OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 12:13:03 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Just how Splintered is American Protestantism?  (Read 9344 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« on: April 30, 2008, 12:11:45 PM »

This topic has been split from this thread.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator



No, nor do i have to. I live in America and i know what these sects are all about. I also know that these cults go into Greece and pass out there innovative translations of the bible into modern greek, in order "to convert the godless greek orthodox from there idolatry and meaningless rituals." As i said, perhaps these cowardly protestant preachers should concentrate in their hometown of the bible belt where their white trailertrash flock have turned it into Sodom and Gomorah.

The reason why these protestant cults were driven out of Europe and onto the shores of America was in order to contain them. You know those heretics the puritans, quakers, prilgrims, shakers and all the other hereticing bodies some of whom no longer exist, and others have morphed into anarchy such as the baptist cults with there 106 different denominations or the mormons, or the JW or the penetcostals who think speaking in tongues is divienly inspired when in reality there gibberish is demonic posession.

Leaving aside offensive remarks about other Human Beings like "white trailertrash"  Sad  on just what, may I ask, do you base this paragraph about history please?  Do you know about the roots of the Quakers or the Shakers?  Where do you get "106 different denominations"?   "Contain them"?  This is not historically accurate, I'm sorry.   Real history matters

Respectfully,

Ebor
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 05:15:55 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2008, 07:42:33 PM »

Were they not heretics? Werent the shakers a celibate only religion and a more deviant offshoot of the Quakers? As far as 106 baptist sects, your probably right in that my figure is off, i was told this by a baptist minister -10 years ago, so theres alot more now.  Unless you like to stick to the "mainstream" baptist variety, then i guess you can limoit them to a few dozen .
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 05:06:08 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2008, 08:05:21 PM »

Ive never been a fan of freedom of religion, a western invention used against countries who try to protect their indigenous practises from the west,\

Actually and historically, no, that is not what Freedom of Religion is for as understood in the US Constitution and the law as it applies to this country.  And it is this Freedom, constricted and interfered with though it has been at times, that has made it possible for EO Churches to be planted and grow, it seems to me.  So is it Freedom for ones own Religion, but not for others?  "Who will guard the guardians?"

Quote
When the west doesnt get its way politically they blackmail these nations by claiming they persecute based on religion.

Do you have any examples in mind, please?

Quote
Yes,heretics should be driven out just like the heretical pilgrims and quakers were (who no longer exist).

And where were the "Pilgrims" and Quakers driven out *from* that you know of, please?  A number of religious groups came to the "New World" of their own choice so that they could practice their beliefs.

Can you state just what the heresies of these groups might be from your knowledge?  And I assure you that there are plenty of "Quakers" or to go by their correct name members of the Society of Friends in living today.  If you meant to say "Shakers" while they are greatly reduced in number, the last I knew there are still a few of them still living as well. And what do you know about the Shakers or "United Society of Believers in Christs Second Appearing" beyond their celibacy?

Quote
Its time that a United Nations resolution is passed barring american missionarys from going into foreign countries to proselytise.

Oh?  And if eventually it is your ox that is gored?  Again, what would keep such a law that from being turned on you/ your Church?

Ebor
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 05:06:28 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2008, 08:07:51 PM »

Were they not heretics? Werent the shakers a celibate only religion and a more deviant offshoot of the Quakers? As far as 106 baptist sects, your probably right in that my figure is off, i was told this by a baptist minister -10 years ago, so theres alot more now.  Unless you like to stick to the "mainstream" baptist variety, then i guess you can limoit them to a few dozen .

So your number is hearsay and not backed up by any real data? 

If you're going to go by the Barrett numbers, we've been over that in the past.

What do you *know* based on real facts and historical data.  Can you provide sources for your information please?
Thank you in advance.

With respect,

Ebor
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 05:06:47 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2008, 08:16:03 PM »



If the UN has the power to ban a religious group then what will stop them from banning Orthodoxy? You don't want to give a para-national group that much power. That same Para-national group can backfire and persecute you.

Exactly so.  Something that exerts power on a group that one does not favour, can sometimes be turned on oneself/ones group. 

Quote
Noone likes persecution. If you want the nonOrthodox World to have sympathy when the Orthodox are being persecuted then you have to have some form of sympathy when non-Orthodox groups are persecuted.

I quite agree with you here also.  It's part of the Charity and treating others as one wishes to be treated.  Smiley

Quote
Also, historically America was never meant to trap Protestantism within its borders. It was suppose to spread Protestantism.

Not just various Protestant groups/Churches. Recall that the Colony of Maryland was established with the principal of religious liberty which was stated in law by the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 which can be found here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/maryland_toleration.htm


Ebor
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 05:07:18 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Simayan
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
Posts: 816



« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2008, 08:43:55 PM »

Quote
I live in America and i know what these sects are all about.

Quote
The reason why these protestant cults were driven out of Europe and onto the shores of America was in order to contain them. You know those heretics the puritans, quakers, prilgrims, shakers and all the other hereticing bodies some of whom no longer exist, and others have morphed into anarchy such as the baptist cults with there 106 different denominations or the mormons, or the JW or the penetcostals who think speaking in tongues is divienly inspired when in reality there gibberish is demonic posession.

Quote
Ive never been a fan of freedom of religion, a western invention used against countries who try to protect their indigenous practises from the west,

Your close-mindedness is so revolting that it makes me vomit a little every time I think about it. If you hate those "quakers, shakers, prilgrims, and puritans", than maybe you should go back to whatever country you came from (or if you're from here, then just leave), seeing as you despise everyone who founded this country and imbued it with freedom, while you wish to create some sort of theocracy.

And if you did any research, you would know that the teachings of orthodox Quakerism is actually very similar to Orthodoxy.



Oh, and I'm still trying to decide who the "prilgrims" are.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 08:46:44 PM by Simayan » Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
PrincessMommy
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 734


OCA


« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2008, 09:54:55 PM »

Your close-mindedness is so revolting that it makes me vomit a little every time I think about it. If you hate those "quakers, shakers, prilgrims, and puritans", than maybe you should go back to whatever country you came from (or if you're from here, then just leave), seeing as you despise everyone who founded this country and imbued it with freedom, while you wish to create some sort of theocracy.

And if you did any research, you would know that the teachings of orthodox Quakerism is actually very similar to Orthodoxy.



Oh, and I'm still trying to decide who the "prilgrims" are.

