Increasing Learning
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
  • Public Speaking
  • Contact Us

Guest Post: Dr. Gregg Frazer on the Correct Use of Quotations

8/6/2014

55 Comments

 
Picture
Mr. Fortenberry has asked me to explain to his readers something of how I handle quotes as evidence.  Contrary to popular belief (and to undergraduate education), the emphasis in graduate programs and in the process of earning a PhD degree is not on information transfer or indoctrination.  The emphasis is on the proper methods for doing one’s own research.  PhDs are expected to contribute to the academic world – to write the books used by others; so one is taught how to appropriately handle evidence and what counts as evidence.  Contrary to what those who have never attended graduate school say, PhD students are not taught what to think, but how to properly treat competing and conflicting sources of information.


A critical and primary component of proper evaluation of sources is context. Just as one would not properly say that a profane person who exclaimed “J…. C…..!” in an argument at a ball game believed in Christ simply because he uttered the word, simply printing the word at some time in some context does not necessarily indicate belief in Christ, either.

When I say that the key founders did not talk about Christ, I am not saying (and don’t say) that they never used the word at any time in their lives.  I am not saying that they never printed the word “Christ” at any point or in any context.  I am saying it in the same sense that I say that “my wife does not eat fish” – it is not that she has never eaten fish at any time or under any circumstance in her life; it is that she does not eat fish as a matter of normal/general practice.  It is in the sense that I would say that “my pastor does not lie.”  Since he is a human being, I assume that he has lied at some point in his life (probably several times) – but it is not inaccurate to say that he does not lie; it reflects what he “does” (his regular practice) and not what he may have “done” on isolated occasions under certain circumstances. 

If one digs deeply enough, as Mr. Fortenberry has done, one can find examples of each of the key founders printing the word “Christ” – but that does not mean that it always (or even usually) reflects their own thinking or initiative or chosen vocabulary.  And it does not mean – in my usage of the phrase – that they talked about Christ. Talking about Christ in the context in which I say it is about talking about the Christ – talking about Him in a way that indicates that He is the Christ – as opposed to just an extraordinary man. That depends on context.

If someone merely quotes someone else talking about Christ, that does not tell us anything about what the person doing the quoting believes.  If someone is raised in an orthodox environment and only mentions Christ as a young man, but as an adult at the time of the Founding says contrary things, the original quote tells us little about what he believed as “a founder.”  If someone reports the subject of a conversation in which someone else mentioned the word “Christ,” that tells us nothing about the views of the reporter – especially when, in his commentary on the event, he expresses heretical views of his own about Jesus.  If someone is defending a pastor and reports what the pastor taught, that tells us nothing about the beliefs of the defender.  If, in that same situation, the defender uses the language of the judges/jurors to try to favorably influence them, that tells us nothing about the views of the defender.  If, in more than 20,000 pages of someone’s writings, there is only one reference to “Jesus” or “Christ” and that is not in the person’s handwriting, but in the handwriting of an aide of his who was a Christian, that tells us little about that person’s belief in Christ.  Use of the word “divine” must also be evaluated in context because in 18th century common usage, “divine” also meant simply “preeminently gifted or extraordinarily excellent” (like some people even today refer to symphonies or desserts as “divine” or to Bette Midler as “the divine Miss M”).  It was also a common term for a merely human representative of God, such as pastors.  When a 21st-century evangelical sees the word “divine,” he/she automatically assumes a reference to God – but not so in the 18th century. This is context.  In the case of one of the key founders, quotes given in which he says “Christ” and even expresses belief in Christ actually make my point: he does not do so until after he has a conversion experience and is born again (long after he was a “founder”).

As a general rule, the public statements and pronouncements of politicians sensitive to public approval are not as reliable indicators of true belief as private statements which they did not expect the public to see.  Like politicians today, they often had aides who wrote public documents.   They wrote their own private correspondence, however, and, depending on the recipient, usually had no reason to hide their true beliefs.  On numerous occasions, key founders aware of the heterodoxy they expressed in a letter, instructed the recipients of correspondence to return or to burn the letters to keep them from the public eye.  Surely we are all aware of the propensity of politicians to “tickle the ears” of the public in order to become or remain popular – the key founders were no exception; they were not gods or demi-gods, they were merely political men (albeit much better ones than we have today).

Finally, for many people, “Christ” is simply Jesus’ last name.  For them, saying or writing “Jesus Christ” does not reflect belief in Jesus as the Christ.  In the minds of some who see “Christ” as Jesus’ last name, simply referring to “Christ” doing or saying something could simply be like me referring to “Fortenberry” doing or saying something – referring to someone by their last name (which is common practice when discussing someone’s views/teachings). It all depends on context.

You, as a reader, may (with Mr. Fortenberry) not find any of this persuasive. In my experience, that is particularly true of those who really want to believe something.  And, of course, I could be wrong; I do not claim infallibility.  I approach texts with my training as a professional; but I am a human being and, therefore, subject to making errors. 

You can, of course, disagree with me.  I certainly disagree with the conclusions drawn by many professional historians. I disagree strongly with those who claim that the founders were virtually all deists or secularists who wanted to erect a wall of separation and remove religion from the public square. The evidence tells me that there were a number of Christians among the founders, but not among the key founders (those who had the greatest impact).  The evidence further tells me that even those Christians who were among the founders did not intend to create a Christian nation.  The key founders wanted religion to have an important public role in society, but not necessarily Christianity – any religion would do because they believed that all religions promote morality, which was their public concern. Conversely, I can find from the evidence only one deist among the founders – and that only if I widen the net of “founders” very wide.  And the evidence tells me that no one intended to create a strictly secular nation, either.

Mr. Fortenberry and I have both severely criticized a recently published book that has garnered far more attention than it deserves.  We clearly agree on the quality and application of the evidence cited by that author in that book – we just disagree concerning much of the evidence on the other end of the spectrum. 
____________________________________________________________

I would like to thank Dr. Gregg Frazer for this guest post enlightening us on the proper method for using quotations as evidence in historical research.  Personally, I could have done without his condescending assumption that neither I nor my readers have any experience in graduate programs as well as the whole "look at me; I'm a professional" part, but I suppose that was to be expected.  I am entirely grateful, however, for Gregg's insistence that we faithfully adhere to the context when we use quotations as evidence in our debates.  I only wish that he had been as careful to follow his own advice.

I would like to invite my readers to investigate this particular contention between Gregg and myself and to determine which of us is using quotations in a manner that is faithful to their contexts.  Here are the three articles that I wrote which led up to Gregg's guest post:


Thomas Jefferson Recognized Jesus as the Christ


Gregg Frazer is Still Wrong about the Founders

Frazer, Fortenberry and Franklin

If you would like to read other arguments that I have brought against Gregg's claims, you can check out my short e-book The Founders and the Myth of Theistic Rationalism, search for the name "Frazer" on this website or search for both Fortenberry and Frazer at the American Creation Blog.

55 Comments
BJ Swearer link
8/7/2014 01:00:18 pm

This post was quite painful to read, mostly due to the underlying tone of arrogance and condescension evident throughout. The first paragraph is quite irrelevant to the actual stated purpose of the piece and rather seems to have been included by Frazer as an attempted appeal to [his own] authority.

While I do not yet have my PhD, I have nearly completed my graduate studies in American History & Government. I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Frazer would seriously argue that the reason why a person like myself would disagree with so many of his flawed interpretations regarding the religious beliefs of the so-called “key Founders”, is the result of “improper” training. I must also ask whether Mr. Frazer actually believes that only those who hold academic titles and degrees are capable of being able to “properly” engage in historical research and analysis, as he seems to imply. Though I have one degree and am about to earn my second, I wouldn’t dare suggest that this means I’m more competent in the subject of American History than all those who do not hold any formal degrees.

