tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post970110568580062612..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Gouverneur Morris and George Washington on Jesus' Lack of Instruction Towards Political RulersBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46421037615798734572009-12-28T18:54:43.888-07:002009-12-28T18:54:43.888-07:00Gregg, I agree that the problem with "Christi...Gregg, I agree that the problem with "Christian Rationalism" is that it doesn't rely upon orthodox Christians, and thus will not accepted by those who embrace a rigorous standard for what qualifies as Christian.<br /><br />My thought was that it does rely upon a society which was substantially influenced by Christian theology.<br /><br />Thus, in this instance, my use of the term <i>Christian</i> refers to <i>cats</i>, in general, rather than to the <i>Tiger</i>.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38434040084413784082009-12-28T13:34:35.917-07:002009-12-28T13:34:35.917-07:00A problem (among many) with applying the term &quo...A problem (among many) with applying the term "Judeo-Christian" to the founding is that several of the key Founders did not believe in even the generic elements that Tom delineates. They did not believe in the God of the Old Testament because He was wrathful and it offended their sensibilities -- the same problem that many have today. Their understanding of God was dominated by the notion of "benevolence," so they could not accept the wrathful OT God.<br /><br />They also did not accept the Bible as the revealed word of God -- they accepted certain PARTS of the Bible (very small parts at that) as revealed from God. They thought most of it flawed, corrupted, and the opinions of men.<br /><br />So, even the few elements given to describe "Judeo-Christian" make the key Founders foreigners to that term.<br /><br />Theistic rationalism does NOT ignore the generically Christian (hardly "completely Christian") culture of the Founding; in fact, the definition of theistic rationalism (as I've tried to make clear for months now) includes protestant Christianity as one of its three component elements.<br /><br />And, again, there was no "near-universal belief that the Bible came from God." There was near universal belief that SOME of it came from God.<br /><br />To say that "they rallied around ideas, not doctrines" ignores the fact that doctrines ARE ideas. And while it is true that they "rallied around" other types of ideas -- not just doctrines -- the broader ideas were influenced by their doctrinal beliefs.<br /><br />bp: the problem with "Christian Rationalism" is that they weren't Christian! It would be akin to referring to a tiger as a "canine cat."Gregg Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883853316391723287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51413554212523488802009-12-28T13:14:00.367-07:002009-12-28T13:14:00.367-07:00Tom, Tom, Tom,
Do you never tire of misrepresenti...Tom, Tom, Tom,<br /><br />Do you never tire of misrepresenting my views? I hope you got straw for Christmas so that you won't run out as you continue to make straw men.<br /><br />You say: "Dr. Frazer's razor is, no Trinity, no Christianity." That, of course, is simply not true. The standard I took FROM THE 18TH-CENTURY CHURCHES THEMSELVES is a TEN-point standard -- not just one.<br /><br />You say: ""theistic rationalism" scoops up whatever's left over" -- also not true. I recognize plenty of belief systems which are neither Christian nor theistic rationalism: Deism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism ... need I go on? There are particular elements of theistic rationalism which I identify in those I call theistic rationalists; I do not simply call anyone who's not trinitarian by that label. I also emphasize that theistic rationalism was a minority belief system.<br /><br />Clarification: I do NOT call someone a theistic rationalist simply for being to the right of deism and to the left of Christianity -- they have to emphasize rationalism as the ultimate standard.<br /><br />bp is quite correct that some of you guys have built a "straw man replica" and declared victory -- but not over my actual position.<br /><br />But I take issue with his and others' description of the standard I've put forward as being that of "orthodox" Christianity. It is simply the standard of all of the major Christian denominations in 18th-century America -- denominations which disagreed vehemently on many things, but not the basic core fundamentals which constituted Christianity. It actually embraces a wide range of Christian denominations -- not just some narrow band.<br /><br />bp is also correct when he notes that theistic rationalism does not exclude Christian principles, but rather places reason ABOVE them and as JUDGE of them.<br /><br />bp is also correct when he points out the uselessness of talking about "Christian" ideas while expressing disdain for determining what "Christian" means.<br /><br />It is also intriguing to hear that one is interested in "ideas" -- not "doctrines." What do you think doctrines are, if not ideas? My dissertation begins: "The Founders of the United States believed that ideas have consequences. Some of the most important and powerful ideas held by men are those concerning religion or those based on religious belief. Because they are so important and powerful, religious ideas inevitably influence political thought and practice. That was certainly true with respect to the American Founding."Gregg Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883853316391723287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21265276998952975442009-12-24T13:28:18.637-07:002009-12-24T13:28:18.637-07:00Ben,
