AC on Jonah Golberg of National Review

Over at American Creation blog, Jonathan Rowe wrote a post of a few ideas from Jonah Golberg. Here is a taste: “Because God says so” is the greatest appeal to authority, and the appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy, effective only for those who are pre-committed to that authority."

Before I get to Rowe's response, most secular authors, who make serious mistakes about our founding, make statements of biblical doctrine that makes sense only to themselves, and these men are less authoritative or knowledgeable on this subject than the ones Greg Bahnsen used to teach and lecture  through debate.

The bible is not a fallacy at all, given its revelation proves itself accurate through: predictive prophecy, among many other factors. Along with no inherent contradictions, Christ and His inspired revelation, cannot be compared to the flawed inconsistencies, and immorality of other religions. Christianity is Christ, and Him Crucified; giving the exact date of Christ's Crucifixion in Daniel 9; the Virgin Birth in Isaiah 7, and David's vivid description of the Lord's death in Psalm 22. The other religions cannot compare.

To disbelieve the bible has nothing to do with it's inspiration or validity.

Then, Rowe writes, "Even though the Declaration of Independence is a theistic document, it is not a biblical one. The "unalienable rights" in the DOI are anchored to God to make them non-negotiable; but such are, as the doctrine goes, discovered by reason, not revealed directly by God and recorded in a holy book. A generic monotheistic God, though, seems to exist as a necessary given part of the equation."

The DOI is proven to be a Christian document and Nature's God as the Divine Person, Christ Jesus, by two prayers. One before the DOI and one after. The first one is 47 days before Hancock signed the Declaration before anyone else. Both prayers mention God through the mediator Christ; meaning Nature's God cannot be anyone else but Christ:

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

The founding fathers used the word "Merits" quite often, having its etymology in old Anglican and Catholic sources. It definitely refers to the Lord's crucifixion for sin. The second prayer by Congress is obviously after the DOI and again, God is referenced through Christ and His atoning work on the Cross.

"[W]ith their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God.
--Continental Congress, November 1, 1777. National Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress. 


Moreover, the Ratifiers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had these prayers, and others, before them while they deliberated. The idea God changed is ridiculous and promulgated by people who know little of the founding. Rowe, again, "The "unalienable rights" in the DOI are anchored to God to make them non-negotiable; but such are, as the doctrine goes, discovered by reason, not revealed directly by God and recorded in a holy book.

However, Our unalienable rights are taken from the Bible:

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians..
These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

--Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. November 20, 1772.

It is the Christian religion that secures unalienable rights:

[T]he Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

-Noah Webster, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA” A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 291, from his “Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.”



Here is another part of the prayer, but it references the Holy Ghost, proving the founders were Trinitarians. In 1776, the Unitarians were a very small minority, did not publicize themselves and were given an undue concession. In fact, unitarians did not mention the Holy Ghost due to the conflict of their beliefs and the orthodox:


"Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received...[to offer] humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot [our sins] out of remembrance...and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth "in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
Journals of...Congress (1907), Vol. IX, 1777, pp 854-855, November 1, 1777.


This information also proves the Articles of Confederation was ratified under the name of Christ, written during the same Second Continental Congress. Moreover, I can prove Christ is the God of the Constitution due to the fact the Congress after the Second Continental Congress; the Congress of the Confederation, lasted from 1781 to 1789, which in the time frame the Congress wrote the Constitution:

The goodness of the Supreme Being to all his rational creatures, demands their acknowledgments of gratitude and love; his absolute government of this world dictates, that it is the interest of every nation and people ardently to supplicate his mercy favor and implore his protection. When the lust of dominion or lawless ambition excites arbitrary power to invade the rights, or endeavor to wrench wrest from a people their sacred and unalienable invaluable privileges, and compels them, in defence of the same, to encounter all the horrors and calamities of a bloody and vindictive war; then is that people loudly called upon to fly unto that God for protection..that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas. (bold mine)

-Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1782



Notice, the "Supreme Being" and the Redeemer, being Divine. This is the first time I know of, anyone has tied the Constitution with the Congress that drafted it. Unitarians would not have written this.

