New release from Dreisbach and Hall

Their new collaboration is due for release April 1, 2014. Faith and the Founders of the American Republic will hopefully provide more evidence of Calvinist faith from the Founding Fathers. The book has a section on Gouverneur Morris, written by Gregg Frazer. Here is one of Frazer's questionable comments:

Like the Deists, Morris and the other theistic rationalists used generic "God words" rather than specifically Christian terms for God (p. 214).  

Yet, Calvinists used this classical terminology, including Samuel Adams, William Livingston, John Witherspoon and many others. How can this understanding be used to claim someone wasn't orthodox when the orthodox used it? The fact is Morris called himself a Christian.

The problem with many historians like Frazer is the Natural Law tradition. Because many framers referred to Natural Law, scholars believe these men gave a higher respect for reason than they really did. Taken from the Scriptures, John Calvin himself promoted this tradition. Further, Montesquieu and Locke understood the Natural Law tradition from Calvin and the Reformers. Morris rejected the authority of human reason for the Kingship of Christ:

Those who slaughtered their prince and made havoc of each other; those who endeavored to dethrone the King of Heaven and establish the worship of human reason, who placed, as representative on the altar which piety had dedicated to the holy virgin, and fell down and paid to her their adoration, were, at length, compelled to see and to feel, and, in agony, to own that there is a God. I cannot proceed. My heart sickens at the recollection of those horrors which desolated France. [bold face mine] 

--An oration, delivered on Wednesday, June 29, 1814, at the request of a number of citizens of New-York : in celebration of the recent deliverance of Europe from the yoke of military despotism.

A man who believed in total depravity, as Morris did would not exalt man's reason as the rationalists did:

Your history of the two Barons is very amusing ; but when
you take occasion to pity the infirmity of human nature, be-
cause of their attachment to a trivial decoration, you assail
the wisdom of Providence in his moral government of the
world. [bold face mine]

--TO JOHN PARISH. February 18th, 1806.

The above quote refers to God's moral authority of the world. This is precisely the statement of Grotius and the Christians who denied the correct biblical atonement for the moral atonement theory Grotius and the Arminians believed.

Another comment made in the book referring to Hamilton says:

Although a consistent spokesman for Enlightened principles in politics (p. 22).

However, Hamilton rejected Enlightenment principles. He believed in Calvin's Total Depravity and rejected any human exaltation by learning:

"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."

-To Colonel Richard K. Meade, Albany, August 27, 1782.

Hamilton even mentions the enlightenment with disdain by clarifying man becomes more wicked the more he learns:

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. 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. "[bold face mine]

--Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention 21 June 1788. Papers 5:36--37, 40--43.

The kicker for rejecting Frazer's opinion is eyewitness testimony from one of Morris's best friends, who was an evangelical and claimed Morris was saved, Oct 28, 1816.
                                                                 

The Apparent Ecumenist David Barton Commenting About Glenn Beck

Mr. Barton has taken some heat from Christians; for instance, dropping him from radio programs, as he believes Glenn Beck is a Christian, although Beck says he's a Mormon. Mormons deny all the fundamentals of Christianity taught in the New Testament. As this blog as previously shown, Mormonism is the most blashemous of all the Cults, claiming The Father had sexual relations--as if that could happen--with Mary, to form the Spirit being Jesus. They believe that because they say the Father was a man who became God. Only a demonic mind could inspire that because it isn't in the Bible.

David Barton is treading on dangerous ground. People claim they have a relationship with Jesus every day, however, it is a special relationship by Grace through faith and repentence, where God makes alive our spirit, by his Spirit--which was dead from sin--making us a New Creation in Christ Jesus for good works, to make us born again Christians. God will convert those by the way He has ordained in His Word. The Book of Mormon and "Pearl of Great Price" contradicts the Bible. Thus, The Holy Spirit will not make alive that which rejects what He has inspired.

How can David Barton not understand it is the religion of Ecumenism that anti-christ will bring to the world?  Beck specifically said the God of the DOI is not the Christian God, which contradicts all our history. Barton should sit Beck down and ask him if he is born again. If he is clueless what that is, he is not a recipient of it.

Did The Founding Fathers Execute Homosexuals?

What a paradox it would be if the framers executed homosexuals, given that today, the people want to legalize it. I have no doubt our people would persecute Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and the other framers for their views on homosexual sin. The answer is yes, the framers did execute at least one person for homosexuality. It was done in Pennsylvania, December, 1785. Guess who was President of Pennsylvania? Benjamin Franklin. Although Franklin wasn't present that day, his VP, Charles Biddell and Founding Father Peter Muhlenburg were there, and offered no pardon.

This narrative must start at the definition of terms; buggery, sodomy, and rape. All three terms were used in 18th century America. All three are defined by Webster's 1828, yet, buggery and sodomy were interchangable terms, and buggery included bestiality. Yet Sodomy and Buggery clearly referred to man on man, while rape referred to a woman.

