Paths and Directions Continued (2#)
Jul 15th, 2012 by Randy Toman
I wish to pick-up on this idea that the country is on the wrong path and heading in the wrong direction.
In the book “A Theological Interpretation of American History” C. Gregg Singer (1964) Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
We have this:
“The old Puritan colonial dream for America has been replaced by one which bears little resemblance to that which was dominant two hundred years ago. The reason for this decline is not to be found primarily in the vast social and economic changes which have taken place in the last two centuries, or in the new role which this country has been called upon to play in international affairs. These have had their effect on the American mind, but the development themselves are the result of vast intellectual changes which have so transformed this nation that it would be virtually unrecognizable by those who lived here one hundred years ago; and they would have great difficulty in evaluating this nation in terms of the Puritan dream with which they were quite familiar.” Pg. 326
If we consider the dumbing down of the student, which become the adults of the culture, we can see what effect on the country this element has on its thinking, its reasoning and what logical thought process the social fabric ends up with. The simplistic thinking leads to all types of self gratifications in the human being, greed, lust and all sorts of evilness. But even with that in place, there must be something more that is the major factor in contributing to this jumping to the wrong path—heading in the wrong direction. It is one thing to have an ignorant people but quite another to have both ignorant, and a corrupt people.
What major process and/or happening could lead to a corruption of the social fabric in a rather short period of time? What was the dominate factor that lead to the demise of the country’s culture? If you had to—-single-out—–one thing—–what is it you would name? Remember from 1620 through 1860 the culture was continuing to improve on all fronts. Income tax and the Federal Reserve were still decades away (1913)—FDR and the new Deal with the beginning of Socialist government was still years away.
So what was this thing that was going to affect our culture in a major way—-throwing it off balance and onto a wrong path and heading in a wrong direction as I think it is?
Singer gives this answer:
“It is to be found in the great changes which have taken place in American theology since the latter part of the eighteenth century; as a result, Calvinism in particular and the older evangelical theology in general, have lost their hold on the American mind to such an extent that they are no longer the dominant forces in the formulation of our political, social and economic thought. They have yielded to various schools of theology, nearly all liberal in their outlook,…” Pg 326
The new Theological Liberalism attacking Calvinism started further back but right after the civil war and in the early 1870’s it begins in earnest with the “Social Gospel” and “Darwinism”. While the intensity of rebellion varied against Calvinism in the different denominations, it never the less was complete in its beginning. The combination of more emotion injected into Christian Doctrine from the Pulpit along with less Biblical knowledge, forced the spectrum of wrongs to be accepted by the people. Man was no longer a sinner but something good and quite capable of being corrected if only shown. All denominations were on the brink of rejecting the “Reform Biblical Teachings” called “Calvinism”, and/or well into the rejection process. By 1913 the acceptance of the state as man’s savior had taken serious roots within the “Progressive” movement of Teddy Roosevelt’s and that type of thinking.
So you say; how does this change the path we are on? The intensity of attack plus the fact that Liberalism, Progress-ism, evilness in the one area brought forth its counterpart in other areas of social thought and action. The term for today for such corruption is called being political correct. It must be noted that Theological Liberalism will become increasingly radical in its political and social outlook, forcing a more Democratic and State view of correction, allowing no God of the Bible, nor His Law and the rule will be a twisted teaching of scripture.
The changing of the path becomes complete as the percentage of people accepting these directional changes becomes the majority of the population and so—–that path will be accepted into social fabric. Arguing the issue or situation can be done but only if you are prepared to frame the argument correctly—-with that being——-starting with the premise one direction of that path is righteous and the other direction of that path is evilness—-there are few common causes argued today were it puts the both politicians going in the same direction and righteously so. You will be arguing righteousness against evilness, right against wrong—-the correct path against the wrong path—the right direction against the wrong direction.
We Shall See—-Don’t you think??????
Randy
This country was not founded on Calvinism!
Facts - Here are factual quotes from our Founding Fathers!
Thomas Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”
Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, “You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”
John Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: “I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination.”
In his, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, George Washington said that every man “ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”
After Washington’s death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington’s religion replied, “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”
James Madison, called the father of the Constitution, had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
In an essay on “Toleration,” Benjamin Franklin wrote:
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England.”
Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
“thus building a wall of separation between church and State.””
Where is that line in the Constitution? Did you put that in there?
“their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
The legislator is what? The public school principals? “Prohibiting the free excercise thereof”
The free excercise by whom and where? Would that not include everyone and any place, like public school students, government paid for military funerals or public officials like Ted Kennedy’s funeral services and all the crosses and star of David headstones that cover the millions of deceased service men that died for our religious freedom? Who paid for the ten Commandments that are posted on the Supreme Court walls? By the way, where does all this “government money come from? The tax payers or the ACLU?