Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Enemies of Jesus Christ: George Bush and Barrack Obama

The Apostle Paul:

Philippians 3:17-19 (King James Version)
Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

It is clear, the Apostle is speaking of persons who declare themselves Christians, not unbelievers. These wolves in sheep's clothing Jesus spoke about; deceivers, by their words and deeds do they contradict the Word of God, worshipping the God of their belly. Both, George Bush and Barrack Obama have made comments that contradict the plain teaching of Scripture that born again high-schoolers could recognize.

Bush claims "all religions lead to God" showing how foolish he really is, or, rather, how immature, and neglectful, Dobson and the church has become for believing him. A buddhist does not worship Jesus Christ. Not only is Bush's comment a violation of the First Commandment, and every word of Scripture, but, shows what George Bush actually is; a polytheist, believing in many gods to provide salvation.

All of Scripture and the Apostle Paul are clear on the issue:

1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Version)
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Not only does George Bush's words condemn him, his actions do the same. Bush is a pro-homosexual, supporting civil unions, proving himself, and his wife are abominations according to Solomon in Proverbs 17:15:

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.

George Bush, and his wife are an abomination to God! Bush, with his wife by his side, has appointed more homosexual judges to Federal Office than anyone in history. The Words of Our Creator Jesus Christ through Solomon:

Proverbs 29:27
An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.

George Bush has also funded more murders by abortion than any other man in history! Bush has signed every health service bill put on his desk, funding the satanic Planned Parenthood millions of dollars. What a deluded hypocrite this man is, to prohibit funding for stem cell research, and funding abortions at the same time. What a poor example of a man, as well as a witness.

Barack Obama, a man who claims to be a Christian, yet, is a wicked man, affirming and supporting homosexuality, and supporting murder by abortion with no restrictions. It would not surprise me in the least if this hypocrite supports partial birth abortion! Barack Obama, heed to the Word of God, and repent:

Judges 13:5 (King James Version)
For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

Notice, conceiving is part of the birth of a son. Jesus Christ affirms the entire Old Testament:

Matthew 5:17-18 (King James Version)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

When Jesus read the scriptures in the Temple, the book of Judges was a part of the prophets.

Jesus, again, confirming the Old Testament order:

Luke 11:51 (King James Version)
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Can a Christian; a man indwelt by the Spirit of God(Christ in you), believe, and support abominable vices that the Spirit of God has condemned in His Word, without a conviction of right and wrong by that man? God forbid!

Repent, ye workers of iniquity, ye enemies of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ!

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Political Liberty IS in the Bible:

Jon Rowe wrote a piece on his interpretation of Romans 13, to which Jim Bakka responded on Positive Liberty. Mr. Bakka clearly follows the interpretation ascribed to John Calvin, Martin Luther, and others. I do not have a problem with different interpretations of an unessential to the faith, like Romans 13; my issue is with some of the men who claim to be authorities, who lack basic common sense, such as: Dr. Greg Frazer, who teaches political science at The Masters College, and Dr. Robert Kraynak of Colgate. In fact, both, write ideas supposedly found in the Bible, that aren't there, not even implied. Here, is an example:

"First, as Kraynak pointed out, “the biblical covenant is undemocratic: God is not bound by the covenant and keeps His promises solely out of His own divine self-limitation.” Second, “(t)he element of voluntary consent is missing from the covenant with Israel….There is nothing voluntary or consensual about the biblical covenant; and the most severe punishments are threatened by God for disobedience.” http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6564473&postID=7023634957184753884&isPopup=true

Maybe those men are reading a different bible. Does Kraynak, Frazer, or even Rowe, whose blog it appears, believe God forced Abraham's seed into servitude? There is not a single doubt as to a covenant/compact God made with Abraham and his descendents; undemocratic? The covenant is throughout the Torah:

Deuteronomy 4:31(For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Deuteronomy 5:2 "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb."

The Compact between God and Israel in the Book of Joshua:

Joshua 24:22 "And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses."

As a matter of fact, the covenant started with Abraham as early as Genesis 15;18:
"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."

Here is the basis of the covenant with Abraham agreeing to it by circumcision:

Genesis 17:13:
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Genesis 17:23:
And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

The rest of Frazer's post in Rowe's blog is equally incorrect, and not worth a rebuttal. Jon Rowe also shows his lack of biblical knowledge, and history, as he writes:

"Rather, the Biblical record in no uncertain terms shows that God unilaterally burdened His people with the law of Moses without their consent or approval. And the notion that people must "consent" to the laws which will rule them is entirely a Whig or 18th Century republican ideal, not a biblical idea." http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2008/04/whoring-christian-religion-for-politics.html

These statements are all too common with secular intellectuals; in the Reformation writings, "Consent" is on every page; Republicanism(Biblical Law enforced by representatives of the people)starts in Exodus 18, and is thoroughly, and completely elucidated in "Vindici"(A Defense Against Tyranny) and Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex(Law is King).

John Quincy Adams identified it (Vindici) one of the most influential writings on the eve of our war for independence, and be assured, all the founding fathers, including First Chief Justice John Jay, understood it was the correct interpretation. Here, Adams sums up that our Constitution(Law) is based on Christianity:

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

-- John Quincy Adams, (Thornton's accurate summary of Adams' quote) An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5.

Adams' quote is easy to affirm from Common Law in general. Reformers and Pre-Reformers: John Rutherford, Thomas Aquinas, Bullinger(who was before Calvin), Beza(who advocated non-violent resistence), Martin Bucer, John Knox, his pastor Christopher Goodman, George Buchanan, Francois Hotman, John Ponet, Althusius, etc. all agreed only good government was ordained by God in Romans 13. Luther, Calvin, and Melanchton were wrong.

The Bible, and subsequently (A Defense Against Tyranny), is the work the Founding Fathers relied on for justified rebellion against unlawful government, "Vindici" as it was known, said the people collectively, are above the King, yet, individually, each man is under the King in a compact between the King, God, and the people(church), whereby, if the King violated God's Law, he forfeited his Kingdom. That God is to be obeyed over man is all over the document, in fact, only good government is to be obeyed; common sense dictates if man was never to resist an evil king, Israel would have been under the same principle, but it was not; countless times, God destroyed, or had other rulers destroy evil Israelite rulers, such as: Saul, Manasseh, Ahab, Jehoram, Jeroboam, etc.

