Search This Blog

Monday, December 31, 2012

John Locke and the "Governmental Theory" of Atonement

There are many views of the Christian Atonement including the Governmental Theory, perhaps tied to Hugo Grotius, but adhered to by John Locke. The Governmental Theory extends God's forgiveness for sin among other things. There are several different views of the Atonement, the belief of which may not have anything to do with whether someone is saved, but it has to do with Locke's overall faith. This portion of his commentary on Romans proves my point:
But the righteousness of God, that righteousness which he intended, and will accept, and is a righteousness not within the rule and rigour of law, is now made manifest, and confirmed by the testimony of the law and the prophets, which bear witness of this truth, that Jesus is the Messias, and that it is according to his purpose and promise, That the righteousness of God, by faith in Jesus the Messias, is extended to, and bestowed on all who believe in him* , (for there is no difference between them. They have all, both jews and gentiles, sinned, and fail of attaining that glory which God hath appointed for the righteous,) Being made righteous gratis,[without payment] by the favour of God, through the redemption which is by Jesus Christ; Whom God hath set forth to be the propitiatory, or mercy-seat* in his own blood , for the manifestation of his [God’s] righteousness , by passing over§ their transgressions, formerly committed, which he hath borne with hitherto, so as to withhold his hand from casting off the nation of the jews, as their past sins deserved. [bold face mine]
--Romans 3:1-31 Paraphrase

24Redemption signifies deliverance, but not deliverance from every thing, but deliverance from that, to which a man is in subjection, or bondage. Nor does redemption by Jesus Christ import, there was any compensation made to God, by paying what was of equal value, in consideration whereof they were delivered: for that is inconsistent with what St. Paul expressly says here, viz. that sinners are justified by God gratis,[without payment] and of his free bounty. What this redemption is, St. Paul tells us, Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14, even the forgiveness of sins. But if St. Paul had not been so express in defining what he means by redemption, they yet would be thought to lay too much stress upon the criticism of a word, in the translation, who would thereby force from the word, in the original, a necessary sense, which it is plain it hath not. That redeeming, in the sacred scripture language, signifies not precisly paying an equivalent, is so clear, that nothing can be more. I shall refer my reader to three or four places amongst a great number, Exod. vi. 6, Deut. vii. 8, and xv. 12, and xxiv. 18. But if any one will, from the literal signification of the word in English, persist in it, against St. Paul’s declarations, that it necessarily implies an equivalent price paid, I desire him to consider to whom: and that, if we will strictly adhere to the metaphor, it must be to those, whom the redeemed are in bondage to, and from whom we are redeemed, viz. sin and Satan. If he will not believe his own system for this, let him believe St. Paul’s words, Tit. ii. 14, “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity.” Nor could the price be paid to God, in strictness of justice (for that is made the argument here;) unless the same person ought, by that strict justice, to have both the thing redeemed, and the price paid for its redemption. For it is to God we are redeemed, by the death of Christ, Rev. v. 9, “Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” [bold face mine]

He says "unless the same person ought, by that strict justice, to have both the thing redeemed, and the price paid for its redemption." That's precisely what happened. Only God could satisfy the perfect justice His Holiness requires.

Before I make the conclusion, unitarians believe in mercy by forgiveness through a moral example, which is exactly what this theory requires. It's more evidence that Locke believed in God's forgiveness in a unitarian context, rather than the satisfaction by blood as a sacrifice. Does Locke say the same person couldn't both accept the redemption and pay the price for it. Why not? Ironically, he used Biddle's argument in the Adversaria Theologica.

1. How can God satisfy God? If one person satisfies another, then he that satisfies is still unsatisfied, or forgives. Ib. 12.
John xx. 17.
Eph. i. 7.
Heb. i. 8, 9.
First, Locke is buying Biddle's ideas. If any man could answer some of Biddle's questions he would be God. But not this one. God satisfies God because of the Trinity.
God cannot forgive because His very nature is Holiness and Perfect Justice. The Bible says God is just. Therefore, Justice and Holiness is His nature. God cannot act contrary to His nature. God doesn't even have the capacity to forgive or the capacity to be Holy. It violates His nature. He's already inherently Holy and Just. This is what Calvin's Substitutionary Theory is all about. Calvin was a lawyer, which is why he used legal terms to explain this.
Also, God's fellowship with Sin is completely void and impossible. God cannot have fellowship with anything less than His perfect righteousness. He must also deal with every human being with perfect justice, meaning He can't deal unfairly with us or send us to hell without providing a solution for our salvation. Man is entirely without spiritual life or capacity, so no one can work or earn fellowship with God; that is, Propitiation is the Reconciliation in Christ and what satisfies God's Holiness.
Forgiveness in the Scriptures refers not to what God would literally do, but a result from satisfying and Propitiation. John Locke's view on the Governmental Theory of Atonement mirrors his unitarian belief of Salvation.  

