tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4351525696020101821..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: In Honor of James Madison's 262 BirthdayBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90488624499856589472013-06-12T03:42:28.351-06:002013-06-12T03:42:28.351-06:00we also recommend you to use elette products for c...we also recommend you to use elette products for crack heals, dry skin, dry lips.....it provides you best beauty products with affordable prices.Elattehttp://buyprioriskincare.blogspot.innoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45146215045074226402013-05-16T00:36:02.220-06:002013-05-16T00:36:02.220-06:00Mercedes Star Diagnose
I enjoyed reading your arti...<br /><a href="http://diagnose24.com/" rel="nofollow">Mercedes Star Diagnose</a><br />I enjoyed reading your articles. This is truly a great read for me.Mercedes Star Diagnosehttp://diagnose24.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20727226013042348922013-03-30T06:47:35.258-06:002013-03-30T06:47:35.258-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Mack Solutionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16554563487363283772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35893356297072027602013-03-25T17:54:57.752-06:002013-03-25T17:54:57.752-06:00What definition do you observe there, Jon?What definition do you observe there, Jon?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88451456341056081332013-03-25T13:00:22.279-06:002013-03-25T13:00:22.279-06:00Yes, JRB and that diverse group defines the "...Yes, JRB and that diverse group defines the "general principles of Christianity" quote that Christian Nationalists are so fond of quoting out of context.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73449603392748904432013-03-25T10:55:32.202-06:002013-03-25T10:55:32.202-06:00Yes, it was a congested milieu as Adams attested t...Yes, it was a congested milieu as Adams attested to in a letter to Jefferson (June 28, 1813)(1):<br /><br /><i>"Who composed that army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants,2 (note for original cited source) Deists and Atheists, and Protestants 'qui ne croyent rien(2).'"</i><br /><br />1) http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2127&chapter=193514&layout=html&Itemid=27<br />2) Generally translated as Protetants who/that believe nothing.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73411589049570835812013-03-24T16:38:27.890-06:002013-03-24T16:38:27.890-06:00There were so many sects by the time of the Foundi...There were so many sects by the time of the Founding it's hard to say.<br /><br />“There were not just Presbyterians, but Old and New School Presbyterians, Cumberland Presbyterians, Springfield Presbyterians, Reformed Presbyterians, and Associated Presbyterians; not just Baptists, but General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Separate Baptists, Dutch River Baptists, Permanent Baptists, and Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Baptists.”<br />---Gordon WoodTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37455669993309882922013-03-24T15:42:36.105-06:002013-03-24T15:42:36.105-06:00I have brought this topic up before. That of wheth...I have brought this topic up before. That of whether the Founders were appalled by some of the doctrines of Christianity or Calvinism? Distinction must be made. Joe Winpisingerhttp://www.3rdwavelandsproperties.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64206567641654098072013-03-22T16:18:04.379-06:002013-03-22T16:18:04.379-06:00I think that you may have misunderstood my positio...I think that you may have misunderstood my position. My claim was not that Franklin affirmed original sin without affirming imputed guilt. My claim was that he rejected the concept of imputed guilt without rejecting the doctrine of original sin. I rely on the very paragraph which you provided as evidence for that claim, for there Franklin spoke only of imputed guilt and not, as you assert, of original sin. In order for you to claim that he blended the two together, you need to provide a quotation in which that can be seen.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13854647349359360762013-03-22T09:01:19.100-06:002013-03-22T09:01:19.100-06:00Original sin is more than just Adam and Eve making...Original sin is more than just Adam and Eve making a "first sin." It's a doctrine wherein something is passed down through a chain of succession and that humans are born subject to.<br /><br />Not all sources make the distinction to which WS refers. Franklin sure doesn't.<br /><br />Where does Franklin affirm the doctrine of original sin (sans imputed guilt)?Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63577865765902202132013-03-21T02:08:04.369-06:002013-03-21T02:08:04.369-06:00BTW, a very lively exchange at our friend John Fea...BTW, a very lively exchange at our friend John Fea's blog with up-and-coming scholar LD Burnett.