Not that I want to stand up for this OP because I find it equally revolting.  But, in the interest of accuracy the the Pilgrims and the Puritans were not interested in Freedom of Religion and certainly did not "imbue" our country "with freedom".  In fact, they were in some ways just as bad as those they were fleeing from in the Old Country.  I think a Wiki search on Anne Hutchinson (sp?) and the founding of Rhode Island (and/or  Roger Williams) would be helpful.   

Respectfully,
PrincessMommy
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2008, 09:55:03 PM »

Your close-mindedness is so revolting that it makes me vomit a little every time I think about it. If you hate those "quakers, shakers, prilgrims, and puritans", than maybe you should go back to whatever country you came from (or if you're from here, then just leave), seeing as you despise everyone who founded this country and imbued it with freedom, while you wish to create some sort of theocracy.

And if you did any research, you would know that the teachings of orthodox Quakerism is actually very similar to Orthodoxy.



Oh, and I'm still trying to decide who the "prilgrims" are.

Look! Up on the Screen!  It's History-Geek!  Wink Grin  I can tell you who they were in real history.

Historically The Pilgrims refers to a specific group of English Separatists who for a time lived in Holland and then sailed across on the Mayflower to found the Plymouth Colony in what is now Massachusetts.

Here is a page on them from "Mayflower Families" http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com/colonial_life/pilgrims.htm

And I will gladly give you more information if you want (or until it starts leaking out of the computer.  Smiley )

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2008, 10:08:34 PM »

Not that I want to stand up for this OP because I find it equally revolting.  But, in the interest of accuracy the the Pilgrims and the Puritans were not interested in Freedom of Religion and certainly did not "imbue" our country "with freedom".  In fact, they were in some ways just as bad as those they were fleeing from in the Old Country.  I think a Wiki search on Anne Hutchinson (sp?) and the founding of Rhode Island (and/or  Roger Williams) would be helpful.   

Respectfully,
PrincessMommy

Well, in a certain light, they *were* interested in Freedom of Religion.... for themselves.   Wink So there could be a bit if similar thinking there.  I'll have to check, but iirc, Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams had disagreements with Puritans and Anne did have some thoughts on Freedom of Belief
http://www.annehutchinson.com/

For those who may not know about it, I recommend reading the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649.  It's quite specific about in its articles on not abusing others of different Churches.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,990


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2008, 11:05:19 PM »

Regarding the OP title, a Wiki article on Protestantism quotes a study by David Barrett who numbers Protestant sects around 8,500 - 9000.
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2008, 12:59:55 AM »

Regarding the OP title, a Wiki article on Protestantism quotes a study by David Barrett who numbers Protestant sects around 8,500 - 9000.

That sounds a more reasonable figure than the claimed 25,000-30,000+ I have seen. Although, having said that, that figure might have been worldwide. Even so, it seems high.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 01:04:04 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,700


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2008, 01:24:45 AM »

33,700 according to the link below.

http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/resources.php
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2008, 01:31:31 AM »


If those numbers are accurate... wow.  Every day two new denominations are born.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 01:31:46 AM by Friul » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
PrincessMommy
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 734


OCA


« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2008, 06:45:31 AM »

Well, in a certain light, they *were* interested in Freedom of Religion.... for themselves.   Wink

Yes, exactly.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2008, 08:15:55 AM »


No. That number is *NOT* just groups that can be termed "Protestant"!  Those are from the "Barrett Numbers"! That is stated at the bottom of the page linked to. That number is for all Christian denominations including RC and EO. And Barrett did not count those Churches as one each but counted each country/unit as I recall. To repeat there are not 33,700 "Protestant" churches/denominations by the Barrett numbers.

This has been discussed here before and Keble went to the Enoch-Pratt Library in Baltimore to get first hand data on what Barrett's catagories and counting methods really are. ("Barrett" here refers to a large 2 volume set of collected data "World Christian Encyclopedia". David B. Barrett also did "World Christian Trends".)  I'll have to search for the threads in a bit, as I have to hare off at the moment.

Ebor
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 05:09:20 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,829



« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2008, 10:12:40 AM »

Were they not heretics? Werent the shakers a celibate only religion and a more deviant offshoot of the Quakers? As far as 106 baptist sects, your probably right in that my figure is off, i was told this by a baptist minister -10 years ago, so theres alot more now.  Unless you like to stick to the "mainstream" baptist variety, then i guess you can limoit them to a few dozen .

Many of the Church groups that emigrated early to America were seeking to establish a physical Kingdom of God or "Zion" in the new world away from what they viewed as the corruption of old European life, some were able to floursih others were not. The Quakers, the Puritans, and the Shakers were all protestants who had been persecuted in England by the "Established Church" or Church of England and left England to be able to worship as they wished without persecution---it should be noted not all were willing to grant that priviledge to others who did not agree with them.

The Religious Society of Friends, whose members are known as Quakers or Friends, was founded in England in the 17th century. The name "Quaker" was first used in 1650, when George Fox was brought before Justice Bennet of Derby on a charge of blasphemy. According to Fox's journal, Bennet "called us Quakers because we bid them tremble at the word of God", a scriptural reference (e.g., Isaiah 66:2, Ezra 9:4). Some beliefs include that individual Quakers may develop individual religious beliefs arising from their personal conscience and revelation coming from "God within"; further, Quakers feel compelled to live by such individual religious beliefs and inner revelations.George Fox and the other early Quakers believed that direct experience of God was available to all people, without mediation (e.g. through hired clergy, or through outward sacraments). Fox described this by writing that "Christ has come to teach His people Himself."  They do not believe in "sola scriptura" but rather see Christ as the Word of God and will follow their personal revelations over the Bible if they feel it is from Christ.

The Puritans were Calvinists who sought to purify the Church from all vestiges of Roman Catholic and were intolerant of any who did not believe as they did---they survive today in vestiges of Reformed or Calvinist and led to the founding of the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Congregationalist churches.

As for history and interest, one of my favorite is the Shakers, also known as  The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing. The Shakers were influenced by a group of uneducated, millenialist, and mystical  protestant leaders who emigrated to London in 1706. They were generally treated with scorn and some official repression as the 'French Prophets.' Their example and their writings had some influence on Ann Lee, founder of the Shaker movement. Some of their beliefs included the use of toungues and prophecy in which people often convulsed or shook when the "“possession by the spirit” took them over.The Established Church of England derisively called the followers of Ann Lee as "Shaking Quakers"as a mocking description of their rituals of trembling, shouting, dancing, shaking, singing, and glossolalia (speaking in strange and unknown languages). It is important to note they were not a part of the Society of friends. Emigrating to America,the Shakers built 19 communal settlements that attracted some 200,000 converts over the next century. Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers maintained their numbers through conversion and adoption of orphans. Turnover was very high; the group reached maximum size of about 6,000 full members in 1840, but now has only four members left in one museum village in New England.  Their beliefs included the belief that Ann Lee was the second coming of the "Christ spirit" in that she embodied all the perfections of God in female form.

