Religious beliefs of the founding fathers

[Thomas Helwys]

Jon Chauvin, aka John Calvin, and his religious progeny are pedobaptists. Church of England(Anglican, Episcopal and splinters) are pedo baptists. The RCC is pedobaptist. The RCC is the mother of the above. The daughters have a lot in common with their mother, including the error of infant baptism.

True Baptists are not pedobaptists. Many of them have died refusing to baptize their infants. True Baptists are not splinters of the so-called Protestant Reformation of the RCC. True Baptists have refused to recognize Rome as a church of God.

How soon we forget.

High, middle or low, most of this Calvinism stuff is ecumenical smoke screen.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

I hate to break it to you, but there will be infant baptizers in heaven as well as hell, just like Baptists.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Jon Chauvin, aka John Calvin, and his religious progeny are pedobaptists. Church of England(Anglican, Episcopal and splinters) are pedo baptists. The RCC is pedobaptist. The RCC is the mother of the above. The daughters have a lot in common with their mother, including the error of infant baptism.

True Baptists are not pedobaptists. Many of them have died refusing to baptize their infants. True Baptists are not splinters of the so-called Protestant Reformation of the RCC. True Baptists have refused to recognize Rome as a church of God.

How soon we forget.

High, middle or low, most of this Calvinism stuff is ecumenical smoke screen.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

:thumbsup::thumbsup: There is much truth to this. What I find so fascinating personally is the extreme ethno-centrism of those of us who speak of "Church" history who essentially only mean our Western Traditions....I can imagine all of the myriad of Christians East of Germany thinking to themselves "What are we, chopped liver?".
Reality is, as many if not more people who are nominally considered "Christians" have essentially NEVER adhered to so many of the sacred cows we have in our Western Tradition.
Specifically: Total Inability, Original Guilt, Penal Substitution etc...<-----and these are certainly not Universal even in the Western Tradition
I am not saying whether or not I agree, I am just saying we are taking an EXTREMELY limited view of "Church History". I am always floored by appeals to THE "Historic Faith", as though there is such a thing...
I couldn't help but laugh till my side hurt when Thomas H...posted the oldest Baptist Confession from the author of the same name.

I love History passionately, in all of it's forms...but to appeal to one's personally preferred subset of Theologians from history to attempt to prove your Theology correct is pointless.
Debates around here often go something like this:
"I'll see your John Scotus and raise you one Gottschalk"
"I'll see your Gottschalk and raise you one Thomas Aquinas"

I just don't know if a Jonathan Edwards beats a John Wesley or if a Spurgeon trumps a Gil
I DO know that having an Anselm gives a +1 to attack, but there's debate about whether the Augustine gives +2 to Armour Class or mana. Anyone know?
I can only laugh at it, so I don't die a little on the inside when I see it.

(Meant to post this on the "History Thread"...but oh well.) :tonofbricks:

 

[quantumfaith]

Historical facts (statistics) most certainly are interesting and give us information and snapshots of moments in time. They do not of necessity speak of "correctness" most particularly regarding positions on philosophical ideas and truths.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

:thumbsup::thumbsup: There is much truth to this. What I find so fascinating personally is the extreme ethno-centrism of those of us who speak of "Church" history who essentially only mean our Western Traditions....I can imagine all of the myriad of Christians East of Germany thinking to themselves "What are we, chopped liver?".
Reality is, as many if not more people who are nominally considered "Christians" have essentially NEVER adhered to so many of the sacred cows we have in our Western Tradition.
Specifically: Total Inability, Original Guilt, Penal Substitution etc...<-----and these are certainly not Universal even in the Western Tradition
I am not saying whether or not I agree, I am just saying we are taking an EXTREMELY limited view of "Church History". I am always floored by appeals to THE "Historic Faith", as though there is such a thing...
I couldn't help but laugh till my side hurt when Thomas H...posted the oldest Baptist Confession from the author of the same name.

I love History passionately, in all of it's forms...but to appeal to one's personally preferred subset of Theologians from history to attempt to prove your Theology correct is pointless.
Debates around here often go something like this:
"I'll see your John Scotus and raise you one Gottschalk"
"I'll see your Gottschalk and raise you one Thomas Aquinas"

I just don't know if a Jonathan Edwards beats a John Wesley or if a Spurgeon trumps a Gil
I DO know that having an Anselm gives a +1 to attack, but there's debate about whether the Augustine gives +2 to Armour Class or mana. Anyone know?
I can only laugh at it, so I don't die a little on the inside when I see it.

