tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post117105736754938931..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1171420043146659192007-02-13T21:27:00.000-05:002007-02-13T21:27:00.000-05:00Leo,Lillback's book is definitely worth a read. F...Leo,<BR/><BR/>Lillback's book is definitely worth a read. From what I've read, however, his research fails to show that Washington believed in orthodoxy, just that he wasn't a strict Deist.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1171419942913107452007-02-13T21:25:00.000-05:002007-02-13T21:25:00.000-05:00Jim,You have a good point. But it seems to me tha...Jim,<BR/><BR/>You have a good point. But it seems to me that universalism -- the belief that all will eventually be saved -- is just one step beyond Arminianism. To put it another way: some Arminians believe in eternal damnation for those who don't accept the "gift" of the Atonement (they wouldn't be Universalists). Some Arminians DO believe that all men will eventually be saved, and they are both Arminian AND Universalist. <BR/><BR/>When Rush says: "From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White,Chauncey, and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of these authors future punishment, and of long, long duration."<BR/><BR/>To me, that says he thinks the men who aren't rewarded immediately upon death with Heaven will be temporarily punished and then eventually redeemed. I don't know about "Fletcher," but I do know what Chauncey taught. And he taught the eventual salvation of all men.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1171411295688382942007-02-13T19:01:00.000-05:002007-02-13T19:01:00.000-05:00Jon, I wish I had more time to write at length. Bu...Jon, I wish I had more time to write at length. But your use of "universalism" seems as inaccurate as most modern folk in their description of "deism" of that era. Like deism, universalism had a different meaning back then. <BR/><BR/>Calvinists believe in limited atonement -- that Christ's death was only for the predestined elect. <BR/><BR/>Arminians rejected predestination and believed that Christ died for all. The term for this at the time was "universalism." <BR/><BR/>But Arminians still believed that this "gift" must be accepted. They didn't believe that all were saved. They still believed in the judgment of God (just like, apparently, the Theistic Rationalists did). <BR/><BR/>I don't know a sufficient amount about Unitarians to comment, but I belong to a Wesleyan denomination and thus know what an Arminian is (was), as well as who Rush's "Fletcher" was.Jim Babkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365067294013538651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1171368339837257152007-02-13T07:05:00.000-05:002007-02-13T07:05:00.000-05:00I had to chuckle yesterday as I read the latest is...I had to chuckle yesterday as I read the latest issue of World Magazine and their very positive spin on Mr. Lillback's book, page 11 of the February 17th issue. Quite interesting is their comment that, "...Washington was an orthodox believer of the 18th Century mode who never hesitated to reference his faith in letters, speeches and memoranda"<BR/><BR/>Another interesting byte is "By sheer weight the case is made" i.e., 200 pages of endnotes and 1/3 of the bibliography is primary sources.<BR/><BR/>Looks like I may have to keep my eyes peeled for Mr. Lillback's Magnum Opus (No offense to Kansas)Leohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06488222828586634378noreply@blogger.com