<br /><br />http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2013/03/biography-and-american-religious-history.html<br /><br />It is a fact that those familiar with the Bible have an edge over those who do not.<br /><br />OTOH, they might take it too far...<br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88903078368801228792013-03-20T20:08:24.756-06:002013-03-20T20:08:24.756-06:00Is this the quote that you are asking me to read a...Is this the quote that you are asking me to read again?<br /><br /><i>But lest they shou’d imagine that one of their strongest Objections hinted at here, and elsewhere, is designedly overlook’d, as being unanswerable, viz. our lost and undone State by Nature, as it is commonly call’d, proceeding undoubtedly from the <b>Imputation of</b> old Father Adam’s first <b>Guilt</b>. To this I answer once for all, that I look upon this Opinion every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. ’Tis absurd in it self, and therefore cannot be father’d upon the Christian Religion as deliver’d in the Gospel. Moral <b>Guilt</b> is so personal a Thing, that it cannot possibly in the Nature of Things be transferr’d from one Man to Myriads of others, that were no way accessary to it. And to suppose a Man liable to Punishment upon account of the <b>Guilt</b> of another, is unreasonable; and actually to punish him for it, is unjust and cruel.</i> (emphasis mine)<br /><br />If so, perhaps you could explain where you have discovered a reference to original sin in this statement.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-92212055264926246212013-03-20T18:52:03.622-06:002013-03-20T18:52:03.622-06:00Read the ENTIRE Franklin's quote again. He is...Read the ENTIRE Franklin's quote again. He is not making the distinction between original sin and imputed guilt that WS makes. Franklin, like a lot of folks, lumps the two doctrines together as he rejects it. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21191508024143071012013-03-20T17:24:17.647-06:002013-03-20T17:24:17.647-06:00When you say that the concept of original sin migh...When you say that the concept of original sin might be unbiblical, are you referring to the idea that there was an original or first sin, or are you referring to the Calvinistic teaching that the guilt of that first sin is imputed to every individual? The first of these two is entirely biblical, but I completely agree with the conclusion that the second is "arguably unbiblical," and I have no problem with concluding that Franklin would also agree.<br /><br />Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20440690373092048482013-03-20T16:54:19.531-06:002013-03-20T16:54:19.531-06:00What did Franklin say that caused you to conclude ...<i>What did Franklin say that caused you to conclude that he rejected the idea of original sin?</i><br /><br />You're right, WS. I must have taken Jon's word for it, based on the Hemphill Affair writings. No, we cannot take those writings as his beliefs, although we might take them as hints. <br /><br />In this case, I'm unaware of anything in Franklin's canon that would support a belief in original sin, and <i>in my opinion</i>, a belief in that doctrine would be totally out of character for him, both in his inductive sentiments about how God works and his near-complete avoidance of theology and doctrine. [The concept of original sin is at least arguably unbiblical.]<br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50215315520040477862013-03-20T09:09:06.751-06:002013-03-20T09:09:06.751-06:00I would hardly consider that a promotion of Ariani...I would hardly consider that a promotion of Arianism, Jon. Franklin was asked about a church preaching "rational Christianity," and he did not even know if there were such a church in his town. He only offered to take his friend to Mr. Price's church as a favor to that friend. There is nothing in this letter to indicate that Franklin agreed with Price's teachings, and in fact, it appears that Franklin did not keep up with Price's ministry to any degree of significance since he had no idea of what Price's schedule might be for the upcoming Sunday. <br /><br />Thank you for providing the quote from Franklin's defense of Hemphill. My point in asking for it was to show that the claim that Franklin denied the doctrine of original sin is based on a statement from that pamphlet. This supports my previous statement that both sides agree that these pamphlets contain Franklin's own opinions.<br /><br />By the way, the doctrine which he rejected in that paragraph was not the doctrine of original sin as so many have supposed. Rather, Franklin was arguing against the Calvinistic doctrine of imputed guilt. This doctrine is very similar to that of original sin, but it differs in a few important particulars which Franklin claimed were erroneous.