Thursday, April 20, 2017

Historians and Mark Noll

As TVD writes, Mark Noll is a liberal, which would preclude him from being an evangelical Christian. Christian orthodoxy and liberalism are mutually exclusive. Evangelical, from The Evangel, is doctrine, theology, essential doctrines of the historic faith, proclaiming the Gospel, from the beginning of the church. If Noll is a liberal, most likely, he rejects parts of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. These reflect the person of Jesus Christ and are clearly enumerated in scripture, including the tri-unity of the Godhead and Deity of Christ; Jn 1:1-3,14; 8:58, 5:19, 10:30, Rom 9:5, found nearly in every book of the New Testament. In fact, the early church fathers (Tertullian, Polycarp, Clement) adhered to the Trinitarian Godhead.

In the review mentioned, the author makes the comparison between biblical exegesis and resistance and republicanism. However, many Christian men believed resistance is biblically correct. The same can be said of republicanism without the new testament making declaratory statements against it. Did not the great minds of the church agree Israel was a republic? Did not Calvin and Farel form Geneva a republic beloved to reformers all over Europe and England? Did not Viret, Peter Martyr and Beza teach at Calvin's Academy (adored by Thomas Jefferson himself) Exodus 18? The messiah did not physically reign over Israel as king and neither did Moses. In that given situation, how was Israel a theocracy? Moses did not rule for God; the Torah was the authority and the power spread out among the most wise. Moses and Joshua were consulted only for the most serious circumstances or where the Lord would actually consult them. The Monarchy happened later on and God did not intervene in the people's sinful request for a king.

Marian exiles, Lutheran Torgau and Magdeburg Declarations? Some Waldensians believed in resistance 100 years before the Lutherans. Who did these Waldensians fight against? The author writing against Noll, Prof. Moots, believes Noll's ideal biblicists are the Puritans, yet that is hardly something to brag about. The Puritans made many serious errors, some even deadly; not to mention their errors about the Sabbath that carried over into the founding. One man esteems one day above another, another esteems everyday alike. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. The exaltation of the Sabbath replaces Grace. In fact, God removed the Sabbath in Hosea 2:11, so it is not binding at all, but Christ is the Sabbath. He is the rest for His church, completing the work the Old Testament was a shadow of.

The reviewer attacks Noll for believing the Revolution was a departure of proper bible exegesis. However, Calvin gave no proof he rejected interposition, rather, the evidence supports he and the reformers approved it and spread the doctrine more thoroughly by Beza and others. Romans 13 says "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities." Not following unbiblical orders is still subject to the governing authorities.

Romans 13 does not teach unconditional obedience like Moots claims, and pacifism refers to rebellion, which I would like to see anyone defend from the New Testament. Yes, the left obviously would condone rebellion from Romans 13 as TVD says, if they even read it. On the contrary, David Barton, his allies, and the Republican party in general would support rebellion in the DOI wholeheartedly. I have read Barton quote John Jay and others supporting rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God, but those are sinful man's words, not God's words. Better to abide by the scripture.

Why would Noll attempt to use the Enlightenment to support Calvinist resistance theory? If Noll is a liberal, is not Fea is to the left of him?

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Martin Luther's influence on the founding

Update. First, I am a Christian, then an American. This blog that I am familiar with made a comment on the below post as "off the wall" and "whack." My question is what's more whacked out than rejecting centuries old principles found in both testaments, as John Adams does in the post I referred to? Christ's Deity is affirmed in most every book of the New Testament and the Messiah in the Old Testament is proclaimed to be eternal in Micah 5:2. On the contrary, Unitarianism in the colonies had a small influence on the people.

I've refuted Barrett's 100 Scriptural Arguments before on this blog, which supposedly gives support for the Lord's humanity found in the N.T. Most of Barrett's reasons have nothing to do with the comparative essence of God the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit, rather, his assertions are all based on semantics and perfidy. For example, No. 1. "Because Jesus Christ is represented by the sacred writers to be as distinct a being from God the Father as one man is distinct from another.  “It is written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.  I am one who bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me,” John 8:17, 18." As you can see, this is just a diversion to deceive, since Christ says nothing about His essence. However, in the same chapter, John 8:58, Jesus calls Himself "I am." Strong's Concordance refers to the original Hebrew as "the self existent one" and "eternal being." Meaning, Jesus is claiming Himself Deity, but the Deity at the burning bush, where He initially said it to Moses. No. 2, Barrett writes "Because he not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God." Barrett ignored John 8:58 as did Adams, and Jefferson because of their own predisposition (sin). God has blinded the eyes of the reprobate (Romans 11:7-8). All Barrett's reasons are similar to No. 1 and easy to refute.

