tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6860484546483758137..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Skepticism and American Faith: From the Revolution to the Civil WarBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71898418349872753332009-01-16T20:48:00.000-07:002009-01-16T20:48:00.000-07:00Hey, Phil, thanks for that. Cheers, mate.Hey, Phil, thanks for that. Cheers, mate.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89784457389182294752009-01-16T20:43:00.000-07:002009-01-16T20:43:00.000-07:00Brad, this was an excellent post, and I regret I d...Brad, this was an excellent post, and I regret I didn't give it the consideration it deserved, <BR/><BR/>Instead, I popped in about a comment that I considered off the track, and ended up taking this thread further off track.<BR/><BR/><I>Mea culpa.</I><BR/><BR/>We're a bit past the Founding era here, but I observe again the crosscurrents in American piety that Eric Alan Isaacson and I discussed recently: As the year 1800 arrived, the urban and educated elite trended toward unitarianism and a thinning-out of doctrine, but on the burgeoning frontier, revivalism, faith-based religion, grew exponentially.<BR/><BR/>And so, Stiles had one perception, and Tocqueville got completely another.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32752895923986020472009-01-15T12:47:00.000-07:002009-01-15T12:47:00.000-07:00.It seems that there is more doctrine on what it t....<BR/>It seems that there is more doctrine on what it takes to be a Christian than any other subject.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83592071276401317232009-01-15T12:13:00.000-07:002009-01-15T12:13:00.000-07:00And studies from that era show the overwhelmimg ma...And studies from that era show the overwhelmimg majority of the population were unchurched.><BR/><BR/>I'd like to see those studies. Something tells me because of the lack of church buildings, there were many home churches. It's something to look into.<BR/><BR/>And many of the FFs involved with those orthodox churches like GW avoided communion and turned their backs on the Lord's Supper.><BR/><BR/>Here's another study I'd like to see. It sounds informative. <BR/><BR/>And ministers themselves in those orthodox churches denied the infallibility of the Bibe and the Trinity.><BR/><BR/>Here's another study, if there is one, would be very informative.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28099349004362248832009-01-15T12:07:00.000-07:002009-01-15T12:07:00.000-07:00I almost agree with YOU, OFT, in your statement he...I almost agree with YOU, OFT, in your statement here: <BR/>"If someone says ]they're] a Christian, we should believe them, until they show us otherwise. Hamilton never showed us otherwise."<BR/>.<BR/>I would say that we have no call to either believe or disbelieve their claim of Christianity.><BR/><BR/>Pinky:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the props, I'll take it. I'm just not that judgmental to label someone without evidence.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34031717612729726332009-01-15T12:04:00.000-07:002009-01-15T12:04:00.000-07:00And Hamilton never got around to joining a Church....And Hamilton never got around to joining a Church. And studies from that era show the overwhelmimg majority of the population were unchurched. And many of the FFs involved with those orthodox churches like GW avoided communion and turned their backs on the Lord's Supper. And ministers themselves in those orthodox churches denied the infallibility of the Bibe and the Trinity.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2330222233591312032009-01-15T11:45:00.000-07:002009-01-15T11:45:00.000-07:00.I really get a kick out of some of what is posted....<BR/>I really get a kick out of some of what is posted here in the name of academic excellence. I DID like to see Brad's blog which quotes Professor Christopher Grasso.<BR/>.<BR/>That persons who openly claim they are NOT Christians speak on behalf of Christianity is an oxymoron to me. Jesus, himself who is called, The Christ, explains that the relationship one has with God is personal and mediated by no person.<BR/>.<BR/>I almost agree with YOU, OFT, in your statement here: <BR/> <I>"If someone says ]they're] a Christian, we should believe them, until they show us otherwise. Hamilton never showed us otherwise."</I><BR/>.<BR/>I would say that we have no call to either believe or disbelieve their claim of Christianity.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68978597621653479562009-01-15T11:10:00.000-07:002009-01-15T11:10:00.000-07:00Perhaps they did, but I think it can't be prov...Perhaps they did, but I think it can't be proved to anyone's satisfaction.><BR/><BR/>That's the ultimate question, Tom. Someone should title a post about it. I thought this blog is about what the framers believed, not about Biblical Theology. I don't what to squabble about theology. Other people on this blog bring it up; I never bring it up, I respond to it.<BR/><BR/>Am I on here to prove something is or isn't true? Is that where this blog has gone? It's surely where Rowe has gone. How is anyone supposed to prove anything without their own words affirming it? I can't guess you're eight feet tall, with white hair. Let's take this down to normal practical life. <BR/><BR/>If I tell you I am a dad because I have a daughter, do I have to show you my daughter for you to believe that I have a daughter?<BR/><BR/>Where am I going wrong on this analogy and theory that I see happening? <BR/><BR/>If someone calls himself a Christian, am I supposed to say, "no you're not!" You have to tell me in writing what you think on this, this, and this first!<BR/><BR/>Dude, it's impossible. No one should be able to judge like that.<BR/><BR/>If someone says their a Christian, we should believe them, until they show us otherwise. Hamilton never showed us otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Now, for the majority, if they are all, or most, going to church, and taking communion, and calling themselves Christians, how can you say they aren't orthodox Christians, if you don't have their words to question it?Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39785838072319678622009-01-15T00:44:00.000-07:002009-01-15T00:44:00.000-07:00Unitarians believed in inerrancy, and the supernat...<I>Unitarians believed in inerrancy, and the supernatural, just ask Joseph Story.</I><BR/><BR/>Oy, dude. This is where you're losing me. "Supernatural," sure. Miracles. And even Jefferson talks about "supernatural interference," by God, presumably. <BR/><BR/>Inerrancy, I don't think you can support that, and I personally don't want any part of that discussion. You're on your own on that one and I think it's a bridge way too far. Even if the Bible is inerrant, as you apparently believe, my own studies don't support your contention here that a majority of the Founders shared your belief. Perhaps they did, but I think it can't be proved to anyone's satisfaction.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, mate.<BR/><BR/>I did think you had an excellent counterargument that anyone claiming Alexander Hamilton as a "theistic rationalist" at any time in his life without proof in his own words was quite effective, though.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting what you might achieve by placing the burden of proof where it belongs. Word up.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69184413029413419642009-01-14T18:59:00.000-07:002009-01-14T18:59:00.000-07:00Christians called the deists and free enquirers &q...Christians called the deists and free enquirers "infidels,><BR/><BR/>According to Webster's dictionary, an infidel was someone who denied inerrancy. Unitarians believed in inerrancy, and the supernatural, just ask Joseph Story.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4179214282298958642009-01-14T15:10:00.000-07:002009-01-14T15:10:00.000-07:00Thanks, Pinky. I plan on reading his book. He se...Thanks, Pinky. I plan on reading his book. He seems like an interesting guy and I also love his prose.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46176347812159117452009-01-14T15:00:00.000-07:002009-01-14T15:00:00.000-07:00.I took your recommendation and read it all..I tru....<BR/>I took your recommendation and read it all.<BR/>.<BR/>I truly appreciate writers like Grasso. There's probably a word for that type of writing. He includes his own thinking in what he is writing in a way that shows you who he is as well as a way that enlightens you.<BR/>.<BR/>I think the idea of cutting off the Founding of America sometime around 1789 or so is a mistake. There was a lot of unfolding going on and for a long time. The inception isn't the end of the process. In fact, America is still being created and we are part of the Founding Process.<BR/>.<BR/>Thanks for posting this blog, Brad.<BR/>.<BR/>BYW, Raven brought a bit of humor to the other thread even though she was a little brusk.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.com