Gregg Frazer's New Book

Gregg Frazer teaches up the road at Master's College, and has a new book out, where he claims the Founding Fathers believed in a hybrid religion called "theistic rationalism." He's pushed this for a while now. Frazer believes the Founding Fathers rejected historical Christianity, to cherry pick, according to what is rational, what parts of the Bible were legit and what weren't. On the surface, his premise appears contradictory, and untenable, given the framers believed man's reasoning was depraved by Sin, limiting their ability to determine ultimate truth in the first place. The Founding Fathers always belittled man's reason:

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.

--Alexander Hamilton to Colonel Richard K. Meade, Albany, August 27, 1782.

The great Deist slayer John Leland echos my point in 1737:

Thus I have considered what this author offers with regard to the proofs or evidences of divine revelation in general, in which his design is plainly to show that there can be no proper proofs or evidences of divine revelation to any but the persons immediately receiving it, and yet at the same time he affects to own the great usefulness of revelation in the present corrupt and degenerate state of mankind.

--DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ASSERTED. WITH A PARTICULAR VINDICATION OF THE CHARACTER OF MOSES, AND THE PROPHETS, OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS APOSTLES. BY JOHN LELAND, D. D. LONDON
PRINTED FOR T. TEGG AND SON, CHEAPSIDE; R. GRIFFIN AND CO., GLASGOW; T. T. AND II. TEGG, DUBLIN: ALK> J. AND 5. A. TEOO, SYDNEY AND WOBART TOWN.

Moreover, in his audio of 2003, Frazer's errors abound, including the framers borrowed from the Enlightenment (the use of reason with education to enlighten society). Alexander Hamilton--who Frazer references in his book--refutes his claim:

This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others..It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity. 

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


The framers believed our founding was based on Scripture, explained through men of the Protestant Reformation--Calvin, Luther, Sidney, Rutherford, Grotius, Hooker, Locke, Puffendorf, Ponet, etc:

The philosophical examination of the foundations of civil society, of human governments, and of the rights and duties of men, is among the consequences of the Protestant Reformation..The principles of Sidney and of Locke, constitute the foundation of the North American Declaration of Independence, and together with the subsequent writings of Montesquieu and Rousseau, that of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and of the Constitution of the United States.

--John Q. Adams, 6th President of the U.S.A, Author of the Monroe Doctrine and our Foreign Policy. A Lecture DELIVERED BEFORE THE FRANKLIN Lyceum AT PROVIDENCE, Ro 10, NOVEMBER 25, 1842.

John Calvin and Martin Luther espoused reasoning into civil government one hundred years before the enlightenment. The promotion of education, science, astronomy, etc,. was exalted due to Reformers: Calvin, Pascal, Kepler, Luther, Erasmus, Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, et al. 


Furthermore, 18th Century Deists were not theistic rationalists! Deists believed in miracles. Ben Franklin was not a Deist, rather, he believed Moses parted the Red Sea, and the Flood and Sodom and Gommorrah:

[T]he Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc’d in the Course of Nature..If you say he has in the Beginning unchangeably decreed all Things….[but] he has divested himself of all further Power, he has done and has no more to do, he has ty’d up his Hand and has now no greater Power than an Idol of Wood or Stone; nor can there be any more Reason for praying to him or worshipping of him. It is true that if another deluge should happen wherein the windows of heaven are to be opened, such pipes may be unequal to the falling quantity; and if God for our sins should think fit to rain fire upon us, as upon some cities of old, it is not expected that our conductors of whatever size, should secure our houses against a miracle.

--Benjamin Franklin, “On the Providence of God in the Government of the World,” in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), vol. 1, p. 267-8. "Experiments Supporting the Use of Pointed Lightning Rods" Printed in Benjamin Vaughan, ed., Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Pieces...by Benj. Franklin... (London, 1779), pp. 487-99: French translation in Jacques Barbeu-Dubourg, Oeuvres de M. Franklin... (2 vols., Paris, 1773), I, 289-300; ADS (lacking the conclusion of the published version): Bibliothèque de Genève; AD (fragment Of the published conclusion): American Philosophical Society. Aug. 27 [i.e., 18?], 1772.

