Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Universities and the Founding Era

An Evolution From Orthodoxy
To "Heresy."


Here at American Creation, we have argued that one of the central components to identifying America's true founding heritage rests on our understanding of Christian orthodoxy. Were the founding fathers Christian in the orthodox Trinitarian sense, or did they embrace a more "heretical" faith in divinity? For many Christian nation apologists, this argument is paramount to their overall thesis. Proving that the founders, or at least the majority of founders, were orthodox Christians -- i.e. that they believed in the Trinity, incarnation, the Bible's infallible nature, etc. -- would in essence add credence to their notion that America was indeed founded as a Christian nation. In contrast, those of the secular persuasion maintain that by disproving the orthodoxy of the founders -- especially the key founders -- they effectively punch enough holes into the Christian nation argument, thereby proving that America was founded as a secular nation.

One of the more interesting tidbits of debate in this ongoing saga centers on the religious nature of the various universities of the founding era. After all, these universities became the central "breeding grounds" for the development of the clergy in their respective denominations. As a result, virtually every single religious denomination endeavored to establish their own university, which was then dedicated to the instruction of their future clergy. In his book, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, David Holmes explains the nature and development of these universities:

Readers can gain a good indication of where religious groups were concentrated in colonial America by looking at its colleges. Because religious groups established all but one of the ten institutions of higher education in the colonies, the schools tended to be located where a denomination had strength. Thus in New England, Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth were Congregationalist, though Harvard later became Unitarian (a denomination that emerged from the liberal wing of Congregationalism). In Rhode Island, where several churches had strength, Baptists founded the College of Rhode Island (now Brown University). Since colleges were small, there were probably fewer than one thousand college students in America at any time. The colleges had the primary purposes of producing ministers and educated laity for their denominations, though in time all accepted members of other churches.

[...]

Upon entering the most northern of the middle colonies, New York, the visitors would have learned that the only college in the colony -- King's College (now Columbia University) -- was an Anglican institution. Its existence testified to the status of the Church of England as the colony's established church, though only in the area of densest population from Staten Island to Westchester County
(14-15).
Since the overwhelming majority of colonial universities were established by a particular religious denomination, Christian nation supporters maintain that those who attended such universities would naturally have received a heavy dose of religious instruction, thus increasing their devotion to Christian orthodoxy. In fact, David Barton, a popular Christian nation apologist, has seized upon the perceived orthodoxy of these various universities to defend his claim that 52 of the 55 signers to the Constitution were orthodox Christians. Barton defends this claim by pointing to the fact that roughly 27 of the signers attended one of the various universities of their day. As a result, Barton insinuates that these signers were, as a result of their education, prone to embrace and defend orthodox Christian teachings. This assertion has gained such wide notoriety among Christian nation advocates that even a former presidential candidate mentioned it in the course of a debate.

A large number of historians, however, are not convinced. For example, the Late Clinton Rossiter, professor of history at Cornell University had the following to say on the perceived orthodoxy of the founders:

Although it had its share of strenuous Christians ... the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country ... and most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit (The Grand Convention, pp. 147-148).
In addition, Chris Rodda, author of the book, Liars for Jesus and passionate "Barton-debunker" gives the following rebuttal to Barton's claim:

All this means, of course, is that twenty-seven of the signers of the Declaration went to college -- twenty at a total of five different American colleges, and seven in Europe. Twenty-four definitely received degrees; three don't appear to have graduated. Almost all of the twenty-seven studied either law or business, and one studied medicine.

Only one of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration was a minister. This was John Witherspoon, the president of Princeton University (at that time called the College of New Jersey). There were two others, William Williams and Robert Treat Paine, who did seriously study of theology at some point in their educations, but neither pursued the ministry as a career. Williams studied under his clergyman father for a time after college, but ended up becoming a merchant. Paine became a lawyer. As for the rest, they may have had to follow the religious rules of the colleges they attended -- mandatory chapel attendance, strict observation of the Sabbath, etc. -- but since their only options were to attend a denominational school and follow its rules or not go to college at all, no conclusions about their religious opinions can be drawn from this.
Despite the criticism, David Barton and others remain steadfast in their assertion that the majority of the founders were orthodox in their Christian belief, and that most received such instruction from the major universities of their day. But just how orthodox were these colleges?

Historian Sydney Ahlstrom, author of the book, A Religious History of the American People, points out that a large number of these once highly orthodox universities underwent a religious metamorphosis, which adopted the "heretical" Unitarian teachings that were becoming quite popular at the time. With the rise of preachers like Charles Chauncy, Samuel Clarke, Richard Price and others, the traditional piety of American religion began to be challenged. As Ahlstrom points out:

The central doctrinal characteristic of this liberal movement was that which gave its early adherents the name "Arminian." They assaulted the Reformed or Westminster conceptions of God, man, and the divine-human relationship, stressing God's role as the Architect and Governor of the universe, though also placing an unmistakably Christian emphasis on his fatherhood...God's grace and mercy were needed, to be sure,; yet with regard to the nature of man and human ability, these liberal ministers showed perhaps a greater measure of confidence than any significant group of churchmen in the Reformed tradition. And what buoyed their confidence above all was the exhilaration of national independence, the economic and social advances of the American people, and the great destiny (already manifest) of this New World democracy. The idea prevailed that "this new man, this American" was a new Adam, sinless, innocent -- mankind's great second chance. Nowhere was it given so well-rooted a Christian interpretation as among these New England liberals, whose ideas on man were far more determinative than the ideas about the Godhead which later won the name "Unitarian." (391-392).
As these new teachings made their way into the various universities of colonial America, a shift away from tradition Christian orthodoxy occurred. Ahlstrom notes that American universities began hiring more liberal instructors of theology, who themselves adhered more to the principles of Unitarianism than traditional orthodoxy. The Reverend William Channing's remarks capture just how prevalent Unitarian doctrine was becoming in America's universities. In a letter to his colleagues, Channing urged the continuation of Unitarian teaching in Boston colleges:

Let them learn the distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Many use these words without meaning, and are very zealous about sounds. Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But we all believe in these; we all believe that the Father sent the Son, and gives, to those that ask, the Holy Spirit. We are all Trinitarians, is this is belief in Trinitarianism. But it is not. The Trinitarian believes that the one God is three distinct persons called the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost; and he believes that each is the only true God, and yet that the three are only one God. This is Trinitarianism. The Unitarian believes that there is but one person possessing supreme Divinity, even the Father. This is the great distinction; let it be kept steadily in view...I am persuaded, that under these classes of high Unitarians many Christians ought to be ranked who call themselves orthodox and are Trinitarians...as such is the prevailing sentiment of our Universities (Ahlstrom, 395-396).
Even the case of James Madison reveals the changing nature in the religious teachings of American universities. From his youth, James Madison was raised in an orthodox Anglican home, where his father, James Madison Sr., was a vestryman in the church. When Madison was able to attend college, he and his family chose to send young James to the College of New Jersey (later Princeton). Instead of attending nearby William and Mary College, Madison chose to travel north and attend the College of New Jersey, because of its reputation for being “the principle training ground for American Presbyterian clergy” (Holmes, Faith of Founding Fathers, 92).

While attending college in New Jersey, Madison witnessed two evangelical revivals, which split the student body into two groups. Steven Waldman, author of Founding Faith, notes that these two groups (known as the Cliosophical Society and the American Whig Society) differed in how they perceived religion. The “Cliosophes” were more evangelical in their sentiments, while the American Whigs were more cerebral and Unitarian. Madison took part in the latter (Founding Faith, 96).

The fact that Madison favored an intellectual and Unitarian perspective on religion may suggest that the orthodox teachings of his youth were beginning to change. After all, Madison had begun to investigate the teachings of Deism while under the tutelage of Donald Robertson and Alexander Martin.

Whatever their actual religious leanings were, it is clear that American universities, just prior to the founding, were embroiled in a religious "revolution" of sorts, which overturned much of the traditional orthodoxy of the day. As a result, American universities became a breeding ground for "heretical" interpretations of Christianity, which may explain why some founders kept orthodoxy at a distance.

48 comments:

Jonathan Rowe said...

There appears to be a typo here that you may want to get rid of.

The “Cliosophes” were ]more evangelical in their sentiments, while the American Whigs were more cerebral and Unitarian. Madison took part in the latter (Founding Faith, 96).

Tom Van Dyke said...

Here at American Creation, we have argued that one of the central components to identifying America's true founding heritage rests on our understanding of Christian orthodoxy.

Some here argue that. Others argue that it's theological hairsplitting that obscures the greater truth, that the Founders believed in a God who interfered in the affairs of men, and spoke through the Bible.

So when William Channing argues for Unitarianism as different than Trinitarianism and writes,

"Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But we all believe in these; we all believe that the Father sent the Son, and gives, to those that ask, the Holy Spirit."

such theological squabbles are insignificant when set against the backdrop of history, and are just the kind of inter-sect battles that the American Founding refused to get involved in.

Nor should we. Belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost cannot be called anything but "Christian."

Brad Hart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brad Hart said...

TVD writes:

"such theological squabbles are insignificant when set against the backdrop of history, and are just the kind of inter-sect battles that the American Founding refused to get involved in."

Oh I think the founders were involved in as many inter-sect battles as we are today. Patrick Henry v. James Madison on the issue of religion in Virginia comes to mind.

This stuff was fought over just as much then as it is now.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I meant theological squabbles.

Brad Hart said...

TVD writes:

"So when William Channing argues for Unitarianism as different than Trinitarianism and writes,

"Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But we all believe in these; we all believe that the Father sent the Son, and gives, to those that ask, the Holy Spirit."

such theological squabbles are insignificant when set against the backdrop of history, and are just the kind of inter-sect battles that the American Founding refused to get involved in.

Nor should we. Belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost cannot be called anything but "Christian"


Channing wrote those words due to the fact that THIS WAS a major issue of division. Such squabbles are not irrelevant to history due to the fact that they are history. As Channing himself notes, this was a major issue for the time. Followrs of orthodox were not fond of the changes being brought on by the emergence of Unitairianism.

To ignore this would be to ignore a historical reality.

BTW, thanks for noting the typo, Jon. I'll fix it ASAP.

Jonathan Rowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Rowe said...

Belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost cannot be called anything but "Christian."