Ann Lee Lee taught her followers that it is possible to attain perfect holiness. She taught that the demonstrations of shaking and trembling were caused by sin being purged from the body by the power of the Holy Spirit, purifying the worshipper. Celibacy was a major belief  and the society practiced equality in all aspects of their belief. Each house was divided so that men and women did everything separately. They used different staircases and doors, and sat on opposite sides of the room. In worship they sat on opposite sides of the room, in practicing intricate worship dances the two sexes never touched.

As you can see these Heterodox would probably be best described as heretics as their teachings even go beyond the concept of other belief (heterodox) in to fully condemned heresy.  They were very individualistic and yet communal in their approach to developement of the United States as Zion---from them later would develop  the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, the Millerites, the Jehovah's witnesses and other "American " churches that sought the Millenial return of Christ and the establishment of communal perfect societies in preparation for the Kingdom of God on earth.

Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2008, 10:24:45 AM »

This topic has been split from this thread.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator



Leaving aside offensive remarks about other Human Beings like "white trailertrash"  Sad  on just what, may I ask, do you base this paragraph about history please?  Do you know about the roots of the Quakers or the Shakers?  Where do you get "106 different denominations"?   "Contain them"?  This is not historically accurate, I'm sorry.   Real history matters

Respectfully,

Ebor



As taken from my blog:



Quote
"answering a question about a few denominations

Quote:
Originally Posted by iron_jae
There are so
many different denominations in the Christian faith. Can someone describe the
differences of a few? Especially the more popular ones like Baptist, Methodist,
Pentecostal, Foursquare, etc....



shooting from the hip, I would say:

Baptists came from English Separatists. I forgot the dates....but I would say somewhere in the 16 hundreds. I could be wrong about that.

Some might argue this point, but I think the General Baptists were the first breed of Baptists. Most other Baptists came from the Particular Baptist brand.

There may have been some cross-breeding with other English Separatists and Mennonites/Ana-Baptists, but over here in the United States there was a man in New England.

I forgot his name...Roger....uhm....It might come to me later, but he was kicked out of the Boston area...Massatuechits(I know it's spelled wrong).

But he was kicked out and he formed the state known as "Rhode Island". He is pretty much looked at as forming the first American Baptist Church.

Now.....I don't know what year that was. I'm not looking at anything, and it's been a long time since, I looked over the history of the Baptists.

But as you know they split into alot of different sub-denominations over the years.

You have Primative Baptists, General Baptists, Southern Baptists, American Baptists, Free will Baptists, Reformed Baptists, .........ect.


In general the Baptists are Congregational in government. Now in saying this you might find some that are not. I personally think they were Congregationalists because they started out as English Separatists....who were also Congregational in church governmant.

They believe in Adult Baptism only. They may have gotten this from the Mennonites.

Back then ....they also were against State Churches. They may have gotten this from the Mennonites as well.

Outside of the general Baptists and Free will Baptists, most Baptists have a Calvinistic foundation. This may be due to the fact that they came from "English separatistism".

Most English separatists were Pretty much in agreement with the Puritans in regards to Calvinism. There was alot of cross-breeding between the Puritans and English Separatist groups.

Later in time, most Baptists in North America started to hold a half-way position between Arminianism and Calvinism. They want to believe in free will, unlimited Atonement, but they also want to believe in Once saved always saved.

And this is pretty much the dominate view right now among Baptists.


From the Baptists, you have alot of nondenominational Bible churches, fundementalist churches, The seventhday Adventist church (because they were started by a 7nth day Baptist)......ect.




The Methodhists came from John Wesly, Charles Wesly, and George Whittefield. I might be wrong, but I think it started as a Bible club at Oxford University.


They had a method of daily, prayers, fasts, scriptural readings......ect.

At Oxford, they were called "the Holy Club". That was the put down used by other students....and maybe teachers.

John Wesly was raised in a more "high church" form of Anglicanism, and his mentor was William Law.

But anyway, George Whitfield tought Wesly how to do Open air preaching and over a period of time both John and George split into different groups.

John Wesly's theology slightly changed when he met a set of Morovians on a boat back to England. And at some camp meeting while reading Luther's intro to the book of Romans he felt his heart get warm, and this is where Wesly says he was born again.

This is known as the "Altergate experience".

John Wesly stayed an Anglican all his life, but because of the American Revolutionary war with Great Britan,. John Wesly had to ordain...or maybe he had another priest ordain...his American Methodhist followers.

the Methodist movement became it's own denomination after the death of John Wesly.


It belives in elected Bishops.....so the church government is ran by bishops.

Like the Baptist, it came from England.

Outside of George Whitfield's branch of Methodism......which is very tiny. Most of Methodism is Arminian in theology.

From them, came the Holiness Movement, the Pentecostal Movement, and the later Charismatic movement.......it all comes from this line of Protestantism.



Pentecostalism came from a mixture of Holiness Churches that went to Azuza Street. It was called the Azuza street Revival. This was about 1906. Now there is a short history before that time between a White Holiness Preacher and a black preacher name Semor.....but I forgot all the details, so I'm not gonna talk about it ...at this time. I'm shooting from the hip.

But it started as a revival and it spread from that.

From it you have:

P.A.W.

U.P.C.I.

C.O.G.I.C.

A.O.G.

Foursquare Gospel


and hundreds more.





So it all started from England, with Anglicanism

And From Anfglicanism you had various splits of Puritans, and Seperatists.

And from the Puritans you have. Congregationalists(like the church where Rev.Jeriamiah wright use to preach at)

And Prespyterian. The Prespyterian thing is kinda weird, because this group of Puritans in America linked up with the church of scotland.....so they have a scotish cross-breeding.

But you have alot of differant groups of Prespyterians in America.



And from the Congregationalists you have Baptists.

From the Prespyterians you have Church of Christ

From Anglicanism you have Methodism, and Episcopalism(in America)


And from the Methodists you have the Holiness movement.

And from the Holiness movement, you have the Pentecostal movement.

And from the Pentecostal movement you have the Charismatic movement.



I think, I will stop at this, but part of the problem is "Freedom of Religion" in our country. For most of the splits happened over here in America.



