tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5164132074798490146..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Revival of the Election Sermon?Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66437633004130688292008-11-10T17:33:00.000-07:002008-11-10T17:33:00.000-07:00http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_4_urbanities-wh...http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_4_urbanities-why_the_foundin.htmlTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61623561318887304652008-11-10T14:00:00.000-07:002008-11-10T14:00:00.000-07:00"A group blog to promote discussion, debate and in..."<I>A group blog to promote discussion, debate and <B>insight</B> into the religious history of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.</I>"<BR/>.<BR/>I'd like to see a good blog that deals with how understanding Strauss can help us gain some "<B>insight</B> into the religious history of America's founding."<BR/>.<BR/>I think it is appropriate to this site.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10243610713524243322008-11-10T06:00:00.000-07:002008-11-10T06:00:00.000-07:00.BUT, as Fundamentalism is truly a purifying proce....<BR/><B>BUT</B>, as Fundamentalism is truly a <B>purifying process</B> in Christianity, it has to be seen as a continuation of the<B> Puritan </B>roots of American society.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80517836275518755492008-11-09T09:44:00.000-07:002008-11-09T09:44:00.000-07:00To think or claim that "fundamentalism" was a forc...To think or claim that "fundamentalism" was a force during the Founding era completely misunderstands Christian Fundamentalism which is an early twentieth century outgrowth from nineteenth century problems with Bible oriented sermonizing about the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ..Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63726429212824964462008-11-08T20:18:00.000-07:002008-11-08T20:18:00.000-07:00And as you know, for the normative, I lean toward ...And as you know, for the normative, I lean toward the pre-Reformation Christianity ["Catholicism" for a handy term] as well as Church of England Protestantism, which is basically Catholicism shed of popery. This gets us from the 1st century CE to the Founding, and accounts for a healthy chunk of the religious landscape of that time.<BR/><BR/>But I see your point, which is not necessarily "error." I admit my Calvin is weak, as is my Schaeffer. The link below reinforces your position, and some of your concerns about the present day.<BR/><BR/>http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/2006/02/on-francis-schaeffers-christian.html<BR/><BR/>But as I defend these things at least in the abstract, I think it's important to keep in mind that loyalty to our constitutional system cannot oblige a man to turn his back on his conscience, whether it be a religious conscience or one of reason or a combination of both. And as we are all citizen-rulers in this democracy, Aquinas-as-ethicist [not theologian here] argues that no man is guiltless who participates in the furtherance of evil. This should not be seen as an overly religious or even controversial assertion.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26192127138480383532008-11-08T19:37:00.000-07:002008-11-08T19:37:00.000-07:00Though I will admit Tom that if I fall into any ki...Though I will admit Tom that if I fall into any kind of error, one that perhaps Dr. Frazer falls into as well, is an all too ready presupposition to define orthodox Calvinistic Christianity as "real" or "historic" Christianity to the exclusion of other theological systems that might vie for the label. Jefferson and Adams and the unitarian preachers that followed them were insistent that they were "real" Christians as well. This was our friend EAI's major critique of my thesis.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32057772513857436882008-11-08T19:31:00.000-07:002008-11-08T19:31:00.000-07:00I agree with your analysis of Anglican-Episcopalia...I agree with your analysis of Anglican-Episcopalians and Lutherans. However, I disagree that there were no fundamentalists-evangelicals back then. It may be true that pre-millennial rapture kind of fundamentalism is a new thing. But Schaeffer et al. well fit with the "Calvinists" of the Founding era, with men like Morse, Hopkins, Dwight, et al. Fundamentalist today would claim Witherspoon. But Witherspoon engaged in too much Scottish Enlightenment influenced philosophical rationalism for their taste.