Sunday, December 16, 2012

John Locke Contradicting History

Parts of Locke's Adversaria (check Locke's for and against list):

Unitaria.--The Fathers before the Council of Nice speak rather like Arians than orthodox. If any one desire to see undeniable proofs of it, I refer him to the Quaternio of Curciltaus, where he will be fully satisfied. There is scarcely one text alleged to the Trinitarians which is not otherwise expounded by their own writers: you may see a great number of these texts and expositions in a book entitled Scriptura S. Trin. Revelatrix, under the name of St Gallus. There be a multitude of texts that deny those things of Christ which cannot be denied of God, and that affirm such things of him that cannot agree to him if he were a person of God..
Trinity.—The Papists deny that the doctrine of the Trinity can be proved by the Scripture ; see this plainly taught and urged very earnestly by Card. Hosius de Auth. S. Script. 1. iii. p. 53; Gordonius Hunlaeius Contr. Tom. Cont. de Verbo Dei, c. 19; Gretserus and Tanerus in Colloquio Rattisbon. Vega. Possevin. Wiekus. These learned men, especially Bellarmin, and Wiekus after him, have urged all the Scriptures they could, with their utmost industry, find out in this cause, and yet, after all, they acknowledge their insufficiency and obscurity.
Curcillaeus has proved, as well as anything can be proved out of ancient writings, that the doctrine of the Trinity, about the time of the Council of Nice, was of a special union of three persons in the Deity, and not of a numerical, as it is now taught, and has been taught since the chimerical schoolmen were hearkened unto.
Concerning the original of the Trinitarian doctrines, from whom they are derived or by whom they were invented, he that is generally and indeed deservedly confessed to have writ the most learnedly, is Dr Cudworth, in his Intellectual System.
Trinity.—The Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not believed, or, as I think, so much as mentioned, by any in the time of Lactantius, i. e. anno 300..
If you go through his list for and against the Trinity, there's no debate anymore. He quotes the Father of Unitarianism John Biddle, and neglects most of the New Testament that mentions the Trinity. By this work--which was private, and thank God for his sake it was, Locke was actually an amateur theologian (citing uninspired men) if he can be called one. The last sentence of the first paragraph proves Locke denied Christ's Deity. He agrees that this "Curcillaeus has proved..special union of three persons in the Deity." Locke even mocks the Trinity "Concerning the original of the Trinitarian doctrines..or by whom they were invented." Locke was wrong about the Church Fathers and the Trinity, as well as Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Yet the Church Fathers spoke of the numerical Trinity years before Nicea:
And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
--Tertullian, 216 A.D. Against Praxeas 2
The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after he rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt 28:19) And by this he showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through the Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did and the Spirit manifested.
--Hippolytus of Rome, 220 A.D. Against Noetus Ch. 14.
For this cause, yea and for all things, I praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, through the eternal and heavenly High-priest, Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom with Him and the Holy Spirit be glory both now [and ever] and for the ages to come. Amen.
--Polycarp of Smyrna, 155 A.D. To Autolycus 2:15

Saturday, December 1, 2012

The Apostle To The Indians, John Eliot (1604-1690)

Gen. H. A. S. Dearborn:
Sir: — I am happy to acknowledge the receipt of the Lithograph you were so kind as to send me, of the proposed Monument to the memory of one of the greatest of men — John Eliot the Apostle to the North American Indians..This will be a lasting memento before your children and our children, what true greatness is; and would to God, that while they are under its shadow, the self-sacrificing spirit which was in Eliot, might be felt by them, for the moral elevation of man and glory to the Great Spirit.
While the localities of the labors of the Apostle were shown to me, my natural stern character was overcome, and I could pour out tears of joy as well as grief, over the ground where it is said he walked and knelt with the red man. My mind was carried back two hundred years, and I could see John Eliot bending over the Forest Child, while he sought the guidance of the Great Spirit, and whispering in his ears — "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." This sweetest of sentences, this gentlest of truths, this purest of God's own design, elevated the mind of the Indians. Yes, absorbed in thought, it appeared to me that I could see into the future, while angels held up the curtain of time, and that I could behold group after group around Eliot the Apostle, in the home of the blessed in Heaven.
I need not mention his love of literature,—his zeal for it remains before us—his translations of the Bible and other works,—a monument of itself, what Christian Heroism can accomplish. Should I be successful, in securing a Home for my brethren in the North West, it has been my intention to erect two qolumns of granite to the sacred memory of two of the best friends, in years gone by, of the Indians—John Eliot and William Penn.
--I have the honor to be, Your humble and ob't servant,
Or, Firm-standing,
Alias G. COPWAY,
Of the Ojibway Nation.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

The Great Spirit Part II

The Great Spirit was a commonly held term for God even to the Church Hierarchy. This hymn was adopted by the Episcopal Church in 1892:

1 Spirit divine, attend our prayers,
And make this house Thy home;
Descend with all Thy gracious powers,
Oh, come, great Spirit, come!
2 Come as the light; to us reveal
Our emptiness and woe:
And lead us in those paths of life
Where all the righteous go.
3 Come as the fire, and purge our hearts
Like sacrificial flame;
Let our whole soul an offering be
To our Redeemer's Name.
4 Come as the dove, and spread Thy wings,
The wings of peaceful love;
And let Thy Church on earth become
Blest as Thy Church above.
5 Spirit divine, attend our prayers;
Make a lost world Thy home;
Descend with all Thy gracious powers,
Oh, come, great Spirit, come! [bold face mine]

--Andrew Reed, D.D. (1787-1862), written in 1829. Founded Wycliffe Chapel in England, graduated Yale. Congregationalist.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

The Great Spirit is Without Any Doubt Whatsoever The God of Abraham

There are many primary sources showing evangelicals, including Elias Boudinot, using the term "Great Spirit", and it would take too long to post them all. It will be posted all later. However, what is interesting is the Indians themselves using the "Great Spirit" when talking about Christ and the Gospel:
Brother, the Chiefs have agreed that I [Capt. Pollard, an Indian] should speak to you in their name. We are happy to see you among us. We are happy to hear about the Great Spirit. We are happy to hear the gospel. We have understood almost everything you have told us. We like it very much. We thank you for coming to talk to us...I made a short reply..that should we never meet together again to worship the Great Spirit upon earth..blessing the God and Redeemer.
--Abiel Holmes, D. D. Secretary. Nov. 6, 1817.

Like I have been saying all along, the Great Spirit was a diplomatic term we used to spread the Gospel. Here is Congress using the "great spirit." How ironic, the man who said this was the Chairman of Congress, and an Evangelical:
Congress hopes to enjoy the friendship of the Indian Nations, and to live with them like brothers as long as the Sun and Moon shall last. We recommend to you peace and a steady adherence to the Treaties made between the thirteen States and your people. We wish you a good Journey home, and pray that the great spirit above may direct you, and take you under his special care. [bold face mine]
--David Ramsay, Chairman of Congress, May 5, 1786. Journals of Continental Congress.

This forever erases the idea unitarians thought all religions had the same god. Not even Thomas Jefferson believed that rubbish given his Christian Virginia Act for Religious Freedom was Christian.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Another Post GW Promoting Christianity By the Govt.

[A]nd, here, I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country. To the guidance of the ministers of the gospel this important object is, perhaps, more properly committed -- It will be your care to instruct the ignorant, and to reclaim the devious--and, in the progress of morality and science, to which our government will give every furtherance [A helping forward, Websters 1828], we may confidently expect the advancement of true religion, and the completion of our happiness. [bold face mine]
--GW to the Presbyterian Ministers of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, (Nov. 2, 1789), reprinted in 4 The Papers of Washington (Dorothy Twohig, ed.) at 274; see also 1 Stokes, Church and State in the U.S. (1950) at 248.]

GW believed Congress could mandate morality to deviants.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Election fraud committed by liberals

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement and FBI have arrested eight Madison County residents for voter fraud in connection with a school board race last fall. Officials said the investigation led to the most suspects in a North Florida election fraud case in recent history and included a school board member and the county’s supervisor of elections. Officials said their investigation is ongoing and additional arrests were possible.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Obama cuts medicare more than Romney

You wouldn’t know it from listening to the Obama campaign, but there’s only one Presidential candidate in 2012 who has cut Medicare: Barack Obama, whose Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare by $716 billion from 2013-2022. Today, the Romney campaign reiterated its pledge to repeal Obamacare, and promised to “restore the funding to Medicare [and] ensure that no changes are made to the program for those 55 and older.”

Monday, August 13, 2012

James Wilson on John Locke

Wilson believed the Bible was true and tolerant, which it definitely is. He also believed skeptics used Locke's writings to promote their agenda--not his:
But was Sir William Blackstone a votary of despotick power? I am far from asserting that he was. I am equally far from believing that Mr. Locke was a friend to infidelity [a disbelief in the Scriptures]. But yet it is unquestionable, that the writings of Mr. Locke have facilitated the progress, and have given strength to the effects of scepticism.
--Works of Wilson

Lord Bracton, the Father of the Common Law, who Wilson understood, believed the penalty of murdering a quickened child in the womb was more severe than before quickening.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Friday, August 10, 2012

John Locke's Faith

I found Locke's Adversaria Theologica on google. It is, I believe, the most clear evidence of Locke's faith. In public, Locke distanced himself from the unitarians, and in public refused to be included among them. Why? His welfare depended on it. Adherence to the Trinity was still established law in 17th Century England. However, in the process, he dodged questions about essential doctrines of Christianity to keep out of trouble, and at the same time, proclaimed telling the truth was noble. Locke was no Algernon Sidney. Sidney was orthodox, a martyr, a freedom fighter for liberty, who was executed at the hands of Charles II in 1683.

