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.

Do The Founders Agree On Natural Rights?

You bet. There had to be consensus on this fundamental issue. Unalienable Rights are one of the building blocks of our country. The author of this post on American Creation raises an important point not to be ignored.  All the framers agreed that Natural Law was to be identical to Divine Law, but, if the former diverted in the only possible way it could; by a written law, the Scriptures were to be, in the words of Founding Father James Wilson; Superauthentick. Also, by using standard logic, evidenced by the fact the men quoted in the Constitutional Convention: Sir William Blackstone, Baron Montesquieu, Puffendorf, Richard Hooker, John Locke, and the below quoted Hugo Grotius, believed as they did:

The very meaning of the words divine voluntary right, shows that it springs from the divine will, by which it is distinguished from natural law, which, it has already been observed, is called divine also. … Now this law was given either to mankind in general, or to one particular people. We find three periods, at which it was given by God to the human race, the first of which was immediately after the creation of man, the second upon the restoration of mankind after the flood, and the third upon that more glorious restoration through Jesus Christ. These three laws undoubtedly bind all men, as soon, as they come to a sufficient knowledge of them.

Above, Grotius is affirming the Scriptures superior to Nature. Furthermore, "All Human Laws are null and void if contrary to the Divine Law" was adhered to by all. Natural Law can only be relevant if made into Human Law. In lock-step with the Unitarians of the day, John Adams understood Natural Law was subserviant to Revelation:

 I say RIGHTS, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government, — Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws — Rights, derived from the great Legislator of the universe.

-A dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765

That Orthodox Christians: George Mason, Samuel Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, spoke largely of unalienable rights in terms of Natural Law, reinforces the fact they viewed the Scriptures superior. What then of this comment?

"If this is true, neither man's covenants nor God's can change this fact."

However, the Founding Fathers believed God's Word was superior. Is this a contradiction? God's promises are not inferior to man's ideas. Parts of the Bible not repeated in the New Testament; many I might add, are for a different dispensation; for instance, dietary laws. This is the key concept in this narrative, one brought to light by Montesquieu's fundamental "principles that do not change." Early American Law Books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. For example, Blackstone's Commentaries:

To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine...If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law...But, with regard to matters that are...not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the...legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.

In summation, the Founding Fathers appealed to Heaven as their authority, not Natural Law.

Happy Birthday Thomas Jefferson; Hypocrite

Today, April 13th, is the 267th birthday of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). The man who had the audacity to personally slander President George Washington, while working for him! Yes, it's true. Only an arrogant fool would attempt such a thing; only Thomas Jefferson. The principal author of the Declaration of Independence, but by the deferral of John Adams, hired James Madison's college buddy, Philip Freneau as his assistant to write public slanders against George Washington.

According to renowned biographer Paul Leicester Ford; the biographer of Washington, and excellent editor of Jefferson's works, the French Minister claimed the most slanderous public attacks were done by Jefferson himself! Late in life, Freneau claimed some of the attacks were written by the Secretary of State.

How unbelievable? Washington appoints him Secretary of State, even though he's from the opposite party, then, TJ begins to publicly slander the President who appointed him.

Another bit of sad commentary on this event, has James Madison in on the entire episode.

Another Calvinist Founding Father: George Washington

Along with James Madison, another Virginian who was fairly silent on his religious beliefs was General George Washington. No doubt Christianity, and John Calvin's Exposition of it, was the greatest influence on the American Experiment. Calvin's theory of "Solidarity" is the basis and foundation of Republican Representative Government. Solidarity refers to how an individual refers to a group, nation, or mankind, etc. The group is then viewed and treated in relation to its head or King. Solidarity is the basis of the human race having worth and dignity, as man is made in the image of God, His image imputed by Adam to us (Gen. 1:26-27; James 3:9). Solidarity is the basis for: election, the Levitical Priesthood, Corporate Guilt and Punishment, and Even For the Righteous. Egypt's punishment based on the sins of a few is a classic example.