Contrary to what Frazer asserts, the purpose of graduate school is not to educate people how to "appropriately handle evidence and what counts as evidence" or "how to properly treat competing and conflicting sources of information." These are skills that one should have already developed by the time they graduated high school, or at the latest during their undergraduate studies. Rather, the purpose of graduate school is for individuals to prove that they have mastered a particular topic, demonstrating an excellent command of facts and correct understanding of that said topic.

Once I got past the unnecessary opening paragraph, I actually agree completely with Frazer’s main argument that context is a “critical and primary component of proper evaluation of sources.” But herein lies the ironic reality that while Frazer speaks about the importance of considering words in their proper context, throughout a substantial portion of his work, he is the one who often fails to measure up to his own standards of scrutiny. Bill Fortenberry has written a few articles which evidence this, as well a short book in which he thoroughly refutes many of the claims Frazer has made about these “key Founders” and their personal religious beliefs.

For example, Frazer has previously argued that individuals like Jefferson and Franklin had never actually used the name “Christ” in reference to Jesus. Fortenberry has, in numerous instances, demonstrably proved this claim to utterly false. Now in this article Frazer attempts to say that he didn’t actually mean what he said, but rather he meant something else. Frazer even concedes that yes, these particular Founders actually did use the term “Christ” in reference to Jesus, but in quite a bizarre manner he argues that this “does not mean – in my usage of the phrase – that they talked about Christ.” This would be as illogical and irrational as arguing that when I talked about President Obama, by referring to him as “Obama”, I did not actually talk about Barrack Obama. Of course I did!

When Franklin, Jefferson, Washington or Adams talk about the historical person called “Jesus of Nazareth”, the “Messiah”, “Jesus the Christ”, “Jesus Christ”, or simply “Jesus”, they were all talking about the same exact person that Frazer is talking about when he himself uses the very same names, titles and distinctions. When two people describe an apple, one might note that it is red, but the other might say it is green. One person might consider it sweet, while the other sour. The reality is that the apple was and is an apple, and both observers are recognizing the existence of this apple, despite their different observations and conclusions about the nature of said apple. Just because a Founder might not have believed that Jesus was God incarnate, that doesn’t mean that when he references “Jesus Christ” or “Christ”, he is referred to a different person than a Founder who did believe that Jesus was God incarnate. They are both talking about the exact same person, albeit their different understandings of Jesus’ nature.

What Frazer is actually doing and should just plainly state that he is doing, is that he has different beliefs about who Jesus was than those beliefs held by these Founders. But by essentially employing this common phrasing technique of arguing that “Billy believes in a different Jesus than Bobby does”, Frazer is being disingenuous.
I agree that it is important to not simply just cherry-pick single instances where a Founder might have used a word like “Christ” or “Jesus” and then argue “oh, that means he was an orthodox Christian.&rdq

Reply
BJ Swearer link
8/7/2014 01:07:22 pm

I agree that it is important to not simply just cherry-pick single instances where a Founder might have used a word like “Christ” or “Jesus” and then argue “oh, that means he was an orthodox Christian.” I’ve not seen any instance where Fortenberry has personally done this. But again, it’s also terribly incorrect to say that “ it doesn’t matter that this person said ‘Christ’ there, because he can’t mean ‘THE Christ’ because I’ve pre-determined that this person was not a real or orthodox Christian.”

Regarding the reliability of public writings compared to private writings, I agree with Frazer that later is more reliable as an accurate expression of the writer’s true sentiments. Interestingly though, any decent search through the private writings of the “key Founders” reveals that many of them were much more orthodox Christians than Frazer claims. If their private writings evidence more orthodox beliefs, say about the Holy Spirit, then when somebody like Adams refers to the Holy Spirit in a Thanksgiving Proclamation, the public writing only further confirms the reliability of what was said in private.

“Finally, for many people, ‘Christ’ is simply Jesus’ last name. “ It’s one thing to argue that individuals had different ideas of what exactly Jesus being “the Christ” or “the Messiah” actually meant, but to assert that these 18th Century thinkers were simply using the term as if it was Jesus’ last name is nonsensical. What then, does that mean when a person (John Locke, for example) refers to Jesus as both “Jesus of Nazareth” and “Jesus Christ”, but then also refers to Him as the “Messiah”? Clearly, he’s talking about the same person with the same understandings of the titles used.

The final paragraph is merely a bunch of assertions with no evidence to support them, and really has nothing to do with the central point of this post (keeping things in context).

Reply
lee link
8/11/2014 10:38:34 pm

@ “Finally, for many people, ‘Christ’ is simply Jesus’ last name." It would be nonsensical if Frazer was actually referring those "the 18th thinkers." I understood it as referring to people in general. His main point about the use of the "Christ" by his theistic rationalist founders is that they used it out of convention, like many academics today. Historians often allude to Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul, St. Augustine, or the Prophet Muhammad without implying any affirmation at all (or denial for that matter) that Jesus was the Christ, Paul an apostle, Augustine a saint, or Muhammad a prophet.

BJ Swearer link
8/7/2014 01:07:41 pm

I agree that it is important to not simply just cherry-pick single instances where a Founder might have used a word like “Christ” or “Jesus” and then argue “oh, that means he was an orthodox Christian.” I’ve not seen any instance where Fortenberry has personally done this. But again, it’s also terribly incorrect to say that “ it doesn’t matter that this person said ‘Christ’ there, because he can’t mean ‘THE Christ’ because I’ve pre-determined that this person was not a real or orthodox Christian.”

Regarding the reliability of public writings compared to private writings, I agree with Frazer that later is more reliable as an accurate expression of the writer’s true sentiments. Interestingly though, any decent search through the private writings of the “key Founders” reveals that many of them were much more orthodox Christians than Frazer claims. If their private writings evidence more orthodox beliefs, say about the Holy Spirit, then when somebody like Adams refers to the Holy Spirit in a Thanksgiving Proclamation, the public writing only further confirms the reliability of what was said in private.

“Finally, for many people, ‘Christ’ is simply Jesus’ last name. “ It’s one thing to argue that individuals had different ideas of what exactly Jesus being “the Christ” or “the Messiah” actually meant, but to assert that these 18th Century thinkers were simply using the term as if it was Jesus’ last name is nonsensical. What then, does that mean when a person (John Locke, for example) refers to Jesus as both “Jesus of Nazareth” and “Jesus Christ”, but then also refers to Him as the “Messiah”? Clearly, he’s talking about the same person with the same understandings of the titles used.

The final paragraph is merely a bunch of assertions with no evidence to support them, and really has nothing to do with the central point of this post (keeping things in context).

Reply
David Scott
8/7/2014 11:40:05 pm

I disagree with your statement about Dr. Frazer's opening comments, specifically in the first paragraph. I agree with you that some people with higher degrees often feel superior to others and not everyone with "just an undergraduate degree" is inferior. I know many history buffs with no degrees that, given the proper training and tools, could write and research just as well as anyone with a PhD. I found Dr. Frazer's opening comments to be insightful as opposed to demeaning. I don't think he was trying to come off as superior but to explain how academia works. It's more of a defense mechanism because many critics, usually conservative evangelicals believe that all education (except for home schooling) is indoctrination. I've read many articles about this. Dr. Frazer was just pointing out the fact that it is not indoctrination, but standard protocol in academia. As someone who is working on his Master's Thesis and will finish in a year, BJ, you should be aware of the protocols.

Reply
BJ Swearer link
8/20/2014 06:47:11 pm

You completely missed the argue which was my point in that what he says about "how academia works" is not how all academia works or how it should work. And yes, I am aware of the protocols. By pointing out that I should be aware of the protocols, you've implied that my experience should have produced this awareness, and yet you're contesting that what I've shared indicates that I don't know what I'm talking about. What Frazer speaks of, in regards to the "purpose of graduate school" is just not accurate.