No Christian, including any orthodox evangelical pastor would ever do what Locke did in the Adversaria. He writes extracts, "for and against" the Trinity, but it's 98% pro-unitarian. What he writes he subscribes to, given he writes only three passages that support Jesus' Deity. What about John 8:58, where Jesus claims He is God, "Before Abraham was, I AM" taking the same name written in Exodus 20, of self-existent one, given to Moses at the burning bush? Not to mention the Eternal Holy Spirit.

Acts 5:3, "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? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Hebrews  9:14, "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Acts 20:28, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
Hebrews 1:2-3,"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power. [Jesus Christ holds all the atoms together by His Word]
II Cor 5:19, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Col 2:8-9, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 1:14-19, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God..For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.
Phil 2:5-7, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. [bold face mine] 

Furthermore, David speaks of the Messiah as God, and Micah writes the Messiah would be Eternal, not just a man like the Jews believe:
Psalm 45:7, "Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Micah 5:2, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Are these all interpolations? Did Locke forget them? There are other examples in: Revelation, Jude, John, 1 John, 2 John, Luke, etc.

The scriptures Locke uses supporting a unitarian deity can be refuted. For instance, "Because it subverts the unity of God, introducing three gods." Why would he say that? Polytheism is anathema to the Bible. The Trinity isn't three gods, it's three persons of one God. Arianism is polytheism--that Jesus is Divine, but has a different nature than God is two different natures. It isn't even a rational argument. His other excuses promote the same absurdities that contradict scripture and reason. For example, Locke quotes Mark 12:29, "The Lord our God, the Lord is one" to support the unity of God, yet the hebrew word for "one" is a plural word, found in the shama. There are Arian arguments all over the place, including, "else there would be three unmade Lords" etc. Locke clearly rejects the Trinity because he can't understand it. He is not supposed to understand the Godhead, nor can we understand it. The Trinity does not violate reason, rather, it is above and beyond our reasoning.

Here is the pertinent information in Locke's Reasonableness:

If you will have the truth of it, sir, there is not any such word in any one of the epistles, or other books of the New Testament, in my bible, as satisfying, or satisfaction made by our Saviour; and so I could not put it into my “Christianity as delivered in the Scripture.”.. But you will say, satisfaction, though not named in the epistles, yet may plainly be collected out of them. Answ. And so it may out of several places in my “Reasonableness of christianity,” some whereof, which I took out of the gospels, I mentioned in my vindication, p. 163, 164, and others of them, which I took out of the epistles, I shall point out to you now: as p. 41, I say, the design of our Saviour’s coming was to be offered up; and p. 84, I speak of the work of our redemption: words, which in the epistles, are taken to imply satisfaction. And therefore if that be enough, I see not, but I may be free from betraying christianity; but if it be necessary to name the word Satisfaction, and he that does not so is a betrayer of christianity, you will do well to consider, how you will acquit the holy apostles from that bold imputation; which if it be extended as far as it will go, will scarce come short of blasphemy: for I do not remember, that our Saviour has any-where named satisfaction, or implied it plainer in any words, than those I have quoted from him; and he, I hope, will escape the intemperance of your tongue. [bold face mine]

--The Reasonableness of Christianity

Moreover, in the Reasonableness, Locke's penalty for Sin is physical death. He omits the most important part--spiritual death. The words he uses: offered up, and redemption, is not the satisfaction the Bible speaks of. Locke rejected the true meaning of these scriptures, or was ignorant of them:

Romans 5:10-12, 14-21
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment (Spiritual death) was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." [bold face mine]

Original Sin is spelled out in Scripture. Paul names Adam, as our Federal Head, our former representative, replaced by the last Adam, Jesus Christ the Righteous. Paul links atonement with "judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation." Th Vicarious Blood Atonement satisfies God's wrath from eternal judgment. A temporary judgment means God is eventually approving our sin. His justice must be perfect, in order for God to be Love, Justice, and Mercy at the same time. Locke never uses "atonement" in the Biblical sense. He uses it twice for "forgiveness."

