The Majority of Founding Fathers were Deists, not Evangelical Christians....

[Da Lone-Warrior]

http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2006/04/supposed-faith-of-our-founding-fathers.html

There were exceptions, particularly members of the Anglican Church who were of evangelical convictions, but the majority of the founding fathers were not of orthodox Christian beliefs and so this lie needs to be stopped.

I would rather argue that Christianity in the US is in very much need of revival and I think the likely source will be in our willingness to learn from the vibrant Christianity that is growing in the 2/3rds world, where 3/4s of the sincere Christians likely live today.

dlw

[Meh_Gerbil]

http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2006/04/supposed-faith-of-our-founding-fathers.html

There were exceptions, particularly members of the Anglican Church who were of evangelical convictions, but the majority of the founding fathers were not of orthodox Christian beliefs and so this lie needs to be stopped.

I would rather argue that Christianity in the US is in very much need of revival and I think the likely source will be in our willingness to learn from the vibrant Christianity that is growing in the 2/3rds world, where 3/4s of the sincere Christians likely live today.

dlw

I'd find their deism to be a relief since they rebelled against a legitimate government.

[Ryokan]

I'd find their deism to be a relief since they rebelled against a legitimate government.
Really? How do you define legitimate?

[Meh_Gerbil]

Really? How do you define legitimate?

Loosely speaking, I'd say whoever is in power and ruling with a reasonable amount of justice.

[Ryokan]

Loosely speaking, I'd say whoever is in power and ruling with a reasonable amount of justice.
Ah, what's reasonable? And if you succesfully revolt, and then rule with "a reasonable amount of justice" does that not make you legitimate?

[Meh_Gerbil]

Ah, what's reasonable? And if you succesfully revolt, and then rule with "a reasonable amount of justice" does that not make you legitimate?

I brought the point out because Christians aren't supposed to be revolting against governments that are in place - so if the founding fathers weren't Christian it puts a twist on that question.

[Ryokan]

I brought the point out because Christians aren't supposed to be revolting against governments that are in place - so if the founding fathers weren't Christian it puts a twist on that question.
Depending on your interpretation. Christians in the first century ad certainly shouldn't be revolting against Rome. Good advice, seeing how it turned out for the Jews and that everyone assumed the Second Coming could be, well, tommorrow. But I don't think applies 2000 years later, in every single case.

[Rusty T]

Dang, does this mean I have to put an end to my schemes (aka TMIAHM) to end this highly oppressive government? I mean, how much longer can we endure sub 5% unemployment and relative prosperity?

rusty

[Pilgrim]

http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2006/04/supposed-faith-of-our-founding-fathers.html

There were exceptions, particularly members of the Anglican Church who were of evangelical convictions, but the majority of the founding fathers were not of orthodox Christian beliefs and so this lie needs to be stopped.

I would rather argue that Christianity in the US is in very much need of revival and I think the likely source will be in our willingness to learn from the vibrant Christianity that is growing in the 2/3rds world, where 3/4s of the sincere Christians likely live today.

dlw
Is there a horse a little more dead that we could beat?

[Ryokan]

Is there a horse a little more dead that we could beat?
OOH! OOH! Free will vs. Determinism! Free will vs. Determinism!

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Is there a horse a little more dead that we could beat?

whatever.

I don't think we've talked enough about the history of Xty in the US, nor the extent that the most vibrant forms of Xty today are taking place in the 2/3rds world.

dlw
ps, the doctrine of Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge shd be simply dismissed on the grounds that it misinterprets the corporate nature of predestination that Paul uses in his letters.

dlw

[Jaltus]

Paul encorporates both corporate and individual predestination. Also, you might want to read Luke-Acts for more of the determinists side of things. Mind you, I am no determinist myself, just trying to be fair.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Paul encorporates both corporate and individual predestination. Also, you might want to read Luke-Acts for more of the determinists side of things. Mind you, I am no determinist myself, just trying to be fair.

If the elect refers to remnant theology then it is a far more corporate sense of predestination with us individuals ultimately electing which part of humanity we are going to belong to.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

NT prof Ben Witherington (http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/08/faiths-of-founding-fathers-david-l.html) has an excellent review of "Faiths of the Founding Fathers". There's some excellent posts in the comments as well.

It shows that the Founding Fathers were religiously pluralistic, with differing shades of Deism and some Orthodox Christians and that their wives were far more likely to be Orthodox in their belief, in part because they were kept from going to College and were to teach the Children with the Bible being a key text for the instruction of children.

He also goes into the issue of whether there was biblical justification for the American Revolution some and this is debated in the comments as well...

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Paul encorporates both corporate and individual predestination. Also, you might want to read Luke-Acts for more of the determinists side of things. Mind you, I am no determinist myself, just trying to be fair.

I think the burden of proof needs to be put on others to show that anyone in the first century audience would have seen the talk of predestination/elect as having to do with whether it was foreknowable that mr Smith would go to heaven, while mr Jones goes to hell.

It's not a matter of logic/grammar, as illustrated by most Calvinist studies like those of John Piper who could spend a year or more on the first part of the book of Romans, it's more fundamentally a matter of seeking to approximate/understand the meanings of the words as the author meant for their initial audience to understand them and then exegeting them to today.

dlw