Timothy Dwight, And The Moderate Calvinist Battle Against Unitarianism

The theological fight between Orthodox Christians and Unitarians took center stage in mid to late 18th Century America. Moderate, Orthodox Calvinists such as: Timothy Dwight, Abiel Holmes, Ashbel Green, Samuel Langdon, Ezra Stiles, Joseph Bellamy, Jedidiah Morse, Nathan Strong et al., battled unitarians: Jonathan Mayhew, Ebenezer Gay, Charles Chauncy, Simeon Howard, and Samuel West. These leaders in the Church, fought like cats and dogs in various periodicals, and in the pulpits, over the fundamentals of Christianity, and what was literal and allegory. Timothy Dwight was the leader, and promoter of today's Evangelical movement. For the next one-hundred years and beyond, Dwight's Theology was study material in every Protestant college in the world, going through twelve editions. Dwight is the Father of Modern Evangelicalism.

Dwight, and the Evangelicals halted unitarianism, deism, and other forms of Pelagianism to the inner Boston, Massachusetts area:

By the 1830's, evangelicals had successfully contained Unitarianism within the Boston area and the West had become the new battleground for Orthodoxy.

          -Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Anchron Books, 1974, p. 199.

Furthermore, independent periodicals echoed the same point:

Unitarians, who are principally confined to Boston and its vicinity.

-Boston Patriot, May 13, 1815.

That unitarianism was limited to a small area reflects the influence it had on the population. Make no mistake, there were many Unitarians at Harvard, however, "only one man: John Clark of Boston, an overseer of the college disagreed with David Tappan's election as Professor of Divinity in 1793." (Bentley, Diary, III, p. 38). Dwight's battle with the unitarians started in 1783 as the minister in "Greenfield Hill," a congregational church in Fairfield, Connecticut. "Dwight had a genius for recognizing able proteges — among them Lyman Beecher, Nathaniel W. Taylor, and Leonard Bacon, all whom would become major religious leaders and theological innovators in the ante bellum decades." Having graduated from Yale in 1769, Dwight made Yale the "largest institution of higher education in North America." Dwight took over Yale from Evangelical Clergyman Ezra Stiles, the President from (1778-1795) and Pastor of Second Congregational Church in Newport, R. I. from (1755-1777).

Not a few historians label Stiles an innocent bystander in this Puritan battle against pelagianism, which may have been the case publicly, however his diary paints a different picture. If Stiles did not join this quarrel in print, he joined the Orthodox in the pulpit. His diary gives many examples of his opinion of heresy.

May God defeat these insidious Machiavellian hellish designs against his Chh [Church] in New England.

-Diary, Vol I, p. 587.

Stiles had many, less than Orthodox friends, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Stiles once had dinner in Scotland with Franklin, and David Hume. However, he was an evangelical:

[M]ay I be quickened to greater fidelity..to press home Evangelical Truths..reprehending with all authority, not shuning to declare the whole truth.

-Diary, Oct. 22, 1769. 

His Diary presents short entries of debate that never appear to escalate detailing Christian doctrine:

He [Abraham Redwood] has a peculiar notion about sin--that there is no Imputation of sin from Adam, but God created every man a Sinner..I objected this made G[o]d the Author of Sin.

-Diary, May 9, 1770.

Stiles died in 1795, and Dwight personally led Yale in training men to carry out the fight against heresy. Dwight engineered the Second Great Awakening (1802-1810), aligning Old Calvinists by planning to spread Orthodoxy throughout New England. Among these Calvinists Dwight joined forces with, were Hopkinsians, after Rev. Samuel Hopkins, D. D. pastor of the First Congregational Church at Newport, Rhode Island. Hopkinsians were remnants of the Edwardians, after the great Theologian Jonathan Edwards; the main theologian of the Great Awakening, that spread from New England to Georgia. Towards the end of Edwards' life, he strayed into meta-physical doctrine, attempting to "combine his theory of cause & effect with Newtonian Cosmology." The staunch Calvinist that he was, Edwards did not believe in self-determination; this tended to mis-lead his later followers that God was vengeful, wanting to punish everyone. Rigid discipline, and too much emphasis on human depravity pushed parishoners away. Here is an example of Edwards' thoughts:

No energy is self-generating, so the actions of human will must be determined from outside oneself.

-Edwards, Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Achron Books, 1974.

Contrast Edwards with Dwight and the moderate Calvinists:

God's foreknowledge has not the remotest influence on the agent, or his action.

-Dwight, Theology I.

Dwight used "means" to nurture one's spiritual conversion, through prayer, education, and church attendance. The Old Calvinists meta-physical doctrines stifled evangelism, but Dwight understood they were a vital group, with a large base, that also disliked heterodox doctrine calling itself Christianity. Yet, the Scriptures are simple; for simple people. The Church has long delineated what is literal and what is allegory. Here, in Luke 17: 26-30, Jesus affirms the flood, the story of Abraham, Lot, and the destruction of the cities of the plain:

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. [italics mine]

Notice, Jesus says, "[A]s it was in the days of Noe." Unitarians and/or rationalists, proclaim they adhere to inerrancy, yet, denial of these obvious literal passages leave no excuse.

Dwight, and the moderates employed Old Calvinists to spread a moderate, almost Arminian form of Calvinism.

 Along with Jedidiah Morse in Massachusetts, the New Divinity combined all Calvinists to defeat the unitarian influence. Morse, with the Hopkinsians, formed Andover Theological Seminary, that survives to this very day. Furthermore, the battle against heresy was not as some would suggest:

Contrary to publicized orthodox opinion, the great majority of Jeffersonians were in fact Trinitarian Protestants.

-Stephen E. Berk, Calvinism Versus Democracy. Anchron Books, 1974, p.150

In my opinion, Dwight and the Modern Calvinists did a dis-service, sometimes viciously attacking the Jeffersonians throughout New England. These attacks by Federalists, no doubt hurt the party, losing the 1800 election to Thomas Jefferson; linked "Jeffersonian leaders with the illuminati" in the Connecticut Courant, Berk, p. 131. Yes, the Jeffersonians attacked the Standing Order of Connecticut Gentry, however, writing these falsehoods didn't help the Federalists. Dwight even advised spurning democratic members of Puritan families. The Connecticut Courant, edited by Dwight's brother, Theodore, had the nerve to ask Jefferson to sign the Apostles Creed.

In New England, Jeffersonians had several papers as well, including The Aurora and American Mercury. Their rhetoric included calling Dwight, "Pope of Connecticut" and a diatribe in the Mercury, attacking the Standing Order of Connecticut:

"...an union of church & state--an union which the experience of all countries has proved to be incompatible with civil & religious liberty."

-American Mercury, Sept. 25, 1800.

It reads like James Madison. If it is him, it's another example of Madison's inconsistency, having fought against Virginia's assessment for Christian teachers, yet, he wrote any State can form whatever religion they like:

If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion...Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution; and it is sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest. [italics mine]

-James Madison, June 12, 1788. Elliot's Debates In the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Virginia).

Dwight viewed religion (Orthodox Christianity) the basis for liberty, as Puritanism had protected their rights, and provided happiness for nearly two centuries. Dwight was correct; there was no discrimination of any sects, nor a union of church and state. Dwight claimed the Jeffersonians wanted a pluralistic society, that always leads to infidelity:

Requiring citizens to support religion is not only consistent with freedom, but the primary cause of it.