One of my sources is: "The handbook of Denominations in America".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0687069831


I bought this book like two or three times. I also have anotherone similar to this one.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 10:31:48 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2008, 10:38:36 AM »

Quote
Not just various Protestant groups/Churches. Recall that the Colony of Maryland was established with the principal of religious liberty which was stated in law by the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 which can be found here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/maryland_toleration.htm


What you say maybe true. The onlything I ever knew about Maryland was that it was a Roman Catholic State, that was eventually controlled by Puritans for a time.


My train of thought was mostly in regards to New England.....with the whole light on the Hill Thing. when the Puritans and English Separatists weren't able to make Great Britan into the enlightened Geneva super state, they tried to make one in America.


There is a direct link between the British civil war and the American Revolution.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 10:39:41 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2008, 01:48:01 PM »

No. That number is *NOT* just groups that can be termed "Protestant"!  Those are from the "Barrett Numbers"! That is stated at the bottom of the page linked to. That number is for all Christian denominations including RC and EO. And Barrett did not count those Churches as one each but counted each country/unit as I recall. To repeat there are not 33,700 "Protestant" churches/denominations by the Barrett numbers.

This has been discussed here before and Keble went to the Enoch-Pratt Library in Baltimore to get first hand data on what Barrett's catagories and counting methods really are. ("Barrett" here refers to a large 2 volume set of collected data "World Christian Encyclopedia". Richard Barrett also did "World Christian Trends".)  I'll have to search for the threads in a bit, as I have to hare off at the moment.

Ebor 

I did the search for you:

Ah, the bogus Barrett number.

35,000 is just an estimate anyway, and back when Barrett did count, he came up with 22,000-- except that he counted the Roman Catholics over a hundred times. Furthermore, the vast majority of those numbers came from independent churches (including some Orthodox) and a huge number of weird cross-pollinations in Africa, which themselves accounted for half the total.

Ah, the Barrett number. We've been here many times before. It all comes down to the same set of points:
  • 30,000 is an estimate he gave of the total number of all Christian churches. His last count (in 2001) produced 22,000.
  • Barrett's methodology creates a lot of phantom churches, because he counts each body in every country in which it appears.
  • "Protestant" is actually a subcategory in his taxonomy (he has six, as I recall: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Independent, and Marginal). You are essentially counting everything that isn't in the first two categories as "Protestant". In fact, the vast majority of bodies counted are in the last two, and especially the last.
  • Far and away the majority of Christian groups are found in Africa.

Part of the reason you have them, I would remind you, is the same reason we have oriental and eastern and "true" and "genuine" and "catholic" and "old Catholic" and so forth churches. 

I've actually done some research into the famous 22,000 number. It comes from Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia. It's not the number of Protestant groups, but the number of all christian groups.

I've studied this work a bit, and I see several things he's done which inflate this number. For one thing, he counts each body in every country in which it appears, which means that there are 200 Catholic churches, not one. He also isn't entirely consistent about how he counts the splinter Orthodox and Anglican groups, so that the numbers given for Orthodox and Anglican bodies are a bit arbitrary.

It's also important to understand that half of the bodies counted are in Africa. Most of these he does not count as "protestant" because they are too tenuously connected to the historic reformed churches. When he starts dividing "independents" from "protestants", first, the former group is much, much larger, and second, it contains lots of groups which are orthodox-like or catholic-like or anglican-like.

Looking more closely, what one finds is that for most church "flavors" in the USA, there are no more than a couple of bodies which contain the vast majority of members of that "flavor". In most cases a single body holds the vast majority (ECUSA, PCUSA, ELCA, UMC...). The conspicuous exception is the vast sea of baptist-polity groups, for whom organization into larger polities isn't what they do (the SBC isn't really supposed to be a polity per se, though the fundamentalists keep trying to make it into one).

Internationally? Well, only the Catholic Church really exists as a single international polity. (Well, and the Mormons, but....) And there's an obvious reason for this: national churches are an obvious unit of polity for legal reasons.

It's really only fair to complain about defects in polity. Orthodoxy is particularly bad on this point, though the Anglicans are trying hard to catch up with them. 

I've actually looked at Barrett's numbers, something I doubt very many others have.

Understand that he counts groups in six categories: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Independent, and Marginal. The latter two categories both contain bodies that some might lump into any of the other four groups. "Protestant" contains the bodies that believe in organization: Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and various congregational conferences etc. "Independent" contains both bodies that don't believe in organization and certain splinters from the other groups. For some reason, Barrett tends to count Anglican splinters as "Independent" and Orthodox splinters as "Orthodox".

The Anglican and Orthodox numbers are very similar, except that the Orthodox numbers reflect the problem of overlapping jurisdiction. But-- when the "Protestants" are split out into the major traditions, they also resemble the Orthodox. How many major traditions are there? It's a little hard to say: I'd guess less than twenty, maybe less than ten.

What drives the numbers up are the independents and marginals. But since these are groups that mostly don't believe in organization, it isn't surprising that their numbers are very large, and it isn't legitimate to attribute their numbers to the other bodies that are organized. If it comes to that, one can go straight back to Chalcedon, if not earlier. And it's simply not true to attribute all their divisions to disagreement; that's more a property of groups like Orthodox who are big on anathematizing.

Historically the major protestant groups have united into one big group in each country, plus various small to tiny dissenting gorups. Orthodoxy isn't following this pattern because of political resistance to elimination of overlapping jurisdiction among immigrant churches. 

Barrett is not on-line (or shouldn't be). The most recent edition is 2001, and the set costs about $270 US. It's two volumes, large format, lots of fine print-- A massive doorstop only slightly less massive than a pulpit bible, and with four times as many words. At least.

I've seen some on-line articles on it which quoted certain numbers. One in particular referred to Lutheran numbers which immediately rang alarm bells.

Unfortunately my first post on the subject timed out....
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2008, 04:33:06 PM »

Thank you very much for finding these again, Cleveland.  I appreciate it.  Smiley

I keep looking for a cheap set of "Barrett" for reference purposes, but it's still expensive even as a used book so far.

So "Protestantism" isn't nearly so "splintered".  If one wants to use the Barrett numbers, then one has to honestly used his definitions and methods as well.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2008, 04:42:18 PM »

Quote
What drives the numbers up are the independents and marginals. But since these are groups that mostly don't believe in organization, it isn't surprising that their numbers are very large, and it isn't legitimate to attribute their numbers to the other bodies that are organized.

I actually have to agree with that. What does "25,000+ different denominations" really prove? Consider this: a non-Christian could use the same kind of rhetoric to look at Christians and say "See! There are 25,000+ Christian denominations. Christians are completely splintered."