I'm willing to entertain the notion that non-orthodox Trinitarians are "Christian" and that's because as a non-believer I don't have a personal dog in this fight. Just as long as the orthodox can accept this reductio ad absurdum. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups often deemed "cults" (for instance Roy Masters' Foundation For Human Understanding) deny the Trinity but believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And they call themselves "Christian." If they are, I could call Jefferson, J. Adams and the other key Founders "Christian." The problem is the orthodox have started this fight of denying them the label Christian. Until there is virtual consensus among them that you can deny Trinitarian orthodoxy and still be a "Christian" this will always be an issue. And as long as folks like Barton argue things like "it's by virtue of our religion that America was Founded," those of us skeptical have every right to balk and will continue to do so.

I think Mormonism is a great test case or reductio ad absurdum. Evangelicals can continue to speak of their differences with Mormon theology; but as long as they say things like "Mormons aren't Christians but another religion" we have every right to hold their feet to the fire. That's why I respect Dr. Frazer so much. He would, of course, claim Mormons aren't Christians; but, accordingly, neither were the key Founders. He's not trying to have his cake and eat it too. As a philosopher I respect that.

Tom Van Dyke said...

My point is that Channing's is a theological squabble. If you can show where it was a significant political issue, I'm all ears.

Father Son & Holy Ghost is plenty Christian enough for rock'n'roll. I'm not inclined to get involved in these intramural battles between Christians, and wisely, neither were most of the Founders.

Brad Hart said...

Yes. Thanks, Jon. In addition to that, I would add that this is not a new fight, as evidenced by Rev. Channing's comments. Even during the founding era, people were very concerned about the fact that unitarian teachings were "straying" many away from traditional orthodoxy. This certainly helps to explain why Washington, Madison, Jefferson and others were very quiet about their religion.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, actually, Jon, you're just inserting yourself in these sectarian squabbles without any position yourself. One would think you just like stirring things up for your own reasons. ;-)

Our Founding Truth said...

Whatever their actual religious leanings were, it is clear that American universities, just prior to the founding, were embroiled in a religious "revolution" of sorts, which overturned much of the traditional orthodoxy of the day. As a result, American universities became a breeding ground for "heretical" interpretations of Christianity, which may explain why some founders kept orthodoxy at a distance.>

Brad:

This is about as biased as you can get. You've provided no facts at all, just speculation from biased "historians" on the same length as Brookhiser, who, earlier, I proved lied, or didn't understand what he was saying; this isn't going to get a pass with me.

All the seminaries adhered to their denominations' orthodoxy until you can provide facts to the contrary.

Nothing you posted even refutes Barton. As a matter of fact, Barton has all the evidence on his side. For the 52 out of 55 signers of the Constitution, you post a link giving a guy's opinion, whopdedo! Give me a break. Why didn't you post Barton's opinion?

For the signers of the DOI, the guy says, "so what?"

Nice job refuting Barton.

And Chris Rodda? Unreal, you should have used any atheist on the street!

The “Cliosophes” were ]more evangelical in their sentiments, while the American Whigs were more cerebral and Unitarian. Madison took part in the latter (Founding Faith, 96).>

Brad:

This is not the primary issue, the whigs were rebels who were more likely to revolt, that's all that proves.

I need facts or every seminary adhered to their denominations' othodoxy, which is only proper and logical for trustees to require.

Brad Hart said...

I see your point, OFT, but I find it hard to agree with you when you call every single historian ever cited on this blog "biased." So far you have blown off Richard Brookhiser, Ron Chernow, Gordon Wood, Gary Nash, and now Sydney Ahlstrom.

Now, your argument against Rodda I understand. I was simply attempting to provide the voice for the counter "Bartonians." In no way am I saying I agree with her positions on everything, but at the same time, I don't buy Barton.

So what historians do you like, OFT? Or are they all "biased?" What sources would you call unbiased?

Brad Hart said...

Tom:

I am beginning to believe that most of this "Christian Nation" argument simply boils down to an argument over semantics. If one prescribes to the notion that Christianity entails a specific set of beliefs in the Trinity, Biblical infallibility, etc., then the "Christian Nation" debate becomes an argument over those particular issues.

If, however, one does not give a care about those "theological squabbles" as you put it, then the argument is something else entirely. I for one tend to agree with you on this issue. As a Mormon I don't believe that a belief in the Trinity (as defined by the Nicene Creed) is relevant, nor do I prescribe to the notion that the Bible is infallible. As a result, I think that anyone who believes in Christ as their Savior has the right to call himself or herself a Christian. From your comments I am assuming that you also feel the same.

With that said, it obvious that many people don't hold that belief, and I certainly don't fault them for that. They have every right to believe -- or not believe -- in whatever they want. However, I do think that much of the "Christian Nation" argument deals with these issues of orthodoxy -- or at least that is the case for a large number of people. I guess this is why this issue becomes so muddled with particular definitions, doctrines, creeds, etc.

If we eliminate these definitions, I am 100% in your corner...the founders were Christians. If, however, we must use these particular doctrines to qualify one as a Christian I am completely against the Christian Nation thesis.

Again, to me this is boiling down to an argument over semantics.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, it seems we agree. I'd point out that the method, the approach, is at stake here. We can look at their differences, in which case "Christian" soon becomes meaningless, since each sect claims they are the true Christianity.