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68386212752894278072013-03-20T07:25:03.355-06:002013-03-20T07:25:03.355-06:00If Franklin were not an Arian, he sure as heck did...If Franklin were not an Arian, he sure as heck didn't seem to have a problem with them as he promoted the notable Arian Richard Price:<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/08/ben-franklin-promotes-rational.htmlJonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78931124715106500352013-03-20T06:23:00.406-06:002013-03-20T06:23:00.406-06:00From his 1735 A Defense of Mr. Hemphill’s Observat...From his 1735 A Defense of Mr. Hemphill’s Observations:<br /><br /> "But lest they shou’d imagine that one of their strongest Objections hinted at here, and elsewhere, is designedly overlook’d, as being unanswerable, viz. our lost and undone State by Nature, as it is commonly call’d, proceeding undoubtedly from the Imputation of old Father Adam’s first Guilt. To this I answer once for all, that I look upon this Opinion every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. ’Tis absurd in it self, and therefore cannot be father’d upon the Christian Religion as deliver’d in the Gospel. Moral Guilt is so personal a Thing, that it cannot possibly in the Nature of Things be transferr’d from one Man to Myriads of others, that were no way accessary to it. And to suppose a Man liable to Punishment upon account of the Guilt of another, is unreasonable; and actually to punish him for it, is unjust and cruel."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19120129461686800592013-03-20T05:38:23.977-06:002013-03-20T05:38:23.977-06:00I have read your link, Tom, and while my previous ...I have read your link, Tom, and while my previous comment was directed more towards Jon, I thought that it addressed your position as well. However, let me ask a question of yourself in particular. You mentioned that Franklin rejected the concept of original sin, but you did not provide a source for that claim. What did Franklin say that caused you to conclude that he rejected the idea of original sin?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69013048413933089152013-03-20T01:12:25.486-06:002013-03-20T01:12:25.486-06:00both sides of the argument accept Franklin's p...<i> both sides of the argument accept Franklin's pamphlets in defense of Hemphill as expressions of Franklin's own opinions.</i><br /><br />Not this side of the argument.<br /><br /><i>All of this is consistent with the view that Franklin rejected deism and had fully committed himself to Christianity by the time of his defense of Hemphill in 1735.</i><br /><br />More likely is that Franklin committed himself to NO view. When he writes<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />keep in mind that he may mean this provisionally: IF the Scriptures are true, THIS is what happens on Judgment Day.<br /><br />Tellya the truth, this is always how I thought a <i>true</i> agnostic should live, at least mindful of Pascal's Wager.<br /><br />Take Franklin at his word, then, when he says in the very sentence before:<br /><br /><i>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.</i>.<br /><br />That's the real Franklin, until the day he died.<br />___________________<br /><br />WS, I'll try not to be insulted that you don't check my links. ;-(<br />We should not overshoot the evidence, <br /><br /><i> Franklin wrote, "Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such;" and he concluded that it was "the kind hand of Providence" which preserved him during this "dangerous time of youth."</i><br /><br />I use the full quote above in this thread:<br /><br /><i>"And this persuasion, with the kind hand of Providence, <b>or</b> some guardian angel, <b>or</b> accidental favourable circumstances and situations, <b>or</b> all together, preserved me through this dangerous time of youth..."</i><br /><br />Bold face mine. Again, I think you'll find if you read Franklin as being <i>open</i> [truly agnostic, "I don't know"], his apparent contradictions aren't contradictions atall, they're just leaving such questions open. Although I think his God is ultimately the God of the Bible [or at least indistinguishable from Him], Franklin prefers not to pin himself down on stuff he lacks certainty on. In this way he certainly is a rationalist.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73150083746765500752013-03-20T00:26:48.964-06:002013-03-20T00:26:48.964-06:00You will see in this my notion of good works, that...<i>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. He that for giving a draught of water to a thirsty person, should expect to be paid with a good plantation, would be modest in his demands, compared with those who think they deserve heaven for the little good they do on earth. Even the mixt imperfect pleasures we enjoy in this world, are rather from God’s goodness than our merit: how much more such happiness of heaven!