I know you were kidding. Lets take that phr...Ben,<br /><br />I know you were kidding. Lets take that phrase and and sell it. I said the actual word in the comment I deleted but thought better of it because we do have pastors that post here that I do not want to disrespect. Have a good Christmas buddy!<br /><br />Check out the post on The Big Tent I think we will find some common ground there.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81966061152703426642009-12-24T09:40:44.965-07:002009-12-24T09:40:44.965-07:00King/Joe,
I don't question your theological u...King/Joe,<br /><br />I don't question your theological understanding, nor did I mean to <i>seriously</i> imply that you favor the Tory perspective.<br /><br />I just couldn't resist poking fun, when given the opportunity.<br /><br />I think you've nicely paraphrased what I think was the strongest <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertow_(wave_action)" rel="nofollow">undertow</a> of the founding period. with; "<i>f*ck King and Country</i>" :-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91617179527302640992009-12-24T09:03:57.145-07:002009-12-24T09:03:57.145-07:00Ben,
I assure you of two things:
1. I have studi...Ben,<br /><br />I assure you of two things:<br /><br />1. I have studied the Bible more than most Theologians say they have from the perspective of a skeptic and former atheist.<br /><br />2. Forget(there is another word I would like to use but can't) King and Country. Tyrant jerks need to be deposed. See my latest post where Mayhew preached intentionally on the anniversary of the death of the deposed Charles.<br /><br />I am my grandfather's son. He went against the grain too! Google my last name. Aside from the socialism that he was wrong about I am him.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87413049016090422732009-12-24T00:23:36.873-07:002009-12-24T00:23:36.873-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42322089097726256412009-12-23T19:22:51.260-07:002009-12-23T19:22:51.260-07:00King/Joe,
Com'on Joe, you're just asserti...King/Joe,<br /><br />Com'on Joe, you're just asserting it's debatable because you're a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory" rel="nofollow">Tory</a> at heart.<br /><br />"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory" rel="nofollow">The Tory ethos can be summed up with the phrase God, <b>KING</b> and Country</a>."<br /><br />... but, of course, I'm just kidding about the KING's ... um, I mean Joe's ... position ;-)<br /><br />And I agree everything is up for discussion/debate.<br /><br />Well everything except, perhaps, that Tories supported the American Revolution.<br /><br />"During the revolution, particularly after the Declaration of Independence in 1776 [the use of the term Tory] was extended to cover anyone who remained loyal to the British Crown. At the beginning of the war, it was estimated that as much as 40% of the American population were Tories."<br />-- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory#History_of_the_term" rel="nofollow">History of the term Tory: American Revolution</a>.<br /><br />I'm not a very good student of what qualifies as being orthodox Christian. I'd associated "<i>God, King, and Country</i>" with that, but perhaps that isn't correct ... it certainly isn't today, but what of the founding period?<br /><br />Looking at Wikipedia, I notice that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church" rel="nofollow">orthodox Christianity</a> is essentially a derivative of the Catholic Church. Which is consistent with the position that the founding wasn't based upon orthodox Christian doctrine (at least from my superficial position, as I'm not a theological expert).bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20642958666401294282009-12-23T17:01:19.598-07:002009-12-23T17:01:19.598-07:00Ben stated:
"However, that the founding was ...Ben stated:<br /><br />"However, that the founding was the product of a Christian society with proportionately Judeo-Christian foundations, and not the product of individuals following orthodox doctrine is not made clear by the label Judeo-Christian."<br /><br />The former is true as far as political theology went. The second is debatable. This was right after the Great Awakening. But the first is really the topic of this blog.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45778622420645173102009-12-23T15:55:52.834-07:002009-12-23T15:55:52.834-07:00Tom,
Thanks for the props! :-)
Regarding Theisti...Tom,<br /><br />Thanks for the props! :-)<br /><br />Regarding <i>Theistic Rationalism</i> and/or <i>Judeo-Christian</i>, I don't think either property frames the founding.<br /><br />That Christianity was the primary theological influence is lost in the term <i>Theistic Rationalism</i>.<br /><br />However, that the founding was the product of a Christian society with proportionately <i>Judeo-Christian</i> foundations, and not the product of individuals following orthodox doctrine is not made clear by the label <i>Judeo-Christian</i>.<br /><br />It seems to me that either term is appropriate, if placed in the proper context.<br /><br />Personally, I'd prefer the term <i>Christian Rationalism</i> ... not that it is perfect, but I think it is closer to the mark.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89419511003776394482009-12-23T15:45:28.887-07:002009-12-23T15:45:28.887-07:00King/Joe,
