tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post1658673862503563721..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-35513972125426716402007-10-09T17:35:00.000-04:002007-10-09T17:35:00.000-04:00From Mr. Frazer's post:I, as an evangelical Christ...From Mr. Frazer's post:<BR/><BR/>I, as an evangelical Christian><BR/><BR/>Awesome.<BR/><BR/>, believe and what the Founders believed. I place revelation above reason and I do not “want to use the term as a magic wand by which whatever you touch truth is revealed.” The Founders used it as a basis for discovering and determining truth. ><BR/><BR/>This seems to me a weak foundation; the framers should have known this full well, only "right reason" mentioned by the sagacious Hooker, is a more sure way to God's truth, since man's conscience is flawed, adding the lack of the Spirit.<BR/><BR/>Fifth, regarding the relationship between reason and revelation, Mr. Knapton is quite correct in pointing out that “from the time of Thomas Aquinas Christianity and reason had gone hand in hand.” If Mr. Knapton had read my dissertation, he would have seen that I specifically discussed Aquinas and the emphasis on reason in Christianity.>><BR/><BR/>Actually, reason is first mentioned by Paul in Romans 2:14-15.<BR/><BR/>Jesus did no teaching before being born or as an infant. It ends with the death and burial of Jesus (minus the supernatural/miraculous elements) — Jesus did no teaching after dying or while He was being buried. ><BR/><BR/>Jefferson was a deceiver, what theory did Jefferson believe happened to Jesus' body?<BR/><BR/>Adams said of the biblical record of the Fall of man in Genesis that it “is either an allegory, or founded on uncertain tradition, that it is an hypothesis to account for the origin of evil, adopted by Moses, which by no means accounts for the facts.” [Feb. 1814 letter to TJ]>><BR/><BR/>Mr. Frazer, this should be irrelevant, since at this time, Adams was not involved in the formation of the United States. At the time of the formation, Adams was a Christian Unitarian, who believed in the miraculous.<BR/><BR/>But what is Standard Christian thought? Everything that follows after Luther nails up his 95 Theses in 1517? Sola Scriptura? The Bible only? Faith alone saves? There were 1500-odd years of Christianity before that.>><BR/><BR/>And what did the REAL born again Christians believe underground? The bible only, yes. Faith alone, yes. Man cannot be saved by the works of the flesh.<BR/><BR/>When the Evangelist (that would be “St.” Paul, for those who came in late) writes that the natural law is written upon the human heart, this speaks not at all to the Bible, which as we all know wasn’t even the Bible as we know it yet.><BR/><BR/>Read Romans 2:14-15. Yes, the bible was put together before the canon, the persecuted believers had these books, and kept them while being hunted down by Romanists. God did, preserve his words.<BR/><BR/>Standard Christian thought is that God PRIMARILY reveals Himself in Scripture (revelation) and secondarily through nature.><BR/><BR/>As a born again believer, I don't think of it with that mindset. Reason is there, and will never contradict revelation; so in essence, you are correct, revelation is superior because man's reason is flawed, scripture is not.<BR/><BR/> **What is Christian thought? When the Catholic Aquinas was writing, there weren’t even Protestants yet, let alone 57 varieties of ‘em. ><BR/><BR/>They were the ones getting burned at the stake.<BR/><BR/>The central tenant of Christianity, the thing that separates Christian from all other religions is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the savior of the world.><BR/><BR/>The scriptures are clear the Messiah would be God.<BR/><BR/>The issue of the Trinity was an interdenominational issue among Christians. Their creeds, confessions, and catechisms defined what type of Christian they were. It did not define whether they were Christian or not. Good grief, this is Christianity 101.>><BR/><BR/>As a born again Christian, this statement is definitely false. The Trinity is all over the bible, as well as in the writings of the church fathers. <BR/>God has made the trinity full proof; denying the trinity is leaving God a biune being, and denying the Holy Spirit as God, which the Bible clearly says:<BR/><BR/>Acts 5<BR/>3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the HOLY GHOST, and to keep back part of the price of the land? <BR/><BR/> 4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto GOD.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-30685163545256980682007-09-26T13:45:00.000-04:002007-09-26T13:45:00.000-04:00Locke gives the reason why he neglected the Trinit...Locke gives the reason why he neglected the Trinity, and New Birth, etc. It was because it was included in his summation "Jesus is the Messiah"<BR/><BR/>That is clear from his first and second vindication.