Sunday, February 1, 2015

Getting Ben Franklin Into Heaven

So I promised Bill Fortenberry I would give him thoughts on the book he wrote on Ben Franklin's faith (which you can purchase here).

He sent me a free copy which I leafed through. The arguments were not unfamiliar to me in that I think he tested many of them on me in our discussions. And the research, meticulous as it is, was largely known to me independent of my dealings with Mr. Fortenberry.

There's plenty in the record to demonstrate that although one time, early in his life, Franklin believed in something which he termed "thorough Deis[m]," he later abandoned such for a warmer theism.

Franklin also, as far as I can tell, considered himself some kind of "Christian" and saw a special place for Jesus, but had problems with doctrines of the Christianity that prevailed in America and England. (That is, if he had affinity for any of the "sects" of Christianity, he affiliated himself with the "dissenters.")

We can then pose questions: Did Mr. Franklin 1. "dissent" his way out of the "Christian" label, properly understood?; and, 2. for those who believe in such a place, into an eternal Hell?

The former question seems more an apt exercise in earthly categorizations and understandings. The latter question isn't something I am qualified or care to answer other than noting I don't think anyone deserves an eternal Hell as that doctrine is understood by some.

But answering such is what drives Mr. Fortenberry's research.

And he answers: According to Mr. Fortenberry's peculiar theology, Franklin was a "Christian" and therefore, gets into Heaven. To Mr. Fortenberry, as far as I can tell, to be a "Christian" means to be saved and get into Heaven, those who aren't "Christians" are damned.

Now, this is dogma. And it's not clear, by the way, that Ben Franklin believed this dogma about what it means to be a "Christian" and who gets saved. He once said that “a virtuous heretic shall be saved before a wicked Christian.” Franklin's sentiment, of course, causes Mr. Fortenberry cognitive dissonance and to resolve such he claims "Franklin quickly resolved this error."

The problem for Mr. Fortenberry is that Franklin never claimed to be "resolv[ing] ... error." It is just as possible and logical to read the sentiments of Franklin's "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians," and "A Defense of Mr. Hemphill’s Observations" as not contradicting one another. (That is the apparent, necessary contradiction between the two is one of Mr. Fortenberry's wishful imaginings.)

Franklin does at one point claim the gospel teaches "Christ by his Death and Sufferings has purchas’d for us those easy Terms and Conditions of our Acceptance with God, propos’d in the Gospel, to wit, Faith and Repentance." This is something Mr. Fortenberry latches onto as key to his argument.

However, immediately after Mr. Fortenberry's cherry picked money quote, Franklin adds "[t]hat the ultimate End and Design of Christ’s Death, of our Redemption by his Blood, & was to lead us to the Practice of all Holiness, Piety and Virtue, and by these Means to deliver us from future Pain an Punishment, and lead us to the Happiness of Heaven,..." [My emphasis.] In other words, it's the PRACTICE of virtue that chiefly determines man's place in the future state. And faith, doctrine and Christ's death itself, etc. are just useful means to THAT "ULTIMATE" END.

Indeed, the statements in "A Defense of Mr. Hemphill's Observations" do not contradict but reinforce Franklin's assertion in "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians," that "Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means."

But, Mr. Fortenberry desires Franklin believe in a traditional Protestant doctrine termed "sola fide" (that men are saved through faith alone). Accordingly, folks must believe in this doctrine to be a "Christian" and therefore "saved." Mr. Fortenberry's understanding of soteriology is ironically at once both eccumenically wide and idiosyncratically narrow, according to need.

After John Locke, Mr. Fortenberry claims one need not believe in the Trinity, but rather that "Jesus is Messiah" (this ropes in Locke and many other Protestant Unitarians, folks he would want to claim because of their important role in shaping America's political-theological landscape) to be saved (this is where he is eccumencially wide). But, as alluded to above, he holds one must believe in Sola Fide (that men are saved through faith alone) (this is where he is eccentrically narrow as this understanding arguably excludes among others Mormons, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox).

Mr. Fortenberry, of course, claims his views are simply what the Bible teaches, even though it's not clear that the Bible properly understood teaches such! But also he claims all true Christian believers introduce reason and rationalism to fully inform their understanding of the Bible. Mr. Fortenberry, it should be noted, is a devout Baptist, who because of their radically decentralized ecclesiastical nature permit much ecclesiological freethinking.

That's fine. But the formula of the Bible plus a believer's subjective rationalistic understanding of such can conveniently produce desired idiosyncratic results while also disturbingly permit eccentric understandings, categorizations and conclusions such as those of other Baptists who hold to beliefs far more strange and disturbing than Mr. Fortenberry's. 

