The "Old Lights" and Rebellion

What the Scriptures "actually say" pertaining to Romans 13, may or may not be consistent with Natural Law, thus, did the Founding Fathers have the right to rebel against Great Britain? Inasmuch the literal reading of Romans 13 is inconsistent with the American Revolution, as it could be; along with the Founding Fathers, the Heterodox, Elite, 18th Century Christian Preachers, are an important dynamic within Founding American Political Thought. Regardless of the correct biblical exegegis; righteous rebellion from Natural Law, espoused by Thomas Aquinas to the Founding Fathers, has a strong historical tradition.

In my last post, I overlooked Founding Father John Jay's defense of the Natural Law tradition of Romans 13, by ignoring the correct context of of John 18:36, which Mr. Jay apparently missed:

"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." [bold face mine]

Mr. Jay understood a right to rebellion by Jesus' disciples (the people), granted that universal right for any nation, was couched in Natural Law. But Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world, until the start of the Millennial Age. Jesus' Kingdom has been called by God. It appears the text says "Every" governing authority is granted by God. If the right to rebel against any authority has support in Romans 13, it's in the Greek rendering of the word "resist." That word, refers only to "standing against." It is never used in the New Testament for fighting. If fighting against governing authorities is granted by God to the people, why didn't Paul use a different word? That point, however, may be incidental, as the text seems to imply the people should submit to every authority they are under.

The "Old Lights" referring to New England Preachers of the liberal bent, include: Jonathan Mayhew (1720-1766), Charles Chauncy (1705-1787), Simeon Howard (1733-1804), Samuel Cooper (1725-1783), Ebenezer Gay (1696-1787) and Samuel West (1730-1807). West, was a member of the committee which framed the Constitution of Massachusetts, and member of the Mass. Convention which ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1788. These men are interesting characters, in that most of their theological reasoning discarded sixteen-hundred years of Church tradition for the freedom to interpret the Scriptures in their own way. This is all fine and dandy involving the incidentals of Christianity. These men owe our respect for their involvement in the Revolutionary cause; risking their lives, and promoting freedom of conscience to all men.

These men ranged from Arians to Socinians, having denied the Trinity as unreasonable, they rejected seemingly Calvinist principles promoted by Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Davies et. al. in the Great Awakening. Having free reign to interpret the Scriptures, and rejecting Church Creeds, led these men to deny the fundamentals of Christian Theology. The departure of fundamentals did not start at rejecting inerrancy, but rejecting the Deity of Jesus Christ, which led to rejecting Christ's Vicarious Blood Atonement for Sin. To them, only God can forgive sin, and Jesus was not God, negating Jesus' capacity for blood atonement. Scripturally, they rejected the atonement, looking to God's forgiveness through character. Amazingly, they discarded the entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament, along with God's promise of a final sacrifice for sin. A little leaven leavens the whole lump, which begs the question, "How much virtue does it take to outweigh one sin?"

This exaltation of character over, or even to partner, the free gift of grace, took them off track in God's plan of Salvation. Character is not a part of salvation, but is an evidence of salvation. Character is an evidence, not a requirement. These "Old Lights" mixed grace and works, perhaps due to their emphasis on Natural Law.

They preached in Congregational Churches limited to the Boston area of Massachusetts, before the Unitarian split in the early 19th Century. A good question to these men is how did they get around taking communion? If membership required adherance to Church ordinances, how did Samuel Cooper for instance, get around not taking communion when he adminstered it at Brattle Street Church in Boston? Brattle Street Church was Baptist that eventually became First Baptist Church. His congregation was seemingly more secretive in its Unitarianism than Jonathan Mayhew's Church, with past communion members such as: John Hancock, and Samuel Adams.

A small group of Elite Founding Fathers embraced the psuedo-arminianism of the Unitarian Preachers, some of these men included: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Massachusetts men: John Adams, his son John Quincy, William Cushing, James Bowdoin, and Paul Revere. The division in Unitarian theology did not happen until the 19th Century, with William Ellery Channing. The key to unlock the religious views of the Founding Fathers is tied to their position on atonement-depravity. The pseudo-arminians viewed man as good, the Calvinists or nominal Calvinists viewed man as depraved.

Whatever theological beliefs they had, they were instrumental, along with the Orthodox Preachers, in arousing fervor for revolution against Great Britain. These Old Light preachers are an important element in the American Revolution.