Jon Rowe link
8/11/2014 12:52:41 am

Mr. S.: I'm curious to know where you did your graduate studies.

Reply
BJ Swearer link
8/20/2014 06:54:04 pm

Are you asking me or David Scott? If you're asking me, I'm a thesis paper away from finishing the MAHG program at Ashland University (OH). If you're asking David and if he's who I think he is, I believe that somewhere buried under his incessant trolling comments on David Barton's Facebook page, he mentioned that he didn't have any formal education in the field of history at any undergraduate or graduate level.

David
12/23/2014 09:34:15 am

BJ Swearer doesn't know me. He likes to think he knows everything and can answer for other people. I enjoy debate and, unlike you, when the going gets tough, I don't block people and I certainly don't make insensitive or inaccurate comments about them.

David Scott
8/7/2014 11:20:42 pm

My initial impression of this article is this: I appreciate Mr. Fortenberry's decision to allow Dr. Frazer to post here. I'm only going to comment on Dr. Frazer's comments about what it means to have a PhD. In my opinion, it is important to differentiate between someone who has been trained in a specific field and the importance of context. I realize many people know many things (or at least they think they do) about history. I call those people history buffs. However, people with higher degrees in History have spent many, many years on a particular subject; often building on someone else's work, or producing a new theory. In my opinion, it is important to scrutinize people's work through peer review. This is what true historians do. This is what separates history buffs from professionals.

Reply
David Scott
8/7/2014 11:27:24 pm

Also, in my opinion, true historians do not allow their own biases or beliefs to interfere with their analysis of historical evidence. People tend to see things in something based on what they already believe, it's human nature. Good Historians will follow evidence no matter where it leads them. Bad Historians approach a topic, looking for evidence to substantiate their already deeply held beliefs, latching onto anything that is "evidence" and reporting it as fact.

Reply
Tom Van Dyke link
8/11/2014 09:09:21 am

Careful about consensus views.

"Left unchecked, an academic field can become a shared reality that blinds members to important scientific questions"

http://ow.ly/3oabEd

And that goes for peer review as well, which can often just be confirmation bias.

<i>The peer review process likely offers much less protection against error when the community of peers is politically homogeneous. Confirmation biases would lead reviewers to work extra hard to find flaws with papers whose conclusions they dislike, and to be more permissive about methodological issues when they endorse the conclusions. In this way, certain assumptions, theories, and findings can become the entrenched wisdom in a field, not because they are correct but because they have consistently undergone less critical scrutiny. When most people in a field share the same confirmation bias, that field is at a higher risk of reaching unjustified conclusions. The most obvious cure for this problem is to increase the viewpoint diversity of the field. Nobody has found a way to eradicate confirmation bias in individuals, but we can diversify the field to the point where individual viewpoint biases begin to cancel each other out.</i>

So I would drop the "PhD" business and just get to the issues.

Reply
Tom Van Dyke link
8/11/2014 09:13:24 am

FTR, although I enjoy the boldness and thoroughness of Fortenberry's outside-the-lines approach to history, in this case I'm rather with Frazer.

<i>If one digs deeply enough, as Mr. Fortenberry has done, one can find examples of each of the key founders printing the word “Christ” – but that does not mean that it always (or even usually) reflects their own thinking or initiative or chosen vocabulary.</i>

We would all be inclined to use "Allah" when speaking to Muslims, if it's OK with them [It's not, in Malaysia.] as an effort at common ground and congenial discussion.

To the specifics, I remain unmoved that either Jefferson or Franklin ever accepted Jesus as The Christ, the Messiah, or even the Bible as Divine Writ [although I believe Franklin was open to the possibility].

As for Frazer's assertion

<i>even those Christians who were among the founders did not intend to create a Christian nation. </i>

I don't even know what that means. Even the much-maligned [and justly so] David Barton only goes so far with that

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=23909

<blockquote> In fact, historically speaking, it can be irrefutably demonstrated that Biblical Christianity in America produced many of the cherished traditions still enjoyed today, including:

A republican rather than a theocratic form of government;
The institutional separation of church and state (as opposed to today’s enforced institutional secularization of church and state);
Protection for religious toleration and the rights of conscience;
A distinction between theology and behavior, thus allowing the incorporation into public policy of religious principles that promote good behavior but which do not enforce theological tenets (examples of this would include religious teachings such as the Good Samaritan, The Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc., all of which promote positive civil behavior but do not impose ecclesiastical rites); and
A free-market approach to religion, thus ensuring religious diversity.
Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations 12 but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists.</blockquote>

To the entire meta-discussion, although their personal beliefs are of marginal academic interest, I question anyone to explain how America would be different if the Founders believed Jesus is part of the Trinity or just the Messiah. In either case, the Bible is God's word and you go from there.

A difference which makes no difference <i>is</i> no difference.

Reply
OFT
8/11/2014 10:52:20 am

If the framers only wanted Christians leading the country, how can it be that they did not want to form a Christian nation? How could they not establish Christianity in the nation, yet establish Christianity in the States? If the framers reject who Jesus specifically claimed to be (Jn 8:56-59), you get a different Christ, which is not Christianity.

Reply
TVD
8/11/2014 07:37:41 pm

If Jesus is the Messiah, that makes the Gospels true whether or not he's Trinity, so call it what you will, OFT.

OTOH, you might be on to something here--how much the Founders accepted or rejected Paul and his Epistles.

"Christianity."

You and Bill mebbe ought to hit that angle hard and mebbe leave the rest...

lee link
8/11/2014 10:47:26 pm

We have concurred in the past that Barton's overall claims are fairly modest, but that the devil is in the details. Even in the article and the block quote you provide, Barton executes a subtle shift. He starts out describing a Christian nation, but when he lists those bullet points, he refers to BIBLICAL Christianity, by which he probably means evangelical dissenters. The Anglican Church in the South and the Congregationalist chruches in New England made little if any contributions to bullet points 2,3, and 5.

Reply
OFT
8/12/2014 04:50:21 am

This is clearly important in knowing if a founding father or anyone is saved. Jesus as the Messiah may make the gospels true, but there are other essentials pertinent to his person. Jesus clearly and unequivocally claimed to be God ("Before Abraham was, I AM" John 8:58), taking the exact name He gave Moses at the burning bush; the self-existent one. This fact is unnegotiable, and any rejection of it attacks Christ's Deity and the Triune nature of the Godhead, which God the Holy Spirit will not allow. If you have a different Christ, you have a different nature and thus a different mediator, by which is the only way to access God, since He dwells in unapproachable light. I say all this to speak of rejection.

Lee,

The problem with Barton, if there is one, revolves around his omission to provide supporting details for his claims, which gives secularists the ammo to attack him, not to mention his crusade to take on Thomas Jefferson, who attacked the Apostle Paul with a vengeance. Where are the bullet points you mention?

OFT
8/12/2014 04:50:40 am

This is clearly important in knowing if a founding father or anyone is saved. Jesus as the Messiah may make the gospels true, but there are other essentials pertinent to his person. Jesus clearly and unequivocally claimed to be God ("Before Abraham was, I AM" John 8:58), taking the exact name He gave Moses at the burning bush; the self-existent one. This fact is unnegotiable, and any rejection of it attacks Christ's Deity and the Triune nature of the Godhead, which God the Holy Spirit will not allow. If you have a different Christ, you have a different nature and thus a different mediator, by which is the only way to access God, since He dwells in unapproachable light. I say all this to speak of rejection.

Lee,

The problem with Barton, if there is one, revolves around his omission to provide supporting details for his claims, which gives secularists the ammo to attack him, not to mention his crusade to take on Thomas Jefferson, who attacked the Apostle Paul with a vengeance. Where are the bullet points you mention?