A milder eccentrism is illustrated by Mr. Fortenberry's understanding of early church history. He notes the Council of Niceal (325AD) "found the first departure from the historical definition of Christianity and, consequently, the first official denial of the title of 'Christian' on grounds other than the gospel." And that "[t]he decisions of the Council of Nicea abandoned the example of Scripture."

This Council is also responsible for the clearest historical enunciation of the doctrine of the Trinity -- long deemed a central doctrine to historic Christianity -- in which Mr. Fortenberry claims to believe.

Likewise the Bible itself -- the notion of "Scripture" as a complete canon -- wasn't finalized until after Nicea and it was this same Early Church that he derides as being corrupted by the clutches of worldy Roman Catholicism and St. Athanasius himself (who according to Mr. Fortenberry was a Roman Catholic) who settled the issue of which books properly belong in the canon.

For these and other reasons, the vast majority of non-Roman Catholic, "orthodox Christians" (Eastern Orthodox, Anglican-Episcopalians, most reformed and evangelical Protestants) believe themselves to be in communion with the early church who wrote the Nicean Creed.

It's rather the Roman Catholics themselves and non-Trinitarian Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and theological unitarians who want to either credit or blame the Roman Catholic Church with Nicea and the institutional church that came after. Among those who profess to believe in the Trinity it's only the Quakers and the Baptists who notably wish to distance themselves from Nicea and downplay the centrality of the doctrine to the Christian faith.

So in a footnote at the end of the book, Mr. Fortenberry makes clear his motivation and how his personal eccentric theology connects with his hope for Franklin's soul.
After reading all that Franklin wrote about Jesus ... I am of the opinion that Franklin did believe in the deity of Christ, and that he merely began having doubts about that belief after many years of association with unitarians. But even if he did come to deny the Trinity by the end of his life, that would still leave us with the question of whether such a denial would condemn him to an eternity in hell. I have provided an answer to that question in the appendix, and I trust that you will take the time to give it your full consideration.

37 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

But, as alluded to above, he holds one must believe in Sola Fide (that men are saved through faith alone) (this is where he is eccentrically narrow as this understanding arguably excludes among others Mormons, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox).

FTR, in 1999, the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a peace treaty--or at least a truce--on the "justification" brouhaha.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1334

There have been misunderstandings and differing translations of certain key biblical terms that led to a greater gulf than is perhaps real.

"Lutherans can no longer assume that the 16th-century Reformers were right and the church of Rome was wrong. Roman Catholicism never denied justification through grace. It simply focused more on the struggle of the transformed sinner than on the exclusive divine origin of his or her transformation. Salvation is a divine human drama. It is what God does and what humans do because of what God has done and continues to do. In order to preserve the primacy of God's grace, Lutherans tend to minimize what humans do in the equation of salvation. Both perspectives are true. Our common task is to learn to live in that paradox."

Bill Fortenberry said...

Thank you for the review, Jon. I noticed that you said that you only leafed through the copy that I sent you, but did you happen to read my comparison between Franklin's view of the relationship between works and faith with the Lordship Salvation approach taken by John MacArthur of Grace Community Church?

In footnote 103 on page 168, I wrote the following:
_____________________

I have explained Franklin’s view of the correlation between faith and works in a previous note, so I will only add here that Franklin’s view is very similar to the Lordship Salvation view that is held by John MacArthur. MacArthur is a prominent Christian leader of our day. He is the host of the Grace to You radio program, the pastor of Grace Community Church, the president of both The Master’s College and The Master’s Seminary, and ironically, the pastor of historian Gregg Frazer whom I have referenced several times in this book. Frazer claims that Franklin held to a works based salvation, and he wrote in his book that:

“According to Franklin, morality was the means of ‘salvation’ for the individual … His views in this regard were made clear in his defense of a young heterodox preacher named Samuel Hemphill.” (Frazer, Religious Beliefs, 143)

But compare what Franklin says in regards to faith and works with MacArthur’s statements in his book The Gospel According to Jesus:

“We have seen that Jesus' lordship includes the ideas of dominion, authority, sovereignty, and the right to govern. If those ideas are implicit in the phrase "confess ... Jesus as Lord" (Rom. 10:9), then it is clear that people who come to Christ for salvation must do so in obedience to Him - that is, with a willingness to surrender to Him as Lord...

“The signature of saving faith is surrender to the lordship of Jesus Christ. The definitive test of whether a person belongs to Christ is a willingness to bow to His divine authority...

“It includes acknowledging Him as Lord by obeying Him, by surrendering one's will to His lordship, by affirming Him with one's deeds as well as one's words...

“Any message that omits this truth cannot be called the gospel. It is a defective message that presents a savior who is not Lord, a redeemer who does not demonstrate authority over sin, a weakened, sickly messiah who cannot command those he rescues...