Federer on the Aiken Bible

Bill Federer is a regular contributor on World Net Daily, having yesterday written a post on the Aiken Bible, which contains some interesting tidbits that violates modern separation dogma. Could you imagine even the current administration promoting the bible in this manner? Liberals would be protesting in the streets, adding to the list another supposed violation of the constitution with which to impeach the president. Below is the pertinent part of the article.

"The war continued, though, and in 1780 another motion was presented to Congress pertaining to the printing of Bibles by James McLene, a delegate from Pennsylvania, and seconded by John Hanson, a delegate from Maryland: “Resolved: That it be recommended to such of the States who may think it convenient for them that they take proper measures to procure one or more new and correct editions of the Old and New Testament to be printed and that such states regulate their printers by law so as to secure effectually the said books from being misprinted.”


It isn't clear if their resolution was approved by congress, but, if it was, the congress is recommending the states use their authority and tax dollars to print mistake free bibles. In fact, the congress approved the printing of the bible and recommended it to the citizens.

On Sept. 12, 1782, Congress approved of Robert Aitken’s printing of the Bible. Called “the Bible of the Revolution,” it was the first English-language Bible printed in America and the only Bible ever authorized by an act of Congress:

Endorsement of Congress
Honble James Duane, Esq. Chairman, and the other Honble Gentlemen of the Committee of Congress on Mr. Aitken’s Memorial.

Whereupon, Resolved, that the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an influence of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think Proper. 

Cha.. Thomson, Sec’ry.

Faith of Presidents

American Creation website with another doozy.

"Lincoln never could bring himself to embrace Christian faith, but was himself the Christ of the ACR. Jackson posed for electoral purposes as a Presbyterian, but was in fact a fervent Freemason who believed in a God above all theologies, the very God whose All-Seeing Eye looks down benignly on the Unfinished Pyramid of the Great Seal of the United States and our one-dollar bill. Jefferson was an Enlightened philosopher who clung romantically to a faith in reason alone. Yet they, no less than devout Protestant presidents, swore fealty to the Providence that seemed to watch over the American people."


There are many assumptions in the above paragraph and I'm not sure any of them are true or can be proved true with a preponderance of the available evidence. Regarding Lincoln, in light of all the evidence after his son Willie died, his use of words: redeemer and redeeming grace supports the fact he had to understand their meaning, not to mention the testimony of his Calvinist pastor. Lincoln said he believed all the bible.
http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/lincolnsfaith.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Abraham_Lincoln

As for Andrew Jackson, many masons his age were Christians.

"Sir, I am in the hands of a merciful God. I have full confidence in his goodness and mercy.... The Bible is true... Upon that sacred volume I rest my hope for eternal salvation, through the merits and blood of our blessed Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ."
-May 29, 1845.
https://www.biblebelievers.com/Grady1.html

His wife was a Christian and he promised her he would take communion as soon as possible, but he died beforehand. The pyramid and all-seeing eye were designed by an evangelical Christian fundamentalist. Jefferson believed in God, not reason alone.

Our Covenant Political Theology

The basis for Revolution is part and parcel of the political and social theology of the United States. All the ideas of republican government, including Revolution were clearly enumerated and brought to light for the American colonists and western civilization through the Protestant Reformation.Those at American Creation would have you believe this idea of revolution was espoused to the colonists through a heretic philosopher named John Locke. In fact, Locke was only repeating the Reformers, no different than quoting them today, except I'm not aware Locke quoted Rutherford or Calvin, although he could have. This is precisely the reason the speaker for the revolutionaries; Samuel Adams quoted Locke and the social compact. Adams and Locke took their ideas from the same source; the Reformers. Since Samuel Adams was a Calvinist, when he quoted the social compact, he was not thinking of Locke or Rousseau, rather, the colonists understood Adams was referring to the Solemn League and Covenant. This agreement was written by Adams and Warren after the 17th century covenant between the Scottish Presbyterians and the English Parliamentarians.

