I thought this was worthy of an entry…
I always get a reaction when I hear Christians say things like: “The founding fathers were mostly deists, children of Enlightenment philosophy, and liberals”
A gentleman posted this statement on a blog and I responded:
I mean this respectfully – this is pure historical revisionism…
Here is the truth:
“Among the Delegates (we have the records) to the Constitutional Convention were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin (this was during a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith) Of the 55 Founding Fathers Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Dutch Reformed (which make up 45 of the 55) were Calvinists”
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/founding_fathers.html
Of course there were deists at the time, of course there were enlightenment influences – nevertheless most were confessing Christians and Calvinists at that. Even today many of us (including Calvinists) are influenced by the presuppositions of our culture – does that make us less Christian?
How about the men who had a huge influence on our nation, Calvinists like Cotton Mather, Johnathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and Patrick Henry? Have you ever read the Mayflower Compact?
What do you do with men like the influential Calvinist John Witherspoon? “His students included, in addition to a president (Madison – author of the constitution) and vice-president of the United States, nine cabinet officers, twenty-one senators, thirty-nine congressmen, three justices of the Supreme Court, and twelve state governors and many lesser founders. Five of the nine Princeton graduates among the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were students of Witherspoon”
http://www.pragmatism.org/american/witherspoon_grads.html
Please don’t accuse me (like other Christians do) of wrapping my Christianity in an “American Flag” No, I am just a thankful to those who have gone before. It was Christianity that gave us the liberty we have today – and for that I am thankful…
Christians of all people should know better, please brother, stop repeating the big liberal lie. (“The founding fathers were mostly deists”)
Lar
“Will Your wonders be made known in the darkness? And Your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?” Psalm 88:12
Actually, The truth is – The Founding Fathers were “Mostly” Calvinists…
Filed under: America’s Christian Heritage, Miscellaneous, Politics | Tagged: American Christianity, Calvinists, Deism, Founding Fathers
If this isn’t proof that Christians should keep their children out of the state sponsored schools, I don’t know what is. We have people actually believing this liberal garbage, this historical revisionism, that are now going to seminary to be pastors. Thank God in His wisdom that liberal ideas usually accompany families that only want one or two kids. And the pop culture Christians that don’t care much about the full Gospel believe the same way. So in a generation or two, if we homeschooling Christians and Classical Christian Academy adherents, etc. keep having big families, we can be back on top!
Blessing brother,
kazoo
Kaz,
“Back on top”
Amen to that! – That’s if the liberal and gay totalitarians don’t kill us and take our children first…
May God grant His grace and peace to the faithful Christian remnant (of all stripes) left in this nation.
Nevertheless His kingdom will prevail!
Lar
“We have people actually believing this liberal garbage, this historical revisionism, that are now going to seminary to be pastors”
Kaz – I know, I’ve seen it first hand (I work at an evangelical seminary)
Many future pastors believe this liberal historical revisionism, which is why I reacted to it like I did on your blog.
Lar
Kaz,
And I am a student at said seminary, and this trend has only intensified over the years there.
Dave
Dave,
If you don’t mind my asking, which seminary? I’m in San Diego, and the friend on my blog who espouses this deism stuff goes to Westminster, Escondido.
kaz
Kaz,
http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/
BTW, Dave’s blog is “Leviticus and Stuff” I have a link to it…
Lar
Great post, thanks.
The word “patriot” comes from the Latin “patri” meaning father. Thus, there is a sense in which patriotism is obedient to the fifth command.
Ron,
Neat, I didn’t know that…
Thank you
Lar
well done, man
(I wanted to include some of my comments from another blog because they are relevant to my post)
I was responding to the same gentleman (his comments are in quotes)
He said:
Wow! What a huge assumption. These men were flawed of course – however many were still real Christians see:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/quotes1.html
____
He said:
Why don’t you apply the same scrutiny (like you do to the founding fathers) to your contemporary seminary professors? How have they been influenced? What are their presuppositions? Don’t you think they have been influenced by historical revisionism?