“Those who refuse Him as Lord cannot use Him as Savior. Everyone who receives Him must surrender to His authority, for to say we receive Christ when in fact we reject His right to reign over us is utter absurdity. It is a futile attempt to hold on to sin with one hand and take Jesus with the other. What kind of salvation is it if we are left in bondage to sin?” (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 230-232)

The similarity between Franklin’s view and MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation is blindingly obvious, and yet, Frazer claims one of these men as his pastor and spiritual leader and rejects the other as a heretic specifically because he held to this opinion.

Bill Fortenberry said...

I'd also like to know what you think of my comparison on pg 151 of Franklin's comments regarding original sin with the “Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”?

Jonathan Rowe said...

No I actually missed that footnote. I understand that in the hard evangelical community there are those like MacArthur who claim a lifestyle transformation is part of the deal.

I still don't see Franklin as holding to Sola Fide, that men are saved through grace alone, but rather that morality and virtue are the "end" of true religion and things like faith are simply means to that end.

BTW: I didn't mention this in the review, but I'm still not entirely convinced that Franklin wasn't simply acting as agent or attorney for Hemphill in all of the documents he wrote relating to that affair.

Jonathan Rowe said...

As for your "comparison" that begins on p. 151 of your book:

“We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and
environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral
action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and
condemnation to an eternity in hell."


Bold Face Mine. I see nothing like what I put in bold anywhere in Franklin's words or work (unless you stretch them to read such in).

I also doubt the first part of the phrase that I didn't put in bold represents Franklin's sentiments too well.

Jonathan Rowe said...

In his writings on Hemphill, I DO see Franklin denying the need for a conversion experience for folks who were raised in the Christian religion.

Franklin was no evangelical Christian.

Tom Van Dyke said...

In his “Appeal for the Hospital,"

http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=4&page=150a


Franklin refers to Matthew 25, the story of the sheep and the goats, on Judgment Day:

"I was Sick, and ye Visited me, is one of the Terms of Admission into Bliss, and the Contrary, a Cause of Exclusion: That is, as our Saviour himself explains it..."

Exclusion, meaning hell, or at least no heaven. He tells the Good Samaritan story in the same appeal

the Samaritan (who was esteemed no better than a Heretick, or an Infidel by the Orthodox of those Times) is preferred to the Priest and the Levite; because he did not, like them, pass by, regardless of the Distress of his Brother Mortal

So yes, there is a demand for good works, and it's right in the Bible, direct from Jesus. The sola fide argument is a dead end.

I think the issue you're debating here is not probative. All it might prove is that Franklin was not a sola fide Protestant.

[BTW, in this appeal, and it may just have been a ploy to get donations, but Franklin refers to Jesus as

"The great Author of our Faith, whose Life should be the constant Object of our Imitation, as far as it is not inimitable..."]



Erik Von Norden said...

I've always been fascinated with the duality of Franklin. At one time he said words to the effect, "those who refuse to fight in order to preserve a temporary peace and security deserve neither peace nor security." While at another point, he said something along the lines of, "there never was a good war or bad peace." It seems to me, at places and times, his words and deeds on religion left historians in a similar quandry.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Good point, Erik, and welcome.

It's been my impression that Franklin was well known as not your standard orthodox Protestant, but here he is plainly putting himself out as a Christian ["our Saviour," "our Faith," and a strong Biblical argumernt per Mt 25]—stuff the other famous outlier Jefferson never did.

Bill Fortenberry said...

The view shared by Franklin and MacArthur is not relegated to "the hard evangelical community." There have been many Christians from a wide range of denominations who have expressed the same concept. For example, I mentioned in the book that John Sharp, the Archbishop of York, once wrote:

"Under the Covenant of Grace (which was procured by our Lord Jesus Christ) God is pleased to accept of a true sincere Faith instead of a perfect Obedience to the Law. Whosoever truly believes in Jesus Christ, and shews forth the Fruits of his Faith, by a sincere, though not perfect, Obedience to God's Commandments, as Abraham did, (and without this his Faith is not a true Faith) such a Man is justified, is accounted righteous before God, as much as if he had performed all the Righteousness of the Law of Works: His Faith is accounted to him for Righteousness."

This is the same view that I have already demonstrated to be shared by both Franklin and MacArthur, and I could list dozens if not hundreds of additional Christians from all ages and across the full spectrum of denominations who agree. This view of the relationship between works and faith is solidly established within the Christian tradition.

Bill Fortenberry said...

In regards to Franklin's view of Hell, let me point out that he quoted Boyse making several references to eternal punishment, and let me draw attention to a letter that Franklin wrote to Whitefield which I neglected to include in the book (I'll definitely include it in the next edition).