Regarding this subject, expert John Murrin indicates Bestiality was basically non-existent due to the horror of the crime. Bestiality was synonimous to witchcraft, especially among women. Prior to the Revolution, no one was executed for bestiality in New England, mainly from lack of evidence. Bestiality is clearly from the 17th century, and not part of the founding milieu.

The Founding Fathers did execute one man for bestiality; Connecticut hanged Gideon Washburn the third friday, in January, 1800.

As to States, the Framers in Virginia, kept the Death Penalty for Buggery:

That if any do commit the detestable and abominable vice of Buggery, with man or beast, he or she so offending, shall be adjudged a felon, and shall suffer death, in the case of felony, without the benefit of Clergy.

-A Collection of All Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia 1802, (Richmond:Pleasance and Price, 1803), page 179, ch. C [50], enacted Dec. 10, 1792.

The other states emphasized the Biblical laws contained in the Common Law of England:

The first reported sodomy case in Maryland also was the first known reported case in the United States. In 1810, the Court of Appeals decided Davis v. State. By a vote of 4-1, the Court upheld an indictment that charged that Davis, "not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, on &c. with forms and arms at, &c. in and upon one W C, a youth of the age of 19 years, in the peace of God, and the state of Maryland, then and there being, did make an assault, and him the said W C, then and there did beat, would, and ill-treat, with an intent that most horrid and detestable crime (among christians not to be named,) called Sodomy, with him the said W C, and against the order of nature, then and there feloniously, wickedly and devilishly, to commit and do, to the great displeasure of Almighty God, contrary to the act of assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government, and dignity of the state." [Emphasis the Court’s].

The word Buggery was eventually forgotten, "sodomy" took its place, evidence that the issue of buggery in the 18th century, unless specifically enumerated, was homosexuality. Furthermore, besides Gideon Washburn, there were no bestiality crimes in the founding generation, thus the execution of Joseph Ross of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, had to be for homosexuality, approved by Benamin Franklin. The history of buggery sentences show the other partner was also punished; usually whipped.

The Greatest Influence to Thomas Jefferson

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson claimed Francis Bacon was the greatest man that ever lived. It is ironic TJ put Bacon at the top of a circled Trinity with Locke and Newton beneath him, in view of the fact TJ was a unitarian and Bacon a Trinitarian. Bacon was a devout Anglican, who, it would appear, believed in all the fundamentals of Christianity. His rejection of Aristotle's philosophy for empiricism, and Locke's blank slate theory, for the more correct Original Sin doctrine, by man's erroneous understanding of initial information is refreshing, given Bacon had such an effect on the primary draughtsman of the Declaration of Independence.

The most influential man the world has ever known according to the rationalist Thomas Jefferson, was an Orthodox Christian. How poetic.

Dennis Prager, God, Liberals and Liberty

Dennis Prager's recent post about Liberty and God differentiates rights from Christianity and Islam. It is vitally important to understand the identity of the God that gave us our rights. The Declaration of Independence tells us who the God of our liberty and rights is; His name is "The Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature's God." This appellation is attributed to no other God in history than the God of the Bible. In fact, the Founding Fathers understood this name as passed down from the Scriptures to Protestant Reformers: John Calvin, and Martin Luther, to English and Catholic Elites: John Locke, Richard Hooker, William Blackstone, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas.

To Rebel or Not To Rebel?

Not only does The Church debate whether the Scriptures authorize rebellion against corrupt governments, but secularists have an opinion as well. The debated chapter in the Bible about righteous rebellion is found in Romans 13 by the Apostle Paul. The definitive statement on the matter is v. 4:

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of god, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." [bold face mine]

The verse is clear; only Kings, or governments that are ministers for good are ordained by God. However, I believe the United States was formed under the laws of God, and the ideal government ordained by God, is a Republic. Certain calvinists use v. 2 to say governmental authority can be "resisted" but not overthrown. Verse 4 is the context for chapter 13.

Calvinists, Dr. Gregg Frazer, Professor of History & Political Studies at The Master's College in Santa Clarita, CA, along with Master's President John MacArthur, promote the "Unlimited Submission" doctrine our Founding Fathers rejected. Some of Dr. Frazer's statements on American Creation are striking. Dr. Frazer gives a Calvinist position for a defense of "unlimited submission" on American Creation:

"Hitler had authority from God, as do all in authority. He sometimes used it for good (lowest crime rate in the world in 1930s) and often used it for great evil (massacring Jews and other well-known examples). ALL GOVERNMENTS DO THIS BECAUSE ALL ARE RUN BY FALLEN HUMAN BEINGS. The level of evil to which they rise varies, of course. The U.S. government today, for example, supports the murder of millions of unborn children and numerous other violations of God’s law. None of this makes the government illegitimate, removes its authority, or negates what Romans 13 clearly says."