What do you think the difference was between our founders and men like Rousseau, Voltaire, and Robespierre – nothing? What do you think made the French revolution (ending in the reign of terror) and the American one (ending in civility) so different? – I’ll give you a clue: the American one was grounded in the Scottish and English Reformation ie: Calvinism – the French hated the beastly Christianity and wanted to rid themselves of it.
_____
He said:
That is only partially true…
Here is the truth:
“Political Science professors at the University of Houston (Lutz and Hyneman – 1984) wondered if there was something unique about the government of the U.S. They gathered 15,000 quotes from the Founders and located where all of them came from. They then boiled that down to 3,154 quotes that had significant impact on the founding of America. It took them 10 years to finish the project, but they found that the three men most quoted by the Founding fathers were Blackstone, Montesquieu, and John Locke. They also found that the Bible was quoted: 4 times more often than Montesquieu, 12 times more often than Blackstone, and 16 times more often than Locke.”
Additionally, 34% of all quotes were from the Bible, and another 60% of the quotes were from men who were used the Bible to arrive at their conclusions.”
Lar
This is a very interesting read! In John Trumbulls painting, my friend says the guy seated to the left at table with his hand on a book was a black man. He helped design the layout of Washington DC- on the back of the Two dollar bill he definitley looks black- but on the painting he has been
“whitened” Looks to me like he has been “blacked out” I am from Detroit and we love conspiracies!
P.S. you need a better photo with better lighting you would look like Socrates to me
Whole thing is a farce. Franklin apparently joined the Episcopal church a few years before his death. Which would have required a profession of faith. And he is buried in the cemetery of that church. I came across this fact about 6-8 years ago, while reading biographical materials on the founding Fathers. Also, however, Franklin might we have been a member of a conspiracy. After all one biographer located the materials in the British Archives in which he writes to King George III regarding the Treaty of Paris negotiations in process as a spy for the British! One wonders about Franklin. I have read where he was the cause of some poor man’s death and where he might have actually participated in murders in England. There are many strange and unexplained facts in history. Having been trained in Black Hstory (now known as African American History), I learned to do research out side the box. Now I do it in all things. You can surely learn a lot when you refuse to stay with the blinders of those who don’t want you to see the jerk behind the curtain as in the Wizard of Oz. Just consider the Federal Reserve System and that many nations have Federal Reserve Banks, and they are related. One poltician said, nothing happens in public political events by accident. Nw I didn’t say that. A famous politician did over 60 years ago. The same could be said about many of the things that happen in denominations and religious situations. Intellectual history isalso a great preparation for perceiving the depths of Holy Scripture. After all, if the Bible is inspired by an Omniscient God it ought to reflect the wisdom commensurate with such a fact, and, in my opinion, it does. And that means, at the very least, that we might have severe difficulties in grasping and understanding God’s simple but profound approach to communicating His truth to us.
Franklin wasn’t a Christian, but he wasn’t a Deist either
Larry
This is a great book. Jefferson wasn’t a Deist either, Dr Jones’s book Thomas Jefferson: Man & Myth is here. If you have any copies of the The Journal of Christian Reconstruction laying around get ahold of vol III no. 1 Summer, 1976 Symposium on Christianity and the American Revolution. The enitre volume is great . Dr Jones wrote the 1st article in it “The Christian Roots of the war for Independence. Also, Demar hopes to publish the same author’s dissertation, Christianity in the Constitution.
Sorry, I meant to include M E Bradford’s A worthy Company also
Thanks Jerry for the suggestions & thanks for stopping by.
Greetings Larry,
I found your blog through Ironink and saw this interesting post of yours. Have you ever read “The Faiths of Our Founding Fathers,” by David Holmes? I would be interested to read your comments on it if you are so inclined. He makes the case that men like Washington and John Adams were most likely deists despite their membership and regular attendance at church. He draws the conclusion from their use of language (preferring terms enjoined by deists rather than more strictly Christian terms) and by evidence that Washington and Adams declined to participate in Communion. He may make other arguments as well, but I can’t recall them off the top of my head. He does identify some orthodox Christians as well (Samuel Adams, Elias Boudinot, and John Jay).