"I am glad to hear that you have frequent opportunities of preaching among the great. If you can gain them to a good and exemplary life, wonderful changes will follow in the manners of the lower ranks; for, Ad Exemplum Regis, &c. On this principle Confucius, the famous eastern reformer, proceeded. When he saw his country sunk in vice, and wickedness of all kinds triumphant, he applied himself first to the grandees; and having by his doctrine won them to the cause of virtue, the commons followed in multitudes. The mode has a wonderful influence on mankind; and there are numbers that perhaps fear less the being in Hell, than out of the fashion. Our more western reformations began with the ignorant mob; and when numbers of them were gained, interest and party-views drew in the wise and great. Where both methods can be used, reformations are like to be more speedy. O that some method could be found to make them lasting! He that shall discover that, will, in my opinion, deserve more, ten thousand times, than the inventor of the longtitude."

Punishment in Hell was a primary focus of Whitefield's sermons, and this letter demonstrates that Franklin recognized this fact. When this is compared with the fact that Franklin desired for Whitefield to help him found a new colony for the express purpose of teaching the true religion of Christianity to the native Americans, it becomes obvious that Franklin approved of this aspect of Whitefield's sermons.

Additionally, in Franklin's autobiography, he described a scene of drunk Indians dancing around a fire in the following words:

"We found they had made a great Bonfire in the Middle of the Square. They were all drunk Men and Women, quarrelling and fighting. Their dark-colour’d Bodies, half naked, seen only by the gloomy Light of the Bonfire, running after and beating one another with Firebrands, accompanied by their horrid Yellings, form’d a Scene the most resembling our Ideas of Hell that could well be imagin’d."

These three evidences indicate that Franklin did indeed have a concept of the Hell that is taught by Christianity.

Bill Fortenberry said...

As for Franklin's view of the need for a conversion experience, let me direct you to the footnote on page 179 where I explained that one of the prevailing views of conversion during that time period was that one must endure "spiritual pangs and sufferings" leading up to one's conversion in order for that conversion to be genuine. This view of conversion was held by Whitefield and rejected by Franklin, and it is this view of conversion which Franklin opposed both in his defense of Hemphill and in his interactions with Whitefield.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Bill,

The way in which John MacArthur and others express their view of how a believer who is saved should behave matters not.

We know John MacArthur believes in salvation through faith alone, and what Tom presented here irrefutably proves Franklin rejected such a doctrine, but rather held works more important than faith for salvation.

I don't think Franklin believed in salvation through works alone. Rather, the irresistible logical conclusion is that Franklin like the Mormons and Roman Catholics believed in some combination of faith, works and grace.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Also, Bill gets tripped up trying to demonstrate that Franklin was the Arminian and his brother was the Arian in the following quotation --

"My Mother grieves that one of her Sons is an Arian, another an Arminian. What an Arminian or an Arian is, I cannot say that I very well know; the Truth is, I make such Distinctions very little my Study; I think vital Religion has always suffer’d, when Orthodoxy is more regarded than Virtue. And the Scripture assures me, that at the last Day, we shall not be examin’d what we thought, but what we did; and our Recommendation will not be that we said Lord, Lord, but that we did Good to our Fellow Creatures. See Matth. 26."

--

But here in this quotation Franklin again rejects salvation through faith alone and asserts, in no uncertain terms, that WORKS are more important than FAITH for salvation. What I put in bold proves this. Indeed, the notion that men are saved by faith alone is part of the very "orthodoxy" to which Franklin refers that he thinks should be regarded less than "virtue" in terms of how religion ought be valued.

Tom is right; Franklin is claiming the Bible itself refutes the notion of salvation through faith alone.

Jonathan Rowe said...


"Punishment in Hell was a primary focus of Whitefield's sermons, and this letter demonstrates that Franklin recognized this fact. When this is compared with the fact that Franklin desired for Whitefield to help him found a new colony for the express purpose of teaching the true religion of Christianity to the native Americans, it becomes obvious that Franklin approved of this aspect of Whitefield's sermons."

Bill: Almost everything you write is a non-sequitur. You present a piece of evidence and then you draw a conclusion from it that does not follow.

"Hell" especially an "eternal hell" was not a "primary focus" on FRANKLIN'S thoughts on religion.

Yes, Franklin was helpful to and supportive of Whitefield, but he was also helpful and supportive of all sorts of folks and figures who taught things that contradicted Whitefield's faith.

In the very context of supporting Whitefield and preachers like him, Franklin said he would extend the same support to the Mufti of Constantinople to preach Islam in America.

The Christian Scriptures, like those of most world religions teach a future state of rewards and punishments. (Whether it teaches an eternal punishment and the nature of that punishment is actually debatable.)

Franklin personally believed in a future state of rewards and punishments; that much is clear. He valued this in Whitefield's religion and in that of the Mufti of Constantinople. It doesn't follow that he personally endorsed the specific nature of the the theological teachings of either.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"As for Franklin's view of the need for a conversion experience, let me direct you to the footnote on page 179 where I explained that one of the prevailing views of conversion during that time period was that one must endure 'spiritual pangs and sufferings' leading up to one's conversion in order for that conversion to be genuine. This view of conversion was held by Whitefield and rejected by Franklin, and it is this view of conversion which Franklin opposed both in his defense of Hemphill and in his interactions with Whitefield."