-Woods, History of Andover,  p. 106.

In light of the happiness and liberty religion had brought to New England, the Jeffersonians arrogantly labeled Congregational missionary work as a "Priestly Conspiracy." Berk, p. 163. and "the usual alliance of church & state." Mercury, July 2, 1801; and June 27, 1805.

But Dwight had history on his side.  "To the orthodox mind, religion was the chief agency of social control." Berk, p. 142. In defense of Connecticut's Standing Order, Dwight wrote:

The whole history of the heathen world furnishes not a single reason to believe, that its teachings ever reformed one individual, either among the teachers, or among the disciples.

-Sermons I, On Revelation, p. 103.

Because God demands obedience to governmental authorities, this obedience is the basis for social virtue. To the Federalists, democracy served to destroy social harmony and a disrespect for authority.

At the end of the day, Harvard did not officially became Unitarian until Henry Ware was appointed Hollis Professor of Divinity in 1803, by succeeding David Tappan, who defended historical Puritanism. Unitarianism never even gained ground in outer Massachusetts. Many Politicians, such as, Josiah Bartlett, Benjamin Rush et al., became universalists, yet, never departed from Historical Christian Orthodoxy.

Thomas Jefferson Backstabbing George Washington

Paul Leicester Ford's excellent book, The True George Washington gives a detailed look into Washington's life. Ford was a well respected author, who first edited Jefferson's writings. While Secretary of State, TJ complained, and fought Alexander Hamilton and Washington tooth and nail for attempting to violate enumerated powers in the Constitution, yet, he did the same thing with the Louisiana Purchase. Backstabbing your friends, especially the President, is downright tragic. GW had friends who knew TJ all too well. "Henry Lee warned Washington of the undercurrent of criticism, and when Jefferson heard indirectly of this he wrote his former chief that:

I learn that [Lee] has thought it worth his while to try to sow tares between you and me, by representing me as still engaged in the bustle of politics & in turbulence & intrigue against the government. I never believed for a moment that this could make any impression on you, or that your knowledge of me would not overweigh the slander of an intriguer dirtily employed in sifting the conversations of my table.

"To this Washington replied," —

As you have mentioned the subject yourself, it would not be frank, candid or friendly to conceal, that your conduct has been represented as derogating from that opinion /had conceived you entertained of me; that, to your particular friends and connexions you have described, and they have denounced me as a person under a dangerous influence ; and that, if I would listen more to some other opinions, all would be well. My answer invariably has been, that I had never discovered any thing in the conduct of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicions in my mind of his insincerity; that, if he would retrace my public conduct while he was in the administration, abundant proofs would occur to him, that truth and right decisions were the sole objects of my pursuit; that there was as many instances within his own knowledge of my having decided against as in favor of the opinions of the person evidently alluded to ; and, I was no believer in the infallibility of the politics or measures of any man living. In short that I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.

"As proof upon proof of Jefferson's secret enmity accumulated, Washington ceased to trust his disclaimers, and finally wrote to one of his informants, " Nothing short of the evidence you have adduced, corroborative of intimations which I had received long before through another channel, could have shaken my belief in the sincerity of a friendship, which I had conceived as possessed for me by the person to whom you allude. But attempts to injure those, who are supposed to stand well in the estimation of the people, and are stumbling blocks in the way, by misrepresenting their political tenets, thereby to destroy all confidence in them, are among the means by which the government is to be assailed, and the constitution destroyed."

Nancy Pelosi Claims Jesus Christ Directs Her Lawmaking?

It appears Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to copy President Barack Obama. Although I don't agree completely with his politics, the author of this article, Ken Blackwell, gives us a glimpse of the hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum:

Last week, Pelosi made a rambling, redundant, somewhat incoherent monologue in which she claimed that “The Word” directed her. She clarified that meant “The Word Made Flesh”—the incarnate Deity—Jesus Christ. She doesn’t leave us to surmise, elaborating that she makes policy decisions, “in keeping with the values of Jesus.”

Our Founding Fathers never claimed the Declaration or Constitution was the product of Divine Inspiration.

Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Is Silent As Her University Accepts Money From Saudi Arabia; A Country That Executes Gays

Elena Kagan is close to confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. Prayer and Action, has high-lighted her hypocrisy on homosexuality, and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is bringing those contradictions to the Senate floor. Kagan accomplished her goal of kicking U.S. recruiters out of Harvard, but like other hard-core liberals, she supports Saudi Arabia, a nation that sponsors Islamic terrorism.

Her confirmation hearings will be interesting, once her pro-islamic views are made public. Liberals that vote for her, should think twice, or they may get booted out by independents in the next election.  

Great Britain Beware!

Oklahoma is taking matters into their own hands. The legislature is beginning to prohibit Sharia and International Law from their state. Started by State Rep. Rex Duncan, who "served 16 months as a Special Forces officer on duty assignments in the Middle East and Africa." As WND reports, "not a single county [in Oklahoma] voted for Barack Obama." No doubt, this move has Obama in mind, with the Federal Government's apparent intrusion into state's rights, etc.

What caught my eye in this article referred to, "Reports say nearly half a dozen Shariah courts already have been set up in the U.K." The only way Sharia Law can be set up is if a majority in a particular county in Britain is Muslim. The Brits, especially the Monarchy, better wake up quick, and understand what they are dealing with.

Even more egregious is the United States Government supports Sharia Law; the law that tells muslims to destroy us! Unbelievable! But it's true. No wonder Rep. Duncan and Oklahoma are outlawing Islamic Law. Here is a taste of what Mohammed and his henchmen spread upon the earth. Important to note is the Hadith must be inspired, as the koran does not contain the essential five pillars of the faith:

FIGHTING

Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

Ishaq:324[Hadith] "He said, 'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'"

Ishaq:300 "I am fighting in Allah's service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah's war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good."

Ishaq:587 "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."

TERRORISM
Bukhari:V4B52N220[Hadith] "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.'"

Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."

Qur'an:8:57 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."

Ishaq:326 "If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah's enemies."

Qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."

Ishaq:588 "When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves."

WAR

Ishaq:208 "When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound themselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances."

Ishaq:472 "Muhammad's Companions are the best in war."

Qur'an:8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"

Qur'an:8:12 "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'"

Qur'an:8:15 "Believers, when you meet unbelieving infidels in battle while you are marching for war, never turn your backs to them. If any turns his back on such a day, unless it be in a stratagem of war, a maneuver to rally his side, he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge!"

Qur'an:8:39 "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam."

JIHAD

Qur'an:2:216 "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not." [Another translation reads:] "Warfare is ordained for you."

Qur'an:4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward."

Bukhari:V4B52N44 "A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, 'Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.' He replied, 'I do not find such a deed.'"

Bukhari:V1B2N25 "Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next best in goodness?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.'"

MURDER

Tabari IX:69[Hadith] "Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us."

Tabari VIII:141 "The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah that night was: 'Kill! Kill! Kill!'"

Bukhari:V5B59N512 "The Prophet had their men killed, their woman and children taken captive."

Ishaq:489 "Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing."

TORTURE

Qur'an 5:33 "The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly."

