tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post8212900040854023662..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: How America Is and Is NOT a "Protestant Nation"Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82409583692143619662009-06-14T19:26:22.937-06:002009-06-14T19:26:22.937-06:00Well, it's complicated. If you examine the ar...Well, it's complicated. If you examine the arguments without hostility, you'll see that in the end it's up to God.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85105177572324596862009-06-14T07:58:36.178-06:002009-06-14T07:58:36.178-06:00I think there's a difference between believing...I think there's a difference between believing the Church provides salvation and that Christ provides salvation but the RCC is the only <i>means</i> to get there.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50144934865702770892009-06-14T06:21:03.308-06:002009-06-14T06:21:03.308-06:00.
Personally, I suppose I don't know what the ....<br />Personally, I suppose I don't know what the Catholic Church teaches today.<br />.<br />But, the Catholic Church most certainly took it upon itself to be the sole proprietor of all things spiritual and religious in the many centuries leading up to the Founding Era.<br />.<br />So, maybe I should have written, "During the Colonial period, the Catholic Church was perceived by the majority of people as giving itself the authority for <b>being in charge</b> of all things religious and spiritual as well as the common good of the people." Or, something close to that. More than that, the perceptions were that the Catholic hierarchy would lay down a <b>centralized</b> authority that would intrude on nearly every aspect of life.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60615378710252231272009-06-14T02:44:02.578-06:002009-06-14T02:44:02.578-06:00Catholicism teaches that the Church provides Salva...<i>Catholicism teaches that the Church provides Salvation.</i>..<br /><br />No it doesn't.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23794899504611510302009-06-13T18:51:18.646-06:002009-06-13T18:51:18.646-06:00.
I wonder if a non-Christian can comprehend the s....<br />I wonder if a non-Christian can comprehend the situation regarding Reformed Protestantism and Catholicism.<br /><br />Unless I am completely mistaken it was that situation exactly which fueled the reformation by the way the formal "Church" was preempted.<br />.<br />I'm quite deep into <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Myth-American-Individualism-Barry-Shain/dp/0691029121" rel="nofollow">Shain’s book</a>. Is anyone here familiar with his arguments? That would be good to know before I go any further.<br /><br />Aside from that, I was raised in a protestant situation--Fundamental Baptis--and I easily understand and know where Shain is coming from as I have lived it.<br />.<br />We can take much into consideration--the Great Awakening for example and apply it to what I'm saying here.<br /><br />Catholicism teaches that the Church provides Salvation; whereas Reformed Protestantism teaches a one on one relationship.<br />.<br />These are extremely important points and cannot be figured out by going off on a tangent regarding what this or that philosopher had to say.<br />.<br />Unless I am completely mistaken.<br /><br />It will be interesting to get Brian in on this issue.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4807849921196723552009-06-13T14:47:59.273-06:002009-06-13T14:47:59.273-06:00Yes, I think you're absolutely correct here, B...Yes, I think you're absolutely correct here, Ben. John Jay echoes John Locke himself, who wanted Catholics barred from public life because their true allegiance was to a "foreign prince." [This argument persisted through the 1800s, and JFK still had to deal with that perception. And in Britain itself, Tony Blair found it prudent to wait until he left the office to convert to Catholicism!]<br /><br />So too, the anti-clericalism of the Founding extended to Protestant clerics as well, especially those pushy Presbyterians. And the colonists opposed the Crown appointing C of E bishops to come over here, as no doubt they'd have their fingers in the political pie before long too.<br /><br />This is the proper understanding of "church" in "church and state," not the conflation of "church" with religious belief.<br /><br />Although there was some ethnic bigotry, mostly in the 1800s, for example, <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing<br /><br />the longer history of American anti-Catholicism is probably best understood as anti-papism and anti-clericalism, since few---even today---actually understand Catholic theology and Thomistic philosophy, including many or most Catholics. It's been my contention that the Founding generation was steeped in Thomism/natural law philosophy, but were mostly unaware of it, because they got it second-hand from respectable Protestants like Richard Hooker, Algernon Sidney, Hugo Grotius, and at least exoterically, John Locke.<br /><br />And although in modern days there has been some principled theological disagreement against Thomism by Protestants like Francis Schaeffer [via the estimable theologian Karl Barth], on the whole anti-Catholicism lives only on the fringes with the John Hagees, and of course with the secular left.