That the people choose the King, implies consent of the governed; the people's superiority is in Proverbs 14:28:

"In the multitude of people is the king's honour: but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince."

The want of people is obviously their consent, since the people have the power to remove a King.

Steven M. Dworetz's summary of Romans 13 quotes Calvin and Luther for authority; why quote one man whose theories are easily refuted, and another, who was a racist, advocating burning Jew's houses, searing their tongues with hot irons? Maybe, Mr. Dworetz had heard of the alternate viewpoint, that of the founding fathers, and Reformation. Just because Calvin, Luther, and some early church fathers had a certain interpretation, does not mean they were correct. It is debatable whether Calvin was a Christian at all; he believed his infant baptism secured his salvation. Here is what Dworetz says:

"Basing a revolutionary teaching on the scriptural authority of chapter 13 of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans must rank as one of the greatest ironies in the history of political thought. This passage...served as the touchstone for passive obedience and unconditional submission from Augustine and Gregory to Luther and Calvin....The medieval church fathers as well as the reformers and counter-reformers of the sixteenth century all invoked this doctrine in denouncing disobedience and resistance to civil authorities."
-- Dworetz, The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution, p. 155, quoted in Frazer, The Political Theology of the American Founding, p. 358.

Claiming "all" Christian reformers believed his interpretation is a flat-out falsehood. Has Dworetz heard of "Vindici" (A Defense Against Tyranny) by Hubert Lanquet and Philippe du Plessis-Mornay, published in 1579?

The New Testament relates the same principle as the Old Covenant, explains the Vindici:

"Now...the form...the church and the Jewish kingdom be changed...the same things may be said of Christian kings, the gospel having succeeded the law, and Christian princes being in the place of those Jewry...the same covenant...same conditions...same punishments...the same God Almighty."

And again, the Vindici:

"Kings are ordained by God, and established by the people to procure and provide for the good...in the order of Justice, and in managing of armies for the repelling their enemies."

In Romans 13, we also see the concept "verbal for verbal, and force with force" and "render to all their dues" and "whatever a man sows, he also reaps." Examples in Israel would be Jehoida defending Israel against Athaliah, and Deborah and Gideon defending Israel in like kind.

Christian Kings, as well as ancient Israel needed approval from the people, even kings ascending the throne by heredity needed approval by representatives of the people such as: counts, barons, dukes, and earls. King Louis was choosen instead of the rightful Robert, Earl of Evereux(Annales Gillii). Unitarian Patriot, Jonathan Mayhew in 1750, claimed:

"It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers."

It is a fact of history, the Founding Fathers attributed our theory of government and liberty from the Reformation, not the enlightenment:

A Short Treatise on Political Power, John Ponet, D.D. (1556) President John Adams credited this Calvinist document as being at the root of the theory of government adopted by the Americans. According to Adams, Ponet's work contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke" including the idea of a three-branched government. (Adams, Works, vol. 6, pg. 4). Published in Strassbourg in 1556, it is one of the first works out of the Reformation to advocate active resistance to tyrannical magistrates, with the exception of the Magdeburg Bekkentis (the Magdeburg Confession)."

John Locke learned some of his theories from Samuel Rutherford, who was a colleague of Locke's parents. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) In addition to being the decree of Parliament as the standard for Christian doctrine in the British Kingdom, it was adopted as the official statement of belief for the colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Although slightly altered and called by different names, it was the creed of Congregationalist, Baptist, and Presbyterian Churches throughout the English speaking world. Assent to the Westminster Confession was officially required at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Princeton scholar, Benjamin Warfield wrote: "It was impossible for any body of Christians in the [English] Kingdoms to avoid attending to it." [Link goes to chap.23, "On the Civil Magistrate."]

This is an interesting quote for anyone who claims James Madison was heterodox as he helped form the nation. Warfield makes perfect sense, the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, adhered to that confession, another evidence of Madison not rejecting orthodoxy until well in the 19th century.

Protestant Reformer George Buchanan started the limited government theory stating, ""it was much safer to trust liberties to laws than to kings . . . confine them to narrow bounds, and thrust them, as it were, into cells of law . . . circumscribe [them] within a close prison." Buchanan believed a Constitution was superior to any ruler: "Kings being accordingly left, in other respects free, found their power confined to prescribed limits only by the necessity of squaring their words and actions by directions of law."

There is no doubt whatsoever, political liberty is in the bible, brought out with the Protestant Reformation, and perfected by the American experiment; called limited governmental power under Biblical Law, and Jesus Christ. Our Tenth Amendment has it's roots in Johannes Althusius's 1603 Politica:

"Besides, whatever power the people did not have it could not transfer to its administrators. Therefore, whatever power and right the administrators did not receive from the people, they do not have, they cannot exercise over the people, nor ought they to be able to do so."

His main point was what arose out of the Reformation was Republicanism; rule by law: Rulers are to be objectively subordinate to "God, the law of nature and of nations, and the ephors."

Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, further emphasized "Vindici" on Romans 13. Rutherford asserted that the parliament had greater power than the king, a notion disputed at the time. The king did not have unlimited power. To the contrary, any tyranny which opposed justice, peace, and the good of the people, was "unreasonable and forbidden by the law of God and the civil law . . . [it] cannot be lawful power, and cannot constitute a lawful judge . . . How can the judge be the minister of God for good to the people (Rom. 13:4) if he has such a power as a king, given him of God, to destroy and waste the people?" Moreover, Rutherford argued: "God, in making a king to preserve his people, should give liberty without all political restraint, for one man to destroy many is contrary to God's end in the fifth commandment, if one has absolute power to destroy souls and bodies of many thousands."
http://www.phillysoc.org/reformat.htm

Like I've said before, on my blog, the American Revolution, and the Founding Fathers' formation of our country had absolutely nothing to do with enlightenment philosophy, which excluded God from the equation, in fact, the fateous, scholastic elites continue to purport these lies. Separation of Powers(Isa 33:22), property rights(Ex 22), Life(Deut 30:19, Hos 9:13-14), Liberty(Eccl 3:13), Happiness(Eccl 3:13),4th Amendment(Deut 24:10), The Law of Nations(Sovereignty, Deut 19:14), Jury System(Deut 17:6), inalienable rights, freedom of conscience(Entire New Testament), political rights(Torah), etc. all come out of the Bible, and Reformation, espoused by men like: The Prophets, David, Solomon, Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, James, John Wycliffe(Univ of Oxford), Zwingli, Luther(Univ of Wittenberg), Hus(Univ of Prague), Rutherford, Knox, Lanquet, Mornay, Beza, Aquinas, Hooker(who espoused unalienable rights), Pufendorf, Grotius, and many others.