And here:
 I desire those who tell us, that God will not (nay, some go so far as to say, cannot) accept any, who do not believe every article of their particular creeds and systems, to consider, why God, out of his infinite mercy, cannot as well justify men now, for believing Jesus of Nazareth to be the promised Messiah, the King and Deliverer; as those heretofore, who believed only that God would, according to his promise, in due time, send the Messiah, to be a King and Deliverer. [bold face mine]
Belief is not the issue. Rejection of the fundamentals is issue. Then he writes this in his Second Vindication:

All these truths, taught us from God, either by reason or revelation, are of great use, to enlighten our minds, confirm our faith, stir up our affections, &c. And the more we see of them, the more we shall see, admire, and magnify the wisdom, goodness, mercy, and love of God, in the work of our redemption.
Why would Locke omit Justice? Locke talks about repentance all over the Reasonableness. Yet, why would he mention repentance if not to get right with God, to escape God's judgment?
The most fundamental essential in Christianity is assent to how our sins are forgiven. The Bible is clear, Jesus Christ's Blood atones for sin, just as He forshadowed the Old Testament blood sacrifices for Sin. It isn't Christ's death and God's mercy through faith in His death and resurrection that justifies. This appears to be what Locke believed, which is why he continued to defend himself from the orthodox clergy. Locke did not speak about satisfaction for sin as the Bible describes it, where Christ is High Priest, making sacrifice for our sins. Locke ignored this.

In order to atone for mankind's sin, sinless blood is required, and only God as a human being could have sinless blood and represent us at the same time--to die and atone for sin. This is what biblical satisfaction means. Satisfying for sin for what purpose? To appease God's wrath. For the wages of sin is death--not just physical death, but Spiritual death--something Locke neglected in the Reasonableness. Every human being is a Triune being--flesh, mind (soul), and spirit, whereby Original Sin has corrupted our Spirits. By faith in Christ's satisfying work on the Cross, God's wrath is appeased, by Grace, through faith, not by works, lest any man should boast.

God cannot be merciful in the way John Locke or unitarianism believed. That         would nullify God's Holiness, and perfect justice, and make God a partner with Sin. 

Either Locke was most likely unitarian, with poor methodology.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

More clueless drivel from Scalia

My view is that regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad – regardless of how you come out on that – my only point is the Constitution does not say anything about it,” Justice Scalia stated. “It leaves it up to democratic choice. Some states prohibited it and some states didn’t. What Roe v. Wade said was that no state can prohibit it.” (CNN’s Piers Morgan versus U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Roe v Wade)
 Scalia should read James Wilson, who explained abortion was prohibited by the Common Law as a felony.

Samuel Adams Promoting Christianity in Schools

Since private and publick Vices, are in Reality, though not always apparently, so nearly connected, of how much Importance, how necessary is it, that the utmost Pains be taken by the Publick, to have the Principles of Virtue early inculcated on the Minds even of children, and the moral Sense kept alive, and that the wise institutions of our Ancestors for these great Purposes be encouraged by the Government.
 --Samuel Adams to James Warren, Nov. 4, 1775

Founding Father James Wilson and the Supreme Court

James Wilson's authority on the Constitution is surpassed by no one. He believed as I do, the Congress can regulate the Supreme Court if it wishes. It can regulate it, and declare all its rulings null and void. Yet, today, the Court is the strongest branch, overruling the Congress, without the legislature's understanding they can override the court and President's decision with a supermajority:
The Convention found the task too difficult for them, and they left the business as it stands, in the fullest confidence that no danger could possibly ensue, since the proceedings of the Supreme Court are to be regulated by the Congress, which is a faithful representation of the people; and the oppression of government is effectually barred, by declaring that in all criminal cases the trial by jury shall be preserved. [bold face mine]
-- Speech of James Wilson. Pennsylvania, October 6, 1787.

Patrick Henry did not back down to the King of England

Henry was one of the first, if not the first, colonial radical against the most powerful monarch in the world. His "Virginia Resolves" of 1765 preceeded the Stamp Act Congress, and Samuel Adams' circular to the Massachusetts General Court in 1768. They all argued against taxation without representation. James Otis' The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved was written in 1764, but focused on Natural Rights.

Friday, August 3, 2012

John Jay believed Gouverneur Morris was a Christian!

Apparently, Morris and Jay were close friends, from New York, both Episcopalians, fairly close in age, and both grads of Columbia. Morris, no doubt respected Jay--who didn't? On October 28, 1816, Jay wrote Morris was going to heaven. It could be Morris repented from his ways of fornication, got married to a woman Jay knew (his letters refer to her), communed together, and became a Christian.

Morris wanted Jay to be the Godfather of his newborn son. Jay referred to Morris as his "affectionate friend," that he had a "good disposition." This is completely at odds with his earlier reputation. I take John Jay at his word.