Was God's destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah reasonable to a Dissenter? Franklin's Deity was Yahweh:

"History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a Publick Religion, from its Usefulness to the Publick; the Advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons..and the Excellency of the Christian religion above all others antient or modern. God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights [James 1:17] to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered...I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men..We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." [bold face mine]


--Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1749. and the Const. Convention.


Franklin tells Paine he intimates he believes a specific, personal, Deity (Yahweh), not a general Deity:

By the argument [Age of Reason] it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection.

--To Thomas Paine, in 1790. The Works of Franklin. Sparks.


On to Frazer's audio. He says "the founding fathers believed this hybrid." Not just a few, but all of them. "Christian america only read you some of the quotes..they don't show all the evidence..they shared beliefs with Deists..that all religion leads to the same god." Frazer uses the wrong definition of Deism anyway, and not even Franklin shared beliefs with Deists. If all roads lead to God, and being good is the goal, why did they preach the Gospel to the Indians? The Gospel means "good news" not "being good." The founding fathers preached the Gospel to save souls from the penalty of Sin, not to be good people. The Founding Fathers believed everyone was bad--no one was good. No doubt the Indians believed they were good people already. Frazer says they believed "the wicked are punished temporarily..they didn't believe Jesus was God?" They believed in purgatory? Where is the documentation on that? This blog quotes James Madison claiming Jesus is God. Can he quote Madison recanting that?


Frazer continues, "they believed reason determines what was true revelation." But the only written evidence is they believed their reasoning was depraved. Frazer would have a firmer foundation if they did not believe their minds were corrupted. Frazer claims, "they had bad things to say about Calvinism." Where did James Wilson, Hamilton, Madison and Morris write against Calvinism? Continuing on, "Jefferson, Adams and Franklin wrote the Declaration." No. Jefferson wrote the rough draft, which was corrected by the Congress. John Adams wrote its principles were already written. Frazer repeats,  "George Washington  never took Communion." Yet, on this blog there are eyewitness accounts from Christians, that he did take Communion. Were those Christians lying? Were they too old to be credible witnesses?


Frazer claim's George Washington never called himself a Christian. He does here:

[I] inclose you a copy of Mr. Cary's last Acct. currt. against me, which upon my honr and the faith of a Christian is a true one, and transmitted to me with the additional aggravation of a hint at the largeness of it.

--GW to ROBERT STEWART April 27, 1763.

Who's neglecting all the evidence? GW's quote below caught my attention, and might be cause for concern if GW hadn't called himself a Christian, took Communion, was a Vestryman, referred to Jesus as Divine, and believed the Bible was inspired:

Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception. [bold face mine]

--To the Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1787.

Referring to Christians as "them" is strange, but doesn't prove GW isn't a Christian. Bishop Meade was an eyewitness to Episcopalians sometimes skipping Communion--giving a more valid explanation. Christianity is based on faith. Theoretically, Christianity could be wrong. Frazer then claims GW was a Mason, etc. However, 18th century American Masons were Trinitarians.


At the end of the audio, Frazer asks if the Constitution is based on the Bible, why isn't it quoted? David Barton gives the correct answer in Original Intent. He should read it.

Not to ignore his attack on David Barton. In Frazer's Preface, he writes:

My frustration with the lack of an accurate record grew each time someone passed me a video of Christian America advocate David Barton.

Frazer mocks David Barton over an accurate record, and saying he dodged him for a debate? If isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. With all Frazer's inaccuracies, I know someone he would not want to debate.  Finally, it is the secularists goal to mis-represent the Founding Fathers with a handful of the least orthodox framers in order to rig the narrative in their favor. In fact, there are no "key founders." The Founding Fathers unanimously believed the Ratifiers were more important than the drafters of the Constitution, and the ratifiers are all equal.