Eighteenth Century Americans were regulated by the Bible, sure there were a few infidels such as: Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Adams, but, since the law is supreme, what is important, is the beliefs of the ratifiers(people) of law, rather than the subjective views of three people; this is something the scholastic elites cannot admit or allow, thereby, holding to their agenda.

There are far many more orthodox than heterodox preachers who affirmed the correct, biblical, reformation, view of Romans 13, as I've described above; some of these include: Samuel Davies(Distinguished successor to Jonathan Edwards at Princeton), John Witherspoon, Jacob Duche, Isaac Backus, Samuel Sherwood, George Whitefield, Elhanan Winchester, Ezra Stiles, Samuel Langdon(President of Harvard 1774-1780), Elizur Goodrich, Nathaniel Emmons, Samuel Wales, William Smith, and many others. The unitarian preachers comprised a fraction of the pro-rebellion preachers.

Here, the use of philosophical language to evidence a lack of orthodoxy is debunked, note, this is how preacher's of the 18th century spoke:

“Religion cannot subsist without right notions of God and divine things; and entire ignorance or mistakes in its fundamental articles must be destructive of its nature; and therefore a divine revelation must be a collection of rays of light, a system of divine knowledge; and such we find the Christian revelation to be, as contained in the sacred writings.”
Samuel Davies
[Quote from his sermon “The Divine Authority ... of the Christian Religion.”]

Davies(The Apostle of Virginia) left his mark as scholar and patriot on his students, particularly the eleven members of the Class of 1760 whom he taught as seniors. ``Whatever be your Place,'' he told them in his baccalaureate address, ``imbibe and cherish a public spirit. Serve your generation.'' This they did. Among the eleven were a member of the Continental Congress, chaplains in the Continental Army, judges in Maine and Pennsylvania, the founder of a college in North Carolina, a member of the United States House of Representatives, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. http://etcweb.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/davies_samuel.html
Davies was a primary founder of the Presbyterian Church in Virginia and North Carolina, the advocate and defender of the South's civil rights and religious liberties.

Maybe I should speak in philosophical language; let the secularists call me an infidel! This is, in fact, how Christians used to speak about God. The South's fervor for independence in the coming conflict with Britain was established with Davies' ministry; the presbyterian church, not the unitarian church, was the pulpit of independence. As Patrick Henry, a congregant in one of the churches established by Davies, later said, “Were it not for him, America freedom would have been still-born. In the Gospel he preached, the energy he displayed, and the courage he lived day by day, he modeled the true American temper.” http://www.kingsmeadow.com/2006/09/samuel-davies.html

Henry's oratory, which Jefferson and Madison could not match, employed Davies' speaking ability; the variety of (pitches) "sounds" in his sermon delivery, as well as alternating back and forth from religious to philosophical(classical) terminology. Davies' second wife, Jane Holt, was the daughter of a Williamsburg mayor and printer, and provided Davies with direct access to the Virginia Gazette, which he used as a platform for defending his own and other dissenting clergy's rights to preach. At the time of his death, in 1761, Davies' sermons were well known and influential as models for other clergy; by the time of the Revolution, they were among the most widely circulating collections of sermons in the colonies, particularly in the Middle Colonies, Virginia, and North Carolina...The rhetorical education of Scottish Presbyterians carried a legacy of beliefs about human reason, human rights, congregational polity, and the educability of moral sensibility through the written and the spoken word. Like I said earlier, this is reformation doctrine, not enlightenment. http://www.historicpolegreen.org/swearingenlecture.html

Incidently, no one helped educate the blacks more than Davies, who aggravated most southerners believing blacks were equal with whites. I agree with Dr. Swearingin about Davie's impact(and Presbyterianism) on Patrick Henry, and of the growing fervor of independence in the Southern Colonies in general, but her quoting the Scottish Englightenment as it's foundation is incorrect; consent, human rights, reason, religious tolerance, inalienable rights, etc are not products of the enlightenment, they are products of the Bible, illuminated to the world by men of the Reformation. The enlightenment brought about humanism, rationalism, and reason as the ultimate authority, neglecting the supernatural and biblical revelation. Hutcheson, Paine, Voltaire, Hume, Rousseau, Leibniz, and Kant, all neglected the Bible as the Supreme Authority.

Jon Rowe, along with most of the academic elites, miss the boat; here, Rowe believes an Orthodox Christian's use of philosophical language is from the enlightenment, but as this blog shows, we know for a fact, these terms were used by preachers at that time and by Christians three hundred-fifty years before, perfected in political rhetoric during the Reformation (1500-1678):

"John Witherspoon was one of those evangelicals who contributed to the spread of secularism in American life. His Lectures on Moral Philosophy, what he primarily taught his Princeton students like James Madison, did not teach Christian or Calvinist principles, but rather Scottish Enlightenment principles." http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2008/04/christian-blog-on-search-for-christian.html

This blog has already proven John Witherspoon did not deny one word of the bible in favor of rationalism. http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-witherspoon-james-madison-and.html




Saturday, April 5, 2008

Was George Washington a Christian?

The more I investigate and read the account of witnesses claiming George Washington was a Christian, the more my own view is questioned. By a careful examination of Washington's words, and the context of those words, it is evident his philosophical language, which all Christians used in reference to God, no doubt, referred to Jesus Christ. Granted, this is not an admission of faith, but, neither does it exempt the label of Christian.