Tabari VIII:122

Ishaq:515 "The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, 'Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah's chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him."

Bukhari:V4B54N487 "The Prophet said, 'The Hell Fire is 69 times hotter than ordinary worldly fires.' So someone said, 'Allah's Apostle, wouldn't this ordinary fire have been sufficient to torture the unbelievers?'"

Bukhari:V4B52N260 "Ali burnt some [former Muslims alive] and this news reached Ibn Abbas, who said, 'Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, "Don't punish with Allah's Punishment." No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, "If a Muslim discards his Islamic religion, kill him."'"

ISLAMIC SCIENCE

Bukhari:V4B55N546 "Allah's Apostle said, 'Gabriel has just now told me of the answer. If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble him, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her.'"

Qur'an 15:26 "Allah created Adam from sticky clay, meaning viscous and sweet smelling slime, being stinking. It became stinking slime after having been compact soil."

Qur'an 80:17 "Be cursed man! He has self-destructed. From what stuff did He create him? From nutfa (male and female semen drops) He created him and set him in due proportion."

Tabari I:258 "Allah sent Gabriel to the earth to bring Him some clay. The earth said, 'I take refuge in Allah against you mutilating me. Then He sent the angel of death. He took some soil from the earth and made a mixture. He did not take it from a single place but took red, white, and black soil. Therefore, the children of Adam came out different."

WOMEN

Tabari IX:113 "Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."

Tabari I:280 "Allah said, 'It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.' Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid."

Qur'an 4:3 "If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with orphans, marry women of your choice who seem good to you, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to do justice (to so many), then only one, or (a slave) that you possess, that will be more suitable. And give the women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, eat it with enjoyment, take it with right good cheer and absorb it (in your wealth)."

Qur'an 4:11 "Allah directs you in regard of your Children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females.... These are settled portions ordained by Allah."

Bukhari:V1B22N28 "The Prophet said: 'I was shown the Hell Fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who are disbelievers or ungrateful.' When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, 'All the favors done for them by their husbands.'"

Such is only part of the religion of Islam.

Refuting Samuel Barrett's (1825) 100 Scriptural Arguments For the Unitarian Faith

Although, Barrett's list was made in 1825, the same would apply to the unitarians of the 18th century. It would be simple enough to refute all one-hundred points by listing the clear scriptural references declaring Jesus as God, co-equal, and co-eternal, with Father God. However, both sides cannot be correct. One side must be wrong, or there is a contradiction:

Philippians 2:5,8, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." [italics mine]

Unitarian Founding Father John Adams et al., would mis-translate these scriptures by siteing what is italicized, ignoring what Paul is saying about Jesus. Yes, Jesus was made a man.

Barrett's number 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 and 18).

Barrett and the unitarians, get confused that words proclaiming a difference in persons, refers to multiple Gods, ignoring Philippians 2. The Father is a distinct person, Jesus is a distinct person, and the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, but one God. I know, don't try and figure it out, it's beyond our comprehension. Here, is the Apostle John saying the Jews understood Jesus was declaring himself to be God:

John 5:18, "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

Therefore, the Jews understood Jesus claimed equality with the Father.

2. 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. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”

Jesus never claimed to be God? How could he and the unitarians miss these?

John 8:58,59, "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. [italics mine]

Jesus took the very name God told Moses at the burning bush, and they tried to stone Him for it. It was Jesus at the burning bush! All revelation of God to man, apart from God declaring, "This is my beloved Son", is from Jesus. Thus, Jesus is the Creator of the universe; the Father, the architect. Jesus claims the same essence as the Father. "I am", is the self-existent one, omni-potent, omni-present, omni-science, etc.

3. Because he is declared, in unnumbered instances, to be the Son of God. “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). Can a son be coeval (the same age) and the same with his father? [italics mine]

How else could Barrett say this in light of John 5, and Philippians 2?

4. Because he is styled the Christ, or the anointed of God. “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts 10:38). Is he who anoints the same with him who is anointed?

Yes, Jesus is a man. Jesus is only different as Philippians says, "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Jesus surrendered some of His attributes as God, by becoming a man. He couldn't fly, move in and out of dimensions, that He could do after His resurrection.

6. Because Christ is Mediator between the “One God,” and “men.” “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

By this very statement, Jesus must be God, as only God can access God. A man has no access to God. God would only reveal His back(glory) unto Moses:

Exodus 33:18,23, "And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

12. Because Christ says, “My father is greater than all” (John 10:29). Is not the father, then greater than the son?

Greater than Jesus's human position, not in essence.

14. Because he virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God” (Matt. 19:17).

Jesus is claiming the opposite. Jesus is either God or He isn't good.

17. Because an Apostle says of God, in distinction from the “Lord Jesus Christ,” that He is the “only Potentate,” and that He “only hath immortality” (1 Tim. 6:15 and 16).

Jesus died. The man died, yet, Barrett divorces the context from what he writes. Paul says Jesus, "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen." Paul tells us the context, that Jesus has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light. The immortality is connected to where He is.

The rest of Barrett's objections is a matter of semantics taken out of context. Jesus has all the attributes of God, besides those limited by putting on flesh. God is the judge, Jesus claimed to be the judge. God is the creator, Jesus claimed to be the creator, etc. God demands worship, Jesus said to worship me.

Revolutionary Founding Father James Wilson

A well written book concerning James Wilson was written in 1956, by Charles Page Smith. He takes a considerable amount of time presenting Wilson's upbringing, and college life in Scotland, that included attendance at several universities.

Wilson was raised arguably in the most die-hard Calvinist area on the planet; Fife, in the Lowlands of Scotland. His Father was an elder in the Reformed Church, where, it is more than likely, as a boy, Wilson actually watched George Whitefield preach. In all of Scotland, Fife was the heart of Calvinism, the home of St. Andrews University.

There is no record, that I know of, that he affirmed Calvinism, or unitarianism, but, he did believe the scriptures, the least common denominator.

Growing up in the middle 18th century, it doesn't appear the Scottish Enlightenment had a big impact on Wilson, considering he attended Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities a fraction of the time he spent at Calvinist St. Andrews. Wilson was not over-joyed by philosophy:

I prefer the conversation of a fine woman to that of a philosopher.

The Visitant, Pennsylvania Chronicle, Feb. 1768. Charles Page Smith, "James Wilson" (Univ. of N.C. Press, Chapel Hill, 1956)

In the Chronicle, Wilson gives his insight as to his opinion on man's reason:

Mathematical knowledge is not received by the senses but rather proved by them. In moral subjects the mind has not such a certain standard; there are numberless passions and prejudices to warp the judgment. It is thus "absolutely impossible," because of the weakness of our minds to have a clear perception of moral truths. "The most important moral truths are discovered not by reasoning, but by that act of the mind which I have called perception...reasoning is very fallacious, for every step leads us into danger, and by one false step we are irrecoverably lost."