Another irrelevant point. Franklin actually says if you are raised in a Christian culture and you never fell into wickedness, you need no conversion experience.

Tom Van Dyke said...

what Tom presented here irrefutably proves Franklin rejected such a doctrine, but rather held works more important than faith for salvation.

I don't think Franklin believed in salvation through works alone. Rather, the irresistible logical conclusion is that Franklin like the Mormons and Roman Catholics believed in some combination of faith, works and grace.


I didn't quite say that works are more important than faith. It's a continuum.

James 2:14 New King James Version (NKJV)


14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Further, Franklin wrote to Whitefield in 1751

You will see in this my notion of good works, that I am far from expecting to merit heaven by them. By heaven we understand a state of happiness, infinite in degree, and eternal in duration. I can do nothing to deserve such rewards.

What I am saying is that this particular issue bearing on Franklin's Christianity is a non-starter, yea or nay.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Yes Tom, I think if you synthesize what Franklin said in different places you get the impression that works, faith and grace worked in some mysterious way to get a great deal of folks into Heaven.

I also think Franklin thought other folks -- not perhaps himself -- were good enough at the holiness/virtue game that their morality alone would earn them a place in Heaven.

But these folks are few and far between.

Jesus came to provide that perfect moral model, which led to more folks getting into Heaven, because the more morality that is practiced, the more souls get saved.

And that divine graceful benevolence also factors in to push more folks over the line into Heaven.

That's not to say future punishment didn't figure; it did.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"What I am saying is that this particular issue bearing on Franklin's Christianity is a non-starter, yea or nay."

Agreed. Enough Christians (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Mormons, if they qualify) reject sola fide -- and there is biblical support for their understanding -- that we need not conclude rejecting such takes you out of the Christian label.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I might want to retract my notion that Franklin thought those who could save themselves were few and far between. In Hemphill, speaking of pagans who never had the opportunity to hear Christ he noted:

"For it is probable, that without this Necessity of Obedience to an unknown Law, many would be able to save themselves by a good Use of their Reason and the Light of Nature; whereas by the Mission of our Redeemer, and the Imposition of an unknown Law, a Law which they could not observe (I mean what is peculiar to Christianity) they are reduc’d to an utter Impossibility of being sav’d."

He's saying that Christ came to model -- or what other Christian-Deists said at the time, "republish," -- the law of nature determined by reason in perfect example. That leads to more folks being saved, because his example is clearer than what a typical man's reason could determine for himself.

Grace and benevolence act in there somewhere to get more folks into Heaven.

Bill Fortenberry said...

Jon, I think that your difficulty stems from a lack of knowledge on your part of some basic points in Christian theology. The Bible teaches that God will judge each of us according to two things. There is a judgment according to faith and a judgment according to works. In the judgment according to faith, everyone who has placed their faith in God for salvation will be granted entrance into Heaven, and everyone who has not done so will be cast into Hell. This judgment is often referred to in Scripture in terms of names being written in the Book of Life. Those whose names are in the Book of Life are the ones whose faith has guaranteed their entrance into heaven.

In the judgment according to works, those who are entering Heaven are given rewards in proportion to the amount of good that they have done on Earth, and those who are entering Hell are assigned degrees of punishment in proportion to the amount of evil that they have done. This judgment is sometimes referred to as a judgment of fire and at other times as a judgment from the books. For example, this judgment of works is what is referred to in I Corinthians 3:13-15. In this particular instance, the Bible is speaking of the judgment of the works of those who are entering Heaven.

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Notice that this judgment of works determines the final state of reward or loss for believers, but their salvation is determined independently of the results of this judgment. Even those whose works are determined to be completely unworthy of any reward are still saved. That is because their entrance into Heaven is determined by the first judgment, the judgment of their faith or the judgement of the Book of Life.

Bill Fortenberry said...

Franklin referred to each of these judgments at different times without distinguishing between them for his readers. This was probably due to the fact that the American's of Franklin's day were much more biblically literate than the average American is now (See Franklin's letter to Samuel Cooper, May 15, 1781). The letter to his father that you quoted is an excellent example. The passage that Franklin references in this letter is a parable that speaks of both judgments. In this parable, the Son of man first separates all mankind into two groups - those who will enter Heaven and those who will be cast into Hell. Then, He speaks to each group separately of the reward or the punishment that they will receive for their works. The parable of this passage is explained in more direct language in Revelation 20:11-15.

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. nd I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Here again, we see the two judgments. All men are judged according to their works which are written in the books, but their entrance into Heaven is determined by a seperate judgement based on the record of the Book of Life.