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-219597754027213202007-09-26T13:42:00.000-04:002007-09-26T13:42:00.000-04:00I'm reading the same passage on Locke that you rep...I'm reading the same passage on Locke that you reproduced and I don't see him affirming the Trinity. Rather, he is claiming that his book doesn't DENY the Trinity. And above I explained the reason for the subtle difference.>><BR/><BR/>"If your lordship had showed me any thing in my book, that contained or implied any opposition in it to any thing revealed in holy writ concerning the Trinity, or any other doctrine contained in the bible, I should have been thereby obliged to your lordship for freeing me from that mistake, and for affording me an opportunity to own to the world that obligation, by publicly retracting my errour." <BR/>"A Letter to the Right Rev. Edward ... concerning some passages relating to Mr. Locke's 'Essay on Human Understanding.'" <BR/><BR/>This is clear to anyone, the key word is "opposition" The Rev. is accuseing Locke of neglecting the Trinity, and Locke is saying, If I did neglect it, show me my error.<BR/><BR/>So the Trinity is included in his belief that Jesus is Messiah, which is technically correct. Jon, this is a no-brainer.<BR/><BR/>This is no arian conspiracy, because he commented on that as well. The difference is the words he used.<BR/><BR/>Newton was not an out unitarian, but a closet one.><BR/><BR/>It doesn't seem he was a closet unitarian.<BR/><BR/>In 1690 Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) wrote a manuscript on the corruption of the text of the New Testament concerning I John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16. It was entitled, "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."<BR/><BR/>Newton on I John 5:7 <BR/><BR/>Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New Testament. <BR/>"When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed. <BR/><BR/>"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books. <BR/><BR/>No, the Bible uses the term "Lord" many times and it has different meanings. It could simply mean "ruler" like someone who "Lords" over a country, or over land like a "landlord." That's why Arians, of whom there were many in Locke's day, believed Jesus was "Lord" but not fully "God.">><BR/><BR/>This is why the Arians were incorrect and it cost them eternal torment. The word for "Lord" is curios. That word always means equal with God, execept in one place, I believe in Acts, where it's referring to "sir"<BR/><BR/>They are the ones in error.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-36590459182103822692007-09-26T08:49:00.000-04:002007-09-26T08:49:00.000-04:00The scholarly community cannot say Locke meant a d...<I>The scholarly community cannot say Locke meant a different being than what is given in scripture. It says "Lord" meaning equal with God.</I><BR/><BR/>No, the Bible uses the term "Lord" many times and it has different meanings. It could simply mean "ruler" like someone who "Lords" over a country, or over land like a "landlord." That's why Arians, of whom there were many in Locke's day, believed Jesus was "Lord" but not fully "God." You don't understand the context and the historial controversy regarding the Arian and Socinian heresy in 17th Century Europe or else you wouldn't be writing things like this.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-198904858620774482007-09-26T08:44:00.000-04:002007-09-26T08:44:00.000-04:00I'm reading the same passage on Locke that you rep...I'm reading the same passage on Locke that you reproduced and I don't see him affirming the Trinity. Rather, he is claiming that his book doesn't DENY the Trinity. And above I explained the reason for the subtle difference.<BR/><BR/>Newton was not an out unitarian, but a closet one.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-35860386378692176442007-09-26T01:59:00.000-04:002007-09-26T01:59:00.000-04:00Many Arians, like Locke, believed Jesus was "Messi...Many Arians, like Locke, believed Jesus was "Messiah," "Lord," or "Divine," they just didn't believe He was fully God in a Trinity.><BR/><BR/>There is no substantial evidence to Locke denying the trinity, on the contrary, he affirmed the trinity by his affirmation to Rev. Edward:<BR/><BR/>"If your lordship had showed me any thing in my book, that contained or implied any opposition in it to any thing revealed in holy writ concerning the Trinity, or any other doctrine contained in the bible, I should have been thereby obliged to your lordship for freeing me from that mistake, and for affording me an opportunity to own to the world that obligation, by publicly retracting my errour." <BR/>"A Letter to the Right Rev. Edward ... concerning some passages relating to Mr. Locke's 'Essay on Human Understanding.'" <BR/><BR/>Like I said earlier, his secrecy in his beliefs caused him great scrutiny which I doubt he welcomed. John Locke was a born again Christian, who believed in the Deity of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>they just didn't believe He was fully God in a Trinity.