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85599362097185826192009-06-13T13:51:36.645-06:002009-06-13T13:51:36.645-06:00Phil, I think you can find evidence regarding anti...Phil, I think you can find evidence regarding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States#Origins" rel="nofollow">anti-Catholicism sentiments during the founding period</a>.<br /><br /><i>Some of America's Founding Fathers had anti-clerical beliefs. For example, in 1788, John Jay urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil." [6]. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government,"[7] and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."[8]</i><br /><br />I think it woud be interesting to examine John Jay's opinion further. If his motives were not simple bigotry, then his position appears to have been in support of the concept of separation.<br /><br />In any event, the think I wanted to point out is that I'm not certain these examples are so much anti-Catholicism as they are a defense of sovereignty from religous authorities. Meaning that is how the church operated that was most offsensive/concerning, not the nature of the Catholic faith.<br /><br />p.s. by the way, I don't mean to imply that I'm arguing against you as you're comments don't give me an indication of your opinion on the origins of the fouding periods anti-Catholicism.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49569410220096118322009-06-13T13:28:40.929-06:002009-06-13T13:28:40.929-06:00Hm. I don't know exactly what you mean by &qu...Hm. I don't know exactly what you mean by "structure," Phil. Certainly the Founding was anti-papist---wouldn't that mean they wanted the central government to be as non-authoritarian as possible?<br /><br />But is papism synonymous with what Leo Strauss calls "Roman Catholic social science" or what we call Thomism? Here we get an equivocation of terms.<br /><br />When we bring in Thomism/natural law and other "Catholic" <i>thought</i> [as opposed to simply the claim of papal authority over theological doctrine, the "Magisterium"], we see that "Protestant" thought is an even less cohesive concept---if everybody interprets the Bible for themselves, well, first you get Baptists departing from the traditional understanding of the Eucharist, and [inevitably?] unitarianism, where Jesus isn't even God anymore.<br /><br />And that's the irony of "Protestantism," that it's a leaky umbrella over both the Anglicans, thoroughly anti-papist but still 90% "Catholic" on most other things, and unitarianism, which would have appalled the Big Kahunas of "Protestantism," Luther and Calvin.<br /><br />But that's a theological argument. Still, the most orthodox "Protestant" preachers of the Founding era were hostile to unitarianism, just as [I submit] the Christian unitarians like Ezra Stiles would be appalled at today's Unitarian Universalism turning their pulpit over to a Wiccan.<br /><br />Catholicism's are just more tightly drawn, but everybody has their limits, it seems. Well, except the UUs, although I'm not acquainted with their stand on Satanism.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6197326736513667292009-06-13T06:52:17.681-06:002009-06-13T06:52:17.681-06:00.
Tom, if Congregationalism, Puritanism, Baptists,....<br />Tom, if Congregationalism, Puritanism, Baptists, the entire Foundational Era Reformed Protestantism was anything, it was anti-Catholic as far as structure is concerned.<br />.<br />And, the Founding of America is all about structure.<br />.<br />Unless I am completely mistaken..<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10833820601088175692009-06-12T18:15:58.004-06:002009-06-12T18:15:58.004-06:00matters such as original sin, trinity, eternal dam...<i>matters such as original sin, trinity, eternal damnation, and which parts of the Bible are valid are consigned to the realm of the private conscience and are driven from politics; they play no part in America's political-theological foundation.</i>"<br /><br /><i>You are beginning to hit the nail on the head</i>!<br /><br />Well, Pinky, I'm glad that excites you. However, few if any claim the Trinity, etc. are at America's political-theological foundation.<br /><br />Hence, the term "Judeo-Christian," which even appears at least 10 times on David Barton's website. It's not really an issue and hasn't been.<br /><br />As for Jon slipping in "which parts of the Bible are valid," except for Jefferson's razor blade and a few remarks from JAdams and Franklin, that there was much of a controversy has not yet been adequately supported with evidence. As illustrated with "100 scriptural arguments for the Unitarian Faith," going outside the Bible was unnecessary for them to have theological differences [and disputes!].<br /><br />As far as your perception of Catholicism encroaching on American Protestantism [and your objection to it], I'm sure your further thoughts would be entertaining.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8328233669442085452009-06-12T17:13:49.412-06:002009-06-12T17:13:49.412-06:00.