Barack Obama's anti-christ agenda

Below are obama's attacks against Christianity and Christ in general:

  • April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren't like them.” 1

  • February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2

  • April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus' name be covered when he is making his speech. 3

  • May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 4

  • April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 5

  • October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 6

  • November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 7

  • January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 8

  • February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 9

  • April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 10

  • August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 11

  • November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 12

  • November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 13

  • December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 14

  • January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 15

  • February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 16

2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:

  • June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. 17

  • August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America). 18

  • September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. 19

  • September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” 20

  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. 21

  • November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans. 22

  • February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. 23

  • February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). 24

  • February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. 25

  • April 2012 – A checklist for Air Force Inns will no longer include ensuring that a Bible is available in rooms for those who want to use them.26

  • May 2012 - The Obama administration opposes legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their strongly-held religious beliefs.27

  • June 2012 - Bibles for the American military have been printed in every conflict since the American Revolution, but the Obama Administration revokes the long-standing U. S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on those military Bibles.28

3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:

  • January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. 29

  • January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. 30

  • March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. 31

  • March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. 32

  • March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 33

  • May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. 34 He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets. 35

  • May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. 36

  • July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 37

  • September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” 38

  • July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. 39

  • August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. 40

  • September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. 41

  • February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 42

  • March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. 43

  • July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. 44

  • September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 45

  • October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. 46

4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:

  • May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. 47

  • April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. 48

  • April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. 49

  • August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. 50

  • August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. 51

  • 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. 52

  • October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. 53

  • February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, 54 but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. 55

 Obama has also spent taxpayer money to promote homosexuality in other nations. He was the man promoting SB 1082, the Illinois law to kill infant babies who survive botched abortions.

This illegal usurper of the Presidency is the most anti-christ President ever. Thank God he has only three months left.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Chuck Baldwin on World Net Daily

Chuck Baldwin gives his two cents on the most important founding fathers last month on World Net Daily. He has Washington first--maybe so. But the rest he mentions, his pro-southern slavery agenda shines through. Anyone who puts a racist like Thomas Jefferson 2nd on the list, and thinks slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War, is clueless!

Baldwin's words give clear indication to his ignorance of our founding. Patrick Henry is 3rd, but had nothing to do with the DOI or drafting the Constitution, or establishing the Federal Governmen. Samuel Adams is 4th, and James Madison is 5th. He makes the usual secularist errors with Madison, claiming he was the principal author of the Bill of Rights, and "Father" of the Constitution. Both are not true. James Wilson believed Charles Pinckney is the true Father of the Constitution.

Baldwin makes the bold claim, "George Washington considered Madison to be the preeminent authority on the US Constitution in the entire country" and "Without James Madison, there would be no America." Both of these statements are without sources.

The bottom line is even Christians make mistakes on our founding.

Black Pastor Calls Obama "Judas" on Gay Marriage

This is why Barack Obama cannot win re-election. It is black Christians who put him in office in the first place, and they will not vote for him this time.

“Marriage between one man and one woman was created and ordained by God, is the only stable union in which women are protected and cared for, in which children are born, reared and nurtured in safety, and upon which the very stability of our society rests. The propaganda spun by moral anarchists who have taught our youth that sex is for entertainment and marital commitment is optional has brought death, chaos, poverty and great harm to our community for decades. The hijacking of the civil rights movement by homosexuals, bisexuals and gender-confused people must and will stop. There is no legitimate comparison between skin color and sexual behavior."

Amen to that.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is wrong on Guns

Scalia says guns can be regulated. Sorry Antonin, not by the Federal Government. Like I have said previously on this blog, it doesn't matter how smart a person is, the smarter they are to the secular world, the more in error they will be. He claims, "But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons,which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried." However, he gives no evidence for that. In fact, the founding fathers put no restraints on unalienable rights, by "any human institution" (city or State ordinance), not even the issuance of permits to "question" the right to bear arms was prohibited, as that would interfere with self preservation, such as "carrying, Webster's 1828 definition, or Madison in Federalist 46."
What is meant by the liberty of the press is that there should be no [Federal] antecedent restraint upon it; but that every author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government, or the safety, character, and property of the individual. "In truth, then, the proposed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press, and it would have been merely nugatory to have introduced a formal declaration upon the subject -- nay, that very declaration might have been construed to imply that some degree of power was given, since we undertook to define its extent. "[I]t is the great natural law of self preservation, which, as we have seen, cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any human institution. This law, however, is expressly recognised in the constitution of Pennsylvania. "The right of the citizens to bear arms in the defence of themselves shall not be questioned." This is one of our many renewals of the Saxon regulations. "They were bound," says Mr. Selden, "to keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of their own persons." [bold face mine]
-- James Wilson, PA Ratifying Conv. 2nd choice for Original Chief Justice. "Pennsylvania Legislature", October 6, 1787. "Law lectures"

The issue with guns is identical, as Patrick Henry said:
The great object is, that every man be armed...Every one who is able may have a gun.
--VA Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Was John Adams an orthodox Christian?