The Most Famous Founding Father From Massachusetts

Dr. Joseph Warren is a name most will not recognize, but to the colonists in the revolution, his name soared above the heavens. Warren was definitely the greatest of the Boston Patriot soldiers, younger than Samuel Adams, however, close friends, who worshipped together at the same church--the orthodox Brattle Street Church--under Rev. Samuel Cooper. Warren is not forgotten for his glorious sacrifice at Bunker Hill in 1775:

Both in civil and military affairs, the most prominent man in New England.

— Life of Warren, by Alexander H. Everett, 107.

Major General Joseph Warren

Warren's portrait exudes strength. His life an example of virtue, honor, and faith:

[O]f our truly amiable and worthy friend, Dr. Warren, is greatly afflicting. The language of friendship is, how shall we resign him! But it is our duty to submit to the dispensations of Heaven, 'whose ways are ever gracious, ever just.' He fell in the glorious struggle for public liberty.

--Samuel Adams to his wife, June 27, 1775. S. A. Wells's MS.

Regarding Adams and Warren:

These great men went in perfect harmony together. They shared the same beliefs and purposes, the same hopes and resolves, the same enemies and friends, in common to the end.--Life of Joseph Warren. Richard Frothingham, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1865.

John Jay and God's Judgment

Following Jefferson, Madison, Mason, et al. The Founding Fathers were emphatic. God judges nations:

"Providence sometimes chastises nations with physical epidemics, and sometimes (by "choosing their delusions") with moral epidemics, and after a while removes them. This encourages hope; for if we have arrived at or near the pessimum of this evil, the melitis cannot be far distant."

--Jay to Judge Peters, March 14th, 1815.

Alexander Hamilton wrote John Jay that Thomas Jefferson was an Atheist!

The below quote refutes the notion the public was unaware of Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs during his mid-life by May, 1799.

The moral certainty, therefore is that there will be an Anti-Federal Majority in the ensuing legislature. and the very high probability is that this will bring Jefferson into the Chief Magistracy, unless it be prevented by the measure which I shall now submit to your consideration, namely the immediate calling together of the existing legislature. They ought not to hinder the taking of a legal and Constitutional step, to prevent an atheist in Religion and a fanatic in politics from getting possession of the helm of the State. [bold face mine]

--Hamilton to Jay, May 7, 1799

The Founder of Our Foreign Policy Was Pro-Life

It's no surprise the Founding Fathers were pro-life--abortion violated Common Law:

The whole people of any given territory consists of all the human beings abiding upon it, men, women, and children, born or in the womb, natives or foreigners, bond or free; but the word people itself, presupposes association...In all the stages of human society, the marriage contract confines the woman exclusively to one man but it is believed that Christianity alone, of all human institutions, confines the man exclusively to one woman. This is one of the most excellent purifications of the law of nature, by the precepts of Christianity--entirely and exclusively favorable to the female sex, and of itself affording in the social compact an ample equivalent for the perogative which necessarily devolves upon the man of contracting for her as well as for himself, and for himself, and for their children under the age of ability to provide for themselves. [bold face mine]

--John Q. Adams, 6th President of the U.S.A, Author of the Monroe Doctrine. A Lecture DELIVERED BEFORE THE FRANKLIN Lyceum AT PROVIDENCE, Ro 10, NOVEMBER 25, 1842.

In this lecture, Adams is talking about American marriage laws and how they are based on Scripture. Moreover, above, Adams equates the law of nature with Christianity, proving my theory the framers used the law of nature interchangeably referrring to reason and revelation. It is indisputable, the Law of Nature contains the Scriptures.