Hitler had authority from God? Most certainly, no modern government is legitimate. All governments violate God's laws in some part. The point is not that every government is evil, but does the government persecute the Church, its people, and violate Romans 13. Scripture tells us a righteous government made of sinners is possible and valid:

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."

-Proverbs 29:2

I Corinthians 9:7-10, is another place in scripture where God allows at the minimum, defensive rebellion. The Apostle Paul repeats commands from the Law of Moses that is pertinent for the Church, such as taking fruit from your own vine:

"Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope."

Our most decorated Founding Father, John Jay, did not believe someone had to be specifically called to rebel, or that rebellion by the people against their government was prohibited. Jay used Jesus' own words to defend rebellion:

"To the advancement and support of his spiritual sovereignty over his spiritual kingdom, soldiers and swords and corporeal exertions were inapplicable and useless. But, on the other hand, soldiers and swords and corporeal exertions are necessary to enable the several temporal rulers of the states and kingdoms of this world to maintain their authority and protect themselves and their people; and our Savior expressly declared that if his kingdom had been of this world, then would his servants fight to protect him; or, in other words, that then, and in that case, he would not have restrained them from fighting. The lawfulness of such fighting, therefore, instead of being denied, is admitted and confirmed by that declaration...Had the gospel regarded war as being in every case sinful, it seems strange that the apostle Paul should have been so unguarded as, in teaching the importance of faith, to use an argument which clearly proves the lawfulness of war, viz.: “That it was through faith that Gideon, David, and others waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of aliens”; thereby confirming the declaration of David, that it was God who had “girded him with strength to battle; and had taught his hands to war, and his fingers to fight.” The gospel appears to me to consider the servants of Christ as having two capacities or characters, with correspondent duties to sustain and fulfill. Being subjects of his spiritual kingdom, they are bound in that capacity to fight, pursuant to his orders, with spiritual weapons, against his and their spiritual enemies. Being also subjects and partakers in the rights and interests of a temporal or worldly state or kingdom, they are in that capacity bound, whenever lawfully required, to fight with weapons in just and necessary war, against the worldly enemies of that state or kingdom. " [bold face mine]
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=64

The Founding Fathers and Christian Philosophers: Montesquieu, Blackstone, Locke, Rutherford, Hooker, and Grotius, etc., understood the theory of "Unlimited Submission," was not what the Bible teaches. They believed the Bible teaches that governmental authority is limited. Does a Prophet have to be called by God to determine the validity of the biblical principle of righteous rebellion? The text doesn't say, whereas, we should be concerned with exegesis (taking out of the text), not eisegesis (reading into the text).

Israel wanted a monarchy, to be like the other nations. This was a bad decision. Nations that submit to God's Word are Blessed with just and righteous rulers. However, nations that rebel against God's Word are visited with oppressive governments for the purpose of bringing them into submission. Hosea gives us the principle:

"[T]he Assyrian shall be his king, because they [Israel] refused to return [to God]."

-Hosea 11:5

Frazer again:

"As for the Judges 3 example, GOD may raise up a deliverer to accomplish His purposes – but the reason that the passage specifies that God raised him up and that the Spirit of the Lord was given to him is BECAUSE WITHOUT SPECIFIC REVELATION FROM GOD, what he did was wrong. It would be wrong for any person not specifically and specially “raised up by God.”

This appears to be an eisegetical statement, maybe he can elaborate on where the text says this.
Among the 18th century preachers calling for rebellion against King George, were Unitarians Samuel West, and Jonathan Mayhew. They both attacked this "unlimited submission" doctrine using the Bible:

"Unlimited submission and obedience is due to none but God alone."

-Samuel West, "A Sermon Preached before the Honorable Council , and Honorable House of Representatives of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, in New England, May 29, 1776."

What West and the framers were getting at, was the people, as well as rulers, are subject to God's laws. All legitimate authority is based on God's laws, illegitimate authority is not ordained. West understood a government could abide by some of God's laws, and still be illegitimate, which did not pertain to the United States:

"Can we conceive of a more perfect, equitable, and generous plan of government than this which the apostle has laid down, viz., to have rulers appointed over us to encourage us to every good and virtuous action, to defend and protect us in our just rights and privileges, and to grant us everything that can tend to promote our true interest and happiness; to restrain every licentious action, and to punish everyone that would injure or harm us; to become a terror of evil-doers; to make and execute such just and righteous laws as shall effectually deter and hinder men from the commission of evil, and to attend continually upon this very thing; to make it their constant care and study, day and night, to promote the good and welfare of the community, and to oppose all evil practices?"

-West, On the Right to Rebel against Governors, Boston 1776

Anyone who submits to the ungodly decrees of men becomes a slave of ungodly men.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13781328/Christian-Duty-Under-Corrupt-Government