Jon Rowe link
8/12/2014 09:19:54 am

OFT wrote:

"This is clearly important in knowing if a founding father or anyone is saved. Jesus as the Messiah may make the gospels true, but there are other essentials pertinent to his person. Jesus clearly and unequivocally claimed to be God ("Before Abraham was, I AM" John 8:58), taking the exact name He gave Moses at the burning bush; the self-existent one. This fact is unnegotiable, and any rejection of it attacks Christ's Deity and the Triune nature of the Godhead, which God the Holy Spirit will not allow. If you have a different Christ, you have a different nature and thus a different mediator, by which is the only way to access God, since He dwells in unapproachable light. I say all this to speak of rejection."

There isn't a shred of evidence that Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin either 1. believed Jesus 2nd Person in the Trinity, and Incarnate God; or 2. considered themselves "born again." And there is much reason to doubt each of them believed in either/both of these two points.

Does that make them "not Christians"? Or "Christians" who are not saved? That's above my pay grade to say.

But, make of this what you will. And call them what you will. Personally I like "theistic rationalist," "Christian-Deist" and small u "unitarian" equally. Though all three terms arguably have their issues.

Lee link
8/12/2014 09:19:02 pm

OFT: I do not see a "reply" link to your question, so I will post one here. If you follow TVD link to Barton's page, the bullet points are the sentences in TVD's block quote that begin with 2 The institutional separation, 3.protection for religious toleration, and 5. a free market approach. The Congregationalists and Anglicans did not in general support these "cherished traditions." That is why Barton qualifies his claim that these traditions were produced by BIBLICAL Christianity--implying that the Congregationalists and Anglicans do not qualify. Perhaps by biblical Christianity Barton means those Christians who supported the "cherished traditions" he lists above. That is a new and interesting test of "orthodoxy."

lee link
8/11/2014 10:49:21 pm

We have concurred in the past that Barton's overall claims are fairly modest, but that the devil is in the details. Even in the article and the block quote you provide, Barton executes a subtle shift. He starts out describing a Christian nation, but when he lists those bullet points, he refers to BIBLICAL Christianity, by which he probably means evangelical dissenters. The Anglican Church in the South and the Congregationalist churches in New England made little if any contributions to bullet points 2,3, and 5.

Reply
OFT
8/11/2014 09:54:19 am

Most so-called historians attempting to understand a framers' true faith in Christ are handcuffed at the start, because they haven't gone to seminary or seriously studied the Scriptures exegetically. Seminary teaches context, which enables someone to point out where a framer is off on orthodoxy, but Dr. Frazer goes too far, sometimes just assuming as with Hamilton. Being a Calvinist, Dr. Frazer should know better than to use the idiotic "key founders" bologni. Secularists use that to pigeon hole the narrative. If my memory serves me correctly, he is still calling Thomas Paine a "key founder".

Did Paul have a degree? Did being in the Sanhedrin qualify as a degree? Did James or Jude have a degree? Does the Lord care if someone has a degree? No. He uses whom He wills.

BJ- Jesus' person is his nature. If you have the wrong nature, you get the wrong person.

Reply
Bill Fortenberry
8/12/2014 10:39:23 pm

I appreciate everyone's comments so far, but I would like to pose a question to the group. Several of you have insisted that one cannot be a Christian if he does not hold to a particular view of the Trinity. So far, this has only been asserted as true but not demonstrated to be such. Would anyone care to provide a few quotes from Scripture to show that one must accept a specific view of the Trinity in order to be a Christian?

Personally, I do not think that anyone will be able to do so. In my study, I have found that the only thing necessary to be believed in order for one to be a Christian is stated very clearly in I Corinthians 15 where Paul wrote:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand ... 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."

Thus I hold that all one must believe in order to be a Christian is that Jesus Christ died to pay the full penalty of our sins and that He rose again three days later. Other doctrines such as that of the Trinity are very important, and of the Trinity, I would even say crucial, to a proper understanding of the Scriptures, but I do not see anywhere in the Bible that any other doctrine must be believed in order to obtain forgiveness of sins and become a Christian.

I have written a much longer analysis of this in an essay entitled "The Minimalist Messiah" which can be read at: http://www.increasinglearning.com/the-minimalist-messiah.html

Reply
OFT
8/13/2014 03:02:05 am

Lee: I'm not sure what's up with the reply link; I don't see one either. So I will post the response for you, Jon and Bill.

It's important to note the institutional separation doctrine of the founding is to be understood from the doctrine of Federalism, which would include the historical definition of establishment as laid down in the the churches and the Toleration Act of 1689, not the minority view of James Madison. I don't see the Congregationalists against any of this.

The distinction between theology and behavior was obliterated by Thomas Jefferson for seven years, through his Kaskaskia Treaty.

Jon's wrote: "There isn't a shred of evidence that Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin either 1. believed Jesus 2nd Person in the Trinity, and Incarnate God; or 2. considered themselves "born again."

This is a non sequitur and a red herring all in one, since there isn't a shred of evidence that GW or JM rejected the 2nd Person in the Trinity, and Incarnate God; or 2. considered themselves "born again."

On the contrary, James Madison was a Calvinist, who believed in Predestination and claimed Jesus was God:

"Gospels.

Mat. Ch 1st Pollution[:] Christ did by the power of his Godhead purify our nature from all the pollution of our Ancestors v. 5. &c

"Omnisciency--God's foreknowledge doth not compel, but permits to be done." Acts, ch. II. v. 23.

"Christ's divinity appears by St. John, ch. XX. v. 28."
"Resurrection testified and witnessed by the Apostles. Acts, ch. IV. v. 33."
--Madison's "Notes on Commentary on the Bible" found in The Papers of James Madison, p. 51-59. Vol. I. 16 Mar 1751 - 16 Dec. 1779. Edited by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. 1962, by the University of Chicago Press.

Jon is trying to corner the market by only listing those he believes are on his side. What about the rest?

Many folks keep their faith to themselves.

The evidence of GW being an orthodox Christian is common knowledge that includes the eyewitness testimony of him taking Communion, affirming the bible, reading the bible to his troops, calling Jesus Divine, etc. The only bump in the road that appears to question his orthodoxy is walking out of communion while President that is easily explained by James Hutson in a letter that he has, showing GW did not like the rector, Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, through some event that happened, which is probably the reason he called GW a deist.

Reply
Jon Rowe link
8/13/2014 03:59:47 am

OFT:

My overall general reaction to your "post" is "LOL."

Re the specifics:

"[T]here isn't a shred of evidence that GW or JM rejected the 2nd Person in the Trinity, and Incarnate God; or 2. considered themselves 'born again.'"

Which means what? That GW or JM might have considered themselves esoteric or secret "born again Christians" like someone living under Taliban rule who could get themselves into trouble by affirming such notions?

Lee link
8/13/2014 08:30:00 am

OFT: You are probably more informed that I am on the case of the Congregationalists, but were they not the established church in Massachusetts Bay colony that regularly banished Quaker and Baptist "missionaries" ? And the Act of Toleration of 1689 with its obstacles for dissenting meeting houses hardly established a "free market" approach to religion. Did the authorities in Mass. Bay recognized the Act of Toleration as applying to them? I know that in Virginia, the government fought to stem the tide of Presbyterian and Baptist Churches for a decade, claiming that the Act of Toleration only applied to Britain, not to the colonies.

OFT
8/13/2014 10:21:29 am

The Puritans may have banished anabaptists because of public defiance against magistracies, churches, church covenants, etc. but I'm not sure about baptists during the 18th century. Read James Hutson's book on the heresies of the Quakers, as to the Trinity, etc.

The Anglican Church, being nursing fathers of the colony, had the right to demand obedience to rules regarding meeting houses. it's too bad they had to persecute everyone else. However, many colonists approved it and enjoyed their freedom of conscience.

