a capital C. And while there was not a Pope established in Rome until Gregory in the seventh century, the Council of Nicea did recognize the prominence of the bishop of Rome by naming him as one of four bishops who were to have supreme jurisdiction over the church. These and several other statements in the Canon’s of this Council demonstrate that the Catholic Church with a capital C was already established at this time.
2. I agree with your statement that “just claiming to have proven something doesn’t make it so,” but I would suggest that this is also true of your claim that I “shot and missed.” As far as I can recall, you have never demonstrated any error in my rebuttal of Frazer’s definition. Simply saying that my conclusion is a false dichotomy does not make it so. Of course, it is possible that you are correct and that I have presented a false dichotomy, but I hope that you will not think less of me if I assume that I am correct until you can demonstrate otherwise.
In either case, it is certain that Frazer’s definition says much more than just “Arians and Socinians are not Christians.” He also provides a foundation upon which that conclusion is based, and it is this foundation which I have demonstrated to be seriously flawed.
3. Trinitarianism is a non-negotiable basis for Christian theology, but acceptance of this doctrine is not a non-negotiable requirement for one to be a Christian. This is where Sirico’s definition becomes self-contradictory. He claims that this idea that one must accept the doctrine of the trinity in order to be a Christian is a true idea because it is a received tradition. However, he also said that this doctrine begins with a creed that was created by humans. If this faith began as a human creation, then Christianity cannot properly be be said to have always “always has been a religion that ‘receives’ its faith rather than one that ‘invents’ it.” Christianity cannot be a received faith if it began with a humanly created creed. It could only be a received faith if it began with the receiving of a creed from God.
I agree with Sirico’s statement that Christianity “always has been a religion that ‘receives’ its faith.” I simply think that he presented the wrong faith as the foundation for determining who is and who is not a Christian. According to the Bible, there was a creed given from God through belief of which men can become Christians. That creed is found in I Corinthians 15:1-4,
“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”
4. You did not previously claim that Locke was defining the term “Deist” in the quote that you provided. You claimed that he was defining the term “Christian Deist.” If you wish to change your argument, that is fine with me. I only maintain that he was not defining the term “Christian Deist.”
As for Bolingbroke, I am not defending the idea that he was an (orthodox-Christian) Deist. I merely presented the possibility that you could use that term if you would like to do so. I am defending the claim that he was a Christian, and I base that position on the fact that Bolingbroke appears to have been a firm believer in the truth of the Gospel as stated in I Corinthians 15:1-4. Quotations from Bolingbroke which demonstrate this belief were provided in our conversation at American Creation which you conveniently linked in one of your previous comments.
LikeLike
“1. The Catholic Church did not originate with the first Pope: it was already established by the time of the Council of Nicea. This can be seen in the frequent recurrence of the terms “Catholic Church” and “Catholic and Apostolic Church” throughout the Canons of that council. Canon 8, for example, states:
[…]
“The Cathari were Christian dualists, and it is important to note that while they were considered by the Catholic’s to be Christians, they were not considered to be part of the Catholic Church. This Canon shows us very clearly that the Catholic Church which met at Nicea was not catholic with a small c, but rather Catholic with a capital C. And while there was not a Pope established in Rome until Gregory in the seventh century, the Council of Nicea did recognize the prominence of the bishop of Rome by naming him as one of four bishops who were to have supreme jurisdiction over the church. These and several other statements in the Canon’s of this Council demonstrate that the Catholic Church with a capital C was already established at this time.”
Now this is interesting. You aren’t a Roman Catholic, Bill? Maybe I’m wrong; but I thought you were a Baptist.
The notion that the Council of Nicea is Capital C Catholic — by the way, something many of the unitarian Founders (and those who influenced them) agreed with in order to tar Trinitarianism with the taint of Popery — is also an argument the Roman Catholic Church makes for itself.
As far as I understand, all of those within the ecumenical Trinitarian tradition — Roman Catholics, Anglicans, capital O Orthodox Christians, reformed and various evangelicals — feel in communion with the Church that wrote the Nicene Creed. You never get a straight answer from any one of them on when the Roman Catholic Church emerged because they all disagree on Who the true universal Church is. And the answer to that question determines when the split occurred.
You don’t feel in communion with the Church that wrote the Nicene Creed?