Or we look at what they all had in common, and if it fits a reasonable definition of "Christian," then so be it.

[I still have a weakness for "Judeo-Christian." It's admittedly a lousy term, but it does show an agreement on the nature of God and on the existence of revelation, and leaves the Jesus divinity stuff out of it.]

Our Founding Truth said...

I see your point, OFT, but I find it hard to agree with you when you call every single historian ever cited on this blog "biased." So far you have blown off Richard Brookhiser, Ron Chernow, Gordon Wood, Gary Nash, and now Sydney Ahlstrom.>

No Brad, that's not true. I called out Brookhiser because he said Hamilton didn't become religious until after his son died, which is a flat out lie! Hamilton's writings haven't changed one bit, ever!

I don't buy Barton.>

What did he do wrong? I haven't seen one fact posted that refutes him. Please, let's see the facts refuting Barton.

If one prescribes to the notion that Christianity entails a specific set of beliefs in the Trinity, Biblical infallibility, etc., then the "Christian Nation" debate becomes an argument over those particular issues.>

Brad:

It has entail those issues, it's what the Bible says. Jesus said He is God. What am I supposed to do, not believe it? Based on what?

It all comes down to what is the authority, the Bible or my mind, that's it. Here, is just one of many verses declaring Jesus to be God:

1 John 3:16 (King James Version)

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he [Jesus Christ] laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Either inerrancy is supreme, or you aren't a Christian. God made it easy for us.

Jonathan Rowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Rowe said...

No Brad, that's not true. I called out Brookhiser because he said Hamilton didn't become religious until after his son died, which is a flat out lie! Hamilton's writings haven't changed one bit, ever!

Hamilton's writings from 1775 to 1792 do not show him speaking in orthodox Trinitarian terms. And his utterances from 1793 till Philip's death show an opportunistic defense of Christianity, not personal belief in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.

There may be some mystery to what Hamilton believed during those years, but one thing is for sure: Other than a perhaps, brief flirtation with orthodoxy during his youth, no evidence suggests he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian until after Philip died.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Either inerrancy is supreme, or you aren't a Christian. God made it easy for us.

According to this premise which some might term a "false dicotomy" Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Wilson, Hamilton (until perhaps the very end of his life) and many many other Founders weren't "Christians" whatever they called themselves, and whatever they thought of themselves.

Brad Hart said...

OFT:

You proved my entire point. I guess we will have to repectfully agree to disagree. You can keep your Barton. I will stay with Ahlstrom, Brookhiser, etc.

Tom:

I agree with you 100%...for now! =)

Our Founding Truth said...

Other than a perhaps, brief flirtation with orthodoxy during his youth, no evidence suggests he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian until after Philip died.>

If I call myself a buddhist, and write that I'm a buddhist, but have never told you I believe in the fundamentals of buddhism, on what basis can you declare I'm not a true buddhist?

The above quote seems to be a contradiction, no? You say he briefly flirted with orthodoxy, but there's no evidence he was orthodox. If he's flirting with orthodoxy, he's writing about orthodoxy.

By the way, your quote is wrong because his best friend in college, Robert Troup, writes he was religious.

Here is orthodoxy of Hamilton:

I would, at the same time, have the President to recommend a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer. The occasion renders it proper, and religious ideas will be useful. I have this last measure at heart.
~ To Timothy Pickering (1798)

the institution of a festival to offer public worship to a courtesan decorated with the pompous title of "Goddess of Reason"; the congratulatory reception of impious children appearing in the hall of the convention to lisp blasphemy against the King of kings, are among the dreadful proofs of a conspiracy to establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity,—to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes, and to make a gloomy desert of the universe.
~ The Stand # III (1798; emphasis original)

An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture, but the being and attributes of GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained and cherished.

Fragment on French Revolution (unknown date of authorship)most likely 1794

The only way Brookhiser can be right is to quote different words than these after 1801, which doesn't exist.

Jonathan Rowe said...

OFT,

Plenty of folks since the very start have thought of or called themselves Christians without believing in the fundamentals. In case you haven't noticed, those are some strict fundamentals. The difference with Buddhism is that (though I'm not an expert in Buddhism) it doesn't have a strict test of fundamentals.

Under a looser test, i.e., thinking of and calling yourself a Christian without believing in the infallibility of the Bible, original sin the trinity, incarnation, atonement, eternal damnation, then yes, perhaps we could call Hamilton a "Christian."

What you reproduce as "smoking guns," Brookhiser after Adairr categorizes as opportunistic defense of Christianity without belief in orthodox doctrines. (The period from 1792 until Philip's death.) If Hamilton were an orthodox Christian during this time, he would have been a member of a church.

Hamilton was a theistic rationalist until after Philip died.

Our Founding Truth said...

In case you haven't noticed, those are some strict fundamentals.>

Jon:

They aren't my idea.

The difference with Buddhism is that (though I'm not an expert in Buddhism) it doesn't have a strict test of fundamentals.>

You're missing the point, however, I think you understand what I mean.

Under a looser test, i.e., thinking of and calling yourself a Christian without believing in the infallibility of the Bible, original sin the trinity, incarnation, atonement, eternal damnation, then yes, perhaps we could call Hamilton a "Christian.">

You can't go there, we cannot assume he denied the fundamentals without his specific words.