The Visitant, Pennsylvania Chronicle, Apr. 25, 1768. Charles Page Smith, "James Wilson" (Univ. of N.C. Press, Chapel Hill)

Hence, Wilson is an important Founding Father, not to be forgotten, or labeled by a tier, whose influences included the "sagacious" "judicious" and "most excellent" Calvinist (sola scriptura, total depravity, salvation by faith alone), Richard Hooker:

Hooker's account of natural law appeals to Luther's [and Calvin's] distinction of the twofold use of the law, although his formulation of doctrine is potentially misleading on a terminological level:

The lawe of reason doth somewhat direct men how to honour God as their Creator, but how to glorifie God in such sort as is required, to the end he may be an everlasting Saviour, this we are taught by divine law, which law both ascertayneth the truth and supplyeth unto us the want of that other law. So that in morall actions, divine lawe helpeth exceedingly the law of reason to guide mans life, but in supernaturall it alone guideth. (Lawes I.16.5; 1:139.3-10)

Thus, to Hooker, and Wilson, the scriptures guide man's reason where enumerated.

Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the 2nd most active speaker at the Constitutional Convention. Not much is known about his personal faith, or that he affirmed any creed. What we do know is Wilson believed the Scriptures.

John Adams Quoting Total Depravity

I found this quote in a letter to Mercy Warren. In this letter without any doubt, Adam's adhered to John Calvin's Total Depravity of Human Nature:

The Form of Government, which you admire, when its Principals are pure is admirable indeed. It is productive of every Thing, which is great and excellent among Men. But its Principles are as easily destroyed, as human Nature is corrupted. Such a Government is only to be supported by pure Religion, or Austere Morals. Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a possitive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. [bold face mine]

John Adams to Mercy Warren April 16, 1776.

Adam's links Christianity with the fall; as did James Madison, understanding our corrupt nature is imputed to us by Adam's sin. Thus, it isn't a stretch, at this time in his life, to conclude Adams believed in imago dei (unalienable rights imputed by Adam), and pre-destination.

The imputation of sin, unalienable rights, and pre-destination, is accomplished by the same process.

The Faith of Our Founding Fathers

Author Rod Gragg, has a new book out called, Forged in Faith. Here, is his video interview on Fox.

The reason I believe our rights are found not just from Natural Law, but in the Scriptures themselves, is precisely what his book is about. The Purtians helped form our nation, and were most responsible for promoting education. Thus, the "Puritan work ethic" that was spread by education (do everything unto the Glory of God) through the scriptures. England started this education of the citizenry by translating the Bible into English in order for citizens to read the Bible and understand the Gospel themselves, to learn about God's creation, and as Founding Father John Jay wrote:

By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.

Acton Lecture Series: Virtue and Liberty in the American Founding

Dr. John Pinheiro examines the American Founders’ understanding of liberty as rooted in a classical and Christian understanding of virtue. Dr. Pinheiro is associate professor of history and director of Catholic Studies at Aquinas College in Michigan. He holds a Ph.D. in history from the University of Tennessee.

He claims, "Washington was a Christian." And also remarked, "Adams believed virtue was the foundation of government in the 1770's, but by the 1790's, he thought the government could inculcate virtue in the people."

That could be a stretch, however, I agree with his summation that Adams changed his views over time.

In the question and answer forum, Dr. Pinheiro explained, "Rousseau helped bring about the French Revolution; the nobel savage belief Jefferson admired."

Rousseau is key in understanding TJ's belief in revolution, and man's place in nature.

Col. Alexander Hamilton Mirrored John Calvin

I found this quote by Hamilton that screams of his Calvinism. Off the cuff, it is the most stunningly Calvinist statement I have read by any Founding Father:

"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.

Was The Bible The Founding Fathers' Source of Unalienable Rights?

The subject of where exactly did the Bill of Rights come from is a hotly contested topic, especially as the Founding Fathers did not specifically tell us in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. With that said, this author at american creation writes unalienable rights are not found in the Bible:

It is this concept of inalienable rights thats taken to its logical conclusion in the bill of rights. So, are the bill of rights found in the Bible? No. Did Christian theologians use the Bible and the wisdom of the ages to come up with a rational[sp] for inalienable rights that is unique to Judeo-Christian thought? Yes.

The rationale the author is referring to, is Natural Law; Man's right reason found in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 2:14-15, and 1 Corinthians 11:14. Nature (common sense), impresses upon us there is a difference between right and wrong, this understanding imputed into our minds by our Creator, just as God's image is imputed to mankind by Adam in James 3. Yet, our rights are enumerated in the Scriptures; supporting the fact it isn't Natural Law they are derived from. The rights are written on paper. Without serious inquiry into Aquinas, I doubt he was unfamiliar with these scriptures.

Again, the Founding Fathers understood our unalienable rights are found in the scriptures. Here is the Father of the Revolution, the mastermind of the Boston Tea Party, one of only two framers not pardoned by King George:

"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.

Furthermore, another important Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, believed our rights are found in the Bible by endorsing Adams' report:

The person alluded to by Governor Hutchinson, as "the great director in England," was Dr. Franklin, and it is insinuated that he was in effect the author of the report, but this is in no sense true..To the sentiments expressed in the report of the committee, and adopted by the inhabitants of the town, he fully assented. This is proved by his sending a copy of the proceedings to the press, as soon as he received it in London, with a prefatory notice written by himself. The pamphlet was entitled "The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in Town Meeting assembled, according to Law. Published by Order of the Town." -- Sparks.

Interesting, that Adams says our unalienable rights are not only expounded by Jesus and the Apostles of the New Testament, but also written by Moses in the Torah.

Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin were not the only ones that attributed the Bible as the source of our rights. The Penman of the Revolution understood our unalienable rights come from Jesus Christ:

"Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness... We claim them from a higher source -- from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth."

-John Dickinson, An Address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados, 1766.

Just where are the texts in the Scripture that expound unalienable rights?
Ironically, several rights are in the same chapter of Deuteronomy, listed one after the other, as the framers listed the Bill of Rights:

Property. Ninth and Tenth Amendment: Deut 19:14. "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it."

Trial by Jury. Sixth Amendment: v.15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."

Unreasonable search and seizure. Fourth Amendment: Deut. 24:10-11. "When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge. Thou shalt stand abroad, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee."

Right to bear arms. Second Amendment: “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

Free Speech, assembly, free exercise. First Amendment:

John 4:14
"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
John 6:40,47,51,54
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:"
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 7:37
"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink."
John 8:51
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death."
John 11:26
"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

Many State legal codes, the death penalty, et al., are quoted verbatim by the framers. It isn't difficult to see why the framers considered America the "New Zion."

"So Israel under the monarchy always had an armed population (as the 2nd Amendment envisions for the United States). It also had powerful dissidents, the prophets, who were not afraid to use their freedom of speech to rebuke the government (as the 1st Amendment provides). Yet even though ancient Israel might be said to have protected both 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment rights, these were not sufficient to protect the full scope of liberty and prevent serious abuses by government. The concentration of national political power continued to have terrible consequences."

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_04/kopel-israel.html

Thus, the entire foundation of Law: the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, are founded upon the Bible, and Natural Law. No doubt, pertaining to religion, the United States was founded an Orthodox Christian Nation.

Thomas Jefferson Is Voted Most Responsible For Our Constitution

Jefferson defeated James Madison 12% to 10%. I voted for Gouverneur Morris. He spoke the most at the Constitutional Convention, wrote the preamble, and was principal draughtsman, similar to Thomas Jefferson's role writing the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson was in France during the Convention, and did not sign the document.