2. You can assume whatever you want. I claim too that I and others have already answered you plenty to show why your claim about Dr. Frazer is at best utterly contentious, at worst flat out wrong. And I don’t mind if you think less of me for making that claim. But I’ll stick with the utterly contentious part if it makes us feel betters. Your claims are as contentious as the notion that the Church that wrote the Nicene Creed was Catholic with a Capital C as opposed to with a small c.
3. Saying the Nicene Creed was written by humans is akin to saying the Bible was a book written by humans. As the argument goes, as far as I understand it, the same early Church that formulated these ecumenical creeds also selected the canon that made it into the Bible. The assumption there is the that the Holy Spirit inspired these events.
4.Locke was using the terms Christianity and Deism together and describing how the two concepts worked with one another. As it were, he was discussing the concept of “Christian Deism.” To me, that’s close enough to “defining” “Christian Deism.”
And again, I have no problem with the notion that Bolingbroke, or President Obama or Mitt Romney or Jefferson or Jehovah’s Witnesses are all “Christians.” I just think you come off as strange — you come off as a narrow path evangelical-fundamentalist who believes the Bible inerrant and infallible — to defend Bolingbroke as a “Christian.” Bolingbroke was a “Christian” in a very broad sense, in the sense that he came out of “Christendom.”
LikeLike
I certainly don’t think less of you for claiming that you have shown my rebuttal of Frazer to be wrong. I simply cannot recall you ever doing so. It is possible that I am mistaken, and if so, I would appreciate some assistance. Would you mind posting a link to the page in which you or anyone else specifically identified erroneous material in my booklet The Founders and the Myth of Theistic Rationalism?
I’ll have to respond to the rest of your comment later this evening,
LikeLike
I’m busy writing a grant right now. I suggest you and more importantly others google our names with Dr. Frazer’s, American Creation, and look into the comment sections there and make up their own minds.
In the meantime, as I take breaks from writing this grant, I am interested in your responses to the OTHER points I raised in my last comments as I think it helps to clarify the INPUTS or premises that begin with that lead to so many — at least as I see them — contentious and arbitrary conclusions on your part as it relates to Dr. Frazer’s thesis.
LikeLike
Alright. 9:00am. My workday starts. I did do us a favor with this post containing material from myself and Dr. Frazer that answers Mr. Fortenberry’s claims about Dr. Frazer. But I’m sure that he’ll come back with a “but X,Y,Z, 1,2,3…” which ultimately proves … that this is all contentious at best for his side.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/01/standards-for-determining-christianity.html
LikeLike
Ah, I think I see the source of the confusion here. The references that I have made in this discussion to my rebuttal of Gregg Frazer have all been in reference to my booklet The Founders and the Myth of Theistic Rationalism which was not written until February of this year. The link which you just provided was written in January, and it contains Frazer’s response to a discussion that occurred last December. If you’ll notice my comment at the link which you provided, you will see that I explained that I was writing a proper response to Frazer’s book, and I provided a link to an excerpt from that response. Since the time of that comment, I have produced a full fledged analysis of the first chapter of Frazer’s book. That analysis has been published as a booklet entitled The Founders and the Myth of Theistic Rationalism. It is freely available on my website at: http://www.increasinglearning.com/theistic-rationalism.html, and it is available in Kindle format on Amazon for $.99. I have emailed this information to both yourself and Gregg Frazer, and I have linked to it a few times at American Creation. To this date, I cannot recall either yourself, Frazer or anyone else pointing out any errors in this booklet. That’s not to say that there are not any. I simply have not been able to get anyone to point them out to me as of yet. Have you read my work The Founders and the Myth of Theistic Rationalism, and if so, have you found any errors in it?
I promise that I will respond to your other comments this evening.
LikeLike
Mr. Fortenberry, I’m sorry to sound flip. But you aren’t entitled to a line by line refutation of your analysis of Dr. Frazer’s book, which, by the way sold out its first run as far as I understand. If you think you have refuted him with it, good for you. Good luck selling it to a crowd who will buy it. Maybe you can replace David Barton after his ship finally sinks and make start making Barton $ (I understand Barton did quite well with his racket as long as he had it). In the meantime, the link I posted July 10, 2013 at 9:02 am stands as an answer to what I am familiar with from you on Dr. Frazer. As far as I am concerned, you shot and missed. We answered.