What you reproduce as "smoking guns," Brookhiser after Adairr categorizes as opportunistic defense of Christianity without belief in orthodox doctrines.>

This is incorrect interpretation, assumptions with direct quotes. Ask any attorney, that defense would never stand up in court, and I would bet my mortgage, I would win the case.

If Hamilton were an orthodox Christian during this time, he would have been a member of a church.>

This is a logical fallacy inadmissable in court.

Hamilton was a theistic rationalist until after Philip died.>

This is another assumption based on no direct quotes from Hamilton.

Hamilton called himself a Christian. You must have more than that, or you cannot be right. Get Brookhiser, those authors, and some attorneys on here, logic demands if I call myself a Christian, without my words denying the fundamentals the Bible declares, you cannot call me the contrary.

There is no where else for you to go, you need Hamilton's words.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jon:

A closer examination of this quote before Hamilton's son died refutes any notion that Hamilton was not a Christian, and no historian can refute it.

"An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture, but the being and attributes of GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained and cherished."

Fragment on French Revolution (unknown date of authorship)most likely 1794

The Gospel is supernatural that no one can refute, period! Hamilton is attacking anyone who says its an imposture. Rewards and punishments is what you say, the founders considered a universal element in their religion. Hamilton is reducing it to a secondary point, defering to supernatual revelation.

Our Founding Truth said...

"An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture, but the being and attributes of GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained and cherished." [bold face mine]

Fragment on French Revolution (unknown date of authorship)most likely 1794

Jonathan Rowe said...

OFT,

Every single historian I mentioned is familiar with the fragment and conclude it was an opportunistic defense of Christianity. Who are we to believe re the correct interpretation of Hamilton's words? The professional historians or you?

As I read his words, he's lamenting the decline of the French Revolution from strict deism to atheism. The theistic rationalits had a problem with that as well. John Adams or Joseph Priestley who denied the Trinity and infallibility of the Bible could have written the fragment on the French Revolution.

And you are wrong; you don't have evidence of Hamilton calling himself a Christian until the very end of his life, other than in perhaps a few nominal ways.

Barack Obama offers more explicit evidence of calling himself a Christian and believing something closer to orthodox theology than what we see from Hamilton before Philip's death.

Lindsey Shuman said...

I find that it reeks of arrogant presumption, OFT, when you insist that YOUR Christianity is THE Christianity. Nobody else here on this blog preaches, so I would hope you could do the same.

Our Founding Truth said...

Every single historian I mentioned is familiar with the fragment and conclude it was an opportunistic defense of Christianity. Who are we to believe re the correct interpretation of Hamilton's words? The professional historians or you?>

You don't believe anyone's words besides the authors'. I don't care if an historian has fifty PhD's, he's wrong. Assumptions don't work, this isn't a courtroom, or a debate. We have to go by a person's words.

As I read his words, he's lamenting the decline of the French Revolution from strict deism to atheism.>

Wrong, he's affirming the Gospel.

John Adams or Joseph Priestley who denied the Trinity and infallibility of the Bible could have written the fragment on the French Revolution.>

Wrong! Unitarians did not believe the Gospel.

Here is Hamilton calling himself a Christian, as well as the country:

It is our duty, therefore, as Free Citizens and Christians, not only to regard, with Compassion, the injustice done to those, among us, who are held as Slaves, but to endeavor, by lawful Ways and Means, to enable them to Share, equally with us, in that civil and religious Liberty, with which an indulgent Providence has blessed these States; and to which these, our Brethren, are by Nature, as much entitled as ourselves ...
~ Minutes of the New York Manumission Society (of which Hamilton was a chief founder) of 1784

The millenium is not nominal, it is orthodoxy:

The triumphs of vice are no new thing under the sun, and I fear, till the millennium comes, in spite of all our boasted light and purification, hypocrisy and treachery will continue to be the most successful commodities in the political market.
~ To Richard Harrison (1793)

Although it's in a courtroom, here is Hamilton affirming miracles and calling Christianity Holy, and true:

He [Gouverneur Morris] asks, "Why distrust the evidence of the Jews? Discredit them, and you destroy the Christian religion." Has he forgotten what this race once were, when, under the immediate government of God himself, they were selected as the witnesses of his miracles, and charged with the spirit of prophecy? or how they changed when, the remnants of the scattered tribes, they were the degraded, persecuted, reviled subjects of Rome, in all her resistless power, and pride, and pagan pomp, an isolated, tributary, and friendless people? Has the gentleman recurred to the past with his wonted accuracy? Is it so, that if we then degraded the Jews, we destroy the evidence of Christianity? Were not the witnesses of that pure and holy, happy and Heaven-approved faith, converts to that faith? [bold face mine]
~ Speech before the New York Supreme Court in the case Le Guen v. Gouverneur and Kemble (1800)
SOURCE: History of the Republic of the United States, as Traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton and His Contemporaries, John Church Hamilton, volume 7, page 711

Hamilton's words are consistent throughout his life. There is no evidence to show Hamilton lied about his faith.

Our Founding Truth said...