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49521274165423120072008-11-08T18:26:00.000-07:002008-11-08T18:26:00.000-07:00Yes, you highlight my problem here. What we know ...Yes, you highlight my problem here. What we know today as fundamentalism/evangelicism didn't really exist until the 20th century. Francis Schaeffer, Karl Barth-type Lutheranism. The English-American Episcopalians were more "catholick" than they were Lutheran. The rest were all over the map.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61421911003527486692008-11-08T18:20:00.000-07:002008-11-08T18:20:00.000-07:00From what I have seen, the key Founders genuinely ...From what I have seen, the key Founders genuinely adored the Quakers' theology.<BR/><BR/>Re Romans 13, that's one part of it and I would admit the Christian sources that argued on behalf of the right to resist tyrannical Kings. There are other components as well. The natural law dynamic is compatible with a Thomistic Christianity but foreign to "Sola Scriptura" Francis Schaeffer kind of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>There's more though; look for it in a future post.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73018742036888723582008-11-08T18:07:00.000-07:002008-11-08T18:07:00.000-07:00Well, your topic of "'Whig' and '...Well, your topic of "'Whig' and 'republican' ideas peddled in these sermons" seems tangential at best to Trinitarianism. I was under the impression your nexus was revolution's compatibility with the Bible. As the British had already pitched out two kings during the 1600s, it seems to me the problem was theologically surmountable.<BR/><BR/>As for the Quakers, the accommodation may have been mostly expediency. I believe that Hamburger fellow covers the debate. I was looking for the article in First Things about the Founding discussions of freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion. Unfortunately it's behind the subscription wall. The result was that Quakers could decline compulsory military service, but not get out of paying taxes for things they disapproved of, like war.<BR/><BR/>Not specifically related, but this article on Hamburger may be of interest hereabouts:<BR/><BR/>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2112&var_recherche=hamburgerTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38281309752497923772008-11-08T17:46:00.000-07:002008-11-08T17:46:00.000-07:00I am going to have to double check Dr. Frazer's th...I am going to have to double check Dr. Frazer's thesis. I remember a chart that shows EVERY single established denomination INCLUDING the Roman Catholics (but I think minus the Quakers) adhered to a baseline orthodox Trinitarianism.<BR/><BR/>And indeed, out of all of them, the Quakers were most similar in religious creed (or lack thereof) to the unitarian/theistic rationalists who worshipped in Trinitarian Churches. And indeed, perhaps this sheds light on why the key Founders were so willing to give the Quakers a "pass" for their pacifism at a time when they needed all of the able bodied fighters they could get.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73666272670086338912008-11-08T16:56:00.000-07:002008-11-08T16:56:00.000-07:00I'm sure there are quotes, but first we must prove...I'm sure there are quotes, but first we must prove the existence of a normative "historic[al] biblical Christianity," or a normative Christianity, or even a normative Protestantism for them to transgress.<BR/><BR/>Considering the zillion sects flying around America at the Founding, that's a tough nut.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39148732992365056842008-11-08T15:38:00.000-07:002008-11-08T15:38:00.000-07:00Okay. I guess I should dig Dr. Frazer's thesis ou...Okay. I guess I should dig Dr. Frazer's thesis out and do some more work, start quoting from it and the primary sources to which it refers.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81586813969306579452008-11-08T13:19:00.000-07:002008-11-08T13:19:00.000-07:00One fascinating dynamic they invariably miss (and ...<I>One fascinating dynamic they invariably miss (and I invariably stress) is how many of the "Whig" and "republican" ideas peddled in these sermons are foreign to historic biblical Christianity and how often these preachers distorted the biblical record to justify their Whig-republican politics.</I><BR/><BR/>This lies at the heart of your current thesis, Jon, but I don't see how you've remotely proved it, nor that the construct "historic[al] biblical Christianity" even existed in any definitive form.<BR/><BR/>The "divine right of kings" reading of Romans 13 was a political construct pushed by monarchs such as James I, and had been discredited theologically before and during his reign.<BR/><BR/>Where are these "distortions of the biblical record?"Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com