I'm not saying that Protestants aren't splintered. Rather I'm saying that if you want to make a good argument to show that Protestants are splintered, you need to dig deeper than just citing "25,000+ different denominations".

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2008, 05:00:42 PM »


What you say maybe true. The onlything I ever knew about Maryland was that it was a Roman Catholic State, that was eventually controlled by Puritans for a time.

This is not a case of "maybe true".  The Tolerance Act of 1649 is a real historical document that was passed as law in the colony. The copy I linked to is at a very trustworthy site at Yale University that has as it's purpose to make historical documents available for anyone interested to access and read.

The *Colony* of Maryland was started by the Calvert Family the head of whom was "Lord Baltimore".  They were RC.  But not all colonists were RC and as can be read in the Toleration Act, there were plenty of people of other denominations of Christian in or dealing with the colony.

May I ask what information you have of the colony being "controlled" by "Puritans"?  I have not come across anything like that, (and I live in Maryland, though I grew up in Montana).  The "Puritans" were for the most part in the New England colonies.  New York was first Dutch. There were Swedes in the Delaware area with Philadelphia/Pennsylvania being founded by William Penn who was Quaker. Maryland had RC and Church of England from the earliest. I don't know of any big "Puritan" influence in the middle and southern colonies. If you have any information I would be interested to learn about it.

Quote
There is a direct link between the British civil war and the American Revolution.

?  Well, historically there is a link since the English Civil (Royalists vs. Parliamentarians) proceeded the American Revolution by more then a century and it was in the "Home Country" as it were of the American Colonies. But I don't understand your statement.  Could you please expand some more one what you mean here?  

Ebor

edited to remove a left over letter.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 08:31:34 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2008, 05:04:01 PM »

I actually have to agree with that. What does "25,000+ different denominations" really prove? Consider this: a non-Christian could use the same kind of rhetoric to look at Christians and say "See! There are 25,000+ Christian denominations. Christians are completely splintered."

I'm not saying that Protestants aren't splintered. Rather I'm saying that if you want to make a good argument to show that Protestants are splintered, you need to dig deeper than just citing "25,000+ different denominations".

-Peter.

Well, yes, because that is not what the Barrett numbers are talking about at all.  It's flat out and simply incorrect to say that there are "25,000+ Protestant" groups/denominations/Churches.  Barrett *is* about *all* bodies that consider themselves Christian, and to reiterate in his counting the RC is not just one nor is the EO.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2008, 06:35:00 PM »

Thanks for clearing that up, folks. I always thought those figures were a bit dodgy and shouldn't be repeated with confidence.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2008, 08:28:20 PM »

Thanks for clearing that up, folks. I always thought those figures were a bit dodgy and shouldn't be repeated with confidence.

Yet in the past (and it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen again) they have been repeated and repeated and sometimes the number grows. They have been tossed off casually or blunted stated as fact in posts where the writer doesn't know where they really came from or how they were obtained.  They've been used to, sometimes, dismiss persons from non-EO/RC/OO churches or I think to somehow show the Pride of "Protestants" since they have so many groups it's because people think they know best and go make their own Church. 

It's important to know where statistics come from, and just *how* they were collected and *what do they really mean.*   Have you ever read "How to Lie With Statistics" btw?  It's a slim but important book on how to not be taken in or fooled by people manipulating information.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2008, 08:37:03 PM »

Yet in the past (and it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen again) they have been repeated and repeated and sometimes the number grows. They have been tossed off casually or blunted stated as fact in posts where the writer doesn't know where they really came from or how they were obtained.  They've been used to, sometimes, dismiss persons from non-EO/RC/OO churches or I think to somehow show the Pride of "Protestants" since they have so many groups it's because people think they know best and go make their own Church. 

It's important to know where statistics come from, and just *how* they were collected and *what do they really mean.*   Have you ever read "How to Lie With Statistics" btw?  It's a slim but important book on how to not be taken in or fooled by people manipulating information.

Ebor

Not only these, but also the POV and predisposition of the user of the information is important.

To wit:  The Orthodox object to be characterized as 1 Church per nation within each communion because they share communion and faith with one another and thus are one Church.  The Catholics have the same objection.  However, if the same line of thinking were applied to the rest of the group (i.e. that intercommunion + faith = unity = being listed as 1 vs. many), then the number of denominations on that list would probably be reduced greatly (maybe by over half) - because there are many groups out there that are administratively separated but believe in the same essential points and would intercommune their members with no issue.

Then, there's the question of what to do with the non-Eucharistic Christians?

Hence, it's not in an Orthodox Christian's best interests to use these types of numbers.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2008, 02:10:54 AM »

This is not a case of "maybe true".  The Tolerance Act of 1649 is a real historical document that was passed as law in the colony. The copy I linked to is at a very trustworthy site at Yale University that has as it's purpose to make historical documents available for anyone interested to access and read.

The *Colony* of Maryland was started by the Calvert Family the head of whom was "Lord Baltimore".  They were RC.  But not all colonists were RC and as can be read in the Toleration Act, there were plenty of people of other denominations of Christian in or dealing with the colony.

May I ask what information you have of the colony being "controlled" by "Puritans"?  I have not come across anything like that, (and I live in Maryland, though I grew up in Montana).  The "Puritans" were for the most part in the New England colonies.  New York was first Dutch. There were Swedes in the Delaware area with Philadelphia/Pennsylvania being founded by William Penn who was Quaker. Maryland had RC and Church of England from the earliest. I don't know of any big "Puritan" influence in the middle and southern colonies. If you have any information I would be interested to learn about it.

?  Well, historically there is a link since the English Civil (Royalists vs. Parliamentarians) proceeded the American Revolution by more then a century and it was in the "Home Country" as it were of the American Colonies. But I don't understand your statement.  Could you please expand some more one what you mean here?  

Ebor

edited to remove a left over letter.


I got it from a Roman Catholic Historian. I don't know if it was before or after we became a country. But for a time, Protestants ruled Maryland. Roman Catholics were not allowed to run for office. From what I can recall, he said that it happened during a period when Protestants(In North America) didn't trust Roman Catholics. Something happened to cause this. I forgot what happened. But after it was ruled by Protestants. The ban of keeping Roman Catholics from taking office was eventually lifted.

You gotta watch EWTN. Sometimes they have specials. One of them went over the history of Maryland. I think I saw a similar documentary on TBN.



My point about the British civil war, and the American Revolution was that Protestantism was meant to be spread by America. The English Separatists and Puritans wanted to be a light on the shiny Hill.