"The covenants of the social compact must then, by the laws of nature, be made by a portion of the people for the whole--by that portion of the people capable of contracting for the whole --and as the compact is formed by a voluntary not only the capacity but the will to contract, must concur to form the whole people who covenant with each citizen..And in the formation of any social compact by the People, we may assume it as a first principle that the individuals covenanting for the whole can never amount tomore than one in five of the whole. 'I'hese remarks may assist us in the solution of certain questions, which have recently been and are mnch controverted, not only within this Commonwealth, but throughout tha Union, and indeed it may be said, throughout the civilized world..There is a law of nature, or in more proper words, a law of God, the author of nature, subjected to which the human being comes into life, and from the power of which he can be released only by death. By this law of God, the human being comes into life, the child of two parents, ruale and female, both of one species, but of different constitutions, adapted to each other for union, but subject to different modifications of the law of nature."

Here, Adams claims, as I have for years, Republican government, civil rights and the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution was explained by the Reformers--derived from the Scriptures:

"The philosophical examination of the foundations of civil society, of human governments, and of the rights and duties of men, is among the consequences of the Protestant Reformation..The principles of Sidney and of Locke, constitute the foundation of the North American Declaration of Independence, and together with the subsequent writings of Montesquieu and Rousseau, that of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and of the Constitntion of the United States.

Adams believed in Original Sin:

"The work, not of eternal justice ruling through the people, but of man,--frail, fallen,imperfect man, following the dictates of his nature and aspiring to perfection."

English Jurist Sir Matthew Hale 1609-1676

Hale commenting on Christianity and its foundation in the Common and Canon Law.

Again, the growth of Christianity in this kingdom, and the reception of learned men from other parts, especially from Rome, and the credit that they obtained here, might reasonably introduce some new laws; and antiquate or abrogate some old ones, that seem less consistent with the Christian doctrines. And by this means were introduced not only some of the judicial laws of the Jews, but also some points relating to, or bordering upon, or derived from the canon or civil laws; as may be seen in those laws of the ancient kings, Ina, Alfred, Canutus, &c. collected by Mr. Lambard (k)" Volume 2 of 2.
"Among the Grecians (At least among the Athenians-see Blac. Com. 2 v. 213 and Por. Archae. Graeca, l. 4. c. 15.), the laws of descent resemble those of the Jews, and in some things they differed." Vol. 2, p. 78

--CHAP. III, Concerning the Common Law of England, its Use and Excellence, and the Reason of its Denomination; CHAP. IV. Touching the Original of the Common Law of England; CHAP. V. How the Common Law of England Stood at and for Some Time after the Coming of King William I.

Secularist reasoning and Judge William Blackstone

This blog, along with its author, take the typical secularist view of James Wilson and the Founding Fathers with respect to Judge William Blackstone. Rowe writes:

However, Blackstone was an Tory who argued for the doctrine of absolute supremacy of the law of England. Of Parliament's power, he famously noted:

It can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible; and therefore some have not scrupled to call it's power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipotence of parliament. True it is, that what they do, no authority upon earth can undo.

However, James Wilson never believed what Rowe and Van Dyke--later down the thread--claim about Blackstone. The quote Rowe uses is Blackstone's summation of its practical application, and perhaps only in the context of their nation, "But if the parliament will positively enact a thing to be done, which is unreasonable; I know of no power that can control it" not what Blackstone believed was superior--parliament or Scripture. In fact, there are many earthly authorities that can undo what parliament has ordained. Wilson understood that Blackstone believed Scripture was theoretically supreme to parliament--which was subservient to Divine Law:

Accordingly, Sir William Blackstone, on the principles of his system, expresses himself in the following manner, remarkably guarded and circumspect, as to the extent of the parliamentary power. "If there arise out of acts of parliament, collaterally, any absurd consequences, manifestly contradictory to common reason; they are, with regard to those collateral consequences, void. I lay down the rule with these restrictions; though I know it is generally laid down more largely ― that acts of parliament contrary to reason are void. But if the parliament will positively enact a thing to be done, which is unreasonable; I know of no power that can control it: and the examples usually alleged in support of this sense of the rule do none of them prove, that, where the main object of a statute is unreasonable, the judges are at liberty to reject it: for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which would be subversive of all government." "No court has power to defeat the intent of the legislature, when couched in such evident and express words, as to leave no doubt concerning its intention."