~Joshua
Hi Joshua thanks for stopping by.
No I haven’t read it.
Modern historians like to use the term “deists” with all its modern definitions. In my opinion we would be better to call these founders non-trinitarians who ascribed to christian ethics and morality. How else do you explain quotes (from the so called deists) like:
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity – I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”and “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
George Washington:
“To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian” he also spoke of Christ as “the divine Author of our blessed religion”
Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel”
Thomas Jefferson:
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
Some orthodox Christians? No most of the founders were orthodox Christians as I mentioned above.
Lar
Joshua, Here is a video on Washington’s faith:
Thanks for the comments and link Larry!
Woe to those who neglect the original sources and fail to question how others are defining them.
Larry,
I like my Ironink friend Joshua followed your link also
The following, on Franklin, is from The Christian Life & Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States by B F Morris, pp 131-134. It is the book that DeMar sells. Read what Franklin says as he works out God’s providences in his mind. This is no desitic statement at all.
A LECTURE ON THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD.
BY BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.
I propose at this time to discourse on the providence of God in the government of the world. It might be judged an affront should I go about to prove this first principle, the existence of a Deity, and that he is the creator of the universe, for that all mankind, in all ages, have agreed in. I shall, therefore, proceed to observe that he must be a being of infinite wisdom, as appears in his admirable order and disposition of things,—whether we consider the heavenly bodies, the stars and planets, and their wonderful regular motions ; or this earth, compounded of such an excellent mixture of all elements; or the admirable structure of animate bodies, of such infinite variety, and yet every one adapted to its nature and way of life it is to be placed in, whether on earth, in the air, or in the water, and so exactly that the highest and most exquisite human reason cannot find a fault and say that this would have been better so, or in such a manner ; which whoever considers attentively and thoroughly will be astonished and swallowed up in admiration.
That the Deity is a being of great goodness, appears in his giving life to so many creatures, each of which acknowledges it a benefit by their unwillingness to leave it ; in his providing plentiful sustenance for them all, and making those things most useful most common and easy to be had ; such as water, necessary for almost every creature to drink ; air, without which few could subsist; the inexpressible benefits of light and sunshine to almost all animals in general ; and to men the most useful vegetables, such as corn, the most useful of metals, as iron, &c., the most useful of animals, as horses, oxen, and sheep, he has made the easiest to raise or procure in quantity or numbers ; each of which par-ticulars, if considered seriously and carefully, would fill us with the high¬est love and affection.
That he is a being of infinite power, appears in his being able to form and compound such vast masses of matter as this earth, the sun, and innumerable stars and planets, and give them such prodigious motion ; and yet so to govern them in their greatest velocity as that they shall not fly out of their appointed bounds, nor dash one against another for their mutual destruction. But ’tis easy to conceive of his power when we are convinced of his infinite knowledge and wisdom ; for if weak and foolish creatures as we are, by knowing the nature of a few things, can produce such wonderful effects, such as, for instance, by knowing the nature only of nitre and sea-salt mixed we can make a water which will dissolve the hardest iron, and by adding one ingredient more can make another water which will dissolve gold and make the most solid bodies fluid ; and by knowing the nature of saltpetre, sul¬phur, and charcoal, those mean ingredients mixed, we can shake the air in the most terrible manner, destroy ships, houses, and men at a dis¬tance, and in an instant overthrow cities, and rend rocks into a thou¬sand pieces, and level the highest mountains ; what power must He possess who not only knows the nature of every thing in the universe, but can make things of new natures with the greatest ease at his pleasure ?
Agreeing, then, that the world was at first made by a being of infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, which being we call God, the state of things existing at this time must be in one of these four following man-ners, viz. ;
1. Either he unchangeably decreed and appointed every thing that comes to pass, and left nothing to the course of nature, nor allowed any creature free agency.