If righteous rebellion is not correct biblical exegesis as some commentators insist, the American Revolution was un-biblical, no matter its inclusion into Natural Law. If the Revolution was un-biblical, does an incidental in Christian theology affect the Christian Nation Thesis?

Deceit of the "key founders" doctine...again:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Jon Rowe continues to believe the distortion of five people whose beliefs are to be the only beliefs the two hundred-fifty Founding Fathers of the United States had, as well as being the only relevant view. Initially, this sounds incredible, but people actually believe this doctrine, neglecting the will of the most important framers, the men who ratified the founding documents. The views of James Madison:

He believed, as he repeatedly affirmed, that the meaning of a statute must be sought in the intentions of those who ratified it, not of those who drafted it--in the case of the First Amendment in the minds of the members of the state legislatures, not of the members of the First Federal Congress.James Hutson-Library of Congresshttp://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.htm

Doesn't common sense say the "key founders" should be the people who ratify a doctrine, the Constitution, etc? Is James Madison correct or no?

the chief architect of the Constitution (Madison)>>
http://www.positiveliberty.com/index.php

Explain how is Madison the chief architect? He isn't.

the author of the Declaration (Jefferson)>>
Jefferson wrote the rough draft, the principles of which were already known by Congress according to John Adams. Explain how and why Jefferson is the author? He isn't.

and the majority of the drafting board of the Declaration (Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson).>>

Jefferson called himself a Christian, where is the evidence he believed God was every religions god? Adams was a Christian while forming the nation:

But still I dread the Consequences...of my Honour, my Conscience, my Friends, my Country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than Hell Fire, eternal Torment. And this is so unequal a Price to pay for the Honours and Emoluments in the Power of a Minister or Governor, that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it. The Duration of future Punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think Eternity a Moment only, I could comply, and be promoted.
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D16

Gregg Frazer adds Hamilton, Wilson, and G. Morris as theistic rationalists.>>

It seems the poster agrees with Frazer but what do these people have to say about the label? Alexander Hamilton was not a theistic rationalist! (emphasis added)

Alexander Hamilton wrote most likely in 1790-94 after the French Revolution: Opinions, for along time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threatens the foundations of religion, morality and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation; for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture; but the being and attributes of a GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments were to be retained and cherished.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1385&chapter=92676&layout=html

I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.
http://books.google.com/books?id=y1_R-rjdcb0C&pg=PA660&lpg=PA660&dq=have+carefully+examined+the+evidences+of+the+by+hamilton&source=web&ots=TsmAYliko9&sig=tOOp2kl0c5OnO_ONpNNnSOSgNrg
http://www.faithofourfathers.net/hamilton.html

He posts no references regarding Wilson and Morris.

But what does it then say that when Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Hamilton, and Wilson talked about God, they purposefully did so in such a vague and generic way that you couldn’t distinguish their creed from either the orthodox Christians’ or the theistic rationalists’ like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin?>>

The Born Again Christian framers spoke in those terms, all of them did.

and when it was widely known that many in elite Whig circles secretly trafficked in “infidel principles.”]>>

References please, for all the states.

Their systematic generic way of speaking about God certainly does nothing to forward the “Christian Nation” thesis as posited by Barton, Federer, and Kennedy.>>

It does if the born again Christians used the same terms. It shows that is the way they referred to God, no matter how they believed. The evidence is some of the terms are definitely biblical.

Regarding what the 200 and some odd Founding Fathers believed in as a whole, whether orthodox Christians or theistic rationalists constituted a statistical majority of the Founders is unknown>>

An absolute marvel! Consider what the ratifiers of the first amendment believed about religion:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated: The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion. Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.” Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated: Frame of Government, Section 9. And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” [p.623]

The Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording: The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both. [p.179]

The ratifiers make it clear, the First Amendment granted freedom of conscience but the establishment clause only referred to Christianity.

Was James Madison a Christian or Theist?

By James J. Goswick July 8, 2007

The evidence surrounding the faith of James Madison
does not support the theistic claim of libertarian
Jon Rowe, or any liberal for that matter. The key to
refuting Rowe and other proponents of the theistic
rationalist label they put on James Madison is the
audience Madison addresses for his claim of
Christianity's truth. If the audience are deists,
unitarians, or theists, Rowe is correct, if they are
Christians, he is wrong. Madison in his Memorial
claims Christianity is the religion he believes is divine:

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace,
to profess and to observe the Religion which we
believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an
equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet
yielded to the evidence which has convinced us."