My post reflected the views of Martin Luther, given I was reading Trinity Foundation, which correlated the reformer and Constitutional rights. I linked this with all the posts about John Adams (ugh). Indeed, Luther was an Augustinian Monk, who didn't want to leave the Roman Church. He only wanted to reform it. All these ideas have influence with today's moral condition of our country. As TVD commented about protestant sects, this isn't as "off the wall" compared to what tragedies Luther's former church committed and the 80 to 100 million people they murdered, most of which were actual Christians who just wanted to worship and read the bible for themselves.

History proves, throughout the centuries, Popes were murderers, rapists, adulterers, pagans, and anti-Semites. "Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on, not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the inquisition (torture and murder)." (Peter De Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy. New York, Crown Pub. 1988. 175-176). De Rosa is shorting the numbers too. The Romanists were murdering Jews before 1200 A.D. with no resistance from anyone. That is whacked out!

One husband murdered a pope while he walked in on him and his wife. It was the papacy that funded the Nazi Party and gave them status to win over the industrialists of Germany. On April 26, 1933, justifying his planned extermination of the Jews, Hitler reminded Catholic representatives Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann that "the church for 1500 years had regarded the Jews as parasites, had banished them into ghettos, and had forbidden Christians [Catholics] to work for them..[and that] he, Hitler, merely intended to do more effectively what the Church had attempted....(Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (McGraw Hill, 1964). 274.

And they are the Vicars (representatives) of Christ? Lol. What a disgrace. There is no doubt whatsoever, the Roman Catholic Church is the woman in Revelation 17. They are the only choice and the only church body; actually they are a political organization calling themselves the body of Christ.

Anyway, some of the greatest historians say Calvin's ideas founded this nation. Luther is too anti-Semitic for me. Furthermore, Algernon Sydney was a Calvinist, who said Calvin was one of the greatest Christians that ever lived. Montesquieu said the same thing and he married a Calvinist. Even Emmerich Vattel, and his Law of Nations ideas found in Art 1, sect. 8 of the Constitution, was a Calvinist.   

The founders never dreamed it would get like it is today because of how Christian they perceived society to be. The States establishing Christianity was not enough (those constitutions are gone). Christ needed to be the foundation of the national covenant as in Geneva. He was not named in the Declaration or the Constitution, which was the starting point for the erosion to begin. At least the liberal order would have had to eliminate His name from our national documents before they chopped away at our Christian morality. Look at us now; men want to be women and vice versa; among other delusions. What would George Washington do to these people? 

As for John Adams; he was a heretic who didn't influence anyone for Christ; not even his son. His musings come from the fact he wasn't converted to Christ, which is why he could deny biblical inerrancy, the atonement, the trinity and Deity of Christ. He changed his views constantly and the other federalists in his cabinet: Wolcott, McHenry and Pickering didn't respect him. In fact, he plays a part in the dissolution of the Federalist Party, allowing the Democrats to control the Presidency for almost 40 years. 

James Madison wrote some seemingly contradictory statements about Christianity or correct Christian discernment. It's important to note, Madison's best friend in college, the evangelical William Bradford, died in around 1795. Remarkably, Madison burned their correspondence for whatever reason. It would have been interesting to read what Bradford thought of his old friend's views.

Martin Luther's influence on the founding of the United States cannot be overstated. His legacy lives on to this very day, being the catalyst of the organized revolt against the Roman church, and the tyranny of the papacy, whose fundamental heresy from biblical Christianity was to discard salvation by Grace through faith, in Christ alone, for the remission of sins, in exchange for salvation by works; although there are not a few other unbiblical heresies found in the woman of the book of Revelation. In fact, the papacy convened the council of Trent on principles that are condemned by the new testament many times over.