John Calvin, Locke, Sidney, Interposition, Covenant Theology, and the Founding Fathers

My contention is the Declaration of Independence, thus the basis of this country's existence, is founded by interposition, through what Founding Father John Witherspoon called abdication. The framers contend King George forfeited his right to rule the colonies by breaking the scriptural covenant, they believed, God had made with them and the King.

Witherspoon, the pre-eminent scholar of the Founding Fathers, understood the Declaration of Independence was not a revolt:

"On the part of America, there was not the most distant thought of subverting the government or of hurting the interest of the people of Great Britain; but of defending their own privileges from unjust encroachment; there was not the least desire of withdrawing their allegiance from the common sovereign till it became absolutely necessary - and indeed, it was his [King George III] own choice."

-The Works of John Witherspoon, (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1802), Vol. III, p. 42, "The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men", May 17,1776.

The abdication was carried out by a process called: interposition; a change of government made by lesser magistrates within the government. This theory was begun by John Calvin, and promoted by his successors.

"For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings..So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians."

-Institutes of the Christian Religion

It is true, Reformed theology of the Protestant Reformation picked up where Catholic Scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas, and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) left off. Yet, if a minority of Catholics used PRIMARILY Natural Law to promote Republican government; risking their lives I might add, the reformers turned the world upside down, by directly linking Republican government to the scriptures. Yes, Aquinas' Summa may have quoted scripture, but he, and the schoolmen, had little effect; their efforts, somewhat exaggerated, emphasized Aristotle's Greek Philosophy, instead of "right reason" from the scriptures, ultimately, their church doctrine contradicted their nobel efforts.

Some of the leading tracts by Protestants from the Reformation period that had wide and enduring political impact in support of liberty: The Right of Magistrates (1574) by Theodore Beza, The Rights of the Crown of Scotland (1579) by George Buchanan, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (1579) by Phillipe du Plessis Mornay, Politica (1603) by Johannes Althusius, and Lex Rex (1644) by Samuel Rutherford.

The Reformers believed in "Covenant Theology," that God made with Israel in I Samuel 12:17,25, applied to them, giving protection and blessing for obedience:

Is it not wheat harvest to day? I will call unto the LORD, and he shall send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king..But if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your king.

Important to note, this doctrine may not be enumerated in the New Testament, and should not be confused that the framers adhered to this doctrine for salvation. However, the Founding Fathers believed it.

It isn't a stretch to claim all the signers of the Declaration of Independence adhered to this covenant theology. John Adams quoted Vindiciae contra tyrannos, and noted that Calvin's successor, "[Theodore] Beza explained his doctrines with great pomp of eloquence." Even Thomas Jefferson may have believed it. A monarch's violation of unalienable rights is grounds for separation from the covenant; hence, the monarch is a representative of the people, bringing judgment to the people. The below quote may be out of the particular context, however, the principle applies; that God will judge nations for breaking the covenant [wickedness]:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

- Notes on the State of Virginia.

TJ also believed our unalienable rights come from the Bible:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."[bold face mine]

-A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, Section I.

This holy author had zero to do with other religions, or Roman, or Greek philosophy. The Father of our country, George Washington wrote Jesus Christ is the holy author of our religion [Christianity]:

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation." [italics mine]

-Washington's Farewell to the Army, June 8th, 1783.

With this in mind, TJ wrote the DOI was founded on:

"..the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c..."

-to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825.

No doubt the "&c" includes the Bible, and Reformation Literature. Covenant theology in the Declaration, is specifically enumerated in the Scriptures, only inferred from Natural Law. Yet, Algernon Sidney is only one out of those names who advanced biblical covenant theology. Furthermore, Sidney said, "he preferred to be classified as a Calvinist or a Puritan rather than be associated with the ideas of Archbishop Laud." Locke secularized his social contract and based the contract on reason.

Is there a doubt the Revolution was based on scripture? Our first Professor of the Law of Nature, (James Wilson), understood Natural Law cannot contradict Divine Law. Thus, the "Atlas of Independence":

"The gallant Struggle in America, is founded in Principles so indisputable, in the moral Law, in the revealed Law of God, in the true Constitution of great Britain, and in the most apparent Welfare of the Nation as well as the People in America, that I must confess it rejoices my very Soul."

-John Adams second "Clarendon" letter as printed in the Boston Gazette, 20, Jan. 1766.

In 1776, the two most respected and famous founding fathers were, John Dickinson, and Samuel Adams, who declared our rights are from the Scriptures:

"Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness... We claim them from a higher source -- from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth."

-John Dickinson, An Address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados, 1766.

Important to note, Benjamin Franklin agreed with Adams, and supported The Rights of the Colonists:

"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." [italics mine]

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

The sum of my argument declares the evidence supports: the Revolution, and Declaration of Independence, thus, the formation of the United States, is based on Covenant theology, found in the pages of scripture, brought to light by the Protestant Reformers.

The Arizona Immigration Law

Andrew McCarthy has written an interesting article on the Arizona immigration law for the National Review. Here is a part of his article:

It [Constitution] was to repel invasion by aliens who challenged our sovereign authority to set the conditions of their presence on our soil. For that reason, border security has always been the highest prerogative of sovereignty. Immune from judicial interference, it answers to no warrant requirement. At the border, the federal government does not need probable cause — or any cause at all — to inquire into a person’s citizenship, immigration status, or purpose for attempting to enter our country. Agents can detain immigrants and citizens alike. They can perform bodily searches. They can go through every inch of a would-be entrant’s belongings, read his mail, and scrutinize the contents of his computer. A person subjected to this treatment may find it degrading or unfair, but the courts have nothing to say about it. At stake, after all, is the irreducible core of a sovereign people’s power to protect themselves from intruders. At the southern border, however, the federal government has forfeited its power. As a result, Arizonans are imperiled by Mexico’s brutally violent warring factions. They are crushed economically as the magnet effect of our unsustainable welfare state falls disproportionately on their schools, hospitals, jails, and pocketbooks, to the tune of nearly $2 billion per year.

The question is, what does the Constitution say? It appears the text of the Constitution supports the immigration law:

Article I, Section 8-Powers of Congress

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To repel invasions precisely pertains to the immigration problem Arizona is having. No one has the right to be here illegally. Does not the law prohibit racial profiling? Then why not provide ID upon probable cause?

Article IV, Section 4-Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

No doubt the general legislature has failed to protect Arizona from domestic violence. The burden of illegal immigrants has afflicted domestic violence; from drugs, increased tax burden, to health services. The government has been guilty of perpetuating this lack of security since John F. Kennedy.

People are incensed by this law. Is it too much to ask, to carry an ID on your person?

Chuck Norris, Holding Up The Fort

Not only does Chuck use the usual hard-core Christians to promote teaching the Bible in schools, I like how he shows George Washington's views, who, no doubt would be sick at our governments separation of church and state:

George Washington once addressed Delaware chiefs among the Lenape Indians who desired to train their young people in American schools, saying, "You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."[italics mine]

Chuck points out the Congress as a whole, promoted Bible Teaching in all schools:

In 1789, during the same time when the First Amendment was written, then President Washington signed into law the Northwest Ordinance, which states, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

The Supreme Court, or any court, to ignore this declaration by Washington and Congress, is disgraceful!