Hamilton's words have never changed, even from early in his life:

"Soul Ascending Into Bliss"

October 17, 1772

AH! whither, whither am I flown,
A wandering guest in worlds unknown?
What is that I see and hear?
What heav'nly music fills mine ear?
Etherial glories shine around;
More than Arabias sweets abound.

Hark! hark! a voice from yonder sky!
Methinks I hear my Saviour cry,
Come gentle spirit come away,
Com to thy Lord without delay;
For thee the gates of bliss unbar'd
Thy consant virtue to reward.


I come oh Lord! I mount, I fly,
On rapid wings I cleave the sky;
Stretch out thine arm and aid my flight;
For oh! I long to gain that height,
Where all celestial beings sing
Eternal praises to their King.

O Lamb of God! thrice gracious Lord
Now, now I feel how true thy word;
Translated to this happy place,
This blessed vision of thy face;
My soul shall all thy steps attend
In songs of triumph without end.

"Although it is impossible to determine beyond dispute that Hamilton was the author of this poem, it is attributed to him by J. C. Hamilton (John Church Hamilton, a son of Alexander Hamilton), who refers to it as 'a hymn,' but ascribes it to the period when Hamilton attended school in Elizabethtown, New Jersey (The Life of Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton, J.C., vol. I, 10 and The Works of Alexander Hamilton, editor Hamilton, J.C., vol. I, 48). In the Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress, there is a copy of an unidentified writing of the first three verses of this poem. At the end of the third verse is written in the same hand: "Written by A.H. when 18 years old." At the bottom of the page in still another handwriting is written: "This is a copy in pencil by Alex: Hamilton, my uncle – P.S." The "P.S" presumably refers to the Philip Schuyler who was the son of George L. Schuyler. George L. Schuyler had married Hamilton's granddaughter, Mary Hamilton, daughter of James A. Hamilton. The Alexander Hamilton who copied the poem was probably the son of James A. Hamilton, brother-in-law of George Schuyler and uncle of Philip Schuyler." --from The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, volume 1
http://ahpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/06/soul-ascending-into-bliss-october-17.html

Our Founding Truth said...

I find that it reeks of arrogant presumption, OFT, when you insist that YOUR Christianity is THE Christianity. Nobody else here on this blog preaches, so I would hope you could do the same.>

Lindsey:

It isn't my Christianity, it's God's Christianity written in the Bible. You, like Brad, don't have a problem with me, you have a problem with the Bible.

Lindsey Shuman said...

OFT:

Again, you are preaching. We get it. You believe the Bible. News Flash: others here don't...or like me do not believe it is perfect. Quit insisting on it. You've made your beliefs abundantly clear. Nobody else here on this blog does the same.

Our Founding Truth said...

Here, is another quote affirming Hamilton believed in Christianity, and despised theistic rationalism:

The objects of geometrical inquiry are so entirely abstracted from those pursuits which stir up and put in motion the unruly passions of the human heart, that mankind, without difficulty, adopt not only the more simple theorems of the science, but even those abstruse paradoxes which, however they may appear susceptible of demonstration, are at variance with the natural conceptions which the mind, without the aid of philosophy, would be led to entertain upon the subject. The infinite divisibility of matter, or, in other words, the infinite divisibility of a finite thing, extending even to the minutest atom, is a point agreed among geometricians, though not less incomprehensible to common-sense than any of those mysteries in religion, against which the batteries of infidelity have been so industriously leveled. [bold face mine]

Federalist 31

One quick note: When Hamilton makes reference to the "mysteries of religion," the religion he is obviously referring to is the CHRISTIAN religion. How do I know that? So far as I know, Islam, or Zen Buddhism were totally irrelevant to influencing Europe and America at that time, and so those kinds of religions would not have suffered under (quoting Hamilton) "the batteries of infidelity." "Infidelity" is not a positive term, so obviously Hamilton's use of that word, as well as the context of the portion of The Federalist which is being discussed makes it clear that Hamilton was DEFENDING, in some way or other, the validity of "religion." Today, we are exposed to different religions in this nation on a daily basis, but this was not the case in America. Usually, the Founding Fathers used the word "religion" to reference to Christianity, because an overwhelming majority of the people at the time considered themselves to be, really or nominally, Christian. And so far as I know, and so far as applies to the sphere of the Founders, no other religion suffered under the "industrious leveling" of the "batteries of infidelity" (at least not that the Founders were concerned about) than Christianity. Also bear in mind that Hamilton never evinced sympathy toward any other religion than Christianity. So here, he is discussing Christianity.

In addition to this, Hamilton cannot be a theistic rationalist, because he is obviously defending the "mysteries of religion," that is, those tenets of religion which cannot be completely solved by human reason, which theistic rationalism holds as the highest authority. So Hamilton seems to be expressing a religious and philosophical difference with theistic rationalism, or rationalism of any kind.
http://herkyreflects.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-didnt-say-it-hamilton-did.html

Our Founding Truth said...

Again, you are preaching. We get it. You believe the Bible. News Flash: others here don't...or like me do not believe it is perfect. Quit insisting on it. You've made your beliefs abundantly clear. Nobody else here on this blog does the same.>

Then stop claiming I'm trying to push my version of Christianity. Your problem is with God, not me.

You keep saying it's my beliefs because you can't deal with Jesus speaking to your heart. It is Jesus who is preaching to you, not me. I'm only repeating what He says.