LikeLike
BTW, I’ll pop this recent bit of 2K in here for you fellas, by the reliable Jordan Ballor:
http://blog.acton.org/archives/55447-augustine-aquinas-and-fusionism.html
LikeLike
Well, Jon, you appear to be admitting that you have never even read my book The Founders and the Myth of Theistic Rationalism. I trust that you will not think me impertinent if I point out that, until you actually read that book, you really have no idea whether the claims which I made in that book about Frazer’s definition are true or false. Would it be possible for you to do me the courtesy of actually reading what I write before you criticize it?
Now, to address your other comments:
1. Yes, I am a Baptist and not a Roman Catholic. Therefore, I am not in communion with the church that wrote the Nicene Creed. As I have already demonstrated, the text of the Canons of the Nicean Council confirms that it was a council of the Catholic Church with a capital C.
3. You are quite mistaken to conclude that “the same early Church that formulated these ecumenical creeds also selected the canon that made it into the Bible.” The Canon of Scripture was established long before the Catholic councils ever considered the issue. There is a great deal of evidence which can be given in support of this view, and I will not take the time to list it all here. If you would like to learn more, I would recommend that you begin with the overview provided at this link: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=968
4. Let’s take a moment to parse out exactly what Locke said in the quote that you provided. The first time in this quote that Locke mentions deists and Christians together is in the following statement:
And though every christian, both as a deist and a christian, be obliged to study both the law of nature and the revealed law, that in them he may know the will of God
In this sentence, Locke referred to every Christian as being a deist. If he referred to every Christian as a deist, then it is impossible for him to have been defining a Christian Deist as someone distinctly different from other Christians.
The second statement in which Locke mentions both Christian and deists is as follows:
yet, in neither of these laws, is there to be found a select set of fundamentals, distinct from the rest, which are to make him a deist, or a christian.
Once again, we find that there is nothing in this statement which can be used to define a Christian Deist as an individual distinctly different from other Christians.
My claim regarding this quote from Locke was that he was using the term “deist” as the opposite of the term “atheist” and as a synonym for the term “theist.” That this view is correct can be seen in the sentence from Locke which immediately follows the one above:
But he that believes one eternal, invisible God, his Lord and King, ceases thereby to be an atheist; and he that believes Jesus to be the Messiah, his king, ordained by God, thereby becomes a christian
So what is Locke saying? He is saying that…
A. Every Christian is a deist and as such has a duty to study the law of nature.
B. Every Christian is a Christian and as such has a duty to study the revealed law of Scripture.
C. The law of nature does not provide a set of multiple fundamental beliefs which must all be believed in order to make someone a deist.
D. The law of Scripture does not provide a set of multiple fundamental beliefs which must all be believed in order to make someone a Christian.
E. There is only one belief which makes someone cease being an atheist and become a deist and that is the belief in the existence of God.
F. There is only one belief which makes someone become a Christian and that is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.
In point E, it is readily seen that Locke was using the term “deist” as the opposite of the term “atheist” and not as part of the term “Christian Deist” which occurs nowhere within this book. Of course, one could argue that I am mistaken in arranging Locke’s statement into these six points, but the validity of this construction is evidenced by the statement which Locke made in the paragraph following the one which you quoted. There we read:
He that considers this, will not be so hot as the unmasker, to contend for a number of fundamental articles, all necessary, every one of them, to be explicitly believed by every one for salvation
Clearly, Locke’s intention was to demonstrate that there was only one belief necessary to make one a Christian, and that is exactly the intention which is conveyed by the above construction. Your claim that Locke was attempting to define the term “Christian Deist” does not fit with the intention stated in his next paragraph.
LikeLike
“Would it be possible for you to do me the courtesy of actually reading what I write before you criticize it?”
I have been criticizing what I have been reading based on what you’ve written on the threads where we have gone back and forth. I’ve read many words from you and I am well familiar with what your position is. And quite frankly, I think I’ve been very generous in giving you my time. So generous such that if you do become a best seller and replace Barton after his ship sinks and capture his market share I’ll expect a thank you in your book for the critical feedback I’ve already provided.