Judging from his writings representing the United States to Holland, he was a Calvinist as they were:

"All the epithets I have here given to the Romish policy are just; and will be allowed to be so, when it is considered, that they even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had intrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure—with a power of dispensation over all the rules and obligations of morality—with authority to license all sorts of sins and crimes—with a power of deposing princes, and absolving subjects from allegiance—with a power of procuring or withholding the rain of heaven, and the beams of the sun—with the management of earthquakes, pestilence and famine.——Nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine, the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people, by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity; and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages, in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude, to him and his subordinate tyrants; who, it was foretold, would exalt himself above all that was called God, and that was worshipped." [bold face mine]

--Adams, AN ESSAY ON Canon and Feudal Law.

This Adams was a hoot. He implys the Popes were the anti-christ. However, there is nothing to refute Adams was an orthodox Christian, and taken as one, by our nation prior to his retirement. The public didn't know he was unitarian. Adams would say anything to make a point, no one knowing what he really believed:
The great and almighty Author of nature, who at first established those rules which regulate the World, can as easily Suspend those Laws whenever his providence sees sufficient reason for such suspension. This can be no objection, then, to the miracles of J [Jesus] C [Christ]. Altho' some very thoughtfull, and contemplative men among the heathen, attained a strong persuasion of the great Principles of Religion, yet the far greater number having little time for speculation, gradually sunk in to the grossest Opinions and the grossest Practices.
--John Adams diary March 2, 1756

His thanksgiving fast of 1797 supports the claim he was viewed as orthodox. His excuse why he lost the election of 1800, is not true. Adams based his ouster on the principle of thanksgiving fasts, contrary to what he believed, were actually very popular. He purposefully lied--what he did his entire life--believing he was falsely accused of "meddling with religion" and "to promote a national establishment of Presbyterianism in America." Where is the evidence for that? The Jeffersonian Aurora? In fact, his party was split due to his feud with Hamilton. Adams even claims Catholics, among others, were at odds with Presbyterians, yet earlier he writes, there were hardly any catholics around:
A native of America who cannot read and write, is as rare an appearance as a Jacobite, or a Roman Catholic, i. e. as rare as a comet or an earthquake.

--Essay on Canon Law. 

You can't believe a word this guy says. He exaggerates everything. Both Adams and Thomas Jefferson were two peas in a pod.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Gregg Frazer's New Book

Gregg Frazer teaches up the road at Master's College, and has a new book out, where he claims the Founding Fathers believed in a hybrid religion called "theistic rationalism." He's pushed this for a while now. Frazer believes the Founding Fathers rejected historical Christianity, to cherry pick, according to what is rational, what parts of the Bible were legit and what weren't. On the surface, his premise appears contradictory, and untenable, given the framers believed man's reasoning was depraved by Sin, limiting their ability to determine ultimate truth in the first place. The Founding Fathers always belittled man's reason:
Experience is a continual comment on the worthlessness of the human race; and the few exceptions we find have the greater right to be valued in proportion as they are rare.
--Alexander Hamilton to Colonel Richard K. Meade, Albany, August 27, 1782.

The great Deist slayer John Leland echos my point in 1737:

Thus I have considered what this author offers with regard to the proofs or evidences of divine revelation in general, in which his design is plainly to show that there can be no proper proofs or evidences of divine revelation to any but the persons immediately receiving it, and yet at the same time he affects to own the great usefulness of revelation in the present corrupt and degenerate state of mankind.


Moreover, in his audio of 2003, Frazer's errors abound, including the framers borrowed from the Enlightenment (the use of reason with education to enlighten society). Alexander Hamilton--who Frazer references in his book--refutes his claim:
This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others..It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity. 
 --Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention 21 June 1788. Papers 5:36--37, 40--43.

The framers believed our founding was based on Scripture, explained through men of the Protestant Reformation--Calvin, Luther, Sidney, Rutherford, Grotius, Hooker, Locke, Puffendorf, Ponet, etc:
The philosophical examination of the foundations of civil society, of human governments, and of the rights and duties of men, is among the consequences of the Protestant Reformation..The principles of Sidney and of Locke, constitute the foundation of the North American Declaration of Independence, and together with the subsequent writings of Montesquieu and Rousseau, that of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and of the Constitution of the United States.
--John Q. Adams, 6th President of the U.S.A, Author of the Monroe Doctrine and our Foreign Policy. A Lecture DELIVERED BEFORE THE FRANKLIN Lyceum AT PROVIDENCE, Ro 10, NOVEMBER 25, 1842.

John Calvin and Martin Luther espoused reasoning into civil government one hundred years before the enlightenment. The promotion of education, science, astronomy, etc,. was exalted due to Reformers: Calvin, Pascal, Kepler, Luther, Erasmus, Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, et al. 

