tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4209072283360082132..comments2024-03-17T14:55:33.289-06:00Comments on American Creation: Barton Responds to PintoBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74809027815307953112016-08-16T18:51:32.327-06:002016-08-16T18:51:32.327-06:00Chris Pinto is correct (I come from a family of
th...Chris Pinto is correct (I come from a family of<br />theologians, and although they don't like to say<br />it, they believe Pinto nailed it). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53612258548337883982011-06-27T11:24:54.585-06:002011-06-27T11:24:54.585-06:00One problem with Barton’s use of the Reverend Wise...One problem with Barton’s use of the Reverend Wise’s periodization scheme is that according to it, Period 1 (first three centuries following Jesus) is a time of pure Christianity where, to quote Barton, “Jesus’ followers throughout that time largely did just what He had taught them to do.” But this period was anything but a homogeneous time with regard to the development of the Trinity doctrine (with the first apparent conception of the Trinity made by <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/theology.htm" rel="nofollow">Tertullian</a> in the early 3rd century – please correct me if I’m wrong). It wasn’t until the fourth century (ca. 325 and Constantine’s rule) that the doctrine of the Trinity gained the upper hand as orthodox doctrine. But, according to Barton’s use of wise’s work this was during Period 2 where the “The State took control of the Church” and was in Wise’s words “…a time of ‘the secularization of the Church and the deprivation of Christianity’…”<br /><br />This juxtaposition seems to advocate that the orthodox Trinity doctrine was developed during and as a consequence of secular/state bastardization of church doctrine (not to mention the next 14 centuries of Period 2) and itself seems to be a refutation of a resultant orthodox/Nicean trinitarian authority (post 325 CE).<br /><br />Somehow I doubt that this is the intent of either Barton or Wise. But I’m not sure. Is Barton saying that the Christianity (actually Christianities since there was no single, unifying authoritarian doctrine) of the first three centuries is the purest and deserving of the authority of “the” true Church (very tricky maneuvering)? And as for reference to Adams, wouldn’t this corroborate his contempt of these corruptions by both the orthodox Church and state and his mocking of the orthodox trinitarian doctrine? This seems as heretical as a Unitarian doctrine. Was Wise a pre-Nicean trinitarian (Tertulian? Athanasius doctrine)? How different was the pre- and post-Nicean trinitarian doctrine(s) and if Adams was mocking the latter would that also encompass the former when he refers to “…this is all artifice and cunning…” and “…the poor weak ignorant dupe, human nature.” <br /><br />In light of Adam’s later profession to Jefferson, giving some insight into his most personal beliefs, I think that he’s just mocking the whole trinitarian concept, <br /><br /><i>“Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and been admitted to behold the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three one, we might not have had courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.”</i> – Adams to Jefferson, September 14, 1813jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12092621051723296822011-06-27T09:05:08.277-06:002011-06-27T09:05:08.277-06:00Jon,
Here's some commentary that includes cor...Jon,<br /><br /><a href="http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/05/31/david-barton-on-john-adams-the-holy-ghost-letter/" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> some commentary that includes correspondence that I haven't seen mentioned before regarding the context of Adam's letter to Rush. <br /><br />This may be old news to those who have studied the matter more closely than I have but has helped me get a fuller understanding of Adams' and Rush's exchange.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55541246718195949752011-06-26T21:41:39.011-06:002011-06-26T21:41:39.011-06:00Heh. I did quite the job spreading that one aroun...Heh. I did quite the job spreading that one around (thanks to James H. Hutson).<br /><br />Jim Allison has the entire letter. Quite an amusing read. I think Adams might have been a little tipsy when writing it.<br /><br />http://candst.tripod.com/morrelpeo.htmJonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74484244295294546492011-06-26T20:53:17.414-06:002011-06-26T20:53:17.414-06:00Good question, Pinky. I tried to look it up and s...Good question, Pinky. I tried to look it up and see that Jon has used that quote literally 100 times on the internet, with no explanation of what it means. I found nothing so far that what Adams said is true.<br /><br />Not saying it's not true, but Adams was a dilettante in theology and not a serious scholar.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31374125329557924382011-06-26T20:38:12.640-06:002011-06-26T20:38:12.640-06:00Good stuff, Jon. Thanks.Good stuff, Jon. Thanks.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83351865089491217152011-06-26T20:06:31.956-06:002011-06-26T20:06:31.956-06:00JRB: Thanks. Fixed the link.JRB: Thanks. Fixed the link.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50779793926612974152011-06-26T19:40:09.522-06:002011-06-26T19:40:09.522-06:00"The Trinity was carried in a general council...<i>"The Trinity was carried in a general council by one vote against a quaternity; the Virgin Mary lost an equality with the Father, Son, and Spirit only by a single suffrage."<br /><br />-- John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812.</i><br />.<br />Can we get some more on this intriguing bit?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42726833346134379512011-06-26T17:38:13.329-06:002011-06-26T17:38:13.329-06:00Barton gets the better of Pinto: Pinto indeed clai...Barton gets the better of Pinto: Pinto indeed claims that Adams is mocking the very idea of The Holy Spirit.<br /><br />The letter doesn't say that.<br /><br />Jon, I wish you would have examined the actual controversy with Pinto instead of detouring into another attack ["deceptive"] on Barton for eliding the unitarianism question, which is your own cause and concern, not his.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57349591231572584362011-06-26T15:35:47.189-06:002011-06-26T15:35:47.189-06:00RE: "David Barton attempts to respond to Pint...RE: "David Barton attempts to respond to Pinto in this article."<br /><br />The link goes to the Wall Builder's copy of the Adam's letter. Should it have directed to another site?jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.com