That said, my answer is no, I won’t read an entire book that you link to and give you a line by line refutation as I have other readings that I want to get to that take priority. So again, I’ll repeat, based on the many many words I’ve read from you the link I posted July 10, 2013 at 9:02 am stands as an answer to what I am familiar with from you on Dr. Frazer. As far as I am concerned, you shot and missed. We answered.
LikeLike
Man, and I thought only Reformed people had make-your-eyes-glaze-over debates…
LikeLike
“1. Yes, I am a Baptist and not a Roman Catholic. Therefore, I am not in communion with the church that wrote the Nicene Creed. As I have already demonstrated, the text of the Canons of the Nicean Council confirms that it was a council of the Catholic Church with a capital C.”
No you have not “demonstrated” that the Church who wrote the Nicean Creed was the Catholic Church with a “capital C.” This is as ridiculous as someone coming into a comment forum and asserting “I have demonstrated that the Catholic Church is who they claim to be.” I don’t care if folks believe the Roman Catholic Church is the Church that’s in true apostolic succession with Nicea or whether it’s the Eastern Orthodox or some other One True Church. But I know that it is utterly contentious notion among the sects and is not something you simply go into a comment forum with and “demonstrate” with a few lines.
I will say this: I’ve discussed and debated this issue for some time with religious believers of various stripes and 19/20 orthodox evangelical or reformed Protestants I meet argue they are in communion with the Church that wrote Nicea. Therefore if I claimed as Roman Catholics do, and as you — as that 1/20 outlier have — that this is Roman Catholic propaganda and give all their reasons to “demonstrate” the contrary claim.
They claim the “early Church” wrote the Council of Nicea. And they feel in communion with the “early Church.”
“3. You are quite mistaken to conclude that “the same early Church that formulated these ecumenical creeds also selected the canon that made it into the Bible.” The Canon of Scripture was established long before the Catholic councils ever considered the issue.”
Well I think this depends on how we define “early Church” and “long before.” As I see it, there is not enough time between when Jesus was around 325AD to constitute “long before.”
But perhaps you can do more clarification: Give me a date on which you think the canon was finally selected. If it’s in the link you sent me, please cut and paste that part. Who constituted that Church? And how did that Church differ from the one at Nicea? Are any of the ecumenical creeds associated with the Church that you believe finalized the biblical canon?
LikeLike
“In this sentence, Locke referred to every Christian as being a deist. If he referred to every Christian as a deist, then it is impossible for him to have been defining a Christian Deist as someone distinctly different from other Christians.”
I never said that Locke was doing this. Rather I merely showed how Locke discussed the concepts of Christianity and Deism and how they worked with one another. Locke’s definition of Deism was someone who believes in one God and understands His attributes through nature/reason.
This was a commonly held definition of deism during that time period. It not exactly like Thomas Paine’s; but it did influence Paine somewhat where Paine recognizes the “Deism” of every religion when he wrote:
“Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man’s creed.”
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/paine-deism.asp
LikeLike
So let me reinforce WHY I cited John Locke on “Christian Deism”; it was to “demonstrate” that there is no ONE “accurate” definition of Deism. Rather, there are multiple, competing concepts and understandings.
LikeLike
Bill F wrote: “Yes, I am a Baptist and not a Roman Catholic. Therefore, I am not in communion with the church that wrote the Nicene Creed.”
To the extent that this is an in-house discussion of how to do history, I’ll just remain in my armchair and watch. BTW, I think the discussion is quite interesting. But, as a reader of history, the above position is not a selling point. It strikes me as quirky.
But, beyond the confines of this discussion, do Baptists typically take this position? Do they say, well, the RCC and not “my” church wrote the Nicene creed? Do they trace their continuing church only through various baptistic sects as far back as they go? I wonder if Mark is reading.
LikeLike
MM, wait wait. You need to explain to the good folks here, how come it is that Varoom Froome is almost 4 minutes better than everyone else. I’d do it but then you’d say I’m just mooning folks. Truth only today , thank you very much. German stroooooooooooooong. I blitz the English for fun.
LikeLike
Sean, I’m just not tracking. Is the Tour I see London I see deFrance going on now? And some German on roids is way ahead? I don’t watch long races of any kind, be they marathons, NASCAR or the TDF.