Using proper English Comprehension, the key to Washington's letter to the Delaware Chiefs is not the Indians' arts and ways of life, but our ways of life, showing Jesus Christ's Religion is to be above everything else in our culture; again, Washington includes himself in "our" arts and ways of life:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it."
SPEECH TO THE DELAWARE CHIEFS
Head Quarters, Middle Brook, May 12, 1779.
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&act=surround&offset=18502434&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+15:+SPEECH+TO+THE+DELAWARE+CHIEFS&query=jesus+christ&id=gw150049

So George Washington never referred to God in Christian terms? Quite the contrary; he mentioned Jesus Christ to the Delaware Chiefs, and here, in 1789:

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions."
Thanksgiving Proclamation, October 3rd, 1789

Who pardons transgressions and is The Lord? Jesus Christ is the only answer. This also shows his prayers and supplications were to Jesus, not to a deist, or theist god.

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."
Washington's Farewell to the Army, June 8th, 1783
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html

Without a doubt, George Washington is referring to Jesus Christ, as these Characteristicks refer only to Him. He declares, including himself, our country's religion is Christianity, whose imitation every nation should imitate.

And again, here, Washington says Revelation, which is God's will for mankind, is referring to the Bible, supported by Webster's definition of the word. Notice, God's revelation is superior to all human knowledge, including man's reason, which can only be useful and relevant if it is written down:

"[t]he Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society."

There is evidence, among other reports, Washington took communion, here is one testimony in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania:

The Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, an ordained Presbyterian minister, graduate of Princeton with a degree from Dickinson College. Mr. Snowden was born in Philadelphia January 17, 1770 and died November 12, 1851. His writings cover a period from youth to 1846. In his records may be found these observations, in Mr. Snowden's own handwriting:

Mr. Snowden, as if to emphasize the piety of Washington sets forth in his records that he often saw Washington, that he accompanied seventy other clergymen to visit him on the anniversary of his birth February 22, 1792. Then Mr. Snowden adds:

"When the army lay at Morristown, the Rev. Dr. Jones, administered the sacrament of ye Lord's supper. Washington came forward at ye head of all his officers and took his seat at ye 1st table, & took of ye bread and wine, the Symbols of Christ's broken body and shed blood, to do this in remembrance of ye L J C & thus professed himself a Christian & a disciple of the blessed Jesus."
http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/prayer.html

Did Washington fake communion, and this testimony false? Is the Valley Forge Prayer an accurate account? I know there are equally other testimonies rejecting Washington's faith, but, without his words rejecting Christianity, it's difficult to label him a theist. David Barton may be on safe ground claiming Washington a Christian. The claims of Washington's Grand daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis, John Marshall, Abiel Holmes, or Jared Sparks may only refer to his Christian character, not his faith in Christian Orthodoxy, which is mandatory for salvation; Marshall was a unitarian until the latter part of his life.

If Snowden's testimony is true, I have no problem with people claiming Washington a Christian, for me, I am still undecided.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Do you want to be Saved, a Child of God?

1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Version)
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

This is a true saying, as Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation John Witherspoon declared:

"[I]f you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish."

The Bible is clear, there is no other way to be saved, but by faith in Jesus Christ:

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me."
John 14:6

And also by the Apostle Peter in Acts 4:12:

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Do you want your sins blotted out, to not answer for them when you die? Trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. You can do it in a simple prayer between you and Him. Jesus said salvation is a gift, it cannot be worked for by masses, or hail mary's, neither does salvation cost money, it is by grace through faith, that we are saved.

If you want eternal life, then be sincere and repeat after me:

Lord Jesus, forgive me I'm a sinner, I ask for your forgiveness and believe you died on the cross at Calvary for my sins. I ask you to come into my life and be my Lord and Savior, please help me to be worthy of you, and to live the life you want me to live, in your name I pray, Amen.

If you prayed that, you are now a child of God, Born Again, where the Spirit of God has indwelled your body. Thousands of people get saved everyday on this earth, it is a supernatural thing that happens. Not only does Jesus speak about the New Birth, so does the Apostle Paul in Colossians 1:27:

"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."

The word "in" means much more in Greek than in English. It means indwelling, all-encompassing, tied in with your spirit. Apart from the New Birth, our spirits are dead because of sin, sin is imputed from Adam; notice it isn't from Eve, she was deceived, Adam rebelled. From biology, it seems properties of blood, is received from man, thereby the transfer of Adam's sin is imputed by him. Whichever way God used for imputation, it was through Adam.

Here again, Paul on the New Birth:
Romans 8
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

What a glorious thing to know God dwells in you! There is no philosophy of man that comes close to the glory of that statement!

What are the essential beliefs to be a Christian, at the age of accountability? Most children who accept Jesus as their Savior, have never heard of His Deity, or of the Trinity; therefore, as John Locke believed, Jesus The Messiah, is sufficient for salvation, is true. Locke never denied the Trinity, so how can psuedo authorities call him an anti-trinitarian? Wouldn't public denial of the Trinity necessitate the label? Once a person rejects Jesus' Deity, or any other essential, there can be no salvation. It is because these essentials of the faith are clearly taught in the Bible; reject them and you reject The Spirit of God, who inspired the words.

The essentials:
1. Inerrancy-the bible is the Word of God, period, no exceptions! Although the original autographs are the actual inspired words, that we do not have; God has preserved His Words for us.
2. The Deity and Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ-Jesus had no human father, was God in human flesh. Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Jesus' Deity necessitates the Trinity, here, Peter says The Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-5
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own?... thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Isaac Newton disbelieved the Trinity, saying these verses were an interpolation, not knowing the same verbage is used throughout the chapter, and the verses are in nine of Stephanus' sixteen syrian text manuscripts, consistent with Isa 48:16-17, and the entire Old and New Testaments.
3. The Vicarious Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ-Jesus' sinless blood atoned for the sins of the World. 1 John 2:2 (King James Version)And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
4. Jesus' Resurrection from the Dead-Jesus rose from the dead like He said He would. This is the most attested fact in history of the ancient world. Its truth supported by the greatest testimony any court of law could conceive.
5. Jesus' Physical Return to the Earth-He said He would return to set up His Kingdom. Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

6. Jesus will judge the living and the dead, some to eternal life with God, others, to eternal separation from God-The Words of the Creator Jesus Christ:
Matthew 8:12 But the children of the kingdom(Jews) shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.
Notice, the fire will never be quenched, refuting the theory of limited damnation.

These essentials are consistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646, and Catechism of 1647. Founding Father James Madison, and every young boy growing up in the colonies saw this on the walls of the schools, here is question six:

Q. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead? There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. Madison and the others knew exactly what orthodoxy was.