2. Without decreeing any thing, he left all to general nature and the events of free agency in his creatures, which he never alters or inter¬rupts ; or,
3. He decreed some things unchangeably, and left others to general nature and the events of free agency, which also he never alters or interrupts ; or,
4. He sometimes interferes by his particular providence, and sets aside the effects which would otherwise have been produced by any of the above causes.
I shall endeavor to show the first three suppositions to be inconsistent with the common light of reason, and that the fourth is most agreeable to it, and therefore most probably true.
In the first place : If you say he has in the beginning uncnangeably decreed all things, and left nothing to nature or free agency, three strange conclusions will necessarily follow. I. That he is now no more a God. It is true, indeed, before he made such unchangeable decrees, he was a being of power almighty ; but now, having determined every thing, he has divested himself of all further power ; he has done, and has no more to do ; he has tied up his hands, and has no greater power than an idol of wood or stone ; nor can there be any more reason for praying to him or worshipping of him than of such an idol, for the worshippers can never be better for such a worship. Then, 2. He has decreed some things contrary to the very notion of a wise and good being; such as that some of his creatures or children shall do all manner of injury to others, and bring every kind of evil upon them without cause ; and that some of them shall even blaspheme their Creator in the most horrible manner ; and, which is still more highly absurd, that he has decreed that the greatest part of mankind shall in all ages put up their earnest prayers to him both in private and publicly in great assemblies, when all the while he had so determined their fate that he could not possibly grant them any benefits on that account, nor could such prayers be in any way available. Why then should he ordain them to make such prayers? It cannot be imagined that they are of any service to him. Surely it is not more difficult to believe that the world was made by a God of wood or stone than that the God who made the world should be such a God as this.
In the second place, if you say he has decreed nothing, but left all things to general nature and the events of free agency, which he never alters or interrupts, then these conclusions will follow : he must either utterly hide himself from the works of his own hands, and take no notice at all of their proceedings natural or moral, or he must be, as undoubtedly he is, a spectator of every thing, for there can be no reason or ground to suppose the first. I say there can be no reason to imagine he would make so glorious a universe merely to abandon it. In this case imagine the Deity looking on and beholding the ways of his creatures. Some heroes in virtue he sees incessantly endeavoring the good of others ; they labor through vast difficulties, they suffer incredible hardships and miseries to accomplish this end, in hopes to please a good God, and attain his favors, which they earnestly pray for. What answer can he make, then, within Himself but this? Take the reward chance may give you: I do not intermeddle in these affairs. He sees others doing all manner of evil, and bringing by their actions misery and de-struction among mankind : what can he say here, but this ?—.1:f chance rewards, I shall not punish you. I am not to be concerned. He sees the just, the innocent, and the beneficent in the hands of the wicked and violent oppressor, and when the good are on the brink of destruction they pray to him, Thou, 0 God, art mighty and powerful to save: help us, we beseech thee! He answers, I cannot help you; it is none of my business, nor do I at all regard those things. How is it possible to believe a wise and infinitely good being can be delighted in this circumstance, and be utterly unconcerned what becomes of the beings and things he has created ? for thus, we must believe him idle and inactive, and that his glorious attributes of power, wisdom, and goodness are no more to be made use of.
In the third place. If you say he has decreed some things and left others to the events of nature and free agency, which he never alters nor interrupts, you un-God him, if I may be allowed the expression : he has nothing to do ; he can cause us neither good nor harm ; he is no more to be regarded than a lifeless image, than Dagon or Baal, or Bel and the Dragon, and, as in both the other suppositions foregoing, that being which from its power is most able to act, from its wisdom knows best how to act, and from its goodness would always certainly act best, is in this opinion supposed to become the most inactive of all beings, and remain everlastingly idle, an absurdity which, when considered, or but barely seen, cannot be swallowed without doing the greatest violence to common reason and all the faculties of the understanding.