When we consider that Franklin was writing about his own family who all claimed to be Christians, it becomes clear that, in this instance, he is referring to the judgment of works by which each believer will receive rewards according to the works that they have done while on Earth. There is no mention in Scripture of God every considering the various thoughts or viewpoints of the believers in this particular judgment. All that is judged is their works. This is what Franklin was referring to when he said "at the last Day, we shall not be examin’d what we thought, but what we did; and our Recommendation will not be that we said Lord, Lord, but that we did Good to our Fellow Creatures." He is referring to the thoughts of various sects within Christianity (i.e. Calvinism, Arminianism, and Arianism) not to the faith that determines who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell.

Bill Fortenberry said...

In regards to Whitefield vs. the Mufti, let me just point out that Whitefield is the only religious leader of whom Franklin requested assistance in an endeavor to spread the true religion among the American Indians. Franklin had respect for other beliefs, but he very clearly identified Christianity as being superior to them all.

Bill Fortenberry said...

You haven’t given a citation for your claim that “Franklin actually says if you are raised in a Christian culture and you never fell into wickedness, you need no conversion experience,” so I’m left to assume that you are referring to the second article in the “Observations.” That article can be found on page 72 of my book, and my explanation is given in footnote 37 which states in part that:

“What Hemphill actually said, however, was that children who become Christians at an early age will not appear to experience as great a change in their lives as someone who comes to Christ as an adult. And Franklin makes the same argument in Hemphill’s defense. He does not claim that Christian children have no need of salvation, but rather that they have no need of the ‘pangs and convulsions’ that many ministers of that time argued were necessary in order to be truly converted.”

Franklin’s words on this topic were:

“I may add, that whoever preaches up the absolute necessity of spiritual Pangs and Convulsions in those whose Education has been in the Ways of Piety and Vertue, and who therefore are not to pass from a State of Sin to a State of Holiness, but to go on and improve in the State wherein they already are, represent Christianity to be unworthy of its divine Author.”

If this is the statement that you were referring to, then I think it’s fairly clear that my previous point on this topic was quite relevant after all. If you were referring to a different statement, then perhaps you could provide a quote to help clear up the confusion.

Bill Fortenberry said...

As for Franklin’s reference to those who are “able to save themselves by a good Use of their Reason and the Light of Nature,” it should be noted that he is referring solely to those “who have no other Knowledge of God and their Duty, but what the Light of Nature teaches them.” In other words, Franklin is here discussing the fate of those who die without ever hearing about the Christian God or the Gospel. The fate of these individuals has often been debated among Christians. I demonstrated in footnote 100 that Franklin takes the same approach to this question as Isaac Watts, but I could just as easily have chosen anyone from several hundred Christian theologians who have advocated the same view. This debate is well within the bounds of Christian doctrine, and I don’t know of a single theologian who has ever argued that those holding to one view or the other are therefore not to be considered as Christians.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"Jon, I think that your difficulty stems from a lack of knowledge on your part of some basic points in Christian theology. The Bible teaches that God will judge each of us according to two things. There is a judgment according to faith and a judgment according to works. In the judgment according to faith, everyone who has placed their faith in God for salvation will be granted entrance into Heaven, and everyone who has not done so will be cast into Hell. This judgment is often referred to in Scripture in terms of names being written in the Book of Life. Those whose names are in the Book of Life are the ones whose faith has guaranteed their entrance into heaven."

Actually no I think the difficulty is your wishing to twist Franklin's beliefs into those that are palatable to your theology.

Even if we assume that Franklin's defense of Hemphill represents his true theological beliefs, Franklin blatantly says those who don't have faith in Jesus can make it into Heaven.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"In regards to Whitefield vs. the Mufti, let me just point out that Whitefield is the only religious leader of whom Franklin requested assistance in an endeavor to spread the true religion among the American Indians. Franklin had respect for other beliefs, but he very clearly identified Christianity as being superior to them all."

This is entirely irrelevant to my point.

And I don't doubt Franklin believed Christianity as he understood it superior to the other valid religions like Islam. The kind of Christianity that Franklin seemingly preferred was that of Theophilius Lindsey, not George Whitefield.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"If this is the statement that you were referring to, then I think it’s fairly clear that my previous point on this topic was quite relevant after all. If you were referring to a different statement, then perhaps you could provide a quote to help clear up the confusion."

Franklin there is still saying that if were raised in a Christian culture, never apparently fell away from the faith into a practice of wickedness or immorality, you had no need for a conversion experience.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"it should be noted that he is referring solely to those 'who have no other Knowledge of God and their Duty, but what the Light of Nature teaches them.'"