</i><br /><br />All of this is consistent with the view that Franklin rejected deism and had fully committed himself to Christianity by the time of his defense of Hemphill in 1735. From that point on, there is a decided change in Franklin's religious statements. In place of the feeble reasonings of a young deist, we find a solid faith in the work of Christ and a firm reliance on the teachings of the Scriptures. In fact, Franklin was so convinced of the truth of the Bible that he argued in the Constitutional Convention that "We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers." The evidence for Franklin's conversion is far too solid and secure to be shaken by the single admission of a particular doubt in his old age. <br />Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43511608984346519352013-03-20T00:26:22.406-06:002013-03-20T00:26:22.406-06:00Frazer said of this letter that Franklin here &quo...Frazer said of this letter that Franklin here "confessed that his mother 'grieves' over his denial of the Trinity," but this conclusion ignores what we have previously learned about Franklin's beliefs. This letter notes that only one of Mrs. Franklin's sons was an Arian, but the other was an Arminian. Frazer completely ignores this distinction and merely assumes that Benjamin Franklin must be the Arian son. This is a remarkable oversight, for just ten pages earlier in his book, Frazer went to great lengths to prove that Benjamin Franklin was not a Calvinist. And indeed he was not, for we have already seen that he wrote of the free will of man in his 1732 article on the providence of God. Thus, Benjamin Franklin was most likely the son which Mrs. Franklin thought to be an Arminian, and it was his brother who had denied the existence of the Trinity. Aside from this, however, the thing to note about this letter is that Franklin responded to his mother's concerns by quoting Scripture. This was never his practice prior to his defense of Hemphill, and it serves to prove that his conversion to Christianity was genuine.<br /><br />Of course, it could be argued that this letter marks a regression from the bold statement of faith in the Hemphill pamphlets because Franklin here writes that we will be judged based on our actions, but such an objection would be very much mistaken. In fact, that is the very same conclusion that Franklin's sister presented to him in a letter in 1743. Franklin's response to his sister's apprehensions should be sufficient to remove any doubt of his conversion. Here is what he wrote:<br /><br /><i>You express yourself as if you thought I was against Worshipping of God, and believed Good Works would merit Heaven; which are both Fancies of your own, I think, without Foundation. I am so far from thinking that God is not to be worshipped, that I have compos’d and wrote a whole Book of Devotions for my own Use: And I imagine there are few, if any, in the World, so weake as to imagine, that the little Good we can do here, can merit so vast a Reward hereafter. There are some Things in your New England Doctrines and Worship, which I do not agree with, but I do not therefore condemn them, or desire to shake your Belief or Practice of them. We may dislike things that are nevertheless right in themselves. I would only have you make me the same Allowances, and have a better Opinion both of Morality and your Brother. Read the Pages of Mr. Edward’s late Book entitled Some Thoughts concerning the present Revival of Religion in NE. from 367 to 375; and when you judge of others, if you can perceive the Fruit to be good, don’t terrify your self that the Tree may be evil, but be assur’d it is not so; for you know who has said, Men do not gather Grapes of Thorns or Figs of Thistles.</i><br /><br />Here, Franklin provides a direct denial of the claim that he was relying on good works to gain entrance into Heaven, and to further allay the fears of his sister, he directs her to discover his beliefs about morality in the pages of Jonathan Edwards' account of the revival in New England. Within the pages that Franklin listed, is found a remarkable explanation of the proper role of morality in the life of the believer. Even today, Edwards is well known as one of the greatest theologians in America, and the deference to his teachings on morality indicates that Franklin had an appropriately Christian view of that subject. This is even further supported by a letter which Franklin wrote to George Whitefield in 1753 in which he said:<br />Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27724801062481066932013-03-20T00:25:32.696-06:002013-03-20T00:25:32.696-06:00There is another even more significant change whic...There is another even more significant change which should be noted at this point. In the dialogue, S. made the