Were the Baptists, Quakers, Menonists, and Anglicans
in the legislature Christians or Unitarians?
Madison is claiming the assembly is Christian, that
believe as he does. Rowe would need proof that the
assembly of Virginia in 1785 were theists, and notice how
Rowe believes there were "infidel principles" but only
mentions Thomas Jefferson and no one else, "Many of
those elite Virginia Anglican Whigs secretly held to
"infidel principles". Indeed, after graduation,
Madison's mentor was Jefferson, who may well have
brought Madison to unitarian infidelity." Who else led
Madison to "infidel principles"?
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/05/james-madison-still-wasnt-christian.html#more-2397

If Madison was a theist, where is the evidence that
the Virginia Assembly were not Christians? Where is
the evidence that the majority of the
Assembly(Baptists)were theists? Baptists and Anglicans
are Trinitarians. Rowe has presented no
evidence of theists in the Virginia Assembly,
on the contrary, the Memorial and Remonstrance shows
James Madison believed in orthodox Christian beliefs.
Rowe's use of historians or other second hand sources
doesn't support his claim either, Madison's own words
are superior to the words of an historian.

Madison's "best and purest religion" is just an
historians opinion that is true of Thomas Jefferson's
beliefs, the quote is harmonious with his Memorial claim
that all non Christian religions are false. Christianity
is the best religion and the others are false.
We have Jefferson's written words he believed the
bible was corrupted, not Madison's. The best
evidence that Madison is a theist is his "My Red
Children" letter to the Indians. Madison says, "The
Great Spirit, who is the father of us all."
Madison contradicts this statement in his Memorial by
calling the other religions false:

"Compare the number of those who have as yet
it with the number still remaining under
the dominion of false religions; and how small
is the former!"

If the Indians used this term for God, Rowe would have a
point, which he does:

"These lands are ours. No one has a right to
remove us because we were the first owners. The Great
Spirit above has appointed the place for us, on which
to light our fires, and here we will remain."
Tecumseh, Native American chief, in a message to Pres.
James Madison, 1810

From this passage it seems Madison is a theist. Did
Madison change his views? In the final analysis,
Jon Rowe believes Madison played
both sides to win their support, but this view doesn't
seem logical and destroys any of Madison's
credibility. How could the so called Father of the
Constitution call other religions false, simultaneously
not believing what he said, lieing about his faith,
and the faith of his parents just to defeat a bill?
What does that say about his character?

This is the worst kind of hypocrisy, and Rowe admits it:

"To the evangelical Christians, speaking as though
their religion was true, and to the Native Americans,
doing the same. This fits with theistic rationalism
which believes that all religions worship the same
God."
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/05/who-is-the-great-spirit.html#more-2430

Mr. Rowe forgot one important detail, Madison said he
believed Christianity was divine, not the Virginia Assemblies
religion was true. Rowe then believes Madison lied to the
Assembly in Virginia just to make a point. Don't buy
what he's selling folks, common sense knows better.

Another death blow to Rowe and his theist dogma for
Madison and the other framers is the rationalists denial
of miracles, which Madison rejected as his Memorial claims:

"To say that it is, is a contradiction to the
Christian Religion itself, for every page of it
disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it
is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this
Religion both existed and flourished, not only without
the support of human laws, but in spite of every
opposition from them, and not only during the period
of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to
its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence."

This miraculous aid is the aid God provided to the early
church, as recorded in the Book of Acts. Paul and Peter raising
people from the dead, Peter and John healing a lame man,
Peter striking dead Ananias and Sapphira with his words,
sudden earthquakes, and many other supernatural events like
prison locks automatically opening to free the Apostle Paul.

Is it likely that James Madison changed his views
from those of 1772-1785 to different views in 1812, back to
Christian beliefs in 1833's letter to a Christian Rev. Jasper
Adams? From his letter to the Indians, Madison
violated the first commandment of God, of which he knew
all about, having gone to seminary, then changed
his beliefs later in life. The first commandment of God is
in the bible countless times where the Prophets claim there is no
other God but Yahweh. What should be noted is James Madison believed the
Christian system divine while he helped formed the nation.
Madison's theist quote was in 1812, if it isn't a contradiction.

It is clear Madison changed his later beliefs from his
earlier actions, but labeling Madison a theist because
of his contradictions and use of philosophical terms
rather than biblical ones isn't sufficient justification.

Regards.