The Puritans under Oliver Cromwell couldn't do it in Britan, so it was eventually tried again in North America.


The boom in denominations is directly related to American Democracy. Our religious freedom makes it easy to form splinter groups.





In regards to Puritanism. In that sense I was focused on the theology. Not the congregational denomination. In Theology, Puritans can be Congregationalist, Prespyterian, low church Anglican, and Baptist(English Separatist).


Many Puritans in North America eventually connected with the Church of Scotland, to form what is known as "Prespyterianism".


And you can find Prespyterians all over the North and South.



I don't know what Protestant denomination took over the state of MAryland away from the Roman Catholics, but according to what I saw on EWTN, it happened for a period of time when Protestants (In North America) were hostile towards Roman Catholics.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 02:21:53 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2008, 08:29:53 AM »

Not that I want to start a political discussion here, but still, I believe that the USA was founded on a basically anti-Christian idea. There is no such thing in a Christian world view as an "unalienable right to pursuit of happiness." We are called to take up a cross, not to "pursue happiness." Besides, Christians must obey "supreme authorities," which, in the 1770-s, were King George and his appointed governors. So, the only right choice for any Christian at that time was to be a Loyalist. Unfortunately, history is always being re-written by victors, and new generations are indoctrinated in new (and often false) ideas.
Logged

Love never fails.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2008, 09:00:48 AM »


I got it from a Roman Catholic Historian.

Do you recall the name of this person?

Quote
I don't know if it was before or after we became a country. But for a time, Protestants ruled Maryland. Roman Catholics were not allowed to run for office. From what I can recall, he said that it happened during a period when Protestants(In North America) didn't trust Roman Catholics. Something happened to cause this. I forgot what happened. But after it was ruled by Protestants. The ban of keeping Roman Catholics from taking office was eventually lifted.

One of the confusions here is you wrote "Puritans" in Maryland.  Puritans were not the only sort of "Protestant" nor were most of the non-RC Christians "Puritan" in most of the British Colonies in North America.  If the "Roman Catholic Historian" said that there were "Puritans" in Maryland I should very much like to know what his/her source material is for that.  As I wrote above along with the Roman Catholics Maryland was Anglican/Church of England.  It was following the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 in which King James II was overthrown and William and Mary placed on the throne that control of the Colony of Maryland was taken from the "Lord Proprietary".  A Royal Governor was installed and in 1692 the "Establishment Act" was enacted which created 31 Parishes of the Church of England.  This did not drive RCs from the colony. It did not take their property or destroy their churches. It was a matter of politics among other things. Once the C 0f E was "established" I have read that RC churches weren't allowed to be built.  However the first RC Cathedral, the Basilica in Baltimore was constructed from 1806-1821, still stands today and in fact had a major renovation a few years ago.

There were times when Roman Catholics were not allowed to hold office in Maryland, but that did not stop them from taking part in public life.  Charles Carroll of Carrollton from Maryland signed the Declaration of Independence, the only Roman Catholic to do so.  He also was publically active in other areas including the start of the B&O Railroad. At one time he was one of the richest men in the Colonies/United States. He had an RC chapel on his estate which still exists. He was the last surviving Signer of the Declaration.

Anti-RC feelings in politics were more in the 19th Century and part of it had to do with increased immigration.

Quote
You gotta watch EWTN. Sometimes they have specials. One of them went over the history of Maryland. I think I saw a similar documentary on TBN.

We don't have cable TV.  Smiley I wonder if these are ever put on DVD or on the 'Net.  

Quote
My point about the British civil war, and the American Revolution was that Protestantism was meant to be spread by America. The English Separatists and Puritans wanted to be a light on the shiny Hill.

The Puritans under Oliver Cromwell couldn't do it in Britan, so it was eventually tried again in North America.

I mean no offense here, but the American Revolution happened because politics, economy and rights among other things.  There were few if any "Puritans" around in the mid 1700s and none of the members of the Continental Congress were, as far as I know.  The Parliamentarians/Cromwell's party were long gone, with the throne being restored when Charles II came back.   I really do not follow your assertion that there is some binding link between the two besides the fact that they are both part of British History.  The "Commonwealth" under Oliver Cromwell and his successor lasted from 1649 to 1660.  It didn't have much affect in North America.  The Colonies were not under the control of a single govermental unit but individual entities.

Are you thinking of "a city on a hill"?  That is a phrase from John Winthrop, who *was* a Puritan, in 1630.

Quote
The boom in denominations is directly related to American Democracy. Our religious freedom makes it easy to form splinter groups.

I don't know about a "boom" but there were groups forming in other countries, not just the US.  And as the Barrett numbers show a very large number of the groups are in Africa.



Quote
In regards to Puritanism. In that sense I was focused on the theology. Not the congregational denomination. In Theology, Puritans can be Congregationalist, Prespyterian, low church Anglican, and Baptist(English Separatist).

Well, on this point I would disagree with you.  the name "Puritan" refers to a specific group from the 16th and 17th Centuries. As a religious group they do not exist today as far as I know.  It is not the same or equal to "Protestant".  What particular points of theology do you have in mind, please?

Quote
Many Puritans in North America eventually connected with the Church of Scotland, to form what is known as "Prespyterianism".


And you can find Prespyterians all over the North and South.

On this a person who knows more about the Presbyterians would have more information.  But 21st Century Presbyterians are not "Puritans".

Quote
I don't know what Protestant denomination took over the state of MAryland away from the Roman Catholics, but according to what I saw on EWTN, it happened for a period of time when Protestants (In North America) were hostile towards Roman Catholics.

Church of England, see above, and it was take over from the Proprietor, the Third Lord Baltimore, Charles Calvert, by the Throne.  Here is a link to some information about the last one:

http://mdroots.thinkport.org/library/charlescalvert.asp  

 And while the Calverts were RC, that the colonies, not just Maryland, were coming under Royal Governorship had to do with wealth, power and influence.  Also, there were laws binding on RCs in England, it wasn't just in North America, and part of that can be traced back to various things in politics from the reigns of James I and Elizabeth.

Ebor

edited for grammar
« Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 11:45:06 AM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2008, 09:12:40 AM »

Not that I want to start a political discussion here, but still, I believe that the USA was founded on a basically anti-Christian idea. There is no such thing in a Christian world view as an "unalienable right to pursuit of happiness." We are called to take up a cross, not to "pursue happiness." Besides, Christians must obey "supreme authorities," which, in the 1770-s, were King George and his appointed governors. So, the only right choice for any Christian at that time was to be a Loyalist. Unfortunately, history is always being re-written by victors, and new generations are indoctrinated in new (and often false) ideas.