The Declaration of Independence was founded on a Puritan Solemn League and Covenant. Yes, rights were part of the idea, but not the main reason for revolution. Adams and Dr. Joseph Warren wrote the Solemn League document that was far from the secular compact of John Locke. In fact, Locke was only repeating Rutherford, who was repeating Calvin, including the Natural Law tradition, taken from Romans 2:14-15, and enumerated in a more excellent light, whereby Hooker, Pufendorf et al., built upon, guiding the patriot preachers to exposite the Natural rights of the colonists, preceding the American Revolution. Unitarian preachers (Samuel West) are the minority and do not represent the biblical view of Romans 13 nor the views in the declaration of independence.

Here is Professor and British historian Jack Richon Pole:

It isn't surprising to claim the idea of popular sovereignty and representative government by the Colonists of the 1760's was not influenced, as is generally believed, by the political theology of John Locke..Very little evidence exists to suggest that Locke exerted any effective influence on the political thought of the Colonists until Thomas Jefferson came to draft the Declaration of Independence.

-Political representation in England and the origins of the American Republic (Macmillan 1966). H. Trevor Colborum, Thomas Jefferson's Use of the Past, "William and Mary Quarterly" Jan. 1958, 56-70. 

Modern philosophers see Locke to be the inspiration behind the DOI in spite of its Calvinist foundation. Furthermore, there is a connection between Locke and Rutherford. Locke met him, most likely many times and knew him intimately because Locke's dad was Rutherford's friend. This post written last year by David Kopel is another example of Locke's connection to Rutherford. Locke read Lex Rex, then secularized his views, removing the covenantal structure the founding fathers put into the declaration of independence. Rutherford's influence is seen through Witherspoon and Adams, just as Francis Schaeffer writes.

As to empiricism, Schaeffer destroyed Locke's argument just as Berkeley did in the 18th century. Locke contradicted himself by removing the biblical basis for government in exchange for empiricism, yet if experience doesn't come from inside man, it must come from where everyone else found it; and Locke rejected that source, killing his own argument. Locke's empiricism ignored the very foundation of natural rights. Schaeffer was just repeating what Berkeley found in Locke's flawed reasoning.

Moreover, by 1681, Locke himself owned a copy of Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos and most other Calvinistic resistance tracts. (Hall. A Heart Promptly Offered, p. 297).

It was Covenantal Puritanism that was the basis of the DOI, given the document itself claims the King abdicated because he broke the covenant between himself and the people, as well as violated their natural rights. Here, is the noted former Emeritus Professor at Columbia:

From the Bay Colony came the great intellectual leaders, the theologians who became the leaders … in the establishment of New England colonies… Nor was its influence restricted to New England, for its ideals and aspirations… became the dominant influence in the development of the United States.

--Joseph Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, vol. 1, ch.3

Even Robert N. Bellah notes, Puritanism was the foundation for our constitutionalism; what he coined, our "civil religion."

Prominent 19th Century historian Alex d'Tocqueville did not give Enlightenment Rationalism, or John Locke the foundation, but understood Puritan Covenant Theology that spread throughout the new nation:

In was in the English colonies… better known as the states of New England, that the two or three main principles now forming the basic social theory of the United States were combined. New England principles spread first to the neighboring states and then…to those more distant, finally penetrating everywhere… Their influence now extends beyond its limits over the whole American world…”

--Alex d’Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Book I, ch. 2.

Is it no less a surprise that the political leader of the Revolution was a Calvinist Puritan, speaking for the new nation?

The people of this country, alone, have formally and deliberately chosen a government for themselves, and with open and uninfluenced consent bound themselves into a social compact. Here no man proclaims his birth or wealth as a title to honorable distinction, or to sanctify ignorance and vice with the name of hereditary authority. He who has most zeal and ability to promote public felicity, let him be the servant of the public. This is the only line of distinction drawn by nature.