(Meant to post this on the "History Thread"...but oh well.) :tonofbricks:

I am thoroughly acquainted with the history and theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, just to let you know.

I'm glad to have provided you some medicinal humor, but it is a fact that the first English Baptist confession was that of Thomas Helwys and followers, a General Baptist confession.

 

[12strings]

I DO know that having an Anselm gives a +1 to attack, but there's debate about whether the Augustine gives +2 to Armour Class or mana. Anyone know?
I can only laugh at it, so I don't die a little on the inside when I see it.

If you have to have a "die" to "die", then no "dice." I'm a 10th level cleric, so bring your A-game! :laugh:

 

[12strings]

Gentlemen...so why do you still have anything to do with them?

Quite simply, because of the autonomy of the local church. If I find a church that I believe is faithful to scriptures and the Gospel, then it matters little what denomination it is in, unless it is promoting rank haresy...there are benifits in cooperation in missions, and theological education.

 

[Luke2427]

I am not arguing that there was not Calvinist influence in the Articles. Archbishop Cranmer was influenced by Continental Protestantism, including Calvinism but also Lutheranism. Lutheranism was as influential on Cranmer as Calvinism was, maybe more so. After the Settlement, the Church of England and Anglicanism came to function as a "via media" between Protestantism and Catholicism.

Episcopalians have strayed from the Articles over the last 100 years? Please! Ever heard of the Oxford Movement? This was a movement in the Church of England in the early to mid-1800's High Church Party that produced Anglo-Catholicism. The High Church party which had always existed in the COE back to the Settlement was Catholic in its sympathies, certainly the antithesis to Calvinism.

John Wesley was a High Church Anglican prior to his "evangelical" conversion after which he retained his Arminianism.

Calvinists were and are only one party in the Anglican Church and not the largest one, either. There are many such parties.

I wrote my master's thesis on the Elizabethan Settlement, its aftermath and effect on British Christianity, including the Baptists in Britain, so I know what I'm talking about.

As I said, it would do you good to thoroughly study the history of Anglicanism.

Thomas, you ignored about 75 percent of my argument and went off on some unrelated tangent.

I am familiar with the Oxford movement in the 1800's but what that has to do with the theology of the episcopalean founders of this nation is beyond me.

Furthermore, the Church of England sought to embrace primarily Catholic liturgy but primarily Protestant theology.

That the Puritans were almost exclusively Calvinists is beyond argument. That they represented the vast majority of Anglicanism in the colonies up until about 1700 is without question.

That the Great awakening that preimpted the Revolutionary War further "calvinized" the colonies even more than they already were is clear. Particular Baptists, for example, as a result, became known simply as Regular Baptists.

Finally, I've not said anything blatantly inaccurate about the history of Anglicanism so this smug comment about "you ought to study anglicanist history" mess, aside from being pompous and insulting, is uncalled for.

 

[Luke2427]

.

I love History passionately, in all of it's forms...but to appeal to one's personally preferred subset of Theologians from history to attempt to prove your Theology correct is pointless.

Who is doing that?

I am pointing out that when some doofas calls Calvinism "heresy" or insane that he insults the majority of the founders of this nation.

 

[webdog]

In regards to the list in the op, over a third to half were also involved in the cult of freemasonry while the rest formed the constitution using this cult as the backdrop including the architecture of government facilities. If the op is intended to reflect our founding fathers held to biblical truth and not false doctrine, might not be the best argument and best place to start. Just saying.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I am thoroughly acquainted with the history and theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, just to let you know.

I'm glad to have provided you some medicinal humor, but it is a fact that the first English Baptist confession was that of Thomas Helwys and followers, a General Baptist confession.

I know.... I appreciated your post. I found it humorous because you single-handedly instantly destroyed a favourite Zeitgeist of some people on this board...
I had also seen the Helwys confession before, as I am a regular denizen of EA.org which you linked to.

I LIKED your post....that was an "atta-boy" Thomas...just accept it and don't get defensive.

 

[Winman]

Who is doing that?

I am pointing out that when some doofas calls Calvinism "heresy" or insane that he insults the majority of the founders of this nation.

If Calvinism is heresy, it is heresy regardless of who believed it.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Who is doing that?

I am pointing out that when some doofas calls Calvinism "heresy" or insane that he insults the majority of the founders of this nation.

I am not saying anyone here is doing that...It was a general statement (I thought we were on the "history" thread LOL... I essentially agree for the most part with your OP.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Who is doing that?

I am pointing out that when some doofas calls Calvinism "heresy" or insane that he insults the majority of the founders of this nation.