But rumor has it that Lance is doing RAGBRAI this year. I have been told that the last time he rode across Iowa it was on a mountain bike, which makes some sense since he would be awfully lonely in front otherwise.
LikeLike
I see what you’re doing there Johann. McQuaid taught you that. Yes, the Germans have showed up they have come to terrorize the French yet again and take pot shots at the English seeing that they’re abroad anyway. The ‘Mericans are being represented by a guy in argyle and pork chops and being laughed at by the rest of the old country for taking the whole droge thing so seriously. ” Ve vere jus keeedin ju yankees so verklemmt”. Ack.
LikeLike
You know me, Sean, I’m all bright-eyed, optimistic and trusting but I remember the first time I knew something was up. The USA lady swimmers showed up and looked like your next door neighbor, albeit long-limbed and sleek. Then the German women showed up with shoulders as big as cantaloupes and five o’clock shadow. I carefully studied an old picture of them and I could swear that’s you with a syringe standing behind them.
LikeLike
Sean, here are your gals: http://therugbycity.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/1976-east-german-swim-team.png
LikeLike
M&M, my guess is that what is meant here is that our Baptist simply means that he’s not in fellowship with the church he thinks authored the Nicene, namely the RCC. But since there was no RCC as we understand it now when it was written, we have to wonder. As far as Baptist ecclesiology, it tends to be more or less “wherever two or more are gathered in his name,” as opposed to Reformed ecclesiology which is the three marks. It’s not hard to see how an informal and spiritualist ecclesiology and the Nicene remark coincide.
LikeLike
Meester Mann, ju are meestaking. Vhat ju C is perfectly healthy gurls who receive extra testosterone flush at burth. I only geeve vitamen shot.
LikeLike
More Vitamens
LikeLike
“”But, as a reader of history, the above position is not a selling point. It strikes me as quirky.
“But, beyond the confines of this discussion, do Baptists typically take this position? Do they say, well, the RCC and not ‘my’ church wrote the Nicene creed?”
What I’ve observed is that many non and anti-Trinitarians argue this point to try and “blame” the doctrine of the Trinity which they reject on Roman Catholic corruption.
So this sentiment would resonate with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. And ALSO the unitarians like John Adams of America’s Founding era.
Adams could be quite bitter and sarcastic when he expressed such sentiments as:
“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:
“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.
LikeLike
Likewise the Quakers who don’t have a creed and believe in the Trinity but downplay its importance as a non-negotiable doctrine of Christianity might sympathize with the notion that the Roman Catholic Church and not “their” Church is responsible for Nicea.
LikeLike
Okay, Jon. Perhaps I can make this a little more clear.
1. When I said that I have demonstrated that the church which wrote the Nicene Creed was the Catholic Church, I was referring to the internal evidence that I presented from the Canons of the Nicene Council. Those canons identify the authors of the Nicene Creed as a group of churches calling themselves the Catholic Church and stating that they have beliefs which are uniquely different from the beliefs of other denominations of Christian churches. If the authors of the Nicene Creed considered themselves to be representative of the catholic (universal) church, then they would have included those other denominations within the catholic name. That they did not do this proves that the authors of the Nicene Creed was the Catholic Church rather than the catholic church. Do you have an alternative explanation for this internal evidence?
2. How much time have you spent writing responses to me to tell me that you don’t have time to read my book? The entire thing is just under 11,000 words, and the average adult could read it in about half an hour. But if you really don’t have half an hour to spare, then I am perfectly find with you not reading it. My only request is that you not spend any time telling me that the argument in my book is wrong until after you find the time to actually read the book. Is that really too much to ask?