--Wilson, Works.

Professor Jon Fea may not be a Christian

Jon Fea is a professor at Messiah College, who claims to be a Christian. His quote below is typical of many secularists' lack of discernment that have convictions God the Holy Spirit could never have. Thus, his comment below--if it is accurate--calling Professor Warren Throckmorton a Christian, is biblically inaccurate. Throckmorton is a secularist, who, honestly, has a somewhat correct understanding of the founding. However, Throckmorton condones homosexuality, which Jesus Christ and the Bible condemn (Mat 5:17-18, etc.), meaning God convicts Christians, that are born again, from involvment in that sin. The question is what about Fea? Does not God convict him that homosexuality is sin? Here he writes from Throckmorton's blog:

*Getting Jefferson Right* is an intellectual and historical take down of David Barton’s pseudo-history of Thomas Jefferson by two Christian professors who teach at a conservative Christian college. Michael Coulter and Warren Throckmorton have done their homework. Anyone who reads this book must come to grips with the untruths and suspect historical interpretations that Barton regularly peddles in his books, speaking engagements, and on his radio program. I have yet to read a more thorough refutation of Barton’s claims.

–John Fea, Chair of the History Department, Messiah College and author of *Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction*

More Evidence of George Washington's Orthodoxy

More evidence supporting Washington's orthodoxy comes from his friend and speechwriter James Madison. Not to say JM was GW's closest friend, but, they served in government together at the exact same time. JM was in congress the entire term of GW's presidency; 1789-1796. Madison writes in Paul Leicester Ford's book, GW did "not form definite opinions on it [Christianity], but he took these things as he found them existing, and was constant in his observances of worship according to the received forms of the Episcopal Church, in which he was brought up."

This is quite interesting as JM had to have known GW skipped out of Communion in the Episcopal Church for years. Obviously JM understood GW to believe in what the sacrament represents even though he would not take part in Communion.
Many of the testimonies of GW taking communion come from Episcopalians; Jonathan Mitchell Sewall, Alexander Hamilton's wife, and GW's adopted daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis. After the revolution, GW shied away from communion in the Episcopal Church. The evidence supporting GW taking communion is at least 80-20, probably 90-10 in favor.

Obama's War on Women

Here is some evidence of Obama's war on Christianity and women:

President Obama would have us believe that there is some kind of war on women, just in time for his re-election effort. But he is the one who made sure that China's monstrous population effort would be fully supported by the U.N. Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). Two days after assuming power, President Obama revoked the Reagan-era Mexico City Policy of the previous administration. He forces us to fund international Planned Barrenhood.

That means that the worldwide war on baby girls will go forward, with U.S. taxpayers footing part of the bill. President Obama says that attempts to cut off taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood are part of a campaign against women.

Hundreds of millions of baby girls have been killed. Demographer Nick Eberstadt has carefully documented this "gendercide." This world-wide "war against baby girls" is a major result of Planned Parenthood's population control ideology and its aggressive marketing of abortion-on-demand.

While Dr. Eberstadt demonstrates that this war on baby girls is having disastrous consequences now, it can have even more terrible implications in the future. We are looking at the collapse of whole nations.

Nor is this war on women limited to China, India, and third-world countries. Britain's respected daily Telegraph has reported on abortionists working for the United Kingdom's national health service. The Telegraph captured on tape evidence of these abortionists agreeing to kill unborn children because they tested female.

So next time you hear a liberal or a reporter going on about a "war on women," make sure to ask if this commentator favors legal protection of unborn baby girls. If he or she does, then we can take the rest of his or her comments seriously. If such people say that that's a matter of "choice," remind them that millions of unborn baby girls never got to choose life.

Dividing the country by race, religion, and sex may be good campaign politics, but it's terrible social policy. If we really want to be a kinder, gentler country, one where civility is respected, then let's start by protecting women in the womb.