A majority of a group holding a particular theology is not proof of that that particular theology is either correct or incorrect. Certainly a majority of the founding fathers from Virginia on south believed in the correctness of slavery ... and perhaps a majority of the founding fathers from all the states may have believe this. That did not make slavery correct. I am sure a majority of that majority, if not all of them would have defended slavery theologically.

Indeed a number of our presidents owned slaves. They were:

George Washington owned more than 200 slaves
Thomas Jefferson owned more than 100 slaves
James Madison owned and sold slaves all his life
James Monroe owned 30-40 slaves
Andrew Jackson owned about 160 slaves
Martin Van Buren owned at least one slave
William Henry Harrison had several slaves
John Tyler had slaves
James K. Polk had 15 slaves
Zachary Taylor owned more than 100 slaves
Andrew Johnson owned 8 slaves
Ulysses S. Grant freed his slaves

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...&link=ibaf&q=founding+fathers+holding+slaves+

I show this only to show that a majority may be wrong.

 

[Luke2427]

A majority of a group holding a particular theology is not proof of that that particular theology is either correct or incorrect. Certainly a majority of the founding fathers from Virginia on south believed in the correctness of slavery ... and perhaps a majority of the founding fathers from all the states may have believe this. That did not make slavery correct. I am sure a majority of that majority, if not all of them would have defended slavery theologically.

Indeed a number of our presidents owned slaves. They were:



I show this only to show that a majority may be wrong.

Who has ever purported that the majority is always right?

If no one, what is the point of this post?

 

[Luke2427]

If Calvinism is heresy, it is heresy regardless of who believed it.

That's just fine. So long as you are consistent and declare that this nation of ours was founded mostly by a bunch of heretics.

 

[Luke2427]

In regards to the list in the op, over a third to half were also involved in the cult of freemasonry while the rest formed the constitution using this cult as the backdrop including the architecture of government facilities. If the op is intended to reflect our founding fathers held to biblical truth and not false doctrine, might not be the best argument and best place to start. Just saying.

Many of us think that the fact that they were Masons is a non-issue.

 

[Luke2427]

A majority of a group holding a particular theology is not proof of that that particular theology is either correct or incorrect. Certainly a majority of the founding fathers from Virginia on south believed in the correctness of slavery ... and perhaps a majority of the founding fathers from all the states may have believe this. That did not make slavery correct. I am sure a majority of that majority, if not all of them would have defended slavery theologically.

Indeed a number of our presidents owned slaves. They were:



I show this only to show that a majority may be wrong.

And who cares if they owned slaves?

It was accepted in both the Old and New Testaments as long as they were treated well.

 

[Winman]

That's just fine. So long as you are consistent and declare that this nation of ours was founded mostly by a bunch of heretics.

I have been very careful not to call Calvinists heretics. There is some truth to Calvinism, just as there is some truth to Arminianism. I believe the true gospel lies BETWEEN these extremes. But I believe both are error.

I believe that the majority of our founding fathers were Calvinists, and I believe that had a tremendous influence on our country for both good and bad. I believe that personal responsibility/ hard work/the right to personal property are good products of Christianity and even Calvinism, however, doctrines like Manifest Destiny were evil, which resulted in the slaughter of the American Indians.

But the fact that most of our founding fathers may have been Calvinists does not prove Calvinism correct whatsoever, as does neither church history. This is something you and several other Calvinists here cannot seem to grasp.

 

[Baptist4life]

Who has ever purported that the majority is always right?

If no one, what is the point of this post?

Well, I believe since YOU posted the OP claiming the founding fathers were mostly all Calvinists, YOU think the "majority is always right"! Otherwise, what was YOUR point of the OP?

 

[webdog]

Many of us think that the fact that they were Masons is a non-issue.

That's laughable considering it is a cult from the pits of hell. How you can call holding such a cult a "non issue" while also embracing Calvinism is quite telling for the mindset needed to embrace such a soteriology.

Maybe you need to study your history some

My entire point was this group you are using as your reference were ignorant at best, pagans at worst. Regardless of Calvinist, Arminian, molinist, etc, to hold to a cult alongside of a "historical" position shows lack of spiritual discernment, knowledge and wisdom. Your entire premesis in your op is what the true non issue is as it proves nothing except your ignorance on American history. Oh the irony

At this point its probably best to take your own advice, stop pounding on the pulpit, and "shut up" as you so gracefully put it in one of the many arrogant threads you started blasting everyone. Its important to remember how many fingers point back at you when you point yours.