By the way, I have an open mind as you do. There are no contradictions in the Bible, so why do you reject it?

Raven said...

I'm going to try being nice here, since Mr. Hart threatened me with excommunication.

OFT writes:

"Then stop claiming I'm trying to push my version of Christianity. Your problem is with God, not me.

You keep saying it's my beliefs because you can't deal with Jesus speaking to your heart. It is Jesus who is preaching to you, not me. I'm only repeating what He says.

By the way, I have an open mind as you do. There are no contradictions in the Bible, so why do you reject it?


OMG, OMG, OMG!!!

It's like trying to reason with a 3rd grader! No, you don't have an open mind. This much is blatantly obvious to everyone. If we took a poll, it would be unanimously against you on this matter.

You are pushing your religion, man. Maybe we just don't give a damn about being saved the way you are. And please PLEASE spare us the predictable response where you counter with, "it isn't my saving doctrine, it is the saving doctrine of Jesus." Yeah, we know.

Maybe you could try a little religious tolerance? Try looking at things from the angle of a non-evangelical fundamentalist? I mean this in sincerity and not as an attack.

For myself...or MESELF as my best friend Tom likes to cutely say, I am of the camp of Mr. BPABBOTT. I don't believe in religion or God. And yes, I know I will be going to hell in your opinion but hear me out. The only thing you achieve by being so bull-headed in your views is additional scorn. If you tried to put your religious views aside I bet you will see a new array of possibilities as it pertains to this blog's purpose.

As for those who scorn Mr. Hart, Rowe, Abbott:

It is people like OFT who should make you come to the realization of just how incompetent, unbending and bull-headed the "Christian nationalists" really are. I applaud them for refusing to turn the other cheek...or at least turning them the other butt cheek!

Our Founding Truth said...

If we took a poll, it would be unanimously against you on this matter.>

Logical fallacy. Since you brought it up, I'm going to play along. The majority in this country would reject your notion that Satan can possess and speak through people and animals. The Bible says a snake was the smartest of the animals, and Jesus spoke with Legion, who had possessed a man in Mark 5:9. Demon possession is common knowledge, and Satan doesn't need vocal cords to speak; it is of the Spirit realm, which is as John Locke said, "above our reason"

Maybe you could try a little religious tolerance? Try looking at things from the angle of a non-evangelical fundamentalist?>

Why would I do that, that theory isn't in the Bible. And Jesus told me to be a fundamentalist, for He is the fundamental, and I am to be like Him, the best I can.

The only thing you achieve by being so bull-headed in your views is additional scorn. If you tried to put your religious views aside I bet you will see a new array of possibilities as it pertains to this blog's purpose.>

I don't care about being politically correct, or attaining an agenda. I only care about truth because the foundation of truth is love. If I love someone, I'm going to tell them the truth.

Anonymous said...

The Bible says a snake was the smartest of the animals, and Jesus spoke with Legion, who had possessed a man in Mark 5:9. Demon possession is common knowledge, and Satan doesn't need vocal cords to speak; it is of the Spirit realm, which is as John Locke said, "above our reason"

LOL!!!

Fundamentalist Evangelicals = ROFL!!!!!

Our Founding Truth said...

The Bible says a snake was the smartest of the animals, and Jesus spoke with Legion, who had possessed a man in Mark 5:9. Demon possession is common knowledge, and Satan doesn't need vocal cords to speak; it is of the Spirit realm, which is as John Locke said, "above our reason"

LOL!!!

Fundamentalist Evangelicals = ROFL!!!!!>

And this is what you think of Jesus.

Those of you who want to attack Jesus, go to another blog, this isn't for you.

This blog is for learning about our founding fathers, who called themselves Christians, and the relationship between religion and our nation.

If you can't talk about that, move on.

Anonymous said...

You bring it on yourself. If you would just shut your trap about it nobody would get worked up.

Jonathan Rowe said...

OFT,

You still have a problem with overstating your case, reading things to the record that are not there and non-sequiturs (that is a logical fallacy that draws conclusions from facts that do not follow).

In addition, you failed to grasp my point about Buddhism v. Christianity. I'll accept, as a premise, your argument about your Christianity being the only true kind.

However, the evidence does NOT show that Hamilton believed anything close to this kind of Christianity until the very end of his life.

Calling or thinking of oneself as a Buddhist or Christian (as Barack Obama does) is enough to place one in the "formal or nominal" Christian box. Since YOUR form of Christianity is so strict and so demanding in its understanding of the fundamentals, much evidence is needed to prove one is in fact that kind of Christian. As the Bible says, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

If there is a form of Buddhism that has that strict and demanding a test, then I would conclude, no, most self identified Buddhists are not in fact Buddhists according to such a strict and demanding standard.

Your understanding of the Bible confirms what I say; reread those passages which speak of the "narrow path."

Our Founding Truth said...

However, the evidence does NOT show that Hamilton believed anything close to this kind of Christianity until the very end of his life.>

You are the only one that believes that. You can show no evidence whatsoever that Hamilton's words changed in any way. Even after his son died, he never claimed to be a personal Christian. Your position fails.

Calling or thinking of oneself as a Buddhist or Christian (as Barack Obama does) is enough to place one in the "formal or nominal" Christian box.>

There is only one kind of Christian; one the Bible speaks of.