Chuck, correctly quotes Gouverneur Morris, singularly, perhaps the most influential delegate to the Constitution:

Gouverneur Morris, who represented Pennsylvania at the convention in Philadelphia in 1787 and subsequently signed the U.S. Constitution, said, "Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God." [Gouverneur Morris, 1792, Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France.]

The myth of separation of church and state, mandating state office holders be Christians, and State Constitutions themselves, declare we were formed a Christian Nation.

More Lack of Constitutional Discernment from Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor

The Supreme Court correctly supports a Cross on Federal Land in California. Justice Stevens dissented, along with Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Stevens argued that it was proper for the district court to find that the land transfer statute violated its original injunction. He concluded that the land transfer statute did not end government endorsement of the cross:

First, after the transfer it would continue to appear to any reasonable observer that the Government has endorsed the cross, notwithstanding that the name has changed on the title to a small patch of underlying land. This is particularly true because the Government has designated the cross as a national memorial, and that endorsement continues regardless of whether the cross sits on public or private land. Second, the transfer continues the existing government endorsement of the cross because the purpose of the transfer is to preserve its display.[italics mine]

Effectively, Stevens would have to block the actions of the Continental Congress, and the framers as individuals:

[Calling for a day of thanksgiving and prayer for the victory at Saratoga] "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.'"

-Continental Congress. Journals of the Continental Congress at Vol 18, p. 950.

"I do by and with the Advice of the Council appoint [11 Dec. 1783] to be religiously observed as a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, that all the People may then assemble to celebrate . . . that he hath been pleased to continue to us the Light of the blessed Gospel; . . . That we also offer up fervent Supplications . . . to cause pure Religion and Virtue to flourish . . . and to fill the World with his glory."

-John Hancock. Proclamation from Boston, November 8, 1783, from an original in the Evans collection, #18025, by the American Antiquarian Soc.

Here, John Adams promotes religion in all areas of society:

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."

-John Adams, August 28, 1811. The Works of John Adams-Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1854), Vol. IX, p. 636.

These justices make the error equating government endorsing religion with an establishment of a particular sect. Common sense dictates prohibiting the latter.

Another Op-Ed From University of Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone on Easter Sunday

Laurie Higgins has written a common sense article in the Chicago Tribune on Geoffrey Stone's "The crazy imaginings of the Texas Board of Education," which sought to warn an unsuspecting America that there is "a coterie of Christian evangelicals who are attempting to infiltrate our educational system to brainwash our youth."

Stone's knowledge of the Founding Fathers is typical of our leaders, and University Professors, however, the analogy Higgins makes is noteworthy:

It has become so commonplace to read denigrating comments about Christians that the offensiveness of such comments barely registers on our tolerance meters. Imagine hearing these words come from the mouth of a professor at a leading American university on Passover: "a coterie of Reform Jews is attempting to infiltrate our educational system to brainwash our youth." Or imagine these words appearing in the Trib on Eid al-Fitr, the Islamic celebration that concludes Ramadan: "a coterie of Muslims is attempting to infiltrate our educational system to brainwash our youth."

Stone's words almost sound bigoted and intolerant. When you look around at our leftist-dominated educational system, his words are laughable.

An Uninformed Judge?

National Review Online writer, David French, posted a National Day of Prayer that Franklin D. Roosevelt issued June 6, 1944. Interesting, or embarassing if you will, that U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb recently struck down a National Day of Prayer; apparently, this uninformed judge would have struck down FDR's prayer.

Here is what the judge wrote:

It goes beyond mere “acknowledgment” of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context. . . . In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.

Here is FDR's prayer, speaking to Americans for the first time about the D-Day landings:

My Fellow Americans:

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest — until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them — help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too — strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment — let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace — a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

I would recommend Judge Crabb find a new occupation. It appears she's not very good at what she currently does.

The Top Founding Fathers

Mark in Spokane from American Creation, has written a post ranking the Founding Fathers. My list is more exhaustive; instead of the usual suspects, a more thorough investigation will send the popular names down the list.

Brian Tubbs said...

"I agree with your choice of GW to top the list. I don't see frankly how anyone could dispute that."

I can't see George Washington in the top three! He was more of a leader, and figurehead, rather than expositor of Founding principles.

Here is my list:

1) Roger Sherman. Sherman and Hamilton could be interchangeable, however, Sherman is the only man to sign all four governing documents of the Republic; The Continental Association of 1774; The Declaration of Independence; The Articles of Confederation; and The Federal Constitution. He was on the drafting board for the Declaration of Independence, presented the Great Compromise of 1787, resulting in a Senate and House of Representatives, was on the Committee which formed the First Amendment, and was a professor of religion at Yale. He served on many committees and held the most offices of anyone. He was also loved by everyone. Thomas Jefferson described Roger Sherman as "a man who never said a foolish thing in his life."

2) John Marshall. Presidents can head a governmental department for a maximum of eight years. Marshall led the Judicial Branch for thirty-four years! His decisions shaped our law for one-hundred years. He established the principal of Judicial Review, the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. He ended the Revolutionary War as a full Colonel, fighting at: Great Bridge, Brandywine, Germantown, and Monmouth. Some of his posts include: Minister to France, Secretary of State, Secretary of War, and finally Chief Justice. Marshall also ratified the Constitution.

3) Alexander Hamilton. Our financial system is from his mind. Revolutionary Captain, head of the storming party at Yorktown, Secretary of the Treasury, main expositor of the Constitution, etc.

4) James Madison. He helped draft the Constitution, however, was not the principal author, as some claim him to be. That title should go to Charles Pinckney. He was also President and Secretary of State.

5) George Washington. Although not college educated, he was the leader of the new nation. A fearless General, who James Monroe said, "If not for his leadership, the Convention would have adjourned unsuccessfully." Surprisingly, he had many enemies.

6) John Adams. A strong patriot; was President, Vice-President, signed the Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.

7) John Jay. Mr. Jay's work for our nation is un-paralled. He would have signed the Declaration of Independence, but was busy writing the Constitution of New York. He served as President of the Continental Congress, Dec. 10, 1778, till he resigned September 28, 1779, to become Minister to Spain. He convinced Spain to give us $170,000 dollars for the revolution. Jay was one of the men who signed the Treaty of Paris on June 23, 1782. Was Secretary of State from 1784-1790. In 1789 Washington offered him any post in the Cabinet, he chose Chief Justice, a post he held until 1795. He was also Governor of New York, and the man behind the Jay Treaty.

8) Samuel Adams. The "Father of the Revolution." The British pardoned only two men during the Revolution; Samuel Adams and John Hancock. His circular letter of 1768 led to the Boston Massacre of 1770. That tells us he was the main instigator of the fight, and if captured, would certainly have been hung. He organized the Boston Tea Party, signed the Declaration, helped draft the Articles of Confederation, and ratified the Constitution.

9) John Dickinson. The "Penman of the Revolution" What Samuel Adams did by action, Dickinson employed with the pen. He gave the colonists the legal justification to break from Great Britain. Upon receiving news of his death, President Thomas Jefferson recognized him as being "among the first of the advocates for the rights of his country when assailed by Great Britain" whose "name will be consecrated in history as one of the great worthies of the revolution." He was the principal author of our first Constitution, that lasted from 1777 to 1790. He was the most famous man in the colonies, who would have wrote the Declaration of Independence had he not been for reconciliation. Dickinson was the Governor of two states.