><BR/><BR/>That quote affirms Locke believed in the Trinity, and there can be no excuse that Jesus was less than equal with the Father; or else nullifying the doctrine.<BR/><BR/>Locke's "Reasonableness" does not "cover" the ground that he believed in the Trinity.>><BR/><BR/>Jon, you didn't read my post. The essentials are included in his proposition, that's what he fought defending the entire time. He brought this heat all on himself. <BR/><BR/>The scholarly community cannot say Locke meant a different being than what is given in scripture. It says "Lord" meaning equal with God. <BR/><BR/>If he meant something different, he would have said so, but, he didn't.<BR/><BR/>And he couldn't publicly deny the Trinity because had he done so, he could have been executed for heresy.><BR/><BR/>I don't know about this one either. Did England execute unitarians at this time? I can see catholic countries doing this, but not England.<BR/><BR/>The way he dodged the question clearly indicates he was an Arian heretic to all but folks who have blinders on, which is why a consensus of scholars believe Locke, like Milton, Newton, and Clarke, was Arian.><BR/><BR/>This is an assumption; and incorrect one, as I think I've shown. Again, his lack of explanation warranted this criticism, and no I don't have blinders on. If he would have came out and declared his unitarianism like Newton, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but he didn't.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-80681915500924736652007-09-25T17:36:00.000-04:002007-09-25T17:36:00.000-04:00You apparently don't understand the Arian heresy. ...You apparently don't understand the Arian heresy. Many Arians, like Locke, believed Jesus was "Messiah," "Lord," or "Divine," they just didn't believe He was fully God in a Trinity. Rather he was, they argued a divine being created by and subordinate to the father, sort of like a demi-God or angelic being.<BR/><BR/>So no, in an age where unitarian heretics hid in their closets and believed Jesus was Messiah or Lord, Locke's "Reasonableness" does not "cover" the ground that he believed in the Trinity.<BR/><BR/>And he couldn't publicly deny the Trinity because had he done so, he could have been executed for heresy.<BR/><BR/>The way he dodged the question clearly indicates he was an Arian heretic to all but folks who have blinders on, which is why a consensus of scholars believe Locke, like Milton, Newton, and Clarke, was Arian.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-44002270982996113442007-09-25T17:10:00.000-04:002007-09-25T17:10:00.000-04:00Locke didn't believe either being "born again" or ...Locke didn't believe either being "born again" or accepting the Trinity were central doctrines of the Christian faith; that's why he didn't discuss them in "The Reasonableness of Christianity.">><BR/><BR/>Locke didn't speak of these things and gives the reasons why in his first and second vindication. Locke believed belief in Jesus as Messiah, encompasses everything needed; that Jesus is Deity, the New Birth, etc. So he wasn't clear on the essentials.<BR/><BR/>In one way, Locke is correct; he set himself up for criticism by not being clear on the essentials.<BR/><BR/>"If your lordship had showed me any thing in my book, that contained or implied any opposition in it to any thing revealed in holy writ concerning the Trinity, or any other doctrine contained in the bible, I should have been thereby obliged to your lordship for freeing me from that mistake, and for affording me an opportunity to own to the world that obligation, by publicly retracting my errour." <BR/>"A Letter to the Right Rev. Edward ... concerning some passages relating to Mr. Locke's 'Essay on Human Understanding.'" <BR/><BR/>So, what Locke is guilty of is not disclosing what he meant. The sum of Locke's belief is Jesus as Lord is all you need to be a Christian. The word Locke uses is from Paul in Romans "If you believe in your heart the LORD Jesus, and declare with your mouth that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"<BR/><BR/>That word Lord is the same Greek word for divine. They used that word because Jesus called himself God.<BR/><BR/>"Before Abraham was, I AM." <BR/><BR/>"Why do you call ME good, there is only one that is good, God" etc.<BR/><BR/>Being born again and the trinity is therefore included in Locke's belief that Jesus is Messiah.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-37129045744549276642007-09-25T15:36:00.000-04:002007-09-25T15:36:00.000-04:00Let me note something else about Locke and "born a...Let me note something else about Locke and "born again." Since you seem to appreciate the "importance" of being "born again" to your understanding of "Christianity," Locke, on the other hand, explicated what he thought to be central to Christianity in his book "The Reasonableness of Christianity" (that was the purpose of the book).