Luther, who adhered to divine election, as did Thomas Aquinas, was quoted by ratifier of the United States Constitution, James Madison in relation to separation of church and state. It's unfortunate Madison did not support Reformation ideas on the Christian state such as Geneva or Holland. What Luther did in Wittenberg, Germany in 1517 was a new beginning for Democracy, civil rights and liberties, constitutional government, religious liberty, and the free market (Trinity foundation, Civilization and the Protestant Reformation (English),

Putting it all together in a systematic theology was reserved for John Calvin, a Frenchman from Noyon, whose ideas about: separation of powers, covenant foundation for a republic, limited government, taxes for necessity only, separation of church and state (2 Kingdoms), Natural Law as a political theology, private property separate from governmental jurisdiction, Christian education, welfare, mission work, the dissemination of information spread throughout the world, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, appellate courts, govt. recognized fast days (copied by the founding fathers), etc., established the foundation for this country.

The nineteenth-century German historian Leopold von Ranke referred to Calvin as the "virtual founder of America" (Ibid).

The death spiral of the Roman church began at the beginning of the 4th century, soon after Constantine christianized the Roman empire and the church became part of the state. Quickly, the Roman church was infiltrated by heretics, which connived a works salvation from inside of man, rather than from God and by the apostles doctrine, whereby salvation is through the righteousness of Christ. 

Furthermore, crawling out of the Roman church, Luther soon advocated the Priesthood of Believers that became the foundation for modern political democracy--the equality of all men before God and the law (Ibid).

The priesthood of believers instilled an aversion to monarchy and because of equality under the law, everyone could read the bible and see the truth for themselves rather than get swindled out of their money (indulgences) and be led astray, which is what the romanists have done for centuries. the Bible says Pastors and teachers are to lead the body of Christ into truth and the correct understanding of scripture, receiving for themselves double honor, except this doesn't mean the flock is not to study to show thyself approved as a diligent student of God's word. The bible is the written constitution of the church. Luther, including the other reformers, saw "the written constitution--the Bible--limiting the power and authority of church (and later political) leaders. There is a direct connection between the Reformation cry of sola Scriptura and the American idea of the Constitution--not any man or body of men--as the supreme law of the land (Ibid)."

The Reformers explained that each believer has an individual call from God in how they should conduct their lives; the marriage bond, etc., something completely devoid in Roman Catholicism, where the papacy ruled over kings and queens, fighting wars for territory and power, living a life of debauchery and sin, and fleecing the people to serve the establishment in charge of their Ponzi scheme.

With the individual call by God's grace, people and contracts promoted free markets, and private property, all for the glory of God. In fact, capitalism is a direct result of biblical Christianity. The entire protestant work ethic in light of the calling of the individual established western civilization to what it is today. These concepts are not enumerated in the bible, but they are the result of biblical principles when Christians are focused on God's kingdom, and the blessings of God shine in each person.  

In light of the systematized Christian system described by Calvin, the founding fathers had an excellent blueprint to establish a nation. The founders clearly made some mistakes in forming this country; one being the way they setup freedom of conscience. However, believe it or not, unbelievers desired to live in Geneva, including Jews. Why didn't they leave? All they had to fear were the romanists and the stake, nay, they knew they were protected from the romanists. The true version of history will affirm that the persecution of unbelievers in Geneva is a myth. Unchecked belief in idolatry like the founders allowed in this country was suicide and today is the proof of their error.

One of the main founders was James Madison. His understanding of religion and the state was different and he rejected Reformation principles on the subject. Madison's Notes preparing his Memorial and Remonstrance is filled with incoherency. He writes:
3. "What is Xnty? Courts of law to Judge." Did he forget the Westminster Confession and the Reformation altogether? The people are the judge, not judges in courts. This idea belongs to the legislature.
4. "What edition: Hebrew, Septuagint or Vulgate? What copy what translation? This is just to confuse and deceive the people of Virginia. Protestants rejected the Vulgate and rightly so. What translation of the bible is irrelevant.
5. "What books canonical, what apocryphal?" That Madison would include the apocryphal is tragic. The romanist apocrypha contradicts the New Testament. The papists rejected civil rights, yet to place their writings as authoritative in a protestant country is a marvel.
6. "Every letter by inspiration?" This sounds like it's written by an unbeliever. Who was in charge of the canon of scripture? If the Holy Spirit established His canon and some of His words are not genuine, don't they compromise the whole and reduce the Holy Spirit to error?
7. "Rejecting essential doctrines." Does rejecting essential doctrines make a Christian?
8. "Arianism, Socinianism? Madison was no doubt an ecumenist of the first order. Salvation by works? Read Romans 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
9. "What clue is to guide a Judge?" How about the bible.
10. "Ends in what is orthodoxy." The answer lies in the New Testament.