The congregationalists seem to be well within their rights to establish what they wanted.

OFT
8/13/2014 05:18:17 am

Bill,

I'm sure you are aware of all the scriptures affirming Christ's deity by himself and the Apostles, however this theology isn't explained clearly for us, so we look at theologians like Calvin, and Spurgeon to see if their understanding is harmonious with Scripture and when Jesus says in John 8: 24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Who is the "He" the NT talks about? Jesus specifically claimed equality with the Father and He told the people to only worship God, so why did He allow everyone to worship Him? ""Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Mat. 4:10).

The Holy Spirit acts in concert with the Father and Son, and will convict who the correct person of Christ is as you mention by Paul in 1 Cor 15, and yet Paul calls Christ God.

The view of the Lord's Deity is included in someone's view of the Trinity. They cannot be separated. If you believe one, you must believe the other. They are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, Jesus' deity is mandatory because He claimed to be God and He is the Savior only in that context. He cannot be a savior without being God. And the Arian view can't be true either because Christ would be a different nature, which would be polytheism, as they would be different gods. Since graduating seminary I realize I was wrong about Psalm 2:7. Context must be considered with other scriptures. We can't divorce 1 Cor 15 with everything else. That is eisegesis not exegesis.

The vicarious blood atonement is also mandatory:
"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”(Hebrews 9:22).

If not for the incarnation, only a man would have been the sacrifice and not be sinless. All the essentials are linked together. It would have been nice if Paul explained all this, but he did not. Of course this is just a small bit of information on the subject.

Reply
Bill Fortenberry
8/13/2014 10:06:44 pm

OFT,

John 8:24 is often referenced as a proof text for the idea that one must believe in the deity of Christ in order to be a Christian. Unfortunately, most of those who present this text have not taken the time consider it within irs context. You are on the right track when you ask who the "he" is in this verse, but you neglected to search the context for the answer to that question.

When we do look through the verses preceding verse 24, we can see that the only possible antecedent for the word "he" is found is verse 12 where Jesus claimed to be "the light of the world," ie: the one sent from the father or the Messiah. This claim initiated a dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees which reached its zenith in Jesus' statement in verse 24 "if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Jesus was not claiming that they had to believe that He was God but rather that He was the Messiah, the one sent by the Father.

There are many theologians who argue that Jesus was actually demanding that people accept him as the "I AM" in order to be Christians. They base this claim on the fact that the word "he" is not expressly statwd in the Greek of this passage. It is inserted in the English because the translators realized that it is directly implied by the conatruction of the sentence, but there are still those who claim that Jesus was ref a cskerring to Himself as the I AM.

There are two reasons why this view cannot be true. First, when we compare the reaction of the Jews in verse 25 with their reaction to Jesus saying a short while later, "Before Abraham was I am" (John 8:58), it is immediately obvious that none of those who heard Jesus' statement in verse 24 thought that He was referring to Himself as God. Second, when we compare this verse with John 9:9, we can see that the absence of an explicitly stated "he" after the phrase "I am" cannot be an automatic claim to deity. Thus, I do not see any good reason to assume that John 8:24 presents belief in the Trinity as a necessary requirement of becoming a Christian

However, as I said previously, I do think that the Bible does teach the divinity of Christ and the existence of the Trinity. And I agree with your claim that Jesus could not have provided salvation if He had been merely a man. The Deity of Christ was an essential requirement for Him to fulfill His role, but that does not mean that belief in His deity is an essential requirement for us to benefit from His role.

Bill Fortenberry
8/13/2014 10:07:36 pm

Let me provide a quick illustration. If my wife were to decide to bake a cake for me, she would have to meet certain requirements in order to fulfill that role. For example, she would have to obtain a certain amount of flour and a certain amount of sugar, an egg or two, plus some seasonings, some water or milk and whatever other ingredients are called for by the recipe. Now, when she presents the cake to me, I may come to the conclusion that she only used one cup of flour when she really used two, or I may think that she forgot to include the vanilla when she did not, or I may be uncertain as to whether she used both the yolks and the whites of the eggs or just the whites. All of these things are crucial components of the cake, and if I have the wrong ingredients in my mind, I could be thinking of a recipe which would never produce the cake that I am actually eating, but none of that would change the fact that I am eating the cake that my wife baked for me. The only requirement that is necessary for me to enjoy my wife’s cake is that I accept that she made me a cake and take a bite of it.

Similarly, there were many pre-requisites that Christ had to meet in order to pay for our sins on the cross. He had to be God, to be born of a virgin, to live a sinless life, to be born in Bethlehem, to be tempted by Satan, to preach to Israel, to suffer pain and reproach, to die a sacrificial death, to raise again from the dead, to ascend into heaven, to remain at the throne of the Father, to offer intercessions on our behalf, and much more. All of these things are requirements that Jesus had to meet in order to fulfill His role as the Messiah. However, it is not necessary for us to have an accurate understanding of all of these requirements in order to benefit from His fulfillment of that role. All we have to do is believe that He died for our sins and rose again three days later. That is the only requirement that I have found in Scripture just as the only requirement for me to enjoy my wife’s cake is that I accept it and eat.

OFT
8/15/2014 04:33:50 am

Bill,

I would only say I agree with you as to immediate salvation, but as a person learns and grows as a Christian, as the church, that person cannot deny those truth's in the faith. The word Christian is defined by words and Christianity cannot be defined without the words that make up the definition. John says in John 4:24, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." The truth means there are things that need to be right. Jesus said false Messiah's would be believed, so they believed in a different Christ. And by the way, that text in John 8 is when Jesus was addressing particular people who had believed in Him in some fashion. But one needs to have an accurate belief in Jesus, not just any belief in Jesus in order for the true Christ to be their savior.

You wrote: "First, when we compare the reaction of the Jews in verse 25 with their reaction to Jesus saying a short while later, "Before Abraham was I am" (John 8:58), it is immediately obvious that none of those who heard Jesus' statement in verse 24 thought that He was referring to Himself as God."

Yet, here is the rest of the revelation:

v. 59: Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

It is clear the Jews understood the Messiah to be a man, but they stoned Jesus because He also claimed to be God by the obvious statements He made, as in John 10:

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

No human being is elect and will enter the Kingdom of God by denying the essentials of the person of Jesus Christ.

OFT
8/15/2014 04:34:09 am

Bill,

I would only say I agree with you as to immediate salvation, but as a person learns and grows as a Christian, as the church, that person cannot deny those truth's in the faith. The word Christian is defined by words and Christianity cannot be defined without the words that make up the definition. John says in John 4:24, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." The truth means there are things that need to be right. Jesus said false Messiah's would be believed, so they believed in a different Christ. And by the way, that text in John 8 is when Jesus was addressing particular people who had believed in Him in some fashion. But one needs to have an accurate belief in Jesus, not just any belief in Jesus in order for the true Christ to be their savior.

You wrote: "First, when we compare the reaction of the Jews in verse 25 with their reaction to Jesus saying a short while later, "Before Abraham was I am" (John 8:58), it is immediately obvious that none of those who heard Jesus' statement in verse 24 thought that He was referring to Himself as God."

Yet, here is the rest of the revelation:

v. 59: Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

It is clear the Jews understood the Messiah to be a man, but they stoned Jesus because He also claimed to be God by the obvious statements He made, as in John 10:

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

No human being is elect and will enter the Kingdom of God by denying the essentials of the person of Jesus Christ.

Bill Fortenberry
8/16/2014 12:11:59 pm

OFT,

You have correctly summarized Calvin's doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Notice that I do not refer to it as the biblical doctrine or the Christian doctrine, for I do not accept it as either of these. What you said that, as a Christian grows, he cannot deny the truth's of the faith, you echoed were echoing Calvin's claim that those "Christians" who eventually rejected the truths of the faith really never were Christians to begin with because they did not persevere in the faith.