Obama spends our tax dollars on promoting homosexuality and abortion. And he calls himself a Christian.

Throckmorton Contradicts Himself

I found a contradiction among Warren Throckmorton's posts over at his blog. The below post contradicts most of his other posts and one which I responded to about his claim for modern separation of church and state. He claimed Jefferson did not subvert separation doctrine by meddling with religious affairs of the Indians, but he does here:

I presume the views of the society are confined to our own country, for with the religion of other countries, my own forbids intermedling. I had not supposed there was a family in this state not possessing a bible and without having the means to procure one. when, in earlier life I was intimate with every class, I think I never was in a house where that was the case. however, circumstances may have changed, and the society I presume have evidence of the fact. I therefore inclose you chearfully an order on Messrs Gibson and Jefferson for 50.D.

--TJ to Samuel Greenhow, January 31, 1814

More Evidence the Founding Fathers Were Evangelicals

I found this information on John .Eidsmore's blog. Not only were the framers Evangelicals, "The Continental Congress adopted as the official song of the American Revolution, not “Yankee Doodle,” but “Chester.” Here are the words:

Let tyrants shake their iron rods. And slavery clank her galling chains. We fear them not, We trust in God. New England's God forever reigns.

The foe comes on with haughty stride, our troops advance with martial noise, Their veterans flee before our youth, and generals yield to beardless boys.

What grateful offerings shall we bring, what shall we render to the Lord,
Loud Hallelujahs let us sing, and praise His name on every chord.

"Chester" was the anthem for the Continental Army. Being head of the Army, did George Washington have a hand in this?

The Religion of Founding Father Stephen Hopkins

Hopkins was a great founding father--established the committee of correspondence in Rhode Island, post office, etc. and was highly respected in the Second Continental Congress, because he was the second oldest member.

Governor Hopkins himself, later in life, identified himself very completely with that body of Christians, even to the extent, to quote from Moses Brown, his constant co-laborer, (and himself a Friend), of his having the Friends' meetings sometimes held in the winter at his dwelling-house.

U.S. to use foreign aid to promote gay rights

Here is another reason Obama will lose re-election. And he calls himself a Christian.

(AP) WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is announcing a wide-ranging effort to use U.S. foreign aid to promote rights for gays and lesbians abroad, including combating attempts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality.


In a memorandum issued Tuesday, President Barack Obama directed U.S. agencies working abroad, including the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, to use foreign aid to assist gays and lesbians who are facing human rights violations. And he ordered U.S. agencies to protect vulnerable gay and lesbian refugees and asylum seekers.

Another Tebow Victory

Jonathan Mayhew's Weird Philosophy

 On page 389, of Mayhew's memoir, he writes this footnote:

The scriptures make use of no such language as Christ's satisfying divine justice. But I am not disposed to dispute about words. If they who use the phrase, mean no more by the satisfaction of Christ, than is implied in his sacrifice or atonement, I make no objection to it: but I have asserted the doctrine in my sermons, which have been so outrageously attacked.

When I first read it, I thought "can this guy be a divine?" What does the New and Old Testament say takes away sin? Did he not read Mat 24, 25, and 26? Why would Jesus affirm eternal punishment if not for perfect justice?

Matthew 25:41,46
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels..And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. [bold face mine]

A human being can only be righteous unto God by having his sins atoned for by blood. Incidently, verse 14 claims the Holy Spirit is eternal, which Mayhew ignored--his own blood is upon him:

Hebrews 9:12,14
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us..How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? [bold face mine]

Pelagians have the problem of ignoring God's Word, and instead, quote other people, which is what Mayhew does trying to defend himself against an orthodox divine who has him by the...In seminary, when you study the Book of Romans, it becomes evident Paul is explaining reconciliation, satisfaction, justification, etc. Yes, satisfaction satisfies God's wrath, but the entire Bible explains God is Holy, and perfect--so He has to be perfect justice. No way to get around it:

Romans 5:9-11
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. [bold face mine]

18th century unitarians ignored parts of scripture they didn't believe, under the guise of adhering to biblical inerrancy--how could you not see it? They would have had empty churches by rejecting biblical inerrancy, and Mayhew's cohorts couldn't yet change the meaning of biblical terms--this didn't happen until Channing established unitarianism on a more broad footing in a broader area. Satisfying God's justice because He is Holy, is in almost every book of the New Testament. If God doesn't eternally punish sin, He approves the sin and takes part in it. A thousand years of punishment isn't enough! God is eternal, and man's spirit is immortal, therefore, the punishment is eternal. Morever, God wouldn't be Holy or perfect justice.

All of these problems start when people depart from the CLEAR teaching of God's Word.

The President of Congress Affirming The DOI Was Ratified

John Jay believed in the principles of the Declaration:

On the 4th of July, 1776, your representatives in Congress, perceiving that nothing less than unconditional submission would satisfy our enemies, did, in the name of the people of the Thirteen United Colonies, declare them to be free and independent States; and “for the support of that declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, did mutually pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour.” Was ever confederation more formal, more solemn, or explicit? It has been expressly assented to, and ratified by every State in the Union. Accordingly, for the direct support of this declaration, that is, for the support of the independence of these States, armies have been raised, and bills of credit emitted, and loans made to pay and supply them. The redemption, therefore, of these bills, the payment of these debts, and the settlement of the accounts of the several States, for expenditures or services for the common benefit, and in this common cause, are among the objects of this Confederation; and, consequently, while all or any of its objects remain unattained, it cannot, so far as it may respect such objects, be dissolved consistently with the laws of God or man.

--John Jay, Sept. 13, 1779

Another Secularist Argument

I wanted to post Secularist Jon Rowe's argument on World Net Daily from the other day, which shows some of the errors secularists are known for--if he is representative of them:

JG [me] has no evidence for his assertion. He (wrongly) assumes if you can't prove with smoking guns like there are with Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin (all three of whom btw had nominal connections to orthodox churches) the Founders were fundamentalists like him. He also uses his own abitrary standards to exclude folks as not Founders. Yes, in addition to the unitarian "key Founder" (Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin) there were DEISTS Founders -- Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and Elihu Palmer. Likewise, there may not be "smoking guns" with Washington and Madison, but on balance, they seem closer to Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin than the "orthodox."

This blog is filled with evidence supporting my assertions. Moreover, I never called all the framers fundamentalists like me. Arbitrary standards? Is someone who helped draft, ratify, or exert significant influence in the founding of our country arbitrary standards? A pastor must exert significant influence, such as Samuel Cooper to be considered a founder. Was Elihu Palmer a Founding Father?

This blog has been quite cordial in showing the blatant mis-representations Jon Rowe has made pigeon-holing our founding fathers. For years, he claimed William Livingston was a unitarian--this blog refuted that. He claimed Samuel West was a unitarian--wrong again. He claimed Samuel Cooper was not orthodox--same story. Add to the others, claiming John Lathrop was likely a unitarian, refuted earlier on this blog. There are many other gaffes, including his claim there is no fundamental difference in The Laws of Nature and The Laws of Nature's God in the Declaration, when James Wilson, et al. specifically differentiated God and Nature, posted on this blog. Most of these incorrect assumptions happened because he didn't check the sources well enough.

But Elihu Palmer takes the cake. Palmer was born in 1764, graduated Dartmouth in 1787--the same year the Constitution was written! He never even pastored a church. Yet this guy was a "founder?" Did he help found the nation, some govt. dept. in some way I don't know about? He did nothing of significance to influence the founding. If influencing the founding was the criteria, then every senior pastor of every church was a founder, since they influenced entire churches that shaped religion, where Palmer, was blind by 30, dead at 42 years old.