An unbeliever could make the case Madison was no Christian at all with perfidious statements like these. Another founding father mentioned above, John Adams was a definite Unitarian, who denied parts of the bible, and was ignorant about the canon of scripture. Read his reasons on that blog. Today, Adams would be a liberal bigot, which is most of the democratic party. However, for Madison to even bring these ideas up is troubling. At least Bishop Meade believed he was a real Christian. I'm not entirely convinced to take his word for it.

Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Monroe, Barlow, Pickering and the other heretics are next to nothing among the majority of founding fathers. Those of the Reformed Calvinist outnumber them worse than at the Alamo. This list is not exhaustive: Roger Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth, John Langdon, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Josiah Bartlett (who had 12 children by his first cousin), William Whipple, George Read, Thomas McKean, William Hooper, Lyman Hall, James McHenry, John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, William Samuel Johnson, Matthew Thornton, William Williams, Samuel Huntington, Oliver Wolcott, Phillip Livingston, William Livingston, Benjamin Huntington, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Abraham Clark, Caleb Strong, Paine Wingate, Philip Schuyler, Abraham Baldwin, Jonathan Elmer, Fisher Ames, Abiel Foster, Benjamin Huntington, James Jackson, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Nicholas Gilman, Egbert Benson, James Schureman, Henry Wynkoop, Daniel Hiester Jr., Daniel Huger, Benjamin Bourne, William Paterson, William Smith, Hugh Williamson and the Mulinberg's.

The individual heretics were not the majority, nor did they establish a heterodox Christianity. Nature's God of the bible through the prophet Isaiah, the Apostle Paul, Richard Hooker, William Blackstone, Francis Bacon, Algernon Sydney, Montesquieu, and the Reformers, was not the god of Jefferson, and John Adams. The heretical views of a few people do not change the God of our founding. A different Jesus than the biblical Jesus gets you a different God:

"Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM. Then they took up stones to throw at; but Jesus hid Himself." John 8:58-59. This is one of the clearest examples of Jesus claiming to be God. He used the exact words Moses received at the burning bush. Jesus claimed to be the self existent one.

As to his son, why John Q. Adams would write parts of the bible are inspired, when he knows rejecting any part of it compromises the whole is strange. The best explanation is he made a mistake. Adams knew perfectly well Jesus claimed to be God:

"Now in the sermon upon the mount much is said about the kingdom of Heaven, and those who alone shall enter it. The preacher of that sermon announced himself as a being superior at least to human nature. If you say that he was a mere ordinary man, you include him also in the class of those who are not competent to dogmatize upon the system of the universe. You, or at least I, can by no possible process of reasoning consider him as a mere man, without at the same time pronouncing him an Impostor...I would also give up all the passages upon which any sound suspicion of interpretation can be fastened. But the sermon upon the mount commands me to lay up for myself treasures, not upon earth, but in Heaven. My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ, and I cannot cavil or quibble away, not single words and ambiguous expressions, but the whole tenor of his conduct, by which he sometimes positively asserted, and at others countenanced his disciples in asserting that he was God. You think it blasphemous to believe that the omnipotent Creator could be crucified. God is a spirit. The spirit was not crucified. The body of Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. The Spirit whether eternal or created was beyond the reach of the cross. You see my orthodoxy grows upon me, and I still unite with you in the doctrine of toleration and benevolence." pp. 134-135.
-Worthington Chauncey Ford. Writings of John Quincy Adams. 16 volumes. The Macmillan Company, 1913-1917.