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin wrote:

"And it is from the same cause, that some persevere to the end, and others decline and fall in the midst of their course. For perseverance itself also is a gift of God, which he bestows not on all men promiscuously, but imparts to whom he pleases. If we inquire the cause of the difference, why some persevere with constancy, and others fail through instability, no other can be found, but that God sustains the former by his power that they perish not, and does not communicate the same strength to the latter, that they may be examples of inconstancy."

http://archive.org/stream/institutesofchri00calv#page/337

Then in his Commentary on Hebrews, Calvin explained further that:

"God indeed favors none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration, and that by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are renewed after his image and receive the earnest of the Spirit in hope of the future inheritance, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts. But I cannot admit that all this is any reason why he should not grant the reprobate also some taste of his grace, why he should not irradiate their minds with some sparks of his light, why he should not give them some perception of his goodness, and in some sort engrave his word on their hearts. Otherwise, where would be the temporal faith mentioned by Mark 4:17? There is therefore some knowledge even in the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes away, either because it did not strike roots sufficiently deep, or because it withers, being choked up."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.xii.ii.html

Thus, Calvin was of the opinion that there were some people to whom God gave enough grace for them to believe the gospel but not enough for them to persevere in it and truly be one of the elect. I suspect that this was the doctrine which sparked Adams famous "Ye will say that I am no Christian" quote. According to many Calvinists, accepting Christ's payment for your sins is not a sufficient guarantee of your place among the elect. As long as you are on this earth, there remains the possibility that you will accept some false doctrine and prove by your lack of perseverance that you aren't really one of the elect after all.

The major flaw in Calvin's doctrine of perseverance is that it simply does not agree with the testimony of Scripture. In the first chapter of Galatians, Paul said that the Galatian believers had "removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." He explained that they were guilty of believing a perverted gospel, and he said that those preaching that gospel should be accursed. Yet, throughout the epistle, Paul consistently referred to the Galatian believers as "brethren" and not as reprobate as Calvin would have identified them. And again, in the eleventh chapter of II Corinthians, Paul spoke of believers being beguiled into believing a corrupt gospel, but he nowhere indicates that they thereby lost their position among the ranks of Christians. He chastised them for their error and pleaded with them to correct it, but he still referred to them as Christians. The same pattern is repeated other places in Ephesians, Hebrews and more. The example of Scripture is clear. Acceptance of false doctrine does not eliminate one from being a Christian

Tom Van Dyke
8/13/2014 08:28:23 am

Remember that rejection of the Trinity was biblical.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith

Questioning the Trinity is an inevitability of the Protestant rejection of the Catholic Church's "magisterium," its [claimed] authority to interpret the scriptures.

[Unitarianism was an intellectual fad around the time of the Founding--within 100 years "unitarianism" rejects the Bible as divine writ in favor of "free-thinking." After that, anything and everything goes.]

Reply
OFT
8/13/2014 10:39:33 am

Rejection of the Trinity was biblical only to heretics. Every argument they bring up is target practice. Questioning the Trinity is only inevitable if you reject Christ's Deity and equality with the Father..

Reply
Tom Van Dyke
8/14/2014 08:00:06 am

Again, judging who interprets the Bible correctly is above the historian's pay grade. And if we go by what's normative, since the majority of Christians worldwide are Catholic, all you Protestants are heretics.

OFT
8/16/2014 06:02:53 am

Tom wrote: "Again, judging who interprets the Bible correctly is above the historian's pay grade. And if we go by what's normative, since the majority of Christians worldwide are Catholic, all you Protestants are heretics."

That interpreting the bible is above an historian's pay grade is your opinion and not necessarily true. God doesn't go by what's normative.

TVD
8/16/2014 07:31:16 am

Then take the sociology option--since you're the minority of Christianity, normatively speaking, you're a heretic.

Have it your way.

BJ Swearer link
8/21/2014 08:13:08 am

It took numerous councils and two additional Creeds before the doctrine of the Trinity became "orthodox" in Christianity. The doctrine itself is not explicitly state in Scripture, but rather developed out of reasoned inferences from Scripture. While I hold that the inferences are correct, one cannot deny the reality teachings about the Christology and of the nature of the Godhead were still heavily debated before Nicea, and the arguments against aren't completely illogical. The initial Lutheran Reformation wasn't the problem, but it did end up opening a can of worms... next thing you know, there's radicalized Protestantism, a revival of Christian Unitarianism (reincarnation of Arianism) and later spawning into Unitarian Universalism... it's what happens when the correct doctrine of sola scriptura gets abused.

Reply
Jon Rowe link
8/22/2014 01:36:26 am

"it's what happens when the correct doctrine of sola scriptura gets abused."

No this is actually what happens when you no longer have a magisterium to dictate proper understanding of the faith from the top down.

Bill Fortenberry
8/23/2014 12:46:38 am

Jon, I'm not aware of any form of Christianity that operates without a magisterium. For some Christians, the magisterium is a ruling body of men who are presently living. The Catholics, for example, follow the rule of the current pope and his bishops. For others, the magisterium consists of men long dead who met in ancient councils to determine what Christians should believe. Those Christians which follow the concept of sola scriptura, however, have chosen to establish God as the sole occupant of their magisterium. They seek to do what He instructed them to do in His Word regardless of any teachings from men.

Now, it may be objected that even the doctrine of sola scriptura is following a magisterium of men and not God because it was men who wrote the Bible and men who chose which books should be included in the Bible. Both of these objections are flawed.

The practice of the doctrine of sola scriptura does not depend on a humanly dictated canon. There have been many different canon's of Scripture proposed throughout the history of the church, and each individual believer is free to study the books for himself to determine which if any of those canon's is correct. Most believers choose not to do so, but the option is open to them just as this option was available to Martin Luther who rejected the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation as well as the entire Apocrypha. And submitting the Scriptures to this type of scrutiny is actually praised by the Bible itself, for in Acts 17:11, the people of Berea were praised for their refusal to accept Paul's message without first determining whether it lined up with the books that they had already accepted as Scripture.

But this freedom that Christians have to determine for themselves which books make up the canon of Scripture does not detract from the fact that God is the sole occupant of their magisterium. When a Christian studies the canon in order to determine which books should be accepted, he does so with the intent of determining which books are the revelation of God. This is no different than Christians who base their beliefs on the ancient councils taking the time to study the records of those councils to ensure that they only accept what was actually decided by those councils. And it would be the same as a Catholic verifying whether a particular papal bull was actually issued by the pope in the form in which he received it. In each of these instances, the act of determining what was declared by the magisterium does not in any way detract from the identity or the authority of the magisterium itself. A Catholic can still accept the pope and his bishops as the magisterium of that church even while questioning whether a particular statement was issued by the pope. And in like manner, a Christian can question which books make up the canon of Scripture while still submitting to the magisterium of God.

Jon Rowe link
8/24/2014 12:08:05 am

That's very interesting Bill (and I don't mean that in a condescending way, which is how you, as I read it, sometimes use that term). I plan on reading J. Pelikan's book on "canon." I know there are a lot of interesting developments in the history of how the Bible was written most folks aren't aware of. I knew Luther messed with the book of James. I wasn't aware that he rejected Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

Bill Fortenberry
8/24/2014 12:19:20 am

I would recommend that you also read "The Canon of Scripture" by F. F. Bruce: http://www.amazon.com/dp/083081258X.

And I apologize if my use of the phrase "that's interesting" has come across as condescending. I assure you that has never been my intent.

Tom Van Dyke
8/13/2014 08:33:43 am

To Lee:

UberCalvinist [Congregationalist] Samulel Adams certainly agreed with religious toleration.

"In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society."