If I were an actively involved Protestant Christ....<br />If I were an actively involved Protestant Christian, I would be "up in arms" and raising hell about it.<br />.<br />In fact, that's kind of what I am.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8882715594356218882009-06-12T17:05:30.879-06:002009-06-12T17:05:30.879-06:00Jonathon writes, "So as it turns out, America...Jonathon writes, <i>"So as it turns out, America's Protestant political-theological foundations mean a fundamental right to private judgment in matters of religious conscience. This political theology teaches the right to religious judgment is so private and individualized, that matters such as original sin, trinity, eternal damnation, and which parts of the Bible are valid are consigned to the realm of the private conscience and are driven from politics; they play no part in America's political-theological foundation."</i><br />.<br />You are beginning to hit the nail on the head!<br />.<br />And, squarely.<br />.<br />I've been around going on nine decades and I see that your comment is a true statement.<br />.<br />And, I am seeing the influence Catholicism is having on American Protestants today through the influence of the "Christian Right".<br />.<br />I think you are on a roll.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6285807967203231862009-06-10T16:30:30.228-06:002009-06-10T16:30:30.228-06:00As it applies to political-theology, American Prot...<i>As it applies to political-theology, American Protestantism means a private right to religious conscience. In this sense the individual not only has a private right to decide for himself on matters of Trinity and eternal damnation, but also which parts of the Bible are valid.</i>..<br /><br />As to the Trinity, that is true. As for "which parts of the Bible are valid," and by extension which parts are <i>in</i>valid, the quoted Charles Chauncy/Ezra Stiles section shows that Founding-era disagreements with theological orthodoxy were based on the Bible, not outside it.<br /><br />Of course Jefferson and John Adams occupy center stage here as usual, since they're the only ones who completely and provably fit the "theistic rationalist" thesis, with the occasional Ben Franklin thrown in.<br /><br />But I think there's a basic misunderstanding about the Founding-era unitarians in particular, who could argue satisfactorily not just from reason, but solely from the Bible as well, without rejecting any of it.<br /><br /><br />Samuel Barrett's 1825 "One Hundred Scriptural Arguments<br />For the Unitarian Faith" is a fine example.<br /><br />http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=30Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22646065929602979772009-06-10T16:05:24.344-06:002009-06-10T16:05:24.344-06:00A later post will discuss how America is and is no...<i>A later post will discuss how America is and is not a Catholic Nation</i>...<br /><br />Heh. Kindly leave me out of <i>that</i> line of fire, Jon. Although I maintain there was a heavy influence of some Catholic thinkers on the Founding, it was completely indirect, since quoting a papist back then was pretty much like quoting a Nazi today.<br /><br />Although as for <i>is</i> a "Catholic nation," we're closing in on <i>six</i> Catholics on the Supreme Court.<br /><br />Hehe. The influence of Catholic thought on America just won't go away, it seems...Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45587930836573149082009-06-10T09:39:38.159-06:002009-06-10T09:39:38.159-06:00Thanks Ron. I always appreciate your thoughtful c...Thanks Ron. I always appreciate your thoughtful comments.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22610017216983751102009-06-10T07:40:10.395-06:002009-06-10T07:40:10.395-06:00Somehow, Jon, I completely understand the "pr...Somehow, Jon, I completely understand the "protestant but not Christian" concept. I do prefer to use the small "p" for protestant, in the same sense that I prefer to use small "c" for catholic. (I think that even Jesus would have understood that.) I don't think that Christianity has ever had any right to a proprietary claim on the "protestant impulse," which in its more radical forms is seen to be so stubbornly protestant that even the walls of Christian doctrine and tradition could never confine or "fence its spirit."UUFreespirithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00891046571965057201noreply@blogger.com