The Bible teaches the acts and decisions of one's representative are viewed and treated as being one's own acts and decisions. If our representatives declare war, you and I have declared war. Representatives for the mass of people was started by God as far back as Exodus 18. Because man is depraved (Calvin's first point in his five points of Calvinism), checks had to be established to limit his power. The Separation of Powers Doctrine, etc. was derived from the work of John Calvin.

George Washington and the Founding Fathers in general, believed in Calvin's Human Depravity, and they designed our government to reflect that depravity. Far from making a distinct declaration of Washington's faith, below is strong evidence of Orthodoxy, as these notes are in his own handwriting, and apparently has his signature. Since Washington approved these words by his signature, he may have added these words himself. Washington's notes for his Inaugural Address show Calvin's influence:

"The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power & prompted by the supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction & sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable--and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words--that no mound of parchmt can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." [bold face mine]
-George Washington, First Inaugural Address Fragments 1789. The Papers of George Washington Documents.

Washington made other comments about his faith that can be construed, however, below, is most likely a spurious letter; most of Washington's fake letters have no date:

"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart."
-George Washington, To the members of the New Church at Baltimore.

So why do secularists claim Washington was Arian? Isn't that appellation a superstition? They make that claim because GW claimed in The 1783 Circular to the States refers to Jesus as "the Divine Author of our blessed Religion." GW's use of "superstition" then, must refer to something other that Scripture, most likely added revelation, and heresy.

If Washington claimed Jesus was Divine, who can claim he denied the Trinity, as well as his understanding man was depraved and need of redemption, which man could not provide, thereby man needing a Divine Redeemer?

As to GW's faith, there is evidence on both sides, however Calvin's Human Depravity need not be disputed.

The Calvinist, James Madison

From Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, and his contribution in the Federalist, he was, at this time, no doubt a Calvinist, adhereing to total depravity. His three main teachers in his education were all Calvinist Clergyman. Does not sin corrupt the whole lump, or only parts of the lump? Yes, man can be good; that is not the issue, rather, man is prone to sin, and requires many checks that Calvinism supplies:

"The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation...Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. 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. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits...Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them." [bold face mine]
-James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785.
http://www.auok.org/original_intent_2.htm

Madison believed salvation was by grace through faith; a gift, that cannot be earned, not that salvation was by character, as Unitarians, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin believed.

"The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands...The history of almost all the great councils and consultations held among mankind for reconciling their discordant opinions, assuaging their mutual jealousies, and adjusting their respective interests, is a history of factions, contentions, and disappointments, and may be classed among the most dark and degraded pictures which display the infirmities and depravities of the human character."
-Madison, Federalist #37.

Madison understood what depravity was, and how man acquired it.

David Barton and Romans 13

David Barton, of Wallbuilders, has posted a recent article on Romans 13, and the right to overthrow tyrants. David's excellent article, again, reiterates the false claim that the 18th Century Enlightenment had anything to do with the theory of righteous rebellion against corrupt governments. Rebellion against tyrants was couched in "Right Reason" of Natural Law, spelled out in Romans 2, by the Apostle Paul, and Reformation Philosophers.

In my previous post, I mentioned the "Old Lights," Liberal Preachers, such as: Jonathan Mayhew, and Samuel Cooper, who were raised in the 18th Century Enlightenment, however did not use enlightenment principles in their view of Romans 13, but used the Biblical Text, and Natural Law, from centuries earlier.

The Old Lights, who were of the minority viewpoint in their theological reasoning, could not, by their lack of numbers, and limited geographical base; Massachusetts, be the majority impetus for the American Revolution. There were countless, more Orthodox Clergy, from Rhode Island to Georgia, who chanted rebellion through ink, and from their pulpits. The Orthodox were the major voice for Revolution interpreting Romans 13. The Old Lights, therefore, were a theological minority in voicing their opinion, although their voice, in some areas, appeared louder than the others.

The correct, and majority American Political Theology, must therefore be Orthodox Christian.

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?

John Locke: The Trinitarian Christian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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