As far as the Anglicans go, since the King of England is the head of their church, if he wants religious toleration, than religious toleration it is. Basically after Cromwell's intolerant reign in the late 1600s, prudence alone dictated that it's easier to tolerate heretics than the messy business of executing them. Protestant sects proliferate at such a rate that to killing dissenters amounts to wholesale slaughter, and cannot be defended as remotely Christlike.

Reply
BJ Swearer link
8/20/2014 07:14:18 pm

I see the thread stumbled into discussion of the Trinity... I'll just leave this here with my brief thoughts on the matter

http://americanchristocrat.com/2014/02/06/who-do-you-say-that-i-am/

Reply
OFT
8/21/2014 02:49:56 am

Bill and BJ,

It appears you both believe the same. Anyway, because this is so important to salvation, I am commenting on it, although it strays from the original thread. As to your theory about this topic, Jonathan Edwards destroyed this theory.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/jonathan-edwards/miscellaneous-writings/faith-saving-faith-verses-common/

They are not believers you are referring to. They are false teachers he's talking about:
v. 4, "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." etc.

They didn't have saving faith to begin with because God didn't give them faith (Rom 12:3), so it isn't perseverance of the saints. Perseverance is not the same as saving faith. Fake believers believe just as the devils do (James 2:19). "We read in the Evangelists of many that in this sense believed, to whom Christ did not commit himself, because he knew what was in them." It was head knowledge, not saving faith.

And the verse you referred Calvin mentioning, Mark 4:17, is the famous part of the parable of the soil. The temporal faith Calvin is talking about is the cheap faith in almost every human being; springing up most of the time when their loved ones die or tragedies happen. "There is therefore some knowledge even in the reprobate." This is all common knowledge from every day experience, but these people may not be elect before the foundation of the world, otherwise you make a contradiction that God's faith is not efficacious (e.g. 1Co 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Heb 3:14; 6:4-6; 10:26-27; 12:14; Rev 21:7-8; 22:14-15), that He cannot save those He has chosen raises other biblical problems.

Saving faith is not head knowledge. It derives from repentence of our condition, given by Christ (2 Tim 2:25), belief in Christ (Phil 1:29) and faith in Christ (Rom 12:3, Eph 2:8) dying for our sins, etc..

Reply
BJ Swearer link
8/21/2014 08:01:58 am

"They didn't have saving faith to begin with because God didn't give them faith"
-- Every single one of them was baptized in Christian churches, by Christian pastors, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While it is possible that some of them might have fallen away, to say that they didn't have saving faith to begin with is simply incorrect, unless you are to reject 1 Peter 3:21.

"Saving faith is not head knowledge. It derives from repentence of our condition, given by Christ (2 Tim 2:25), belief in Christ (Phil 1:29) and faith in Christ (Rom 12:3, Eph 2:8) dying for our sins, etc.."
-- Agreed! But you do realize that all of these men believed these things for most of their lives and nearly all of them believed them at their deaths.

Bill Fortenberry
8/21/2014 09:29:21 pm

OFT,

You said: "They are not believers you are referring to. They are false teachers he's talking about."

But you are mistaken. I am not referring to the false teachers but rather to the believers who were led astray by those false teachers. In verse six of Galations one, we read:

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel."

This statement was directed toward the believers themselves, the same ones which Paul refers to as his "brethren" throughout the epistle.

OFT
8/22/2014 06:51:15 am

BJ,

Jonathan Edwards goes over what you are referring to in the link. Further, no one can fall away. Jesus makes that perfectly clear in John 6:44. I won't argue that.

Baptism is valid by saving faith, no is saved by baptism, as Spurgeon explained. People are saved by baptism because they are elect.

Bill,

Paul doesn't say those people are saved and fell away. He is talking about unbelievers in the church, of which there are many. The Greek word used here for turning away (thaumazou) is “to be astounded or bewildered.” It could be some of those people were not saved yet or never would be saved or were hung up on that heresy, but it is not referring to falling away.

Bill Fortenberry
8/22/2014 11:47:44 pm

Look at the passage in Galatians again, OFT. In chapter 1 verse 2, Paul says that he is writing to the churches in Galatia. Then, in verse 11, he states specifically that he is writing to believers when he refers to them as brethren. And in chapter 3 verse 2, we see that he is addressing true believers who actually received the Spirit of God: "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" And in verse 28, Paul confirms that the Galatians were "in Christ Jesus." In chapter 4 verse 6, he says that they are sons of God with "the Spirit of his Son" in their hearts, and in verse 9 they are said to both know God and to be known of Him. I don't know how the Scriptures could be more clear and explicit in revealing to us that Paul was referring to real believers who had accepted false doctrines.

The same process could be followed to show that the people Paul was addressing in II Corinthians 11 were also real believers.

OFT
8/23/2014 07:03:47 am

Bill,

I won't even consider the alternative because the bible clearly states perseverance of the saints, so, the only acceptable context is what I repeated earlier. Within the church there are unbelievers and those that were tripped up by false teachers spreading the law as they did to the Galatians. Spurgeon goes over the same thing.

Spurgeon clearly explained Galatians 3:2, and the other verses in that revelation refer to unbelievers within the body of Christ and those who have backslidden.

"Now, as to the Holy Spirit’s office of sealing the soul and working full assurance in the heart—as to the Holy
Spirit’s being the earnest of the future Glory, the pledge of joys to come—in all these, Grace reigns, and not merit! He
that dwells in the least degree upon any phantom merit of his own has no earnest of the inheritance whatever! In fact, for
him there is no inheritance, since an inheritance does not come by works. Neither has he that trusts in his works any
pledge of joys to come, for he does not know that he has done enough to secure them. Neither can he have any comfortable
rest in God, for his work is not finished and, therefore, he cannot rest. You know it, you that have toiled to save
yourselves! Every Christian here must confess, “It is even so—we have received everything by faith and nothing by
merit.” Well, then, the inference is this—do not pump a dry well! If there is a fountain that is always flowing and overflowing,
keep to it. Do not commit the double evil of forsaking the fountain of Living Water and hewing out for yourselves
broken cisterns. Wait at that door which you have received everything as yet and do not go where you have received
nothing except conviction and condemnation! Look not to Moses to bring you into Canaan—that can only be done by
Joshua Jesus. Now, mark this inference—let every child of God ponder it—keep to “the hearing of faith.” When you are
under a sense of backsliding; when you feel unworthy to be called God’s child; when you have erred and strayed from His
ways like a lost sheep, do not rush like a madman to the Law, for that would be to leap into the fire! But say, “Lord, I
believe in You. As a sinner I trust the sinner’s Substitute.”

Whether you did truly come to Christ at the first, or not, is a point which you need not discuss, but begin again!..Do this, dear Friends, with regard to the whole of your life’s struggle. Some begin their religious life in the Spirit by faith, but they fancy that the rest of their spiritual life will have to be by works. They forget that the just shall live by faith. Those who say that though they are children of God, they may perish, after all, have not the true Gospel ring
about them. If they are children of God, can they perish? How? Why? “Well, we must be watchful and prayerful.” Precisely
so! But is there no provision made to secure that you shall be watchful and prayerful? If not, then I tell you, Brothers
and Sisters, you will never get to Heaven!..But now I want to throw all my strength into the second part of the sermon, which is this—I want to use this AS AN ARGUMENT DERIVED FROM OBSERVATION FOR THE USE OF SEEKERS. I say “observation,” but in part, it might be called an argument from experience, for, at any rate, on the negative side it is so. Listen, dear Hearer, you
have not yet found rest, you are not yet saved—and so far you have obtained no advantage by the works of the Law."

--FEBRUARY 11, 1883, AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON.
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols28-30/chs1705.pdf

As John 12:32 et al., reveal, don't get caught up in thinking all means all and world means every single person, when there are different meanings and contexts for these words. Same with whosoever. Those three words have misled arminians for centuries. I know, I was one of them for 10 years.