We are then necessarily driven to the fourth supposition, that the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular providence, and sets aside the events which would otherwise have been produced by the course of nature or by free agency of men ; and this is perfectly agreeable with what we ean know of his attributes and perfections. But, as some may doubt whether it is possible there should be such a thing as free agency in creatures, I shall just offer one short argument on that account, and proceed to show how the duty of religion necessarily follows a belief of a Providence. You acknowledge that God is infinitely powerful, wise, and good, and also a free agent, and you will not deny that he has com¬municated to us a part of his wisdom, power, and goodness,—that is, he has made us in some degree wise, potent, and good. And is it then impossible for him to communicate any part of his freedom, and make us also in some degree free ? Is even his infinite power sufficient for this ? I should be glad to hear what reason any man can give for thinking in that manner. It is sufficient for me to show that it is not impossible, and no man, I think, can show it is improbable. Much more might he offered to demonstrate clearly that men are free agents and accountable for their actions.
Lastly. If God does not sometimes interfere by his providence, it is either because he cannot or because he will not_ Which of these positions will you choose ? There is a righteous nation grievously op¬pressed by a cruel tyrant: they earnestly entreat God to deliver them. If you say he cannot, you deny his infinite power, which you at first acknowledged. If you say he will not, you must directly deny his infinite goodness. You are of necessity obliged to allow that it is highly rea¬sonable to believe a Providence, because it is highly absurd to believe otherwise.
Now, if it is unreasonable to suppose it out of the power of the Deity to help and favor us particularly, or that we are out of his hearing and notice, or that good actions do not procure more of his favor than ill ones, then I conclude that believing a Providence, we have the founda¬tion of all true religion ; for we should love and revere that Deity for his goodness, and thank him for his benefits ; we should adore him for his wisdom, fear him for his power, and pray to him for his favor and protection. And this religion will be a powerful regulator of our actions, give us peace and tranquillity in our own minds, and render us bene-volent, useful, and beneficial to others.
The 1st quote I posted here, the quote below this on Franklin, was Franklin from his death bed. He wanted it to be a private statement because he admitted to not being a Christian but he also told the truth about his worldview just as he did in the lecture above. I should have included this with it but here is the remainder of franklin’s statement to Ezra Stiles from his deathbed.
I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it. . . . I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with thera all.” (63) In these tolerant words a great pagan sceptic showed his graceful consideration for the rituals of his time, as Socrates on his deathbed had remembered that he owed a sacrificial cock to Esculapius.
The truth is Franklin was no deist. A deistic worldview is one with no truth, irrational, kind of like atheism because deism posits that there is no revelation from God thru the Scriptures, just natural law (Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary). This is just not true about most of these men. Franklin wasn’t saved but his worldview was a product of the Reformation. That God rules. Now, lest I contradict myself, I think franklin was trying to work out the difference between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism in the lecture above but he believed that God intervenes in the affairs of men. He also believed that God does judge.
There are many interesting quotes from Jefferson
sorry, I didn’t mean atheists hold natural law as a tenet, but just that athieists have to hold, when pushed to their logical end, that there is no truth or an ethical standard. Which is why an atheist should have no problems with the likes of Hitler.
I am a senior in high school who is very active when it comes to politics and this subject has had a huge impact on my home life as well as in my personal life with friends. Larry i particularly like your comment about the gay facitsts im a catholic and being in public schools im around them everyday.
Karson, Thanks for dropping by!
If you really want to get a better handle on both the history and the ideology (theology) of this subject I recommend two fantastic books by RJ Rushdoony:
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-American-System-Rousas-Rushdoony/dp/1879998270
http://www.amazon.com/This-Independent-Republic-Rousas-Rushdoony/dp/1879998246
Hope this helps!
Lar
Since you are a HS student and costs might be a factor, there are many older used versions of both books available for even better costs; use DealOz to search by title and author: http://www.dealoz.com/
Oh well, guess we just have to shrug off these rude people and deal with it. I try to not let it get to me.