James Madison is closer to Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin than to GW? These statements are mind-boggling. James Madison affirmed the Deity of Jesus Christ:

"Christ's divinity appears by St. John, ch. XX. v. 28."

"Resurrection testified and witnessed by the Apostles. Acts, ch. IV. v. 33."

--Madison's "Notes on Commentary on the Bible" found in The Papers of James Madison, p. 51-59. Vol. I. 16 Mar 1751 - 16 Dec. 1779.

In light of the above quotes, how is JM closer to TJ?

The King's Death Sentence to Samuel Adams and John Hancock

I do hereby, in his majesty's name, offer and promise his most gracious pardon to all persons, who shall forthwith lay down their arms, and return to the duties of peaceable subjects: excepting only from the benefits of such pardon, SAMUEL ADAMS and JOHN HANCOCK, whose offenses are of too flagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration but that of condign punishment. 

--General Gage
 

Another Orthodox Patriot Preacher

Rev. John Lathrop

John Lathrop was born in 1740, graduated from Princeton in 1763, and was Pastor of the Second Church of Boston. This preacher was a prolific writer throughout his life. Unitarians wish to claim him as their own, but his words portray a different result. He was an early Calvinist. Here is some evidence supporting Lathrop's Calvinism:

To mention that you hear that the Convention of Ministers in the Province have actually voted to lay aside all creeds and confessions. I wish there was not too much occasion for such a report. They did not actually vote to lay aside creeds and confessions. They have been pretty generally laid aside; and the motion was to revive them, and that candidates should be examined and introduced in the manner they are in Connecticut. This was urged by Dr. Sewall and Mr. Pemberton; it was also opposed by others; but, the forenoon being spent, a vote was desired whether the matter should be considered again after dinner, and passed quite full that it should not..You mention my being fixed in the midst of a crooked, fkc. generation. I assure you, it is a matter of wonder with me that the clergy are not farther from the character of Gospel ministers; and I apprehend, if some reform is not come into a few genrations, if salaries being small should not prevent it, the pulpits will frequently be filled not only with Arminians, but professed Arians, Socinians, and even Deists themselves.

--January 20th, 1769

Only God can be perfect, unless he became what he denounced--an arian, or idolator, believing Christ divine, yet having a different nature than the father. Unitarians did not believe Christ was perfect:

Jesus Christ also, with the perfect feelings of a perfect man, loved his country..

--A Discourse Delivered Appointed by the President.. April 13, 1815

No hint of arminianism in the below quote:

I can but think good Van Mastrich is right in his sentiments about Regeneration — it is a subject of great importance: I wish to understand it well, and constantly to feel that Divine power which alone is sufficient to produce the change, operating on my heart.

--Boston, 1 August, 1771.

Lathrop used orthodox Christian terms and quoted biblical verses clearly promoting Original Sin and Christ's Deity. Since when did unitarians believe God indwelt Christ?

While discoursing on the blessings of peace, our thoughts, as it is highly proper, will be first turned to the gospel, where we have a view of the foundation, which the mercy of God prepared for peace between heaven and earth ; peace between the Sovereign of the universe and his revolted subjects...Christ is our peace :—He came and preached peace to those who were afar off."—Thus wrote the Apostle Paul: "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead be reconciled to God [2 Cor 5:19]...Let us endeavour, therefore, to do good unto all. And finally, may we unite with the general assembly and church of the Most High, in offering praise and thanksgiving to God, our heavenly Father, and to his son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Redeemer. [bold face mine]

--A Discourse Delivered in Boston on the Day of Public Thanksgiving in the State of Massachusetts Nov 21, 1811.

Below is a first hand account of orthodoxy:

I never saw him after this, but when I became associated in the ministry with his relative, the Rev. Dr. Lathrop, [Calvinist] of West Springfield, I often heard him speak of him in terms of affectionate regard, and he was never willing to admit that he had departed much, if at all, from the accredited standard of orthodoxy.

--FROM THE REV. CHARLES LOWELL, D. D.
Cambridge, February 28, 1853