May you know eternal life in Jesus Christ.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Christian Philosopher Thomas Hobbes Believed Scripture Superior to Reason

Hobbes may have denied God's present involvement in human affairs, but the philosophers may not be correct in stating he believed the Sovereign Power superior to God's Revelation. Although, he seems to be orthodox, he has some quirky ideas, one of which; God will establish His Kingdom at the end of the World. The Bible says the Kingdom of God is within regenerated human beings, from the work of the Spirit of God, through faith in Our Savior Jesus Christ.

In Chapter IV, he discredits false religions, showing where his faith lies. Here, he says God's Word is superior to man's reason:

"These dictates of reason men used to call by the name of laws, but improperly: for they are but conclusions or theorems concerning what conduceth to the conservation and defence of themselves; whereas law, properly, is the word of him that by right hath command over others. But yet if we consider the same theorems as delivered in the word of God that by right commandeth all things, then are they properly called laws."
Leviathan. Chapter XV: Of Other Laws of Nature

How can the academic elites say Hobbes believed the Sovereign Power was superior to God's Law in light of these verses? His writings seem so abstract, they are hard to understand, but it is ultimately the abuses of the Church that Hobbes attacked. Some commentators, and Professors much more learned than I, seem in error, believing he denied the current spiritual realm in our universe, asserting Hobbes believed God was material, on the contrary, he appears orthodox:

"In sum, in what matter soever there is place for addition and subtraction, there also is place for reason; and where these have no place, there reason has nothing at all to do. And hence it came to pass, when our Saviour was compassed about with the multitude, those of the house doubted he was mad, and went out to hold him: but the Scribes said he had Beelzebub, and that was it, by which he cast out devils; as if the greater madman had awed the lesser. And that some said, "He hath a devil, and is mad"; whereas others, holding him for a prophet, said, "These are not the words of one that hath a devil."...So that, in sum, it is manifest that whosoever behaved himself in extraordinary manner was thought by the Jews to be possessed either with a good or evil spirit; except by the Sadducees, who erred so far on the other hand as not to believe there were at all any spirits, which is very near to direct atheism; and thereby perhaps the more provoked others to term such men demoniacs rather than madmen."
Leviathan, Part I, Chapter VIII

"The true God may be personated. As He was: first, Moses, who governed the Israelites, that were that were not his, but God's people; not in his own name, with hoc dicit Moses, but in God's name, with hoc dicit Dominus. Secondly, by the Son of Man, His own Son, our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, that came to reduce the Jews and induce all nations into the kingdom of his Father; not as of himself, but as sent from his Father. And thirdly, by the Holy Ghost, or Comforter, speaking and working in the Apostles; which Holy Ghost was a Comforter that came not of himself, but was sent and proceeded from them both."
Chapter XVI: Of Persons, Authors, and Things Personated.

"The Scripture was written to show unto men the kingdom of God, and to prepare their minds to become His obedient subjects, leaving the world, and the philosophy thereof, to the disputation of men for the exercising of their natural reason...Whether the earth's or sun's motion make the day and night, or whether the exorbitant actions of men proceed from passion or from the Devil, so we worship him not, it is all one, as to our obedience and subjection to God Almighty; which is the thing for which the Scripture was written."

It seems Hobbes may have understood essential doctrines of the Christian Faith:

"Nevertheless, there is no doubt but God can make unnatural apparitions: but that He does it so often as men need to fear such things more than they fear the stay, or change, of the course of Nature, which he also can stay, and change, is no point of Christian faith."
Chapter II: Of Imagination

"For these seeds have received culture from two sorts of men. One sort have been they that have nourished and ordered them, according to their own invention. The other have done it by God's commandment and direction. But both sorts have done it with a purpose to make those men that relied on them the more apt to obedience, laws, peace, charity, and civil society. So that the religion of the former sort is a part of human politics; and teacheth part of the duty which earthly kings require of their subjects. And the religion of the latter sort is divine politics; and containeth precepts to those that have yielded themselves subjects in the kingdom of God. Of the former sort were all the founders of Commonwealths, and the lawgivers of the Gentiles: ofthe latter sort were Abraham, Moses, and our blessed Saviour, by whom have been derived unto us the laws of the kingdom of God."
Chapter XII: Of Religion

Like I said earlier, some commentators believe Hobbes thought the Sovereign Power Supreme, here, Hobbes rejects that view:

"that a Commonwealth without sovereign power is but a word without substance and cannot stand: that subjects owe to sovereigns simple obedience in all things wherein their obedience is not repugnant to the laws of God, I have sufficiently proved in that which I have already written."
Chapter XXXI: Of the Kingdom of God By Nature

He also seems to believe in merging church and state, with the Sovereign rather than the people in control. In the end, it is difficult to find evidence of heterodoxy in Thomas Hobbes, in the essentials of the Christian faith.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

John Locke: The Trinitarian Christian

Practically every secularist academic believes the three hundred year error of labeling John Locke something less than, what Jesus termed, a Born Again Christian. Their error is not understanding Locke's foundational belief of what encompasses "Jesus is The Messiah." All the essential doctrine of true Christianity is in Locke's statement; Jesus is The Second Person of the Triune God, Virgin Birth, Sacrificial Blood Atonement, Inerrancy, Death and Resurrection, and His Physical Return to the Earth. Here is the evidence for it:

"And if your lordship has brought in the mention of my book in a chapter, intitled, “Objections against the Trinity, in Point of Reason, answered;” when, in my whole Essay, I think there is not to be found any thing like an objection against the Trinity: I have the more to acknowledge to your lordship, who would not let the foreignness of the subject hinder your lordship from endeavouring to set me right, as to some errours your lordship apprehends in my book; when other writers using some notions like mine, gave you that which was occasion enough for you to do me the favour to take notice of what you dislike in my Essay...If your lordship had showed me any thing in my book, that contained or implied any opposition in it to any thing revealed in holy writ concerning the Trinity, or any other doctrine contained in the bible, I should have been thereby obliged to your lordship for freeing me from that mistake, and for affording me an opportunity to own to the world that obligation, by publicly retracting my errour."