But this isn't true. He's not saying "solely." He also says "or who never were in a Capacity or Circumstances of being reasonably convinc’d of it." He couples this with how unfair he would view God if 3/4th of the population were consigned to damnation. And then he notes the texts of the Bible could be read in different ways, but must be read through lenses of rationality, benevolence, fairness and the like.

The overall tenor of the passages seem to indicate some kind of hopeful universalism.

And no, I don't think any of this necessarily denies him the label of "Christians."

There are Trinitarian "Christians" like Benjamin Rush and Elhanahan Winchester who believe all men will eventually be saved, and unitarian "Christians" like John Adams who as far as I can tell believe the same thing.

I have no problem terming Franklin, or J. Adams, or Jefferson, or the Mormons, or Barack Obama or doctrinaire Roman Catholics "Christians."

Ben Franklin however, did deny 1. salvation through faith alone, 2. that the entire Old Testament was inspired; 3. Jesus divinity; and 4. that the vast majority of human beings would be damned, especially in an eternal hellfire.

That's the kind of "Christian" he was; make of it what you will.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Oh and I can add to the list that Franklin believed in purgatory too.

As for the notion that the saved will be judged by their works and face a doling out of rewards based on their good works, that itself illustrates how even a very generous concept of universalism is consistent with a future state of rewards and punishments.

The good get better rewards, the whose works aren't as good lose out even as they still avoid Hell, because no one goes to Hell.

Franklin may well have been this kind of universalist. Though I think he believed based on the one letter I've seen that he thought some folks would go to a temporary purgatory.

Bill Fortenberry said...

“Actually no I think the difficulty is your wishing to twist Franklin's beliefs into those that are palatable to your theology.”

That is not a valid argument against my claim. All you have done is cast aspersions on my motives.
_________________________________

“Franklin blatantly says those who don't have faith in Jesus can make it into Heaven.”

Not exactly. What Franklin blatantly says is that:

“The Merits of Christ’s Death and Sufferings may be so great as to extend to the Heathen World, they may reap the Advantages of it, tho’ they never had an Opportunity of hearing of him, provided they make a good Use of their Reason, and other Principles of Action within them.”
_________________________________

“The kind of Christianity that Franklin seemingly preferred was that of Theophilius Lindsey, not George Whitefield.”

And yet it was Whitefield and not Lindsey to whom Franklin appealed for help with “the Introduction of pure Religion among the Heathen.”
______________________________

“Franklin there is still saying that if were raised in a Christian culture, never apparently fell away from the faith into a practice of wickedness or immorality, you had no need for a conversion experience.”

Not at all, for Franklin specifically mentions the conversion of these children when he writes:

“Now if all these Texts of Scripture are true, how is it possible their Conversion should be so sensible either to themselves or others, as that of Heathens or wicked Christians? I have said, it cannot; which is all that can be justly founded upon the Extract of the Sermon they have condemn’d.”

Bill Fortenberry said...

“But this isn't true. He's not saying ‘solely.’ He also says ‘or who never were in a Capacity or Circumstances of being reasonably convinc’d of it.’”

You’ve extracted a single phrase from a paragraph filled with different methods of referring to those who have never heard the Gospel. The phrases that Franklin used to describe these individuals are:

“They who have no other Knowledge of God and their Duty, but what the Light of Nature teaches them; no Law for the Government of their Actions, but the Law of Reason and Conscience”

“the Heathen”

those who “never had an Opportunity of hearing of him”

those who did not obey “a Law they never heard of”

those for whom obeying this law would be “an Impossibility”

those to whom this law was an “unknown Law”

those who could not obey the Gospel because they had “never heard of it”

those who could not obey the Gospel because they “never were in a Capacity or Circumstances of being reasonably convinc’d of it.”

When this phrase is included in the list from which it was extracted, it becomes clear that Franklin is referring to those who never were in a capacity or circumstance to be convinced of the Gospel because they had never heard of it. Thus, the “overall tenor of the passage” indicates that Franklin was referring solely to those who died without ever hearing about the Christian God or the Gospel just as I said.
________________________

“I have no problem terming Franklin, or J. Adams, or Jefferson, or the Mormons, or Barack Obama or doctrinaire Roman Catholics ‘Christians.’”

You have mentioned Mormons several times, and I don’t want to get the discussion too far off track, but let me just mention that I have an article on my website explaining why I do not accept Mormons as Christians. If you’d care to read it, you can do so by clicking here.
______________________

“That's the kind of ‘Christian’ he was; make of it what you will.”

Actually, Franklin was the kind of Christian who relied on Christ’s payment for his sins, and who sought to follow His teachings. Not only did he write that:

"Christ by his Death and Sufferings has purchas’d for us those easy Terms and Conditions of our Acceptance with God, propos’d in the Gospel, to wit, Faith and Repentance."