10). Benjamin Franklin. Apparently, Franklin was a great Diplomat, who procurred vital assistance from the French. A strong supporter of liberty.

Thomas Jefferson was a relatively small player, especially regarding the Constitution and Bill of Rights. His treatment of Washington should not be ignored. He lied about the formation of the Declaration of Independence, writing, "I took from no other sources." However, he most definitely used Mason's Declaration of Rights.

Ron Paul's Flawed Interpretation

I am not unaware of Ron Paul's popularity, however, I feel his Constitutional Interpretation, thereby, his view, and the Republican Party view, of the health bill, is flawed. His Libertarianism was rejected by every Founding Father. The States should not be left alone to act as they please, thus, no law is Constitutional that violates The Laws of God.

Here is a synopsis of what I wrote on the latest post on his blog:

"Just ask Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and the High Federalists, such as: Ames, Sherman, Read, Ellsworth, Bassett, King, et al. who passed the Bank of the United States."

Hamilton's defense of the Bank is in Article I, Section VIII, the last clause. Hamilton called it "implied powers" that shot down Jefferson's understanding, believing the government was unworkable if strictly left to enumerated powers, leaving us an agrarian society, which is what the infidel Jefferson wanted.

The Constitutional mandate for the bill is the same logic mandating taxes.

Hamilton said as long as a bill does not violate the Scriptures, or Divine Law, it's Constitutional.

Deutoronomy 15 mandates the government provide for the poor, and the text says, "you can trade with other nations."

How can people trade with a nation? If the context is "government" then the text appears to mandate Israel's government provide for the poor?"

Hamilton's defense of the Bank of the United States is excellent:

That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society... The whole turn of the clause containing it indicates, that it was the intent of the Convention, by that clause, to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers. The expressions have peculiar comprehensiveness. They are thought to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."..This restrictive interpretation of the word necessary is also contrary to this sound maxim of construction, namely, that the powers contained in a constitution of government, especially those which concern the general administration of the affairs of a country, its finances, trade, defense, etc., ought to be construed liberally in advancement of the public good..The means by which national exigencies are to be provided for, national inconveniences obviated, national prosperity promoted, are of such infinite variety, extent, and complexity, that there must of necessity be great latitude of discretion in the selection and application of those means...

Hamilton continues:

...The truth is, that difficulties on this point are inherent in the nature of the Federal Constitution; they result inevitably from a division of the legislative power. The consequence of this division is, that there will be cases clearly within the power of the national government; others, clearly without its powers; and a third class, which will leave room for controversy and difference of opinion, and concerning which a reasonable latitude of judgment must be allowed. But the doctrine which is contended for is not chargeable with the consequences imputed to it. It does not affirm that the national government is sovereign in all respects, but that it is sovereign to a certain extent; that is, to the extent of the objects of its specified powers. It leaves, therefore, a criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so. This criterion is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion, which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favor of its constitutionality, and slighter relations to any declared object of the Constitution may be permitted to turn the scale.[bold face mine]

-Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States : 1791

As long as any Act of Congress does not violate the Scriptures, nor contradict the very text of the Constitution, it may be legal. Furthermore, Hamilton gives a defense of corporations, that many neocons, and liberals have used to fleece this nation:

"To erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial for a natural person, and where a number are concerned, to give them individuality. To that legal or artificial person, once created, the common law of every State, of itself, annexes all those incidents and attributes which are represented as a prostration of the main pillars of their jurisprudence. It is certainly not accurate to say, that the erection of a corporation is against those different head's of the State laws; because it is rather to create a kind of person or entity, to which they are inapplicable, and to which the general rule of those laws assign a different regimen. The laws of alienage cannot apply to an artificial person, because it can have no country; those of descent cannot apply to it, because it can have no heirs; those of escheat are foreign from it, for the same reason; those of forfeiture, because it cannot commit a crime; those of distribution, because, though it may be dissolved, it cannot die."

Here, Hamilton shoots down the reasoning of enumeration, by another Jeffersonian; the Attorney General, Edmund Randolph:

"The Attorney General undertakes in the next place to show, that the power of erecting corporations is not involved in any of the specified powers of legislation confided to the national government. In order to this, he has attempted an enumeration of the particulars which he supposes to be comprehended under the several heads of the Covers to lay and collect taxes, &c.; to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to regulate commerce with sovereign nations; between the States, and with the Indian tribes, to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of other property belonging to the United States. The design of which enumeration is to show, what is included under those different heads of power, and negatively, that the power of erecting corporations is not included. The truth of this inference or conclusion must depend on the accuracy of the enumeration. If it can be shown that the enumeration is defective, the inference is destroyed. To do this will be attended with no difficulty." [bold face mine]

He was a confident man. Here, Hamilton believed an individual, acting as a corporation could conduct interstate commerce:

The Secretary of State [Thomas Jefferson] objects to the relation here insisted upon by the following mode of reasoning: To erect a bank, says he, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who creates a bank, creates a subject of commerce, so does he who snakes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the Nines, yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. The Secretary of State further argues, that if this was a regulation of commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State as to its external. But what regulation of commerce does not extend to the internal commerce of every State ? What are all the duties upon imported articles amounting to prohibitions, but so many bounties upon domestic manufactures, affecting the interests of different classes of citizens, in different ways? What are all the provisions in the Coasting Acts which relate to the trade between district and district of the same State? In short, what regulation of trade between the States but must affect the internal trade of each State? What can operate upon the whole, but must extend to every part? The relation of a bank to the execution of the powers that concern the common defense has been anticipated. It has been noted, that, at this very moment, the aid of such an institution is essential to the measures to be pursued for the protection of our frontiers."[bold face mine]

You can see why Jefferson called him a "Colossus." He could defeat the Jeffersonians all by himself.

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.

David Barton on Glenn Beck Show, April 9th, 2010

It appears David Barton is mis-representing the same letter written by John Adams; again. This is the second time he has done this on The Glenn Beck Show. Unless I am reading this wrong, Adams is not exalting Christianity, rather, he is mocking man, who is duped into believing a questionable part of it. Here is the portion of the letter David Barton is referring to:

"But my friend there is something very serious in this business. The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a Sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the Bishop on the heads of candidates for the Ministry. In the same manner as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London. There is no authority civil or religious: There can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. Although this is all artifice and cunning in the secret original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lie down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagots [wood used for burning individuals at the stake] for it. Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe human nature. There is so much king craft, priest craft, gentlemen’s craft, people’s craft, doctors craft, lawyers craft, merchants craft, tradesmen’s craft, laborers craft and Devil’s craft in the world that it seems a desperate and impractical project to undeceive it."[bold face mine]

-John Adams to Benjamin Rush, December 21, 1809

Immanent Frame's Claude S. Fischer writes about Christian America

Over at Immanent Frame, Claude S. Fisher, a Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, has written a small post claiming, "American was not born Christian, but grew to be very Christian centuries later."[bold face mine]

Why a liberal, sociology professor would dare write about our founding is beyond me. It's easy pickins even by a cursory examination of this blog. Immanent Frame, do yourself a favor, employ persons who understand the Founding Fathers. I've read some of your posts on Christianity in relation to our nation, and it's less than satisfactory. Let's get something clear right now. When the framers spoke of Protestant religion, they are referring to the Protestant Reformation, and they knew exactly what the Reformers preached. They did not preach heterodoxy. The Protestant Religion did not include unitarianism, or any other pelagianism; all of that heresy was kicked to the curb at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619.