3. I suppose I shouldn’t have expected you to waste time following a link either, and I apologize for being in too much of a rush to copy and paste a quote. Here is a brief excerpt from the link which I previously provided:
Early Christians in other parts of the world received certain books and translated them into their native tongues. Evidence from the earliest versions of the New Testament (the Old Syriac, Old Latin, and Coptic versions) shows what books were accepted in the second century. The Old Syriac version is the translation from Greek into the Syriac (Aramean) language of Syria and the northern part of Mesopotamia. It contained all the New Testament books with the exception of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation (McGarvey, 1974, I:34, 78). The Old Latin version was the African translation of the Bible into Latin during the second century; it lacked only Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter (I:34-35, 79-80). The Coptic (Egyptian) version of the New Testament existed in two dialects: Sahidic, used in Upper Egypt, and Bohairic, used in Lower Egypt. Both of these Coptic versions included all twenty-seven books of the New Testament, though they sometimes placed Revelation in a separate volume, as if they doubted its canonical status (I:35-36, 77-78). In speaking of the Old Syriac and Old Latin versions, McGarvey said:
“Consequently we find the existence of every book of the New Testament except II Peter attested by translations as early as the middle of the second century. They were translated because they were the authoritative books of the churches, and they were authoritative because the churches believed them to have come from the apostolic hands. Is it possible that these churches could have been totally mistaken about such facts when the interval had been so short?” (I:80).
Moreover, 2 Peter, which was found in neither the Old Latin nor the Old Syriac versions, was found in both the Coptic Sahidic and Coptic Bohairic versions of the New Testament—showing that it was accepted by the early Egyptian Christians. Even the councils of the Catholic Church, which added the Apocrypha into the canon of the Old Testament, listed only the accepted twenty-seven books as canonical in the New Testament. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) accepted them; and the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), the Sixth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419), and the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) reaffirmed this (Bruce, 1988, pp. 232-233,247). The very councils that added books to the Old Testament refused to add anything to the New Testament beyond the twenty-seven inspired, commonly accepted books.
4. Your actual words were, “Here is John Locke on Christian Deism.” If you wish to change your statement to “This is ‘how Locke discussed the concepts of Christianity and Deism and how they worked with one another,'” then I think that we would find ourselves in a rare state of agreement.
LikeLike
Mike,
Thank you for posting your comment. I can understand how my statement could be confusing especially if you have not studied the history of the conflicts within the early church. One of the best sources for understanding these conflicts and the distinction between the baptistic churches and the Catholic Church is the book A History of the Baptists by John T. Christian. The entire book is available online from multiple sources, and the third chapter presents an excellent overview of the differences which arose among the various branches of the early church.
Most of those who opposed the Catholic Church during this period were given the derisive name of Anabaptists, and the practices of many of today’s baptists can be traced back to these churches. Here is what Mr. Christian wrote of one of those groups known particularly as the Novatianists:
On account of the purity of their lives they were called the Cathari, that is, the pure. “What is still more,” says Mosheim, “they rebaptized such as came over to them from the Catholics” (Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History I. p. 203. New York, 1871). Since they baptized those who came to them from other communions they were called Anabaptists. The fourth Lateran Council decreed that these rebaptizers should be punished by death. Accordingly, Albanus, a zealous minister, and others, were punished with death. They were, says Robinson, “trinitarian Baptists.” They held to the independence of the churches; and recognized the equality of all pastors in respect to dignity and authority.
In one of my previous comments, I incorrectly identified the Cathari mentioned in the Canons of Nicea as Christian dualists. There actually were Christian dualists who were called by this name, but they did not come on the scene until the middle ages. According to Mr. Christian, the Cathari which were in existence at the time of the Council of Nicea were among the churches of the baptistic tradition. Thus the Canon recognizing the Cathari as Christians who were not members of the Catholic Church reveals a distinction between not just the Cathari and the Catholics but also between the baptistic churches and the Catholics. As a Baptist, I am much more in communion with the churches who were opposed to the Catholic Church at this time than with the Catholics.
LikeLike
“Those canons identify the authors of the Nicene Creed as a group of churches calling themselves the Catholic Church and stating that they have beliefs which are uniquely different from the beliefs of other denominations of Christian churches.”
I make a big concession here: I don’t consider myself an expert on Nicea. But it’s my understanding that yes, these group of churches or factions were indeed stating they had beliefs different from other denominations whom they were trying to anathematize. Primarily it was the Arians, but not limited to them.
“If the authors of the Nicene Creed considered themselves to be representative of the catholic (universal) church, then they would have included those other denominations within the catholic name.”
As in Arians ought to be included in the catholic (universal) church?
“That they did not do this proves that the authors of the Nicene Creed was the Catholic Church rather than the catholic church. Do you have an alternative explanation for this internal evidence?”
I don’t think your conclusion follows from your premises.