Locke believed inerrancy of the Bible, which no doubt teaches The Trinity:

"The holy scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing infallible truth, relating to things of the highest concernment. And I wish I could say, there were no mysteries in it: I acknowledge there are to me, and I fear always will be. But where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it: and I shall presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture. But I must confess to your lordship, that I do not perceive any such contrariety in any thing in my Essay of Human Understanding."

~Postscript to "A Letter to the Right Rev. Edward ... concerning some passages relating to Mr. Locke's 'Essay on Human Understanding.'"

The evidence that Locke was an arian or socinian is not from his own words, but opinions from people from a faulty foundation, such as: his unitarian friends, like Isaac Newton, and his library containing books on unitarianism. He spent his entire life fighting the label of arian or socinian.

"I expound, [Edwards] says, John 14.9 &c. after the Antitrinitarian Mode: And I make Christ and Adam to be Sons of God, in the same sense, and by their Birth, as the Racovians [i.e. Socinians] generally do. I know not but it may be true, that the Antitrinitarians and Racovians understand those places as I do: But ’tismore than I know that they do so. I took not those Texts from those Writers, but from the Scripture itself, giving Light to its own meaning, by one place compared with another: What in this way appears to me its true meaning, I shall not decline, because I am told, that it is so understood by the Racovians, whom I never yet read."(Writings on Religion, p. 219)

This particular quote by Locke doesn't prove he was anti-trinitarian, but that he didn't know what particular Anti-Trinitarian, and Racovian writers believed. If he believed the Bible taught anti-trinitarianism, he blatantly contradicted himself in his Letter to the Right Rev. Edwards, as he says he never wrote against the trinity. What is more believable, did he or didn't he contradict himself? Was Locke familiar with Racovian literature on the Trinity? He says he never read their literature.




Saturday, February 9, 2008

John Witherspoon, James Madison, and The Founding Fathers Believed Revelation Supreme

John Witherspoon taught a large group of the Founding Fathers, his college; Princeton, proscribed the dominant view in America; Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Penn, and every other institution of higher learning, including the country at large, believed in the same views. As third President of Princeton University, Witherspoon's influence was vast in the field of education by instructing and forming the first Presidents of the following American Colleges: Union College of New York, Washington College and Hampden-Sidney College of Virginia; Mount Zion College in South Carolina; Queen's College and the University of North Carolina; Washington, Greenville, Tusculum and Cumberland Colleges and the University of Nashville in Tennessee; Jefferson College, Pennsylvania; and Transylvania College, Kentucky. Of his layman graduates James Madison became fourth President of the United States. Aaron Burr became Vice-President. Ten became cabinet officers and sixty served in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives in Congress. Twelve became Governors of States and fifty-six members of State Legislative bodies and three Justices of the Supreme Court of the U.S. Of the twenty-five College graduates at the Continental Congress, nine were from Princeton University, among which six had Witherspoon's signature on their College diplomas.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt70.html

After researching the writings of Witherspoon, we now know, he, and the Founding Fathers: Richard Stockton, John Jay, John Adams, and all the rest, minus a couple infidels Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, believed the Bible was superior to anything and everything, especially human law, reason put on paper.

Talking about Hume and the Deistical controversy, he makes clear reason will always be inferior despite what infidel writers devise, let every secularist hearken unto the words of John Witherspoon:

"In the deistical controversy, what commonly leads the way, is the necessity of revelation in general...The first infidel writers in Europe, were chiefly employed in shewing the sufficiency of reason as a guide to man in his conduct, of whom Lord Herbert, of Cherburg, was one of the most early, and one of the most eminent. Their way of arguing is very fallacious; for they avail themselves of that very improvement of reason, which they owe to revelation, in order to shew revelation to be unnecessary...Infidels do not now plead for Jupiter, Juno, Mars, and Apollo, but for the suffciency of human reason."

"Very plain, that such is our blindness and ignorance in the things of God, that we know very little about them, till they are made known by God himself; and if we were to make our own reason the previous standard of what was admissible or not in quality of revelation, it would make mad work indeed."

There goes the logic of Jefferson and Franklin.

"I shall care very little what men of vain and carnal minds say of my sentiments; but I have been many years of opinion, that as revelation was necessary, and revelation is given us, we act the most wise and truly rational part, if we take all our theological opinions immediately, and without challenge, from the oracles of truth. I confess it is agreeable to me to shew, that the truths of the everlasting gospel are agreeable to sound reason, and founded upon the state of human nature ; and I have made it my business through my whole life to illustrate this remark. Yet to begin by making the suggession of our own reason the standard of what is to be heard or examined as a matter of revelation, I look upon to be highly dangerous, manifestly unjust, and inconsistent with the foundation-stone of all revealed religion, viz. that reason, without it, is insufficient to bring us to the knowledge of God and our duty; and therefore as Socrates said to Al.cibiades, It is reasonable to think that God will come down into the world, to teach us his will." I am not insensible how far it would be just to carry the principle on which our adversaries ground their sentiments. Any new principles or doctrines, seemingly absurd in themselves, and unholy in their effects, would not, with judicious persons, be rashly or suddenly admitted ; and the more supicious the principles are in themselves, no doubt we will examine the pretensions to miracles the more carefully.—This is the part of prudence ; but to carry it further, and say, we will receive no evidence that God hasn't taught any thing different from what we ourselves think reasonahle, is just weakening the truth before admitted,' that revelation immediately from himself is evidently new?"It will now be time to consider a little, the objections against the Christian religion...That reason is a sufficient guide to truth and happiness and therefore revelation is unnecessary; and that miracles are impossible, and incredible. Those I pass with what has been laid on them above.""that things may be above reason, and yet not contradictory to it. By this expression above reason, may be understood two things—beyond the power of reason to discover, and above the reach of reason to comprehend."Therefore though we say that the trinity in unity is incomprehensible, or above reason, we say nothing that is absurd or contrary to reason; so far from it, I may say rather it is consistent to reason and the analogy of nature that there should be many things in the divine nature that we cannot fully comprehend. There are many such things in his providence, and surely much more in his essence."
Works, Vol 4.

This chapter on the divinity of Jesus, talks about how reason was espoused by infidels, as did Jefferson and a retired John Adams, and how inadequate the doctrine was to the ancients without revelation. He also attacks the system (Jefferson's entire belief system) of repentence and forgiveness without the Gospel.