--Samuel Adams, An ORATION Delivered at the State-House, In PHILADELPHIA, To A Very Numerous AUDIENCE; On THURSDAY the 1st of AUGUST 1776

Historians and Mark Noll

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





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


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


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




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


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

Martin Luther's influence on the founding

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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










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



Luther, who adhered to divine election, as did Thomas Aquinas, was quoted by ratifier of the United States Constitution, James Madison in relation to separation of church and state. It's unfortunate Madison did not support Reformation ideas on the Christian state such as Geneva or Holland. What Luther did in Wittenberg, Germany in 1517 was a new beginning for Democracy, civil rights and liberties, constitutional government, religious liberty, and the free market (Trinity foundation, Civilization and the Protestant Reformation (English), http://www.trinitylectures.org/civilization-and-the-protestant-reformation-english-p-47.html. 




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

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

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

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

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


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


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




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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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


Here Adams says every part of the bible is miraculous:


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



His comments on Islam are spot on:


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

J.Q. Adams

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

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

Fast and Humiliation Proclamations were Calvinist in origin

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

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

--Jefferson's Autobiography

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

Throckmorton on Dissent

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

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

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

Here's another distortion Throckmorton makes about this article:

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

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

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

Nature's God is indisputably Jesus Christ and Jehovah

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

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

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

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

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

"The slanderer himself was undeserving of an answer."

Bill Fortenberry's book on Benjamin Franklin

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

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

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

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.."

John 6:44.

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

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

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved."

--Ephesians 1:3-6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even President Andrew Jackson was a Christian

Old Hickory wasn't a founding father, although he did fight in the Revolution at age thirteen. 4 out of the first 7 presidents.

“Sir, I am in the hands of a merciful God. I have full confidence in His goodness and mercy…The Bible is true. I have tried to conform to its spirit as near as possible. Upon that sacred volume I rest my hope for eternal salvation, through the merits and blood of our blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
[May 29th, 1845, just a few weeks before he died]

Another powerful evangelical, Samuel Cooper

Cooper was hated so much by the British, they put a warrant out for his arrest. Like his father before him, Cooper was a Calvinist, only not a rigid one. Had I been there I would have reminded Cooper, John Hancock and Samuel Adams that the bible is the most rigid book or books there is. Moreover, Cooper used theological words only Calvinists or partial Calvinists used:

"Our divine Redeemer has taught us to regard the rule of duty, rather than the acceptance of our services..Cyrus the Persian was no more a true believer in the true Jehovah than Naaman the Syrian: yet he was an elect servant of God..and fulfilled the divine predictions and decrees."

--A sermon preached to the Ancient and Honourable Artillery Company: in Boston, New-England, June 3. 1751. 

It's interesting Cooper quotes Isaiah 45, where he calls Israel "mine elect." So Cooper understood how God chooses people to be saved before they are born. More proof Cooper believed in predestination. His entire sermon revolves around predestination.

Evangelical Colonial Pastor, Samuel West

West wrote:

Let us rejoice...to the great Redeemer; to whom every knee should bow...in ascribing blessing and honor and glory and power, to him who sitteth on the throne and to the lamb forever and ever.
Amen.

--A Sermon Delivered Upon the Late National Thanksgiving, February 19, 1795.

The word "Redeemer" is an evangelical word meaning "bought" as buying back as a ransom found in Mark 10:45, "a ransom for many." Not only does the verse reject universal atonement, but the verse rejects the heterodox notion of the atonement Mayhew and Chauncy believed in.

