Comments on: The Gospel According to Thomas Jefferson

by: kerygmata

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:24:20 +0000

James Smits, your limited knowledge of “Calvinism” (which is to say, the sovereignty of God in salvation), is proved by your own comments. Whether or not Calvin should have given a convicted criminal asylum, or even had the power to, is beside the point. One thing you must understand is that election and the elect are knowledge that only God can possess, these things are not revealed, and so who knows who is going to be condemned? I was once not a Christian, (and deserving of many of the bizarre punishments suggested by Jefferson for my crimes during that time), but having been saved I now know that I was always elect. Election does not mean that people who believe in election only are saved, it means that people who believe in Jesus only are saved, and God has always known who they are.

by: James Smits

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:31:03 +0000

Sorry, I just discovered yesterday that Thomas Jefferson despised Calvinism and I got a little excited about being able to read more of his thoughts.

by: James Smits

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:52:31 +0000

Regarding John Calvin’s doctrine of election.
If the reader is a Calvinist, allow yourself to question this doctrine momentarily. (It is not a sin to exercise your mind…)
What if “Pre-Election” is not true? What if it was never the Creator’s intention to save a few “Calvinists” and condemn the vast majority of human creatures to eternal “Hell”? If Calvin was wrong then his ideas must be an abomination to our Creator!
The idea of pre-Election is simply the worst example of prejudice the world has ever known! It is the epitomy of prejudice (and pride). It defines the word prejudice like no other concept ever vomited up from a deranged human mind. We can easily and accurately judge Calvin by his actions. Calvin was a unrepented, pre-meditated murderer. He pre-determined that should Michael Servetus ever come to Geneva, “if my authority is of any avail I will not suffer him to get out alive.” Follow this egotistical, self centered murderer at your own risk!
My Grandfather’s brother was Herman Hoeksema. This proud homo sapien founded the tiny Protestant Reformed Church of America! Some proud, misled “PRs” actually believe that even their Christian Reformed neighbors are “not Elect”! So they believe God is only going to save a few thousand PRs and toss the rest of humanity (Billions and Billions!) away? Condemned not to death, but eternal existence in “Hell”!
No wonder Catholics and Protestants in Nazi Germany did not stand and stop the Holocaust! Of what importance are the lives of a few million Jews when they are bound for an eternity in Hell anyway?
Can you see the depravity and insanity of Pre-election? Can you see the evil? I regret that I was born into the Christian Reformed Culture! I am ashamed that this extreme Prejudice was instilled into me in Calvin Christian School! I am ashamed to be related to Herman Hoeksema. This proud animal did not even want to speak to his own (Christian Reformed) brother! It is my humble guess that both brothers were wrong. All doctrines of Hell and Election and Pre-destination are false fantasies and extremely dangerous to God’s Creation.

by: Derek

Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:40:22 +0000

Just a note for those interested—due to other things going on right now I wasn’t able to finish the article about Barton/Original Intent, so it’ll be pushed back to our next issue.

by: ambrosesearle

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:25:42 +0000

Well at 17, Derek is learing a lesson that Barton still seems not to have learned.

I have a different understanding about Mr. Wallace’s age:
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/author/derek/

Whether he’s “learned the lesson” about bogus citations yet remains to be seen.

“Second, you were citing a website with no educational or official validity; not wise for anyone who wishes to be taken seriously.”

Why would you say that Till’s website has “no educational or official validity?”

Positiveatheism.org is a private, highly biased, ideological propaganda site. Factual error abound on that site. The fabricated “Dr. Woods” letter is only one example.

Sites with “official or educational” validity generally are .edu or .gov sites. Those domains are highly regulated. But anyone with $7.95 per year can buy a .org domain and post mounds of bogus data.

I don’t mean to imply that all atheists are entirely ignorant, but many, particularly those who proselytize online like the positiveatheism folks, often make arguments that are factually filled with holes.

by: David Ketter

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:44:04 +0000

In defense of Barton, every academic – whether in history, Biblical studies, the sciences, etc. – cites things much the same way. No, it doesn’t work in journalism, but in such studies as this, it is a common and accepted practice, so long as all the back-sources have proper authority.

by: Jon Rowe

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:06:10 +0000

Well at 17, Derek is learing a lesson that Barton still seems not to have learned.

I try to be absolutely paranoid in confirming things with primary sources.

“Second, you were citing a website with no educational or official validity; not wise for anyone who wishes to be taken seriously.”

Why would you say that Till’s website has “no educational or official validity?”

I would agree that he should cite the primary source—the letter from which the quotation was taken. If he discovered the quotation on a particular website, he should include that as well.

“Jefferson referred to Christianity as a ‘superstition,’ and predicted that ‘the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.’”

The quotation that begins with “the day will come….” is accurate. I agree the quoted term “superstition” derived from the longer “unconfirmed” quotation (as Barton would put it) is problematic.

Jefferson and Adams thought that Christianity had been “corrupted”: so he/they wouldn’t say that “Christianity is a superstitution” but rather that they wanted to rid Christianity of its corruptions. The problem though is that these “corruptions” were the key doctrines of orthodox Christianity like the Virgin Birth, Incarnation, and the Trinity. Once you get rid of those “Corruptions” then some would argue its no longer “Christianity.”

by: ambrosesearle

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:05:11 +0000

Derek,

Thanks for your straightforward response. Please do research the matter. If you can find a primary source citation for the “undated Dr. Woods” letter, you will be the first.

Just another caution: the “other people have made the same error” justification has often been invoked by David Barton. Most people who criticize him the way that you have done don’t accept that excuse from Barton.

I think that the golden rule should apply here: whatever justifications you make for your own errors should be acceptable to you from other researchers :)