Even Law Professor Rodney K. Smith agree with my sentiments on Witherspoon:
http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2003/3/SMI.pdf

I will say Witherspoon believed in some core values of Calvinism, such as Predestination and Damnation, which is not in the Bible:

"nothing can be weaker than the Arminian scheme, considered as a system of the divine purpose, because they leave out or suspend the purpose at every stage. If I were to say any thing upon this subject (I mean the order of the decrees) I would say nearly as Pulit, in his system as contained in the notes upon Rulet, has said, which is in substance this, that God resolved from all eternity to manifest his own glory, and illustrate his moral excellence, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth, in the production and government of a created system. That for this purpose the whole system, and all the facts of which it consists and their dependance one upon another, and the order itself in which they were to take place, were ordained. If the whole, then certainly every particular part as fully as the whole, is the object of one absolute decree"

"It seems to be a matter infilled on in the strongest manner in scripture, that the evil or guilt of every creature is to be ascribed to the creature, as to its proper and adequate cause; at the same time it seems fully as plain that whatever connexion there may be between one evil and another, the choice of the vessels of mercy is free and unconditional, and that the rejection of others is imputed to the sovereignty of God, Luke x. 2i. John xii. 39. That the choice of the vessels of mercy is free and sovereign, appears from the words of scripture; from their universal state dead in trespasses and sins ; from their visible character, and from the means of their recovery I mean the omnipotence of divine grace. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."

He misinterprets these verses, as they do not promote predestination and condemnation, but freewill. Isaiah's prophecy is a rejection of the Messiah, which the Pharisees did by quenching their conscience so many times, that God reinforced them in their position, as he did will Pharoah. Calvinists always distort scripture when it suits them.

That about does it on Witherspoon; that his view on this subject is consistent with most of the nation is evident. I recommend everyone read Vol IV. Thanks Herc, for putting it on founders bookshelf.

The natural rights ideals of the US Founding demanded a legal equality of rights not for all religions, but for Christians. Here, Samuel Adams gives the The Rights of the Colonists in November 20, 1772, with Ben Franklins approval:

I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
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. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed.
II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
And, by the charter of this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory.
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm

It is clear the states are supreme in matters of religion, but they never established a particular sect in each state; general Christianity was the established religion of the states. Religion was never a compromise, but a fact, approved by James Madison:

"If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion...Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest."
James Madison, June 12, 1788. Elliot's Debates In the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution(Virginia)

Here, Madison affirms the miraculous, destroying the rationalist stigma applied to him:

"To adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small States. Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties. The whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it. Adding to these considerations the natural diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle."
To Thomas Jefferson.NEW YORK, Octr 24th, 1787.Writings of Madison, Volume 1: 1769-1793, p.343.

Madison believed we were a Christian Nation:

"that He would inspire all nations with a love of justice and of concord, and with a reverence for the unerring precept of our holy religion, to do to others as they would require that others should do to them; and, finally, that turning the hearts of our enemies from the violence and injustice which sway their councils against us, He would hasten a restoration of the blessings of peace."
Given at Washington, the 9th day of July, A. D. 1812 James Madison

Pseudo Christian George Washington understood The Law of Nature was the Christian God:

"which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."
Washington's Farewell to the Army, 1783
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html

Much can be said of the foolishness of John Adams, not only his belief in the false doctrine of unitarianism, but his complete reversal of beliefs when he retired; don't ever miscontrue Adams' words, that while he served our nation he affirmed paganism, here, he rejects anything blasphemous towards the Bible:

"Blasphemy, Cruelty, and Villany have prevailed and may again. But they wont prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed the less they succeed." to Abigail Adams, 17 February 1777

BLAS''PHEMY, n. An indignity offered to God by words or writing; reproachful, contemptuous or irreverent words uttered impiously against Jehovah.Blasphemy is an injury offered to God, by denying that which is due and belonging to him, or attributing to him that which is not agreeable to his nature. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=blasphemy&use1828=on

Adams' hypocracy is amazing, Our Saviour? Unitarians do not believe in a Saviour:

"But how shall I describe the Picture of our Saviour in a Frame of Marble over the Altar at full Length upon the Cross, in the Agonies, and the Blood dropping and streaming from his Wounds."
to Abigail Adams 1777.

Here Adams says the Revolution is based on the Bible:

"The gallant Struggle in America, is founded in Principles so indisputable, in the moral Law, in the revealed Law of God, in the true Constitution of great Britain, and in the most apparent Welfare of the Nation as well as the People in America, that I must confess it rejoices my very Soul."
John Adams second "Clarendon" letter as printed in the Boston Gazette, 20, Jan. 1766.

So Adams's morality is the Bible, notice the word alone:

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies."
Letter to Zabdiel Adams (1776-06-21)

Here again Adams on conscience and its Author inseparable:

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers."
A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765)

Adams again on the weakness of the Conscience:

The passions and appetites are parts of human nature as well as reason and the moral sense. In the institution of government it must be remembered that, although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be.
Defence, 3:289, 479. Cf., Cited by Michael Novak, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2002), 49.

Adams was right, human nature is depraved and insufficient without religion.

How can Reason be superior if its so weak, as Adams says:

We see every Day, that our Imaginations are so strong and our Reason so weak, the Charms of Wealth and Power are so en [enchanting]chanting, and the Belief of future Punishments so faint...Their Reason becomes at last an eloquent Advocate on the Side of their Passions, and [they] bring themselves to believe that black is white, that Vice is Virtue, that Folly is Wisdom and Eternity a Moment."
Diary, FEB, 9TH, 1772. ADAMS PAPERS.

Here is the kicker, notice there is no truth(reason) higher than Scripture:

On March 6, 1799, President John Adams called for a National Fast Day.
"As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, nor any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages...that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to his righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34)"

John Adams seemed to be a little confused.

Moving on to Biblical Theory being our nation's core, the fact of the matter is the Reformation Period was the springboard to Freedom of Conscience, and Human Rights, not enlightenment philosophers. Men such as: Luther, Calvin, Theodore Beza, George Buchanan, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (1579) by Phillipe du Plessis Mornay, Politica (1603) by Johannes Althusius, and Lex Rex (1644) by Samuel Rutherford was the foundation for
Thomas Jefferson’s seal: “Resistance to Tyrants Is Obedience unto God.”