Since YOUR form of Christianity is so strict and so demanding in its understanding of the fundamentals, much evidence is needed to prove one is in fact that kind of Christian.>

You keep saying "YOUR" You just don't get it. It's not what I say, it's what the Bible says. It's just like I Cor 2:15 says.

Why can't you understand it isn't my idea? I don't understand, do you think I wrote the Bible?

Why don't you write some posts, that without someone publicly declaring they adher to the five pillars of islam, they aren't a real muslim?

If there is a form of Buddhism that has that strict and demanding a test, then I would conclude, no, most self identified Buddhists are not in fact Buddhists according to such a strict and demanding standard.>

The difference between me and you, is, I will take a man at his word, if he calls himself a Christian, it's fine with me. If he writes, or says something that contradicts the fundamentals of Christianity, then I have a reason to call him out.

You, on the other hand, won't believe anyone that calls himself a Christian until they publicly declare they adhere to the fundamentals of Christianity.

You should publish what you think, or even tell your collegues, and see what kind of response you get.

bpabbott said...

OFT: "It isn't my Christianity, it's God's Christianity written in the Bible. You, like Brad, don't have a problem with me, you have a problem with the Bible."

Although Raven has already pointed this out, I'll reiterate ...

The central point is that when someone else refers to him/herself as a Christian they are not applying term in the same way you are or in the way you think the Bible does.

OFT: "[...] stop claiming I'm trying to push my version of Christianity. Your problem is with God, not me."

You can point your finger in God's direction, but I don't it won't convince anyone that God speaks through you. God is certainly capable of speaking for himself, which makes the implication that he speaks through you rather incredulous ... you might believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but you'll have to supply evidence that all the founders agree before applying that assumption here.

bpabbott said...

Anon to OFT: "Fundamentalist Evangelicals = ROFL!!!!"

OFT: "And this is what you think of Jesus."

Great ... God speaks through OFT and now the critique of OFT is an attack on Jesus himself ... hmmm, there are still a few hours left in the day, perhaps OFT will get around to implying he respresents the entire Trinity ;-)

Jonathan Rowe said...

You are the only one that believes that. You can show no evidence whatsoever that Hamilton's words changed in any way. Even after his son died, he never claimed to be a personal Christian. Your position fails. [Bold mine.]

This is why we can't take you seriously OFT. We just showed you that the consensus among historians from Douglass Adair, to Richard Brookhiser to Ron Chernow is that Hamilton didn't become an orthodox Christian until the very end of his life. But you begin your response with a ludicrous assertion that I am the only one who believes this.

Jonathan Rowe said...

OFT,

You've just told us that someone simply calling himself a Christian tells you that someone is a fundamentalist Christian like you are. You should tell YOUR colleagues at YOUR Church about this theory and see what they think of it.

I'll give you a little hint: 80% of the American population calls itself Christian and recent polls show most of them believe atheists can get into Heaven and that you don't necessarily need to accept Christ as personal savior in order to be saved.

Our Founding Truth said...

You are the only one that believes that. You can show no evidence whatsoever that Hamilton's words changed in any way. Even after his son died, he never claimed to be a personal Christian. Your position fails. [Bold mine.]

This is why we can't take you seriously OFT. We just showed you that the consensus among historians from Douglass Adair, to Richard Brookhiser to Ron Chernow is that Hamilton didn't become an orthodox Christian until the very end of his life.>

Jon, if you think that's what those historians believe, let's bet on it. We will put the money in an account that Tom or anyone else can hold.

Those historians believe Hamilton was not an Orthodox Christian.

You believe a man has to prove, in writing, to the world, that they believe in this list of fundamentals in order to be a Christian! Let's see if they buy your ludicrous notion that I have to write down on paper what I believe in order to be what I claim!

Matter of fact, your theory is so whacked out, I'll bet my house that every historian in this country would laugh at your theory.

Will you lay your mortgage on this theory?

Jonathan Rowe said...

You believe a man has to prove, in writing, to the world, that they believe in this list of fundamentals in order to be a Christian! Let's see if they buy your ludicrous notion that I have to write down on paper what I believe in order to be what I claim!

You might have a point if I actually said this. My own position is that we need to examine the preponderance of the evidence. But, for a person to be a Christian fundamentalist like you are (belief in the Bible as the inerrant, infallible word of God, all of the orthodox doctrines like original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, being bor-again/regenerate, belief those who don't accept Jesus as personal Lord & Savior thru a born again experience suffer eternal damnation) I need to see more than just some kind of formal "Christian" identity as in "I am a Christian." And I think you should too. Most people who identify as "Christians" don't believe all of this, both today and throughout history.

Hamilton gives no proof of coming close to this during the time he was involved founding the nation before Philip's death.

Our Founding Truth said...

I need to see more than just some kind of formal "Christian" identity as in "I am a Christian." And I think you should too. Most people who identify as "Christians" don't believe all of this, both today and throughout history.>

Jon:

Of course I want to see this, but if I don't have it, what are we supposed to do, make up an opinion?

Dude, give me a break. You can't compare today with 1776. You brought up some good points on the other post. Let's see those studies, that would educate us a lot, and answer, for your position, the burden of proof.

Anonymous said...

OFT = LOL