Furthermore, 18th Century Deists were not theistic rationalists! Deists believed in miracles. Ben Franklin was not a Deist, rather, he believed Moses parted the Red Sea, and the Flood and Sodom and Gommorrah:
[T]he Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc’d in the Course of Nature..If you say he has in the Beginning unchangeably decreed all Things….[but] he has divested himself of all further Power, he has done and has no more to do, he has ty’d up his Hand and has now no greater Power than an Idol of Wood or Stone; nor can there be any more Reason for praying to him or worshipping of him. It is true that if another deluge should happen wherein the windows of heaven are to be opened, such pipes may be unequal to the falling quantity; and if God for our sins should think fit to rain fire upon us, as upon some cities of old, it is not expected that our conductors of whatever size, should secure our houses against a miracle.
--Benjamin Franklin, “On the Providence of God in the Government of the World,” in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), vol. 1, p. 267-8. "Experiments Supporting the Use of Pointed Lightning Rods" Printed in Benjamin Vaughan, ed., Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Benj. Franklin... (London, 1779), pp. 487-99: French translation in Jacques Barbeu-Dubourg, Oeuvres de M. Franklin... (2 vols., Paris, 1773), I, 289-300; ADS (lacking the conclusion of the published version): Bibliothèque de Genève; AD (fragment Of the published conclusion): American Philosophical Society. Aug. 27 [i.e., 18?], 1772.

Was God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah reasonable to a Dissenter? Franklin's Deity was Yahweh:

"History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a Publick Religion, from its Usefulness to the Publick; the Advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons..and the Excellency of the Christian religion above all others antient or modern. God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights [James 1:17] to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered...I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men..We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." [bold face mine]

--Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1749. and the Const. Convention.

Franklin tells Paine he intimates he believes a specific, personal, Deity (Yahweh), not a general Deity:
By the argument [Age of Reason] it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection.
--To Thomas Paine, in 1790. The Works of Franklin. Sparks.

On to Frazer's audio. He says "the founding fathers believed this hybrid." Not just a few, but all of them. "Christian america only read you some of the quotes..they don't show all the evidence..they shared beliefs with Deists..that all religion leads to the same god." Frazer uses the wrong definition of Deism anyway, and not even Franklin shared beliefs with Deists. If all roads lead to God, and being good is the goal, why did they preach the Gospel to the Indians? The Gospel means "good news" not "being good." The founding fathers preached the Gospel to save souls from the penalty of Sin, not to be good people. The Founding Fathers believed everyone was bad--no one was good. No doubt the Indians believed they were good people already. Frazer says they believed "the wicked are punished temporarily..they didn't believe Jesus was God?" They believed in purgatory? Where is the documentation on that? This blog quotes James Madison claiming Jesus is God. Can he quote Madison recanting that?

Frazer continues, "they believed reason determines what was true revelation." But the only written evidence is they believed their reasoning was depraved. Frazer would have a firmer foundation if they did not believe their minds were corrupted. Frazer claims, "they had bad things to say about Calvinism." Where did James Wilson, Hamilton, Madison and Morris write against Calvinism? Continuing on, "Jefferson, Adams and Franklin wrote the Declaration." No. Jefferson wrote the rough draft, which was corrected by the Congress. John Adams wrote its principles were already written. Frazer repeats,  "George Washington  never took Communion." Yet, on this blog there are eyewitness accounts from Christians, that he did take Communion. Were those Christians lying? Were they too old to be credible witnesses?

Frazer claim's George Washington never called himself a Christian. He does here:
[I] inclose you a copy of Mr. Cary's last Acct. currt. against me, which upon my honr and the faith of a Christian is a true one, and transmitted to me with the additional aggravation of a hint at the largeness of it.
--GW to ROBERT STEWART April 27, 1763.

Who's neglecting all the evidence? GW's quote below caught my attention, and might be cause for concern if GW hadn't called himself a Christian, took Communion, was a Vestryman,
referred to Jesus as Divine, and believed the Bible was inspired:
Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception. [bold face mine]
--To the Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1787.

Referring to Christians as "them" is strange, but doesn't prove GW isn't a Christian. Bishop Meade was an eyewitness to Episcopalians sometimes skipping Communion--giving a more valid explanation. Christianity is based on faith. Theoretically, Christianity could be wrong. Frazer then claims GW was a Mason, etc. However, 18th century American Masons were Trinitarians.

At the end of the audio, Frazer asks if the Constitution is based on the Bible, why isn't it quoted? David Barton gives the correct answer in Original Intent. He should read it.

Not to ignore his attack on David Barton. In Frazer's Preface, he writes:
My frustration with the lack of an accurate record grew each time someone passed me a video of Christian America advocate David Barton.
Frazer mocks David Barton over an accurate record, and saying he dodged him for a debate? If isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. With all Frazer's inaccuracies, I know someone he would not want to debate.  Finally, it is the secularists goal to mis-represent the Founding Fathers with a handful of the least orthodox framers in order to rig the narrative in their favor. In fact, there are no "key founders." The Founding Fathers unanimously believed the Ratifiers were more important than the drafters of the Constitution, and the ratifiers are all equal.