tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post9187333782424726006..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Deism doesn't really describe the religious views of most American FoundersHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-52917555307821190632016-05-29T02:12:38.246-04:002016-05-29T02:12:38.246-04:00In other words--actually one word--"Protestan...In other words--actually one word--"Protestantism." Reformationism, if you will.<br /><br />They keep giving it names that de-Christianize it. The "Enlightenment." What crap. The "Enlightenment" was the French Revolution, and welcome to it.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-17068571340251266232016-05-28T13:48:49.157-04:002016-05-28T13:48:49.157-04:00Thanks for that clarification, Jon. Frazer's b...Thanks for that clarification, Jon. Frazer's book is great -- a real eye-opener about the nature of the discussions going on during the Founding period regarding God and religious faith. There is no question, as Frazer notes, that the theistic rationalists of the period were influenced by low-church Protestantism. Franklin, I think, is very close to the Christian Unitarianism that was common amongst the New England elite like John & Abigail Adams, for example. He's half-a-step away from it. Jefferson is farther away, but still the lingering influence of Protestantism is there. Thanks again for pointing out that Frazer makes that link. Mark D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-52033449241856567572016-05-28T08:55:40.515-04:002016-05-28T08:55:40.515-04:00Great post Mark. FTR, Frazer's "theistic ...Great post Mark. FTR, Frazer's "theistic rationalism" has Protestant Christianity as an element in the hybrid.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-58458180882921132302016-05-28T01:26:44.870-04:002016-05-28T01:26:44.870-04:00Instead, the Unitarians sought to interpret the Bi...<i>Instead, the Unitarians sought to interpret the Bible freshly, in light of what they thought was its plain meaning. They were, if anything, the fundamentalists of their day. </i><br /><br />Exactly. Why I have trouble with Gregg Frazer's proprietary meme, Theistic Rationalists™. You could also just call them Protestants.<br /><br />http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith<br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-13153382886971952242016-05-27T23:57:48.077-04:002016-05-27T23:57:48.077-04:00Even the Unitarians of the period were far more or...Even the Unitarians of the period were far more orthodox in terms of their views of the Bible than generally thought. What many people miss about 16th-late 18th century Unitarianism is that it based its rejection of trinitarian orthodoxy on a literal interpretation of the Bible. It was a refusal to accept the interpretation of the New Testament developed by the Church Fathers, the Schoolmen, the great Councils of the Catholic Church, and the confessional works of the Reformers. Instead, the Unitarians sought to interpret the Bible freshly, in light of what they thought was its plain meaning. They were, if anything, the fundamentalists of their day. <br /><br />Jefferson -- it is very difficult to figure what his full beliefs were because he so very often couched what he said in vague terms or ambiguity. He was no friend of traditional religion, nor was he a believer in the inspiration of the Bible (his harmony of the Gospels demonstrates that). Mark D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-81182093428174352052016-05-27T16:50:56.497-04:002016-05-27T16:50:56.497-04:00Yes, I was pointing out that contemporary discussi...Yes, I was pointing out that contemporary discussions of the "Founders' religion" invariably begin with the two biggest outliers! I think this is largely the result of ideological efforts in the academy to de-Christianize the Founding.<br /><br />To me, the key question is whether folks believed the Bible is the work of God. I would say an overwhelming majority. Even Franklin thought it was a possibility.<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/11/ben-franklin-was-not-deist-ok.html<br /><br />[Jefferson, I think not.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-20016480768892497972016-05-27T16:15:13.216-04:002016-05-27T16:15:13.216-04:00Tom, good observation -- I'm not arguing that ...Tom, good observation -- I'm not arguing that Franklin or Jefferson are representative of the religious views of the country or even most of the Founders. My point is that even Franklin and Jefferson -- the least religious of the Founders -- are not Deists as that term is commonly understood. They are theists -- a step away from self-described Christian Unitarians like John & Abigail Adams. Mark D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-21953577206657177072016-05-27T04:42:57.414-04:002016-05-27T04:42:57.414-04:00A fair analysis, though I find the outliers Jeffer...A fair analysis, though I find the outliers Jefferson and Franklin less than helpful in surveying the religious landscape of the Founding era. That Jefferson took such pains to hide his heterodoxy throughout his public life indicates how out of step he was with the nation as a whole.<br /><br />FTR, although Franklin thought diddling over dogma and doctrine a waste of time and effort, and in 1738 referenced good works in the story of the Sheep and the Goats per Matthew 26 [as did Jefferson http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/01/jesuss-second-coming-in-jefferson-bible.html]<br /><br />Franklin also wrote to evangelist George Whitefield in 1752<br /><br /><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 draft 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.</i><br /><br />Jefferson, I don't know. He wasn't into such woo. In 1819 he wrote,<br /><br /><i>“My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.”<br /></i><br /><br />Although the two are routinely lumped together [properly] as perhaps the closest to actual deists among the Founders, upon further review they had little in common except for what they were not.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com