But he also said:

“if they mean by that the Doctrine of Christ’s Satisfaction, as held by Protestants, if Hemphill endeavoured to subvert That, he will not only be condemned by them, but by all good Christians.”

And he explicitly said:

"I am conscious I believe in Christ, and exert my best Endeavours to understand his Will aright, and strictly to follow it."

Franklin was the kind of Christian who believed these things, and as I noted in my appendix, this is the only kind of Christian that is recognized in the Bible.
_________________________

“Oh and I can add to the list that Franklin believed in purgatory too.”

I’ve already addressed your claim about Franklin believing in Purgatory in another thread in which I demonstrated that your position on that particular letter is both illogical and inconsistent with the letter’s context. So far, I have not noticed that your position has improved any, so I will simply rest on my previous explanation.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"That is not a valid argument against my claim. All you have done is cast aspersions on my motives."

It's no different than what you did when you said I didn't know enough about Christian theology (and btw, I was familiar with the theory you proposed and know that some Christians hold to such an understanding and others don't, but rather hold that men are not saved through faith alone).

But I did however, go on to actually explain how you have been distorting Franklin's theology to make it more palatable to your desires.

“Franklin blatantly says those who don't have faith in Jesus can make it into Heaven.”

Not exactly. What Franklin blatantly says is that:

....

Franklin still said that folks who don't accept Jesus can get into Heaven if they live by the light of nature determined by reason.

"And yet it was Whitefield and not Lindsey to whom Franklin appealed for help with 'the Introduction of pure Religion among the Heathen.'"

Maybe because Lindsey was in another country.


Jonathan Rowe said...

I don't think you properly understand this passage:


“Now if all these Texts of Scripture are true, how is it possible their Conversion should be so sensible either to themselves or others, as that of Heathens or wicked Christians? I have said, it cannot; which is all that can be justly founded upon the Extract of the Sermon they have condemn’d.”

He's saying that Heathens and wicked Christians who get it right evince conversion and that those to whom this doesn't apply, don't need to be converted to be considered "Christians."

He says it more clearly here:

"Hemphill indeed supposes that Persons, who have all along had the Happiness of a christian and virtuous Education, and who have sincerely endeavour’d to practise the Laws of the Gospel, cannot so properly in the Scripture Sense be stil’d new Creatures;"

And why is a "conversion" experience even necessary to be a "Christian."

Jonathan Rowe said...

"When this phrase is included in the list from which it was extracted, it becomes clear that Franklin is referring to those who never were in a capacity or circumstance to be convinced of the Gospel because they had never heard of it."

No this isn't true. There are plenty of folks who may have heard the gospel but aren't convinced because of a variety of issues they might have with, for instance, crappy witnesses and the like.

"If this is what Christianity is, then I want no part of it."

And even though Franklin flirts with the idea that those who have never heard the gospel can be in some mysterious way saved by Jesus. He also says folks can save themselves by living by the light of nature determined by reason and the senses.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"You have mentioned Mormons several times, and I don’t want to get the discussion too far off track, but let me just mention that I have an article on my website explaining why I do not accept Mormons as Christians. If you’d care to read it, you can do so by clicking here."

You may not think Mormons are Christians even though they say they are and they believe in a divine risen Christ. But if it's because they don't accept salvation through faith alone, the preponderance of evidence presented so far demonstrates Franklin rejected such in favor of a system of salvation through some mysterious combination of faith, works and grace.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"Actually, Franklin was the kind of Christian who relied on Christ’s payment for his sins,"

In part, but not by faith alone ....


"Christ by his Death and Sufferings has purchas’d for us those easy Terms and Conditions of our Acceptance with God, propos’d in the Gospel, to wit, Faith and Repentance."

And I explained why this cherry picked phrase didn't prove Franklin believed in salvation through faith alone, but rather that he thought faith was chiefly a means to the end of practicing good works.

"Franklin was the kind of Christian who believed these things, and as I noted in my appendix, this is the only kind of Christian that is recognized in the Bible."

You mean the same Bible Franklin said there are certain parts of which impossible to have been given by divine inspiration?

"I’ve already addressed your claim about Franklin believing in Purgatory in another thread in which I demonstrated that your position on that particular letter is both illogical and inconsistent with the letter’s context. So far, I have not noticed that your position has improved any, so I will simply rest on my previous explanation."

From what I remember, you shot and missed. Franklin's letter claims (and he could have simply been "putting on" his correspondence, but I'll take him at his word) he believed in a temporary place where souls were prepared Heaven.

I've seen little if ANYTHING that demonstrates Franklin believed in an eternal Hell for anyone.

Though I do see in Franklin's writing endorsement of the notion of a future state of rewards and punishment.

Believing that the "saved" -- the good people, chiefly by their works but also some benevolent grace -- go to Heaven and the not so good go to purgatory for a little or perhaps a long while, is consistent with this notion.