Politically speaking, some forms of pelagianism was allowed, and considered Christian, although it carried little weight, as unitarians needed to keep their views secret; heretical pastors hid their views. Theologically speaking, the majority understood orthodoxy from the Reformers, and by reading the Scriptures themselves.

Returning to Mr. Fischer, listing the State Constitutions is enough to keep Mr. Fischer in his day job:

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)[bold face mine]

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)[bold face mine]

Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the: Protestant religion. (in force until 1877)The Constitution stipulated: Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.[bold face mine]

Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated: Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:“I, _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

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.[bold face mine]

NEW YORK 1777 (until 1821) That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected.[bold face mine]

NEW JERSEY 1776 (until 1844) XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.[bold face mine]

Here is more of a taste of Mr. Fischer:

Over the wider American landscape, however, colonists were notably “unchurched” and “un-Christian.” Scattered around in separate households (unlike the Puritans who concentrated in villages), most Americans had no church to go to and little connection to what we would call organized religion. Even where there were churches to attend, many went either irregularly or simply because the church was one of the rare places—along with the tavern—to see people in a sparsely-developed society.

Then why do all the states mandate Christianity, and why did nearly every state mandate the death penalty for homosexuality? The people obviously understood their faith from the Bible. Here is more:

Such waves of enthusiasm (“Awakenings”) in some places and at some times rallied some people to faith, but the clergy generally despaired of the heathens who had settled the new continent.

The Great Awakening went from New Hampshire to Georgia! It went not into some places, it went everywhere, and entire communities were affected.

Most early Americans were not believers in the sense that affirming Christians are today. They were likelier to understand spells, potions, and omens than theological doctrines.

Spells? Potions? Omens? If they weren't Christians as today, why did the vast majority take communion in the Church to identify with Christ?

The colonial elites, some of whom became Founding Fathers, themselves tended to be vaguely Christian. Even John Adams, a cultural conservative who struggled against the radical Thomas Jefferson, was “only” a Unitarian.

Only a small minority were Unitarians; this is why Adams and others kept their views secret.

David Barton On The Glenn Beck Show

David Barton makes an appearance on the Glenn Beck Show. Glenn Beck has been under some heat from the Christian Left, especially Jim Wallis, for attacking the "Social Justice" aspect of the Gospel. Wallis and the left, claim the Bible mandates big government should help the poor, any way it can, and that Jesus wanted it that way.

Whether Wallis is a Christian at all, I will leave for another day, however, I don't recall Jesus ever claiming the government should help the poor. Beck, along with Barton, believe the New Testament leaves that duty to the Church, and individuals. And so, the Christian left is calling a boycott of The Glenn Beck Show.

The question is, "Does the Bible present the Church or Israel supporting the poor in a government context?"

Typical Ed Brayton

Blogger Ed Brayton throws in his two-cents, here, on Huffington Post. Here is a taste of what he says:

"And not once, according to the notes of those in attendance, was the Bible ever referenced at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia to justify a concept or provision," according to Brayton.

Brayton is about as hard-core about his beliefs as anyone. The only problem is, the majority of the time, he's wrong; including this one. There were several times the Continental Congress referenced the Bible to emphasize a concept.

Here is a reference, in the Convention, by a man who isn't even a Christian! Thus, Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention cites the Bible for office holder qualifications, using property, and promoting the rich:

"We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in Rulers, that they should be men hating covetousness- This Constitution will be much read and attended to in Europe, and if it should betray a great partiality to the rich- will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and enlightened men there, but discourage the common people from removing to this Country."

Franklin is referencing Exodus 18:21, the specific verse that quotes, as Thomas Paine wrote, a form of Republican Government:

Exodus 18:21 (King James Version)

"Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens"

As I found this reference, I realized the important connection Franklin has made. No doubt he studied this verse, as did the other framers, which is why Thomas Paine called Israel a type of Republic. The Nations that employed this type of Republicanism were: The Swiss, and Calvin's Geneva, The Dutch, and England. All three had Republics that varied in some way. To the Founding Fathers, the Scriptures, through the Protestant Reformation, birthed modern Republicanism.

Folks, think twice when Ed Brayton speaks about the Founding Fathers; his knowledge of the Founding is less than noteworthy. The Constitution signers were fairly silent about religion because they left religion to the states. However, the fact remains, our schools should teach our children where the principles of Republicanism originated; The Bible.

Alexander Hamilton; The Calvinist, Part II

Continuing my post on Alexander Hamilton leaves no doubt his belief in Calvinism. As with James Madison et al. AH remained a partial Calvinist his entire life. Contrary evidence from their writings has yet to be found, apart from, in Madison's case, irrelevant 19th Century religious inclinations. In Hamilton's case, there is no evidence he departed from belief in the Total Depravity of John Calvin. From my previous posts on James Madison, belief in human depravity demands belief in man bearing God's image, hence they are both founded on the principle of imputation; imputed from Adam. Also, from a letter by Stanley Stanhope Smith, it appears JM believed in pre-destination, not the freewill of hyper-arminianism. I cannot make that claim for AH; pre-destination is not derived from imputation.

Furthermore, JM cannot be considered a Unitarian; 18th Century unitarians, including the "Old Lights," rejected God's Grace; JM affirmed Grace in his Memorial and Remonstrance. Many bloggers confuse 18th, with 19th Century Unitarianism. They are not the same. William Ellery Channing's 19th Century unitarianism allowed for Grace that the Old Lights did not.

Much has been said about Hamilton never joining a church; this claim, made with other various heterodox christian labels, is un-factual.

Hamilton rented Pew 92 at Trinity Church as early as 1790. Further detail into Hamilton's church attendance, and if he communed, needs to be done. His wife Elizabeth is listed as a communicant in Rev. Moore's record book. Interesting to note, Hamilton provided legal counsel regarding the independent incorporation of St. Mark’s Church-in-the-Bowery, a complex issue that arose in the late 1790s.

Is there a doubt Hamilton went to church after his son died, mandating his son go to church every sunday?

"On Sunday he will attend the morning church."

-Rules for Philip Hamilton, 1804. Works of Hamilton.

Knowing Hamilton's character, would he allow his children to do what he did not approve of? Hamilton's notion of human depravity resonate through his writings:

"But I reverence humanity, and would not wish to pour a blush upon the cheeks of its advocates. Were I inclined to make a satire upon the species I would attempt a faithful description of your heart. It is hard to conceive, in theory, one of more finished depravity."

-Publius, November 16, 1778. New York Journal, and the General Advertiser

Regarding the Caesar Letters of 1787, we do not know for sure if Hamilton wrote them. However, if they are attributed to him, Hamilton used a Biblical description for God while forming the Constitution, refuting many skeptics who claim God is absent. Hamilton stopped short of claiming the Constitution is inspired:

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [The Constitution] a system, which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interested I will not presume to say that a more perfect system might not have been fabricated; but who expects perfection at once?" [bold face mine]

-Caesar II, October 17, 1787. For the Daily Advertiser.