tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post7771900000631709622..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66180624659436660772012-12-05T05:32:53.755-07:002012-12-05T05:32:53.755-07:00I addressed the above quote from Benjamin Franklin...I addressed the above quote from Benjamin Franklin in <a href="http://www.increasinglearning.com/the-hidden-facts-of-the-founding-era-5.html" rel="nofollow">The Hidden Facts of the Founding Era</a>. Here is an excerpt from what I wrote:<br /><br /><i>When we read the actual statement from Mr. Franklin, it becomes obvious that he was not rejecting the concept of original sin but rather that of imputed guilt. Mr. Franklin was very much correct in his conclusion. Guilt cannot be passed from one person to another. Each individual is declared guilty or not by his own actions and not those of anyone else. This is precisely what is taught in the Scriptures, for we read in Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Many have argued in the past that the idea of imputed guilt is presented in the teachings of Paul in Romans 5:12 which states that “as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” However, this passage actually refutes the concept of imputed guilt, for it clearly states that death has come upon every man because every man has sinned. Death came into the world because of Adam’s sin, but death comes upon every man because of his own guilt. Thus Mr. Franklin was correct in his rejection of the concept of imputed guilt.<br /><br />But what of his simultaneous rejection of imputed righteousness? To understand what Mr. Franklin was referring to here, we must consider a statement that he made in a previous section of the pamphlet. To explain what he meant by “imputed righteousness,” Mr. Franklin wrote, “I shall here transcribe the Reasonings of a Pious and learn’d Divine, the late Rev. Mr. Boyse of Dublin in Ireland.” Here is the text that Mr. Franklin presented from Mr. Boyse:</i><br /><br />[follow link for quote]<br /><br /><i>From this extract, we can see that by rejecting the concept of imputed righteousness, Mr. Franklin was rejecting the teachings of antinomianism. The term “antinomianism” is used to describe the belief that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to certain individuals regardless of their obedience or disobedience of any commandment including the command to believe on the name of Jesus Christ for salvation. In other words, antinomian philosophy teaches that certain individuals are incapable of being cast into hell because God views them as possessing the righteousness of Christ whether they asked for it or not.</i>Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65469127956902445952008-06-22T12:50:00.000-06:002008-06-22T12:50:00.000-06:00Lindsey,Stay tuned in the future for more posts on...Lindsey,<BR/><BR/>Stay tuned in the future for more posts on Locke. My understanding is it's Tabla Rasa plus the fact that when Locke explicated what he saw as the fundamentals of Christianity in "The Reasonableness of Christianity," original sin and the trinity were left off the list. It wasn't so easy then to say "I don't believe in the Trinity," because one could be executed for heresy. <BR/><BR/>This led to rumors that Locke was a Unitarian and Locke defended himself by stating "I didn't deny the Trinity," (he gave a Clintonesq. answer).<BR/><BR/>A lot of unitarians back then, like Locke and many of America's Founders didn't want to be associated with "Deists" but rather with "Christians," and were content to unite with Trinitarian Christians on those doctrines in which they agreed. Hence they could simply downplay or not mention things like original sin or the Trinity and focus on the common grounds that they had with Trinitarians.<BR/><BR/>But the orthodox Trinitarians wanted nothing to do with these unitarian heretics.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54493709189109989262008-06-22T07:03:00.000-06:002008-06-22T07:03:00.000-06:00Original sin, in and of itself, is an effective ha...Original sin, in and of itself, is an effective hammer with which the priesthood nails their victims down.<BR/><BR/>But as if that weren't enough, the rest of the tools keep the "sinner" under control.<BR/><BR/>Deserving to be swept into Hell's eternal damnation is an awesome blueprint.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32358908497953005902008-06-21T18:20:00.000-06:002008-06-21T18:20:00.000-06:00If I am not mistaken, didn't Locke believe in orig...If I am not mistaken, didn't Locke believe in original sin? If not, does anyone have any sources of Locke refuting that belief BESIDES his Tabula Raza?Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77260406540053132008-06-21T18:11:00.000-06:002008-06-21T18:11:00.000-06:00Pinky:I think those would be the ACTUAL WORDS of J...Pinky:<BR/><BR/>I think those would be the ACTUAL WORDS of John Locke..."Phhht!"Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60940649890936528872008-06-21T17:44:00.000-06:002008-06-21T17:44:00.000-06:00Original sin..Phhhht!Original sin.<BR/>.<BR/>Phhhht!Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28922984551521116082008-06-21T17:15:00.000-06:002008-06-21T17:15:00.000-06:00Bob,You are spot on with Locke and the incompatibi...Bob,<BR/><BR/>You are spot on with Locke and the incompatibility between Tabla Rasa and Original Sin. I'm working on a new post that addresses this issue.<BR/><BR/>Arminianism and original sin are certainly compatible. My point would be besides a broader sense of the Atonement, Arminians' view of human nature is somewhat cheerier than "total depravity."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26477702761758308782008-06-21T16:42:00.000-06:002008-06-21T16:42:00.000-06:00Whether unitarian or not, most of the founders wer...Whether unitarian or not, most of the founders were heavily influenced by John Locke. His political theories insisted on government based in a social contract. But more important for this discussion was his "anthropology," his view of the human psyche. Locke taught what that we are born as a blank slate -- a tabula raza -- upon which experience writes. If we are born in such a way, as "blank slates" then there is little place for original sin -- that is, nothing is passed down. Of course, from a contemporary perspective we know that genetics is much more determinative than either Locke or the Founders understood. But, that of course doesn't mean one must adopt a doctrine of original sin.<BR/><BR/>And of course, one needn't be Calvinist to embrace original sin. Arminians weren't necessarily opposed to the idea. They simply had a broader sense of the atonment than did the Calvinists.Robert Cornwallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04581876323110725024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16022558609252133452008-06-21T14:44:00.000-06:002008-06-21T14:44:00.000-06:00Nice post. I see it as further evidence to suppor...Nice post. I see it as further evidence to support the "theistic rationalism" or "unitarianism" of our major founders.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6587800835153751822008-06-21T11:31:00.000-06:002008-06-21T11:31:00.000-06:00Your paper presents us with another good set of qu...Your paper presents us with another good set of questions any rationalist should be able to discuss.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting to note that when rationalists consider Christianity, they often come up with totally different conclusions than those held by "orthodox" or "traditionalist" Christians.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.com