I understand the argument, in fact, unlike the Calvinists here and like our friend Tom Van Dyke, I actually kind of sympathize with it, that the Roman Catholic Church makes the best case for being in true apostolic succession with the Church that wrote the Nicene Creed and therefore being in communion with that Church.
But I also understand that capital O Orthodox, Anglicans, and most reformed and evangelical Protestants who accept the notion of a small c catholic universal church feel in communion with the Church that wrote the Nicene Creed and have their own arguments as to why they, and not the Church of Rome, are more authentically in communion with that church.
I’m not sure if we need to retread the arguments here. But ultimately I’m convinced that the early Church that wrote Nicea was “catholic” or “universal” in a small c sense and all those who claim communion with it beyond the Roman Catholics have valid competing reasons for their claims.
LikeLike
“Your actual words were, ‘Here is John Locke on Christian Deism.’ If you wish to change your statement to “This is ‘how Locke discussed the concepts of Christianity and Deism and how they worked with one another,”‘ then I think that we would find ourselves in a rare state of agreement.”
I think “John Locke on Christian Deism” is close enough for rock & roll. If it’s not, I’ll let others make up their own minds.
LikeLike
“2. How much time have you spent writing responses to me to tell me that you don’t have time to read my book? The entire thing is just under 11,000 words, and the average adult could read it in about half an hour. But if you really don’t have half an hour to spare, then I am perfectly find with you not reading it. My only request is that you not spend any time telling me that the argument in my book is wrong until after you find the time to actually read the book. Is that really too much to ask?”
Yes you are asking for too much because you are asking for far more than a 1/2. Let me repeat, I’ve already read LOTS from you. And based on what I am familiar with from you, you have been answered in the link I posted here July 10, 2013 at 9:02 am and I feel just in claiming your thesis is “wrong” based on that information.
This is why you are asking for more than 1/2 hour of my time; you are what is being described in this article.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/05/gary-north/the-tar-baby-factor/
LikeLike
My favorite line from Dr. North’s article:
“Now, he expects you to refute him. No, he demands that you refute him. Can you refute him to his satisfaction? It would have been easier for the Pope to have persuaded Luther that he had it all wrong.”
LikeLike
I’ll even edit my above comment to throw Mr. Fortenberry a bone:
“And based on what I am familiar with from you, you have been answered in the link I posted here July 10, 2013 at 9:02 am and I feel just in claiming your thesis is “wrong” based on that information.”
I’ll change “wrong” to “utterly contentious.”
I don’t have a problem with a more generous Lockean definition of “Christianity” that holds if you believe Jesus is Messiah, whether you are a Trinitarian, Arian, Socinian or something else, you are a “Christian.” I think it’s a valid an understanding of “Christianity” just like the “Mere Christianity”/”Nicene Minimum” test is.
One problem I observe with Mr. Fortenberry is when I start testing his thesis with questions like “Are Mormons Christians?” or “Is Barack Obama a Christian?” his test for “Christianity” starts going from more simple to more complicated in trying to distance folks that he doesn’t want in his “Christian” club.
LikeLike
You’re overlooking something here, Jon. I’m actually requesting that you not respond. I engage in these discussions to test and refine my positions. If you’re not willing to read those positions, then I’d really prefer that you not say anything about them. You are respected well enough that others reading your comments are likely to assume that you have read the things that you speak of, and they will be less likely to read my work for themselves thus depriving me of very valuable critiques.
LikeLike
“You are respected well enough that others reading your comments are likely to assume that you have read the things that you speak of, and they will be less likely to read my work for themselves thus depriving me of very valuable critiques.”
I have read the things that I speak of. I’ve read many of your words.
If you want them to read your stuff, nothing is stopping you from linking to or copying and pasting a “more complete” set of your words than those with which I am familiar.
LikeLike
How do we know that vd, t is not Robert Tracinski?
LikeLike
I approve your revisiting old posts
if there is no life left in the old, what would be the point of this blog
LikeLike
thanks, mcmark. Without Facebook, I need other outlets.
LikeLike
you were on fb and repented, or were never on?
i am looking for an old blog post in which you reacted to Rod Dreher
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/07/why-bother-with-christianity/
LikeLike
mcmark, is this it?
LikeLike