What follows is an address by the late Bible Answer Man, Dr. Walter Martin, on "the cults." Dr. Martin was a key figure in modern fundamentalist-evangelicalism who posited a paradigm that defined non-orthodox Trinitarian systems as "non-Christian cults." As such, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Nicene "Christians" were in fact, not "Christians," but members of "non-Christian" cults.
Martin criticized what he saw as errors in Roman Catholicism, but didn't term them "non-Christians" because of Catholics' embrace of Nicene orthodoxy.
Taking Dr. Martin's paradigm as a given, I want those sympathetic to his point of view to understand that according to this standard, America's key Founders (certainly J. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, probably Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Hamilton before his deathbed, and many others) and the philosophers they followed (Newton, Locke, Milton, Clarke, Priestley, Price, Burgh, and many others) were not "historic Christians," but, like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, members of a "non-Christian cult," that oft-tried to pass itself off as "Christianity."
What is truly appalling is the way the John Ankerberg show -- a key promoter of Dr. Martin's theological understanding -- featured David Barton to mislead Ankerberg's/Martin's otherwise spiritually discerned audience/point of view on America's Founding political-theological heritage.
Note to Dr. Ankerberg's audience: Much of what Barton cites -- and much of the historical record that talks up the "religion" or "Christianity" of America's Founding -- actually invokes a non-Trinitarian and/or anti-Trinitarian theology. And, accordingly, the paradigm (the promoters of which say the Bible itself!) that defines non-Trinitarians out of "Christianity," concludes, by logical necessity, that these utterances may actually be to a "non-Christian cult."
I'd like to see more evangelicals/fundamentalists (or others) recognize this and define the political theology of the American Founding as, along with Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnessism, a non-Christian cult. Or at least be honest enough to recognize that, though orthodoxy abounded in that era, there was enough non-Christian cultic elements from folks like Locke, Newton, Clarke, J. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Priestley, Price intermixed that it is impossible to term America's Founding "Christian" in the minimal way that you understand the term.
14 comments:
Isaac Newton, ultra-fundamentalist preachers, and out-of-date David Barton videos, Jon? Your thesis is getting awful desperate.
And for the record, Founding Father Benjamin Rush urged Richard Price to keep his anti-Trinitarianism under wraps. It had nothing to do with his political arguments, but would prejudice the wide swath of America against them.
Tom,
This is more of an aside than an affirmative thesis.
I'm thinking of and addressing a specific group of people.
I know you are not of that group. So your response could be "yes, I suppose if I saw things that way -- the way Dr. Walter Martin et al. do -- I would see your point."
Let me note too that these blogs have to keep going to remain current. No one posted yesterday. Not uncommon for an individual blog -- but not good for a group blog.
Even if we post some "aside" comments like these to the front page, in the absence of other posts entirely, it's better than nothing.
I see what you mean. But our Barton Meter for the month is already on tilt, and this was a very old video, containing an error that he's already corrected, namely on the Holy Trinity case. [The citation in question was tracked instead to an Illinois Supreme Court case.]
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126
Tom,
Have you responded to Ed? I do not think he understood the reply you stated to me.
Jon,
You are right about Barton. I do think it should be dropped though. It is not going to get us anywhere near the truth. They agreed on the political theology and that is what is relevant to this topic. The way to beat them is to show that there political theory is way off from that of the Founding. They have to bring in natural law which most refuse to do. Lets focus on that.
I think Amos is in the same boat. His History is good but his application sucks. THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE FOUNDERS WERE SETTING UP A GOVERNMENT LIKE THEY WANT TO SET UP NOW. The point about having the right to sin was going in the right direction.
Why in the world, Walter Martin???
"Cult" as defined by mainstream fundamental types, sure...any group that follows a certain group of thinkers can be called a cult...does that make it necessarily wrong?
A "moral government' must allow choice, otherwise there is no morality, as choice is of necessity in morality itself...
Why define Christianity as only denominations who believe in Fourth Century (man-made) Creeds? Wouldn't a denomination which believes in First Century Christianity be "Christian"?
Richard Price, whom most folks have never heard of, profoundly influenced the American Founding. His theology, along with Joseph Priestley's, illustrates the kind of "Christianity" that disproportionately appealed to the Founding Fathers. Locke, Newton, Milton, Clarke, Priestley, Price, John. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and probably Washington, Madison and many others thought of themselves as "Christians" more so than "Deists" in an identificatory sense. [Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and Elihu Palmer were examples of "Deists" who rejected the "Christian" label.]
They either outright rejected or ignored the orthodox Trinitarian doctrines which the "orthodox" see as a non-negotiable part of "Christianity."
So why do Evangelicals today reject presidential candidates who do not believe in Trinitarian Christianity?
Richard Price, whom most folks have never heard of, profoundly influenced the American Founding. His theology, along with Joseph Priestley's, illustrates the kind of "Christianity" that disproportionately appealed to the Founding Fathers. Locke, Newton, Milton, Clarke, Priestley, Price, John. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and probably Washington, Madison and many others thought of themselves as "Christians" more so than "Deists" in an identificatory sense. [Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and Elihu Palmer were examples of "Deists" who rejected the "Christian" label.]
They either outright rejected or ignored the orthodox Trinitarian doctrines which the "orthodox" see as a non-negotiable part of "Christianity."
I think I wrote that passage.
You are right it depends on where one draws the line. If you purposefully don't draw the line at Nicene-orthodoxy you get a lot of FFs, their philosophical influences, Mormons, JWs as "Christians."
Isn't the discussion on the historical reasons behind the Founding and what influence religion had on the Founding? not the truth or un-truth of Christianity?
It is. But to some folks if non-Trinitarian is "not Christianity," then it was some *other* theology system that did the influencing (a system that passed itself off as "Christianity").
Wasn't the "cult" Freemasonry, which was based on Freethought and scientific investigation?
The following SUMMARIES OF OVER 1400 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CRIMINAL and CIVIL COURT CASES will provide the BEST and MOST ACCURATE info about Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, and how they ACTUALLY practice such day to day.
The following website summarizes 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children, as well as nearly 400 CRIMINAL cases -- most involving MURDERS:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
jwdivorces.bravehost.com
The following website summarizes over 500 lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against their Employers, incidents involving problem JW Employees, and other secret JW "history" court cases:
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES
jwemployees.bravehost.com
I haven't checked the websites; but if they purport to say what they do, it may be the first case of useful spam I've seen (useful in the sense of being relevant to the topic matter, which porno and viagra spams are not).
For the sake of clarity, I think the Quakers, who were around at the Founding where the Mormons and JWs were not, can fill in adequately in the thought experiment.
Here's an interesting discussion between Quakers, or as they prefer, "Friends."
http://quakeroatslive.blogspot.com/2009/07/trinity.html
Basically, the Trinity is a matter of indifference to many except the preachers and theologians, as it was at the Founding, as it is today. There are bigger fish to fry, like whether there's a God atall.
Post a Comment