Here Adams says every part of the bible is miraculous:

"The miraculous interpositions of Divine power recorded in every part of the Bible, are invariably marked with grandeur and sublimity worthy of the Creator of the world, and before which the gods of Homer, not excepting his Jupiter, dwindle into the most contemptible pigmies; but on no occasion was the manifestation of the Deity so solemn, so awful, so calculated to make indelible impressions upon the imaginations and souls of the mortals to whom he revealed himself, as when he appeared in the character of their Lawgiver. The law thus dispensed was, however, imperfect; it was destined to be partly suspended and improved into absolute perfection many ages afterward by the appearance of Jesus Christ upon earth."
-Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings. Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850. 128 pp.

His comments on Islam are spot on:

"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE."
-Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece: Christianity -- Islamism". Originally published in The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29 (New York, 1830), Chapters X-XIV: 267-402. Reprinted in The United States Democratic Review, Volume 36, No. 5 (November, 1855), pp. 375-380.

Monday, February 27, 2017

J.Q. Adams

"I have seen nothing in the glories of this World, nothing in the pride of human learning which should make me ashamed of the Cross of Christ—My Judgment therefore has confirmed the Prejudice of my Education—My idea of Inspiration, as applied to the Scriptures is neither very clear nor very definite—That in the composition of parts of the Sacred Books, the Writers were actuated by a preternatural interposition of the divine power, I believe, because it is expressly declared by the Writers themselves, and because I cannot disbelieve it without rejecting the whole Bible as an imposture."
--J. Q. Adams

Jon Rowe posted this on his website, but it may not prove Adams denied biblical inerrancy since he contradicts himself. If only parts of the bible are inspired, he then rejects the whole, violating his own claim that "I cannot disbelieve it without rejecting the whole Bible as an imposture." By only believing parts, he is rejecting the whole. 

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Fast and Humiliation Proclamations were Calvinist in origin

Jefferson and Virginia looked to Calvinists for fast and Humiliation Proclamations:

"With the help, therefore, of Rushworth, whom we rummaged over for the resolutionary precedents and forms of the Puritans of that day, preserved by him, we made up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of June, on which the Port Bill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, to implore Heaven to avert from us the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the king and Parliament to moderation and justice."

--Jefferson's Autobiography

Calvin's influence in this country is no less than awesome.

Friday, July 15, 2016

Throckmorton on Dissent

Here's a good one from Warren Throckmorton attacking a Christian nationalist:

"Without banishment due to the intolerance of the dominant Puritans, [Roger] Williams would not have established religious freedom in Rhode Island...The America given to us by the founders is much closer to Roger Williams’ Rhode Island than John Winthrops’ city on a hill. That is a good thing and a story worth telling and retelling."

What's funny about the above quote if it wasn't sad is Williams didn't establish religious freedom in Rhode Island. He persecuted Jews, Catholics, atheists and agnostics. In fact, the founders formed a nation with more religious freedom than Rhode Island did. 

Here's another distortion Throckmorton makes about this article:

"For instance, Metaxas briefly describes the Flushing Remonstrance and Roger Williams’ settlement in Rhode Island. The Flushing document was a petition to the leader of New Netherland settlement Peter Stuyvesant asking for relief from his ban on Quakers. Metaxas rightly heralds this action. However, Metaxas fails to set it in context. Despite the noble purpose, the petition failed and Stuyvesant cracked down on dissent. He jailed two leaders of the petition effort. Others recanted their dissent in the face of punishment."

It's Throckmorton who doesn't put it in context nor does he explain why Stuyvesant cracked down on the dissent, which wasn't dissent at all. Those people violated the laws of Holland and even those of the Toleration Act of 1689. In fact, New Holland commended Stuyvesant's actions. The Quakers were disturbing the peace, preaching in the streets. History proves Stuyvesant was an upright man.

Throckmorton, like the other secularists, fail to understand what dissent really is.

Monday, July 4, 2016

Nature's God is indisputably Jesus Christ and Jehovah

Unfortunately, people write things like this for such an awesome day like July 4th, where God blessed this nation so greatly. It says:

"The Declaration of Independence is not a Christian document. It's a generically theistic document. It mentions a God of some sort in 4 different places. It doesn't mention Jesus, the Trinity, or quote verses and chapters of scripture for its authority."

Yet, the same men who signed the declaration of independence wrote this below just 45 days earlier:

"The have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely.... on His aid and direction... do earnestly recommend...a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,...and through the Merits and mediation of Jesus Christobtain His pardon and forgiveness."
Journals of Congress (1905), Vol. IV, pp. 208-209, May 17, 1776. [Bold mine]

What does a man say to this? Just what John Calvin told the world about Heshusius:

"The slanderer himself was undeserving of an answer."