<BR/><BR/>Not only does Locke not include the doctrine of being "born again" as central to Christianity, he also says nothing about the Trinity. That's why his Trinitarian Christian critics accused him of being a unitarian heretic after reading the book. Locke's response was to artfully dodge the accusion by simply noting he didn't <I>reject</I> the Trinity in his book, but rather simply didn't mention it at all!<BR/><BR/>This led Jared Sparks to conclude he was a unitarian. But, at the very least, whatever he was, Locke didn't believe either being "born again" or accepting the Trinity were central doctrines of the Christian faith; that's why he didn't discuss them in "The Reasonableness of Christianity."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-56684543509211923682007-09-24T20:52:00.000-04:002007-09-24T20:52:00.000-04:00Show me one place where Locke uses the term "born ...Show me one place where Locke uses the term "born again."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-70929341937503969442007-09-24T20:11:00.000-04:002007-09-24T20:11:00.000-04:00West notes, by looking solely at Nature, reason di...West notes, by looking solely at Nature, reason discovers substantive God given rules and elevates those discoveries to the same level as the Bible.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, whatever right reason requires as necessary to be done is as much the will and law of God as though it were enjoined us by an immediate revelation from heaven, or commanded in the sacred Scriptures.>><BR/><BR/>The "right reason" is that person that is born again; the person indwelt by the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>"lying with a man," or that even if they did "lie with mankind," and commit an "abomination," that term means "ritual impurity," and is more like eating shellfish or the mixing of fabrics.>><BR/><BR/>This isn't true at all, I'll get the Greek for you later.<BR/><BR/>Locke did indeed conclude that "reason" discovers substantive truth, including substantive religious truth.>><BR/><BR/>John Locke believed in the New Birth, and "right reason" being a man that is born again by the Spirit of God. Locke says this in his writings in Hundreds of passages!Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-13912537169354319302007-09-24T19:43:00.000-04:002007-09-24T19:43:00.000-04:00Mr. Knapton, good post. Positive liberty banned me...Mr. Knapton, good post. Positive liberty banned me for posting the truth. Those people would ban the framers; themselves executing homosexuals for such a wicked, and perverted vice. My post is on his confusion or deception blog. It gives the truth of why we were a Christian nation. The state constitutions are sovereign over the Federal Constitution in matters of Religion; of which all the framers believed. My blog is Our Founding Truth<BR/><BR/><BR/>But America's key founders believed Nature (with a capital "N"), not the Bible, was the substance from which man's reason discovers moral, philosophical, and religious truth.>><BR/><BR/>Adams did not believe this perverted doctrine before 1800. Labeling him a rationalist is not accurate, so Jefferson and Franklin are the only framers with this belief. <BR/><BR/>This is evidenced by the Christian Philosophers understanding that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, reason is and always will be corrupt; therefore, without "right reason" as the sagacious Hooker says, religious truth cannot be known.<BR/><BR/>The Ten Commandments can be known from reason; the conscience of man, set in the mind of man; although, salvation can only be known by Jesus Christ, and the indwelling of the Spirit of God.<BR/><BR/>Jon, this quote does not prove your point. It doesn't say the bible is ONLY partially inspired, or that reason supercedes revelation. The quote ONLY says that through the conscience, man can discover the Law of Nature's will. Through the framers and Christian Philosophers, we know the Law of Nature is the God of Israel, revealed in the Bible. Through revelation is the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which is superior, and essential for salvation.<BR/><BR/>Adams became a rationalist AFTER he left office, showing he is irrelevant to the discussion. Adams believed the Christian religion divine; most likely rejecting the superstition of romanism, with Christianity Divine:<BR/><BR/>My Religion you know is not exactly conformable to that of the greatest Part of the Christian World. It excludes superstition. But with all the superstition that attends it, I think the Christian the best that is or has been. I would join with those who wish ecclesiastical Tyranny abolished, and the frauds of the Priesthood detested: But in this Country We have little of this. If my feeble Testimony has done any good, rejoice and have my reward.<BR/>John Adams to Abigail Adams JAN 28,1799<BR/><BR/>only partially inspired the Bible and thus man's reason supersedes revelation as the ultimate determiner of Truth.<BR/><BR/><BR/>To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.<BR/><BR/>-- John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson's, "The Founders on Religion," p. 132.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.com