OFT
8/23/2014 07:05:25 am

Bill,

I won't even consider the alternative because the bible clearly states perseverance of the saints, so, the only acceptable context is what I repeated earlier. Within the church there are unbelievers and those that were tripped up by false teachers spreading the law as they did to the Galatians. Spurgeon goes over the same thing.

Spurgeon clearly explained Galatians 3:2, and the other verses in that revelation refer to unbelievers within the body of Christ and those who have backslidden.

"Now, as to the Holy Spirit’s office of sealing the soul and working full assurance in the heart—as to the Holy
Spirit’s being the earnest of the future Glory, the pledge of joys to come—in all these, Grace reigns, and not merit! He
that dwells in the least degree upon any phantom merit of his own has no earnest of the inheritance whatever! In fact, for
him there is no inheritance, since an inheritance does not come by works. Neither has he that trusts in his works any
pledge of joys to come, for he does not know that he has done enough to secure them. Neither can he have any comfortable
rest in God, for his work is not finished and, therefore, he cannot rest. You know it, you that have toiled to save
yourselves! Every Christian here must confess, “It is even so—we have received everything by faith and nothing by
merit.” Well, then, the inference is this—do not pump a dry well! If there is a fountain that is always flowing and overflowing,
keep to it. Do not commit the double evil of forsaking the fountain of Living Water and hewing out for yourselves
broken cisterns. Wait at that door which you have received everything as yet and do not go where you have received
nothing except conviction and condemnation! Look not to Moses to bring you into Canaan—that can only be done by
Joshua Jesus. Now, mark this inference—let every child of God ponder it—keep to “the hearing of faith.” When you are
under a sense of backsliding; when you feel unworthy to be called God’s child; when you have erred and strayed from His
ways like a lost sheep, do not rush like a madman to the Law, for that would be to leap into the fire! But say, “Lord, I
believe in You. As a sinner I trust the sinner’s Substitute.”

Whether you did truly come to Christ at the first, or not, is a point which you need not discuss, but begin again!..Do this, dear Friends, with regard to the whole of your life’s struggle. Some begin their religious life in the Spirit by faith, but they fancy that the rest of their spiritual life will have to be by works. They forget that the just shall live by faith. Those who say that though they are children of God, they may perish, after all, have not the true Gospel ring
about them. If they are children of God, can they perish? How? Why? “Well, we must be watchful and prayerful.” Precisely
so! But is there no provision made to secure that you shall be watchful and prayerful? If not, then I tell you, Brothers
and Sisters, you will never get to Heaven!..But now I want to throw all my strength into the second part of the sermon, which is this—I want to use this AS AN ARGUMENT DERIVED FROM OBSERVATION FOR THE USE OF SEEKERS. I say “observation,” but in part, it might be called an argument from experience, for, at any rate, on the negative side it is so. Listen, dear Hearer, you
have not yet found rest, you are not yet saved—and so far you have obtained no advantage by the works of the Law."

--FEBRUARY 11, 1883, AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON.
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols28-30/chs1705.pdf

As John 12:32 et al., reveal, don't get caught up in thinking all means all and world means every single person, when there are different meanings and contexts for these words. Same with whosoever. Those three words have misled arminians for centuries. I know, I was one of them for 10 years.

Jon Rowe link
8/21/2014 05:17:53 am

“I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power, whether hereditary or elective, will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.” [1]

From B. Rush, the Christian-Universalist who thought a "reasoned" interpretation of the Bible taught that all men would be saved eventually, the bad spending a "long" but temporary time being punished before getting into Heaven.

He also thought a reasoned interpretation of the Bible abolished the death penalty.

Reply
BJ Swearer link
8/21/2014 07:55:46 am

I don't quite understand your purpose in quoting this quote that I've referenced on my blog, especially since it doesn't have much at all to do with the topic of this discussion about the doctrine of the Trinity, let alone the original topic. To clarify, I like that quote because of the emphasis placed on recognizing the Law of God as supreme over all laws of men.

But yes, that quote is from Benjamin Rush, whom it seems you've on multiple occasions considered to be an "orthodox Christian", apparently your main measure of orthodoxy being the belief in the Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead. Indeed, certain aspects of Rush's theological thought moved from that of Calvinism, to Arminianism, Universalism, and yet each of these were schools of thought within the overall blanket of Christianity. And do note that just because I like one of his quotes, that doesn't mean I agree with all of his theological stances. Interestingly, you don't seem to consider his acceptance of this unbiblical view of universal salvation to be a big enough problem to prevent him from being considered an "orthodox Christian." It would seem to me that the correct biblical doctrine of justification and salvation is more essential to the pure essence of the Gospel, rather than having a correct understanding of the nature of the Godhead, especially since the doctrines of the later are the results of reasoned inferences from the Scriptures whereas the former are explicitly taught in the Scriptures.

Also, when using the term "orthodox", we also run into a bit of a problem because the Roman Catholic Church has taught and continues to teach (see Vatican II, Pope Frank's comments, etc.) what is essentially this same concept of "universal salvation" and purgatory, post-death periods of punishment until enough penance has been done to "gain" final admission into Heaven. A RC might consider this an "orthodox" stance, whereas a Lutheran or most other Protestants would not.

Regarding his stance against the death penalty, I think he does make a decently reasoned (again, inferences) argument for it being "contrary to divine law", but I think that an equally convincing argument can also be made that Bible does not completely forbid capital punishment, and thus it is permissible according to Scripture... I consider the issue adiaphora.

OFT
8/21/2014 08:19:20 am

Men makes mistakes and Benjamin Rush is no exception. Rush should have done a word study on "forever and ever--without end" which the greek would show him "aionas ton aionon" speaks of both God's eternal worth and eternal damnation.

Rev 19:2-3 "And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia And her smoke rose up for ever and ever."

and

Rev 20:10: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

It is clear universalism is not taught in the Scriptures. Jesus makes it clear:

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life," (Matthew. 25:46). In this verse, the same word "eternal" is used to describe the punishment of the wicked as well as the eternal life of the believer. The punishment is endless as is the eternal life of the believer. That is why the gospel is so important because it saves people from eternal damnation.

Mat 3:12 says "Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Jesus says the fire doesn't end. The worm never turns. The fire never ends, nor does hell ever end.


Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Bill Fortenberry is a Christian philosopher and historian in Birmingham, AL.  Bill's work has been cited in several legal journals, and he has appeared as a guest on shows including The Dr. Gina Show, The Michael Hart Show, and Real Science Radio.

    Contact Us if you would like to schedule Bill to speak to your church, group, or club.

    "Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning." (Proverbs 9:9)

    Search


    Topics

    All
    Abortion
    American History
    Apologetics
    Archaeology
    Atonement
    Benjamin Franklin
    Bible
    Bible Contradiction
    Buddhism
    Calvinism
    Children
    Christmas
    Citizenship
    Coaching
    Context
    Covid
    Creation
    Debate
    Doctrine
    Evolution
    Geography
    Government
    Homosexuality
    Immigration
    Islam
    James Wilson
    John Adams
    Marriage
    Masks
    Meditation
    Morality
    Mormonism
    Open Theism
    Parenting
    Politics
    Sacrifice
    Sam Harris
    Science
    Self Defense
    Self-Defense
    Slavery
    Solon
    Soteriology
    Strategy
    Tactical Faith
    Textual Criticism
    Theology
    Vaccines
    Video

    Archives

    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    April 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    November 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    April 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014

    RSS Feed

You can help support Increasing Learning by browsing through our Red Bubble store. 
We offer a unique blend of spiritual, witty, nostalgic, and just plain fun designs.
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
  • Public Speaking
  • Contact Us