West was not unitarian, rather he was an orthodox Christian, who believed in the atonement:

Reading his Ordination West was an Orthodox Christian:

This..Christ..as our high priest who offered himself up to God a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the world.. he is to be preached up as the only Mediator between God and man..that he came to redeem us both from the penal consequences of Adam's first transgression..to increase our knowledge of the doctrines of, the gospel..that through his atoning blood and perfect righteousness..Can anyone imagine faithfully that he preaches Christ, who very seldom in his discourses mentions his name; and who never insists on the doctrine of atonement, with which the new testament so much abounds? Shall gospel ministers leave out the principle end of Christ's coming..?

 Due to his proper belief in the atonement, West believed in Christ's divinity:

"We might here, with very little reserve, adopt our language which our divine Saviour applies to John the Baptist."

--A Sermon on the Death of Washington.

Because of his view of the atonement, West's view of Christ's divinity was not distorted as of the unitarians.

William Livingston, the moderator of the Presbyterian church of New York

From my limited knowledge, this is the first time indisputable evidence has been presented to show High Federalist statesman and founding father William Livingston was a Calvinist in faith like his brother Philip, within the Presbyterian Church of New York. Although Col. Alexander Hamilton hadn't formed the Federalist Party yet, Hamilton highly respected Livingston. Moreover, Livingston's involvement in Calvinist doctrine did not diminish, but increased as he got older. Livingston, who was vetted as a possible VP for George Washington, was 9 years older than the first president.

Below, the proof of the Calvinism of William Livingston:

"New York, Sept. 18, 1755.

It was then again asked by Mr. William Livingston in order to prevent disputes whether we all understood each other and whether it was not a unanimous vote for Mr. B to which all answered they understood it as a unanimous vote...In consequence of this choice application was made to the Rev. Mr. B, on the 20th of August at his church at Jamaica before a presbytery then there held by Mr. Livingston, the New York churches delegate for the removal of the said Mr. B, from his said congregation at Jamaica to that of New York in virtue of their call to him."

--AN EARLY DOCUMENT CONCERNING THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CONGREGATION OF NEW YORK

Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society (1901-1930)

Vol. 1, No. 3 (MARCH A. D. 1902), pp. 238-9.

Amazing! Livingston was one of the highest Calvinist leaders in New York and not just a messager boy, rather he was a man of power and influence. Livingston was a high ranking Presbyterian in 1755, just three years after writing in the Independent Reflector publication. Here is where Livingston puts his name to the Reformed faith:

"[W]e declare freely against..making the Westminster Confession a test of admission into the church, at least to private members, which some of our [Scotch] brethren have constantly been driving at. From this they were carried away with an ungrounded jealousy and opinion that we did not befriend the established doctrines and discipline of the church; which is so far from being true with regard to us, that we beg leave to assure you, we have no objection to the Westminster Confession, Shorter and Longer Catechisms and acknowledge the same to contain a true and perfect scripture doctrine of salvation..."

--p.244. Out of over 100 names listed, Livingston is sixth on the list.

It wasn't just Livingston who was against creeds. Many Calvinists were against them because they were man made and could interfere with God's revelation.

Here is another group of Presbyterians combating the Anglican establishment in 1769 and Livingston is on the list. On p. 501-502, he was nominated Moderator for their next meeting, which included selected Baptists. P. 503 says Livingston is a member of the Presbyterian church. 

The Society of Dissenters founded at New York in 1769
The American Historical Review
Vol. 6, No. 3 (Apr., 1901), pp. 499-500.

On p. 241 of another periodical, Livingston is more Calvinist than "most of those who were his social equals."  Page 242 has Livingston and his friends toasting to "the immortal memories of Oliver Cromwell and John Hampden." How awesome was Cromwell and that happened before his independent reflector publication. Later, it says the most important man in New Jersey from 1776 to 1790 was Livingston and a Calvinist at that.

--The Whigs of Colonial New York

Charles H. Levermore

The American Historical Review

Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jan., 1896), pp. 238-250

It's remarkable, had Livingston been younger, say Washington's age, he could have been VP because John Adams was suspect to a lot of Federalists. Had Livingston stayed in congress two months more in 1776, he would have been one of only seven to sign both the Declaration and Constitution.