Calvin's successor Theodore Beza beat John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes on political rights by one hundred years. Puritan theologies loom large as the ideological predecessors of the New World... All sides, sympathetic to Puritans or not, admit that the Puritan faith was at the foundation of the New World colonies. Since this New World led to such paramount developments of government, the locus of the underlying root is not unimportant. Systemic features such as limited terms, balance of powers, citizen nullification, and interpositional magistracies were at the heart of New World government, all concepts that were popularized by the Reformation. One hundred years prior to the American Revolution, most of the major ideas were set, and they did not originate properly from Enlightenment social contract thought so much as from Buchanan/Rutherford’s social covenant, ensconced in its distinctly Biblical moorings.
http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_article_238.php

James Madison held to Calvinism to a certain degree, showing John Witherspoon's influence in the paradigm of John Knox, reflecting this theology when he said,

“But what is government but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” A Genevan theological belief, the doctrine of human depravity, animated his politics.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Is Man's Reason Superior to Scripture?

The question in the title is, for the most part , only pondered by secularists, although, it means little to the people of today, to our Founding Fathers, it meant everything; it asks, "What law is our nation founded on? and "Where did the Founding Fathers understand where this written law came from?" To find out what the framers believed superior would be to examine their writings, and what they were taught in school, preferably college, or seminary. The answer becomes obvious, as well as showing how the doctrine of limiting the beliefs to a few infidel framers is not only disingenuous, but displays the only basis for the contrary viewpoint. Let it be clear, the morality of the Founding Fathers includes the sphere of politics; morality and politics cannot be separated. Justice was employed, not from something called the enlightenment, but, given by the law of nature as shown from the bible. The Justice of God, we sinners deserve, but mercy is the pinnacle of enlightenment; punishment fitting the crime, is derived from the bible, as earlier posts have showed. Loving your neighbor as yourself, science, freedom of conscience, and morality, come from the bible. Religion and morality are always superior to reason:

"By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]
Benjamin Rush
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

Founding Father John Witherspoon believed in no distinction between spiritual and civil liberty, promoted by Christians, lead by presbyterians in the revolution. John Locke and the English Whigs may be responsible for writing on the moral sense, but reason encompasses the entire bible, of which Thomas Aquinas showed four hundred years earlier, citing an incorrect source:

"That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion...God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."
The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 17 May 1776

It is also important to note Witherspoon was not a pure calvinist as some make him out to be. By his writings, it is safe to say he believed in free will over irresistable grace, that calvinism holds to, as well as denying some other aspects of the flawed doctrine.

"The doctrines I mean are, the lost slate of man by nature ; salvation by the free grace of God"
Works of Witherspoon, Vol. II.

Salvation is not free to Calvinism, but a product of unconditional election.

"Yet I think, admitting all...consider how far any thing is consonant to reason, or may be proven by reason; though perhaps reason, if left to itself, would never have discovered it."
John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, foremost of the Founding Fathers.
Lectures on Moral Philosophy.

Reason cannot discover the answer, therefore, he believed, as the other framers, only religion, inspired writings could have ultimate truth. Man's reason is only true insofar as it coincides with scripture.

"I may make one particular remark, that though many things are copied from the law of Moses into the laws of the modern nations, yet, so far as I know, none of them have introduced the lex talionis in the case of injuries, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and yet perhaps there are many instances in which it would be very proper."

An eye for an eye is enlightenment rationalism?

"If we take tradition or Revelation for our guide, the matter is plain, that God made man lord of the works of his hands, and put under him all the other creatures."

And again, is this enlightenment?

"If any should ask, how I prove that that course of action to which human nature is inclined is evil, without the acceptance of Scripture? I answer, from reason; and that many ways—from its pernicious effects on societies, and private persons; from the testimony of the world in general, when others than themselves are concerned, and from the testimony of every man's conscience in his own case."

Without Scripture as a guide, corrupted reason is just that; corrupt.

"From all this then, I would conclude, that reason accords with scripture, in saying, that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God: that man in a natural state, is wretched and miserable, and poor, and and naked."

Not scripture accords with reason, but reason according to the scripture. As far as salvation, that is Jesus Christ, which is the ultimate truth, scripture must be greater than reason, because only God's word can reveal faith.

"We must conclude therefore, that however stable a foundation there is for the other attributes of God in nature and reason, the way in which, and the terms on which, he will shew mercy, can be learned from Revelation only."

Here is another instance of reason not providing ultimate truth in a matter.

"It is true, that infidels do commonly proceed upon pretended principles of reason."

As did Infidels David Hume and Thomas Jefferson.

Witherspoon was President of Princeton College, his students included, in addition to a president and vice-president of the United States, nine cabinet members, twenty-one senators, thirty-nine congressmen, three justices of the Supreme Court, and twelve state governors. Five of the nine Princeton graduates among the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were students of Witherspoon.

Witherspoon also claims the judging of good and evil by man's reason is not sufficiently precise and explicit, the Divine conduct being the standard of wisdom.

Let it forever by destroyed, the use of generic terms a departure of orthodoxy as Witherspoon shows in his Lectures:

"In the law of Moses, where rules are laid down for their treatment" p. 92, "many things are copied from the law of Moses into the laws of the modern nations" p. 145, "and that both in the Scripture revelation..." p. 56, "The first two of these founded on the New Testament, and the last on reason."

"The particulars which reason and nature point out, relating to the marriage contract, are as follow: 1. That it be between one man and one woman. Polygamy is condemned by nature...

The Law of Moses and the New Testament is secular? Condemnation, which would be the just punishment of homosexuality, is enlightenment rationalism?

George Washington says religion and morality, not reason, are indispensable to government:

'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."
Jedediah Morse, Patriot and Father of American Geography
A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1799), p. 9.)

"[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience."
James McHenry, Signer of the Constitution

The scriptures alone, not reason, give man total truth.

Separation of religion and government? Not to the Founding Fathers:

"[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions."
Oliver Ellsworth, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut)

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Again, the Founding Fathers are clear; the bible is superior to man's reason for government.

"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."
Fisher Ames, Framed the final wording for the First Amendment
An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws."
John Quincy Adams, Sixth President of the United States
Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)

It is clear, the Founding Fathers believed religion far superior to man's right or wrong reason.