statement, "I suppose you think no Doctrine fit to be preached in a Christian Congregation, but such as Christ and his Apostles used to preach," and a few paragraphs later, he said, "Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher." If these are the opinions of Franklin himself, then this dialogue marks the first recorded instance that I know of in which he referred to Jesus as the Savior and as the Christ. <br /><br />In addition to publishing the "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians," Franklin also published three pamphlets in defense of Hemphill. In those pamphlets, we find Franklin shedding the last vestiges of his previously held deism and fully adopting biblical Christianity. The third of these pamphlets was entitled "A Defense of Mr. Hemphill's Observations," and in it, Franklin declared in no uncertain terms 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." Here at last, he had arrived at pure Christian doctrine. He finally understood that there is a God, that sin separates men from Him, that no man is virtuous enough to regain fellowship with God, that the penalty for this failure is death, that Christ paid that penalty for all men through His own death on the cross and that it is only by placing faith in His sacrifice and repenting of our own failures that we can be brought back into favor with God. Here, Franklin speaks not as a mere deist or theist but as a true follower of Jesus Christ. <br /><br />Now, some may claim that these pamphlets in defense of Hemphill were not intended to convey Franklin's personal beliefs. Ironically, however, many of those same individuals have used misconstrued quotes from these very same pamphlets in support of their claims that Franklin rejected Christianity. Frazer, for example, wrote the following in his book on the founding fathers:<br /><br /><i>In his defense of Hemphill, Franklin attacked the orthodox image of God as a righteous judge who must be satisfied as, in the words of one scholar, "repugnant both to reason and to God." On would expect him to oppose the doctrine that followed from that presupposition -- that is, that Christ came to offer an acceptable sacrifice. Indeed, Franklin tried to defend Hemphill against the charge that he denied "the true and proper satisfaction of Christ" by diminishing its significance and by changing the subject.</i><br /><br />Frazer's conclusion is clearly contradicted by the above quote from Franklin's pamphlet, but his statement indicates that both sides of the argument accept Franklin's pamphlets in defense of Hemphill as expressions of Franklin's own opinions.<br /><br />As additional evidence of this, we could note that Franklin's writings on religion subsequent to his defense of Hemphill were significantly different from his writings before that time. For example, three years after Hemphill's trial, Franklin wrote a letter to his parents in which he briefly mentioned his new religious beliefs. Here is what he said:<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br />Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32210091085057620932013-03-20T00:25:00.390-06:002013-03-20T00:25:00.390-06:00This brings us to the consideration of Franklin...This brings us to the consideration of Franklin's 1732 article "On the Providence of God in the Government of the World" in which he argued for the intervention of God in the affairs of men. This argument agrees with Franklin's "Doctrine" of the previous year in that it was predicated on "the Existence of a Deity and that he is the Creator of the Universe." It also agreed with that "Doctrine" in the claim that God is infinitely wise, powerful and good. The 1732 article, however, introduced several additional concepts which are not seen in the remnants of the earlier "Doctrine," though they might have been in the original. In particular, Fanklin's 1732 article included the conclusion "that the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc’d in the Course of Nature, or by the Free Agency of Men." This conclusion marks the first indication that Franklin recognized God's direct interference in the actions of men, and it is also the first evidence of Franklin's acknowledgement of the free will of man. This article also marks the first record we have of Franklin saying that men should pray to God for "his Favour and Protection." His previous prayer in the "Articles of Belief" was primarily focused on praising God, and the request in that prayer was only for aid in maintaining good virtue. The 1732 article, by contrast, stated that men should pray for God's direct intervention in their lives. <br /><br />About two years after Franklin's article on the providence of God, a new preacher by the name of Hemphill arrived in Philadelphia, and Franklin wrote in his autobiography that "I became one of his constant hearers." It was shortly after Mr. Hemphill's