If someone frames purpose, motive, goal...King/Joe,<br /><br />If someone frames purpose, motive, goals, or such as being framed by science, they either don't understand what science is, or (perhaps) you've misunderstood them.<br /><br />Personally, I like the way Einstein framed such sentiments as being the domain of religion, but not necessarily being of supernatural or divine origin.<br /><br />In any event, I've enjoyed this discussion ... even if my part was more of a <i>catalyst</i> (as Tom put it) than of a participant ;-)<br /><br />I do hope you give more thought to what you mean when you use the adjective, <i>Christian</i>. The word means different things to everyone. Your point will be lost if your context isn't clear (to me is still is not).bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56069971741341703942009-12-23T08:45:38.363-07:002009-12-23T08:45:38.363-07:00Ben,
They rallied around ideas not doctrines. I ...Ben,<br /><br />They rallied around ideas not doctrines. I have a post that I think I am going to publish today that should clarify all this. At least what I am trying to get at.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17033029165518180082009-12-23T00:17:49.892-07:002009-12-23T00:17:49.892-07:00Regarding Frazer's argument, my understanding ...<i>Regarding Frazer's argument, my understanding is that it rests on an orthodox definition of what it means to be Christian. If you accept that definition, then I think he wins.</i><br /><br /><br />Heh, Ben. Debate Rule #1: If you win the definition of terms, you win the debate.<br /><br />Rule #2: See Rule #1.<br /><br />Actually, you clearly identify what is a false "trichotomy":<br /><br />"Strict "deism" didn't exist at the Founding, not even in Tom Paine. Fact is, Hume had destroyed "deism" philosophically by 1750, something we haven't even got into, because it's only a footnote to "religion and the Founding."<br /><br />"Deism" is the straw man third of the false trichotomy between Christianity-as-Trinitarianism and the proposed "third way" of "theistic rationalism."<br /><br />"Theistic rationalism," as presented by Dr. Frazer in his paper linked above, has a behind-the-scenes element of Protestant theology. But to anyone reading the term at face value, it's read as something outside the [Judeo-]Christian milieu, as a "neutral" term.<br /><br />But if one uses the inaccurate term "Judeo-Christian," the meaning is still quite clear: the God of the Bible, of Abraham and Moses, the Bible being the revealed word of God, and it leaves Jesus' divinity or "dying for our sins" out completely, since Jews believe none of the latter.<br /><br />Neither did the unitarians, of course, although most accepted Jesus as Messiah and the Bible as true.<br /><br />"Theistic rationalism" tries to scoop them up under its umbrella instead of Christianity's, but that ignores the completely Christian milieu of the Founding.<br /><br />Or the near-universal belief that the Bible came from God.<br /><br />"Theism" as applied to the Founding means nothing outside its Christian context.<br /><br />____________________<br /><br />Thx, Ben. You've been a catalyst in exploring this. And Robby George's theology on Matthew 19 was presented only as a clarification of your own non-theological reading. The interesting part was actullly on his arguments on natural law. I posted the link mostly because our mutual friend Jon Rowe is acquainted with Dr. George. It was presented as a tickle, not a theological argument, and for those who wanted to dig deeper into the issue on their own.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13340135799677932442009-12-22T20:19:50.376-07:002009-12-22T20:19:50.376-07:00Ben stated:
"or perhaps, I should ask what q...Ben stated:<br /><br />"or perhaps, I should ask what qualifies as a Christian idea?"<br /><br />I think that is something we can all discuss but we must back up our opinions with historical facts from primary documents themselves. In other words, people say that many of Locke's ideas are Deistic or Rationalist. It depends what that means. If it means he did not believe is the God of the Bible that intervenes in the lives of mean then it is crap. Any reading of Locke's first Treatise blows this out the the water.<br /><br />I guess my frustration with the Science crowd is they get mad when people jump to conclusions about scientific terms and concepts they do not even understand. It is the same for me when people come to theological conclusions about what Locke and others said when they have no clue about theology.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73251952268963207932009-12-22T20:08:45.969-07:002009-12-22T20:08:45.969-07:00Ben stated:
"I'm confused. How can you n...Ben stated:<br /><br />"I'm confused. How can you not be concerned with the definition of what it means to be Christian, while you use the term?"<br /><br />I am applying the adjective to ideas rather than people. I think the former germane to a political discussion and the latter a distraction. <br /><br />Ben,<br /><br />If you really want to see where I am coming from you gonna have to go back and read my last 10 or so posts carefully. Otherwise you will get lost. I say that because I value your critique, want you to understand where I am coming from, feel that this subject matter is of utmost importance and most people today just ignore it to our own peril. <br /><br />Please continue to ask questions if I am not being clear.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37904515920664363452009-12-22T18:55:34.564-07:002009-12-22T18:55:34.564-07:00Joe,
Re: "This is a political and historical...Joe,<br /><br />Re: "<i>This is a political and historical discussion. In that light I could care less who was or was not a Christian. I could care less what definition what gives to what is and is not a Christian. I DO CARE ABOUT WHAT WAS AND WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN IDEA.</i>"<br /><br />I'm confused. How can you not be concerned with the definition of what it means to be <i>Christian</i>, while you use the term?<br /><br />What is it you mean by the adjective <i>Christian</i>?<br /><br />... or perhaps, I should ask what qualifies as a <i>Christian idea</i>?<br /><br />I'm hoping for some insight.<br /><br />p.s. again no offense intended, just trying to understand.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69703506604753548202009-12-22T18:15:38.444-07:002009-12-22T18:15:38.444-07:00Ben,
"It looks to me like this is just what ...Ben,<br /><br />"It looks to me like this is just what King/Joe is doing ... applying reason to judge what may and may not qualify as Christian.<br /><br />King/Joe, please chime in and correct me if I've misrepresented you."<br /><br />This is a political and historical discussion. In that light I could care less who was or was not a Christian. I could care less what definition what gives to what is and is not a Christian. I DO CARE ABOUT WHAT WAS AND WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN IDEA. More accurately Judeo Christian or not. I think Gregg asked the wrong question. The founding put the church differences aside and focused on the commonwealth. I have a quote from Locke coming that I think will shed light on this.<br /><br />As far as Jefferson I plan to post on a paper that Tom gave me that gives strong evidence that Jefferson was vetoed by the Continental Congress on some things. Some big things that were added to his drafts.<br /><br />I want to give Tom's insightful post on Scalia some room to breath. Then I will post it.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49072016061659603932009-12-22T17:50:36.145-07:002009-12-22T17:50:36.145-07:00Re: "Dr. Frazer's razor is, no Trinity, n...Re: "<i>Dr. Frazer's razor is, no Trinity, no Christianity. My problem with that is that "theistic rationalism" scoops up whatever's left over.</i>"<br /><br />Very good point, I think, Tom. I liked the comment regarding a false dichotomy as well.<br /><br />I see two such dichotomies being promoted.<br /><br />(1) a narrow (orthodox) definition of Christianity vs Theistic Rationalism that takes all the remaining tasty bits<br /><br /> ... and ...<br /><br />(2) a broad ("liberal" isn't a broad enough term) definition of Christianity that encompasses all good principles (including those that precede the faith, and lay beyond its doctrines) vs the nasty, evil bits that remain.<br /><br />(the 2nd is over the top with regards to the participants of this blog, pls realize no offense or implications are intended)<br /><br />There is, <i>at least</i>, one great fault with my qualification. That being that Theistic Rationalism (as I understand it) doesn't exclude Christian principles. Rather it takes the position that reason is to be <i>placed firmly in her seat</i> and applied to secure Christian principles from corruptions, and if the some of the most sacred doctrines fall, then so be it (of course it secures all good principles, not just those of Christian origin).<br /><br />It looks to me like this is just what King/Joe is doing ... applying reason to judge what may and may not qualify as Christian.<br /><br />King/Joe, please chime in and correct me if I've misrepresented you.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50793186177233164292009-12-22T17:18:01.700-07:002009-12-22T17:18:01.700-07:00"This is because if it is proven that the DOI..."<i>This is because <b>if</b> it is proven that the DOI was based on a historically Christian idea that is grounded in image of God and neighborly love which were a Judeo idea and a Christian idea then the former fits [...]</i>"<br /><br />Given Jefferson was the primary author .... sounds like a big <b>if</b> to me ;-)<br /><br />Regarding Frazer's argument, my understanding is that it rests on an orthodox definition of what it means to be <i>Christian</i>. If you accept that definition, then I think he wins.<br /><br />If you lower the bar so as to encompass all that is compatible, or better yet all that is not incompatible (define it for your purposes) then you might claim victory, but not over Frazer, but over a strawman replica.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51601739503185947242009-12-22T16:57:18.682-07:002009-12-22T16:57:18.682-07:00Tom,