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Bill Fortenberry's book on Benjamin Franklin

Mr. Fortenberry believes Benjamin Franklin was a Christian. I suppose everyone has a right to their opinion, but his assertion is not my main contention because I always assumed like everyone else the case was cut and dry. I appreciate the time Mr. Fortenberry took to compile all of Franklin's views on Christianity and his interpretation of Franklin's words. Because there are no clear smoking guns on his faith like in the case of Thomas Jefferson, his faith is up for serious debate. However I disagree with many observations in the book. Some of his comments concerning Franklin's beliefs include:

"Here Franklin provides a brilliantly simple argument against Calvinism..Franklin solved this dichotomy by presenting the third option of a sovereign God having the power to give men freedom. His [Franklin's] question, "Is not even his infinite Power sufficient for this?" places the Calvinist in a quandry.

It could never be a quandry(sp) especially as to salvation there is no question whatsoever what the new testament says, with many scriptures affirming man's inability to choose God:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.."
John 6:44.

The word "unless" means just what it says; no one can choose Christ without the Father allowing it. Therefore man has no freewill to believe in God. God must initiate salvation by changing the heart to repent and believe.

Yes, God has the power to give men freedom, but Franklin never understood salvation starts before God created the earth:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved."
--Ephesians 1:3-6

Theoretically, no one can choose because God chose who He wanted already.  

Fortenberry questions if God could give man freewill. He did. Adam had freewill and he failed. God's perfect, immortal representative failed and sin passed to all men. Read Romans 5-9. 

Franklin and Fortenberry claim that "God requires of Christians are such that they all produce happiness in this life."

This statement appears unbiblical in that happiness comes from knowing what Christ did for you, not about happiness in life. There are many Christians throughout the centuries which have been always miserable in their physical circumstances, but their hearts are filled with joy. John 13:17 is about joy in the Lord, not of circumstances in this world.

Fortenberry claims the Westminster Confession does not refer to the new birth because children are saved by birth. This is an argument from silence. It is true because the Confession is correct. Children are saved at birth, but the Confession also refers to the new birth which does elicit an emotional response of some sort.

Fortenberry then admits Franklin believed as Locke did, viz, that all that is required is belief that Jesus is the messiah. In John 6 to 17 Jesus is clearly telling the disciples  over and over by various examples that He is God and to believe it.

Franklin claims that creeds and confessions of faith should not be required for salvation. This has always been the view of heretics and immature Christians. Not all of them, but most. They use this to depart from the essentials of the faith, especially when the creeds are so obvious, even quoting scripture verses for support.

On p. 112 fortenberry defends Franklin attacking the church for ostracizing heretics, yet Paul did the same thing.

Fortenberry then goes on to show Franklin and the southern baptists deny original sin, rejecting Rom 5:12-21. Condemnation is clearly guilt because it is linked to Adam.

To compare Franklin with John MacArthur is strange to say, in that most, if not all Christians, believe Jesus's lordship in everything. Franklin's view of conversion is questioned because he was making excuses for himself, speaking of children and such, but Whitefield knew he wasn't saved and told him to repent and turn to Christ. In fact, pastor and evangelist Greg Laurie testified he didn't feel anything accepting Christ, but days later, he felt great joy in Christ. 

Calling yourself a Christian and Jesus Christ as "Our saviour" means nothing. Saying "My Saviour" is quite different. Although writing "God called the four Apostles out of the fisheries" is clearly calling Jesus God. Whether or not it's authentic is debatable. On p. 227 Fortenberry claims Whitefield believed every Christian had to have an emotional experience to be a Christian. Not so if he believed children were saved.

The final point made in this book is doubting essential biblical truths, like Franklin did about the person of Christ that can still make one a Christian if all the minimum to believe is Jesus is Messiah. The gospel of John refutes that notion, along with 1 John, because Jesus tells the disciples over and over that He is God, period! He tells Philip "if you've seen me, you've seen the Father." A born again believer will not doubt that Jesus Christ is God. Neither will there be doubts about the deity of the holy spirit.