arrival that Franklin published an article entitled "Self-Denial is not the Essence of Virtue." In that article, we find Franklin denying a doctrine that had been fundamental to his beliefs up to this time. He denied his previous claim that men would be rewarded by God according to their virtues. In this February 18, 1735, article, he wrote that "We do not pretend to merit any thing of God, for he is above our Services; and the Benefits he confers on us, are the Effects of his Goodness and Bounty." <br /><br />Less than two months later, the <i>Gazette</i> published an article that many attribute to Franklin entitled "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians." If, as is frequently assumed, the character in this dialogue represented by the initial S. conveys Franklin's own opinions, then this dialogue shows that at this point in 1735, Franklin was still struggling with the proper relationship between virtue and belief in regards to salvation. In the dialogue, S. claims that "Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End." S. also said, "The whole, says he, need not a Physician, but they that are sick; and, I come not to call the Righteous, but Sinners, to Repentance: Does not this imply, that there were good Men, who, without Faith in him, were in a State of Salvation?" We will see in a moment that Franklin quickly resolved this error, but it is important to note that if Franklin actually did use S. to convey his own opinions, then this dialogue marks the first time that Franklin chose to support his theological writings with quotes from Scripture. Nor is this statement the only reference to the Bible in the dialogue. Throughout the course of the discussion, S. directly quoted no less than ten passages of Scripture in support of his position. This is a significant change from Franklin's earlier statement that "Revelation had indeed no weight with me." <br />Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56921955221672133472013-03-20T00:23:53.531-06:002013-03-20T00:23:53.531-06:00Let me apologize for the length of the following r...Let me apologize for the length of the following response. I began writing, and I just couldn't stop until I had written out the whole thing. Also, I have not taken the time to include any links, but all of the statements should be available via my previously provided link to the Franklin Papers. With that said, here is my response:<br /><br />Did you notice the date on that statement, Jon. Franklin composed his "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion" at the ripe old age of twenty-two. With this in mind, it would be reasonable to consider a few facts about Franklin's beliefs. <br /><br />According to his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin decided to become a deist at the age of fifteen. However, he then wrote that "I began to suspect that this doctrine, though it might be true, was not very useful." Franklin moved to London at the age of seventeen while still a deist, and during that stay, he published a pamphlet with the motto, "Whatever is, is right." It was during this time, that Franklin began to doubt the truth of deism, and he recorded in his autobiography that he "doubted whether some error had not insinuated itself unperceived into my argument." He then said that he "grew convinced that truth, sincerity, and integrity in dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance to the felicity of life." It was about his conclusions of this time that Franklin wrote, "Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such;" and he concluded that it was "the kind hand of Providence" which preserved him during this "dangerous time of youth."<br /><br />The "Articles of Belief" which you quoted was written just two years after Franklin returned from London, and its wording is consistent with the time period after his rejection of deism but before his acceptance of the Bible as revelation from God. This transitional phase appears to have continued through 1731 when Franklin wrote his outline of "Doctrine to be Preached." In the mere ten lines of this outline that have been recovered, there is no reference to Scripture. There is, however, a marked difference between this outline and the "Articles of Belief" which Franklin had written three years prior. In this outline, Franklin completely abandoned his earlier concept of God as merely the God of our solar system with other God's above Him and instead fully embraced a single God who he identified as the "Father of the Universe." Franklin's "Doctrine" of 1731 described God as "infinitely good, Powerful and wise" as well as "omnipresent." At this time, Franklin also recognized the existence of an afterlife and wrote that men "are made more happy or miserable after this Life according to their Actions."Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.com