I think the quibble over terms shows if anyt...Tom,<br /><br />I think the quibble over terms shows if anything size of the gulf between strict deism and orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. THAT paradigm, if anything has led to the most egregious false dichotomy that both secular left and religious right scholars often engage in.<br /><br />If a figure appears to the right of strict deism but to the left of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity, Gregg has a tendency to label them "theistic rationalists." <br /><br />I think according to the premises that he sets out it's a fair conclusion. But if the terms are insufficient, again, it illustrates the big gulf between strict deism and orthodox Christianity. We now have a tricotomy [is that even a word?] of terms and that's not enough.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35182645022416948042009-12-22T16:09:38.374-07:002009-12-22T16:09:38.374-07:00Dr. Frazer's razor is, no Trinity, no Christia...Dr. Frazer's razor is, no Trinity, no Christianity. My problem with that is that "theistic rationalism" scoops up whatever's left over.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72769147309307775642009-12-22T15:33:01.825-07:002009-12-22T15:33:01.825-07:00Judeo-Christian vs. Theistic Rationalist I like it...Judeo-Christian vs. Theistic Rationalist I like it. I think the current debate over interposition could possibly decide the winner. This is because if it is proven that the DOI was based on a historically Christian idea that is grounded in image of God and neighborly love which were a Judeo idea and a Christian idea then the former fits, the latter goes away, and Frazer should have to write a new thesis paper. <br /><br />I think my next post using an article that Tom sent me should go a long way toward crowning Judeo-Christian champion.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42397405828124795752009-12-22T14:53:10.643-07:002009-12-22T14:53:10.643-07:00False dichotomy between "orthodox Christian&q...False dichotomy between "orthodox Christian" and "theistic rationalist," just as it's a false dichotomy between "Christian thought" and the Enlightenment. <br /><br />Here's Dr. Frazer's paper. Folks can read it for themselves. <br /><br />http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/8/1/1/2/p281125_index.html<br /><br /><br />Dr. Frazer writes:<br /><br /><i>I contend that it was his theistic rationalist beliefs which paved the way for Morris – and for the other key Founders – to fully support religious toleration.</i><br /><br /><br />Oh, please. Pure question-begging. Sam Adams was as orthodox as they come and he wrote in 1772 that "the Church" demanded tolerance.<br /><br /><i>Morris’s immoral conduct must call into serious question the idea that he was a Christian.</i><br /><br />Heh. Gregg, you need to get out more.<br /><br /><i>His expressed beliefs put him at odds with deism and Christianity, but in line with theistic rationalism.</i><br /><br />With deism, certainly; but not a single smoking gun re Christianity.<br /><br />Not that I think he accepted orthodox Christianity, but it's conjecture either way. But "theistic rationalism" is a term of art, and as we see in Morris' speech to the NY Historical Society above, his biblical rhetoric has much more in common with today's Holy Rollers than with the children of the Enlightenment.<br /><br />Regardless of Dr. Frazer's intention for his pet term "theistic rationalist," it carries a sense of the latter, not the former, and "Judeo-Christian," although itself inaccurate, is far more descriptive per Morris' frequent expressions of respect for religion and the Bible. Morris has far more in common with Samuel Adams than with the poster boy for "theistic rationalism," Thomas Jefferson.<br /><br />Read the paper for yourself. Gregg presents the evidence fairly, but I disagree his is the most reasonable conclusion, or that "theistic rationalist" is helpful in understanding Morris as he was.<br /><br />Neither do I think the light banter between Washington and Morris here supports any conclusion or even speculation about how they viewed the truth of the Epistles.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5730323447717857082009-12-22T12:35:24.029-07:002009-12-22T12:35:24.029-07:00Re Tom's second comment. Yes G. Morris "...Re Tom's second comment. Yes G. Morris "theistic rationalist." He was, as Gregg put it, "religious" but not "Christian."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-449405416559113192009-12-22T09:48:35.229-07:002009-12-22T09:48:35.229-07:00Ben,
The fact that a sermon by Jonathan Mayhew on...Ben,<br /><br />The fact that a sermon by Jonathan Mayhew on Romans 13 that John Adams stated everyone read had a saying, "Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" that was not only used by Jefferson but almost made it into the Great Seal may shed some light on how even the "Theistic Rationalists" felt about it.<br /><br />One can make the case that they were true politicians and played to the Presbyterian faction but one cannot say that this theme was not discussed. Mayhew's sermon was on the anniversary of the death of Charles I who was on the wrong end of an interposition 100 years earlier.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.com