Oh, but this isn't political (I don't *think*)  this would be a discussion of History!  Smiley Smiley  And there can be honest history, not just 're-written by victors'.   I'm intrigued by your phrase "the only right choice for any Christian at that time".  May I ask what you have read of Colonial history please?  Have you read all of the Declaration of Independence?  This sets out the reasons.  Also, there are surviving notes and works from the people involved for primary source material.

I know that you have many other things to do with your teaching and other parts of life and I by no means want to cause you any stress.  It's just, I suppose, another case of "History-Geek rides again"   Smiley Wink

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2008, 09:23:37 AM »

Not only these, but also the POV and predisposition of the user of the information is important.

To wit:  The Orthodox object to be characterized as 1 Church per nation within each communion because they share communion and faith with one another and thus are one Church.  The Catholics have the same objection.  However, if the same line of thinking were applied to the rest of the group (i.e. that intercommunion + faith = unity = being listed as 1 vs. many), then the number of denominations on that list would probably be reduced greatly (maybe by over half) - because there are many groups out there that are administratively separated but believe in the same essential points and would intercommune their members with no issue.

Then, there's the question of what to do with the non-Eucharistic Christians?

Hence, it's not in an Orthodox Christian's best interests to use these types of numbers.

Exactly so, Cleveland!  Yet it has been done many times, mostly as a way to show how confused/prideful/wrong those "Protestants" are. (Never mind that there is no generic "Protestant" but different bodies and Churches).

It reminds me of a part of C. S. Lewis' "A Pilgrim's Regress" where a "riddle" or puzzle is given of a man who is traveling with his enemy and cannot go faster.  There is a bridge between him and his home.  His wife sends a message "Should I leave the bridge so that you may pass or destroy the bridge so that your enemy may not come over?"  The point being that using something for ones own point/argument can be used by an opponent against ones argument sometimes.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2008, 10:05:20 AM »

Not that I want to start a political discussion here, but still, I believe that the USA was founded on a basically anti-Christian idea. There is no such thing in a Christian world view as an "unalienable right to pursuit of happiness." We are called to take up a cross, not to "pursue happiness." Besides, Christians must obey "supreme authorities," which, in the 1770-s, were King George and his appointed governors. So, the only right choice for any Christian at that time was to be a Loyalist. Unfortunately, history is always being re-written by victors, and new generations are indoctrinated in new (and often false) ideas.

I agree,


A cut and paste from my blog:





Quote
Calvinism's historical inconsistency with Romans 13:1-2
Calvinism’s inconsistency with Romans 13:1-2

In modern times, it is not uncommon to hear a Calvinist bring up Romans 13:1-2 when it comes to the issue of “civil disobedience”. They seem to support government oppression over the rights of the poor and downtrotten. Normally they will say that “civil disobedience” is only in regards to personal evangelism. But lets look at their history to see if this was always true.


NKJV
Romans 13:1-2
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.


In the book Christianity’s dangerous idea, Dr. Mcgrath mentions one of the threats to King James the 1st’s Kingdom.



“”Jame’s Scotish experience had created something of an aversion on his part to
the more austere forms of Presbyterian church culture and convinced him that,
just as Geneva was a republic, so Calvin’s followers were covert
revolutionaries. His views on this matter were shaped to no small extent by some
unpleasant experiences with Scottish prespyteries, Particularly under Andrew
Melville, a Scotish Presbyterian who had taught at the Calvin’s protégé Theodore
Beza.

At a heated encounter between the King and senior churchmen at
Falkland Palace in October 1596, Melville had physically taken hold of James and
accused him of being “God’s silly vassal.” Melville pointedly declared that
while he and his colleagues would support James as King in public, in private
they all knew perfectly well that Christ was the true King in Scotland, and his
Kingdom was the Kirk-a Kingdom in which James was a mere member, not a Lord or
head. James was shaken by this physical and verbal assault, not least because it
suggested that Melville and his allies posed a significant threat to the
Scottish throne. Apologists for the Anglican establishment were to spot their
opportunity. Richard Bancroft and others set out to persuade James that his
monarchy was dependant upon the episcopacy for its future. The ultimate goal of
Puritanism, they argued, was to overthrow the monarchy altogether.
Without the
bishops of the Church of England, there was no future for the monarchy in
England. The King’s real enemies, the “Papists” and the “Puritans,” had a vested
interest in destroying his authority. Only a close working alliance with the
bishops would preserve the status quo and allow James to exercise his (as he saw
it) divinely ordained kingly role in state and church. It was a telling
argument, and it hit home.

In the end, James I developed his own policy
that managed to contain Puritanism’s agendas without leading to any major
alterations to the practices or beliefs of the established church.

The
Puritans were offered scraps of consolation and promises of future change that
either never materialized or amounted to surprising little. James promised a new
English translation of the Bible, which some Puritans may unwisely have hoped
would strengthen their position; when the famous “King James Version” was
published in 1611, it turned out to use the traditional language favored by
Anglicans rather than the more radical terms preferred by Puritans
.“The theory of the divine right of kingd neatly locked church and king together
in the robust circle of mutual support and reinforcement, in effect making the
established church impervious to significant parliamentary criticism. Yet the
most significant criticism of James’s doctrine was theological. The theological
foundation for the doctrine of “monarchomachy”- the idea that severe
restrictions were to be placed upon the rights of Kings, so that the people had
both a right and a duty to resist tyrannical monarchs-was laid in France in
response to the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day in 1572. Some years earlier,
John Calvin-perhaps beginning to recognize the practical and political
importance of the question –had conceded that rulers might exceed the bounds of
their authority by setting themselves against God; when they did so, he
suggested, they abrogated their own power. These ideas were developed and
extended by abrogated their own power. These ideas were developed and extended
by his French followers in the aftermath of the events of 1572. Francois Hotman,
Theodore Beza, and Philippe Duplessissisted. The Primary Christian duty to obey
God is to be placed above any secondary obligation to obey a human ruler.
Puritan writers thus deconstructed the notion of the divine right of Kings with
theological ease and personal glee, pointing out its lack of biblical warrant.
For them, the King’s excesses highlighted the virtues of the republicanism of
Calvin’s Geneva. These virtues were emphasized by one of the most important
English translations of the Bible-the so-called Geneva Bible, produced by
English exiles at Geneva during the reign of Mary Tudor and published in 1560.
It was probably the finest translation of its age. Yet its growing popularity in
the reign of James I rested largely on an additional feature of this
translation-its marginal notes
.“The answer was suggested by a new doctrine that had arisen within Reformed
Protestantism after the death of Calvin. Though he had advocated lawful
resistance to tyrants, Calvin had not endorsed the justifiable regicide-that is,
the killing of oppressive monarchs. Calvin’s death in 1564 removed the last
remaining obstacle to this new doctrine, which became increasingly significant
in the late 1560’s. In his short treatise of Politike power(1556), John Ponet
(1514-56) asserted that the people had the right to revolt against their
oppressors-including “Kings, Princes and other gouvernors”-and to destroy them
before they destroyed the people. Christopher Goodman (1520-1603) took a similar
line in his How superior powers ought to be obeyed(1558). Just as a surgeon might
amputate a limb to save the whole body, so society ought to be able to eliminate
oppressors through the death sentence. On January I, 1649, Charles I was charged
by Parliament with being a “tyrant, traitor, and murderer.” The use of these
three words in the charge ensured that both a legal and theological foundation
were laid for the anticipated death sentence
.











JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 10:34:45 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2008, 10:22:08 AM »

Quote
Well, on this point I would disagree with you.  the name "Puritan" refers to a specific group from the 16th and 17th Centuries. As a religious group they do not exist today as far as I know.  It is not the same or equal to "Protestant".  What particular points of theology do you have in mind, please?

I know conservative Prespyterians that still call themselves "Puritan".  The context they use it in is in regards to "Theology". In the 18 hundreds some of the Congregationalists called themselves puritan.


So I disagree with you. People still use the term. Many Puritans moved to North America in the 16 hundreds and the Pilgrims(Separatists, but Puritan in Theology) were eventually absorbed by the Puritans. The Congregationalists still called themselves puritan.

And you still had cliches....like...."The puritan work ethic".....and other cliches. The Puritans didn't disappear when they came to North America.


They started Harvard, and I think Yale. Not to mention a handfull of HBCU's. There are people that still use the term Puritan, and the United Church of Christ is the modern heir of North American Puritanism.



You are ignoring the Puritan Influence in the Revolutionary War. Where do you think we got the cliche of "no king but Christ" from? We got it from Puritanism.

The Puritans still had an Axe to grind against the English Monarchy so they used what happened in North America as an excuse to separate themselves from King George.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 10:28:57 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2008, 12:23:03 PM »

You are ignoring the Puritan Influence in the Revolutionary War. Where do you think we got the cliche of "no king but Christ" from? We got it from Puritanism.

The Puritans still had an Axe to grind against the English Monarchy so they used what happened in North America as an excuse to separate themselves from King George.

How weird. Have they never read Romans 13?
Logged

Love never fails.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2008, 01:04:18 PM »

I know conservative Prespyterians that still call themselves "Puritan".  The context they use it in is in regards to "Theology". In the 18 hundreds some of the Congregationalists called themselves puritan.

Interesting.  It is always good to gain new information. Could you please give some links or information on these groups?  Thank you in advance.

Quote
So I disagree with you. People still use the term. Many Puritans moved to North America in the 16 hundreds and the Pilgrims(Separatists, but Puritan in Theology) were eventually absorbed by the Puritans. The Congregationalists still called themselves puritan.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.  Smiley  Would you please give some historical references for the Congregationalists and are they the same as the Congregationalist churches of today?

Quote
And you still had cliches....like...."The puritan work ethic".....and other cliches. The Puritans didn't disappear when they came to North America.

Well, I know of the phrase "Protestant work ethic" which was coined by the German sociologist Max Weber.  He wrote a book on it that was published in 1905
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/weber.htm

I looked your "cliche" as you called it up and it is equated with Weber's idea.

Quote
They started Harvard, and I think Yale. Not to mention a handfull of HBCU's. There are people that still use the term Puritan, and the United Church of Christ is the modern heir of North American Puritanism.

I know of Harvard and Yale (though one source of information says that it was founded by "Congregationalists" rather then "Puritans".  You appear to think that they are the same, but there seems to be some difference of opinion.)  I beg your pardon, "HBCU"?  Would you please post what those letters mean?


Quote
You are ignoring the Puritan Influence in the Revolutionary War. Where do you think we got the cliche of "no king but Christ" from? We got it from Puritanism.

You have asserted that there is a "Puritan Influence" on the American Revolution, but you have not provided any sources or documentation to back this up. Would you please provide some support for this claim.  What people or movements in the time leading up to the American Revolution are you thinking of when you write this, please?  Also, the phrase "No king but Christ" was not, from all of my reading, a rallying cry of the American Colonists. I have found a reference to a biography of a Donald Cargill with that title for example (Scots and during the reign of Charles II apparently).  But no reference to the American Colonies and the politics and economics that were motivating forces for the Revolution.

Some of these for people to look up were the Navigation Acts:
http://www.usahistory.info/colonial/Navigation-Acts.html

The Stamp Act:  http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/stampact.htm

What are termed the "Coercive Acts"
http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/Resources/abscoer.html

Quote
The Puritans still had an Axe to grind against the English Monarchy so they used what happened in North America as an excuse to separate themselves from King George.

You've asserted this before.  On what evidence and documentation do you base this claim please?  Have you read the Declaration of Independence which lays out the reasons for seeking to be a separate nation?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2008, 01:08:22 PM »

How weird. Have they never read Romans 13?

Just for the sake of information and discussion, and no offense is intended by any means, how much American History have you read, Heorhij and do you recall the texts/authors?  Have you read the Declaration of Independence or other primary source documents?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2008, 01:11:50 PM »

Just for the sake of information and discussion, and no offense is intended by any means, how much American History have you read, Heorhij and do you recall the texts/authors?  Have you read the Declaration of Independence or other primary source documents?
Ebor

I certainly have read the Declaration of Independence and I do really believe that its opening statement is clearly, 100% anti-Christian. No offence intended. Again, there is no such thing as "human unalienable rights," and especially there is no such thing as the right to pursue happiness. That's what the evil one said to Adam and Eve: you guys are entitled to your unalienable right to pursue happiness... Sad
Logged

Love never fails.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2008, 01:21:53 PM »

I certainly have read the Declaration of Independence and I do really believe that its opening statement is clearly, 100% anti-Christian. No offence intended. Again, there is no such thing as "human unalienable rights," and especially there is no such thing as the right to pursue happiness. That's what the evil one said to Adam and Eve: you guys are entitled to your unalienable right to pursue happiness... Sad

Are you being serious?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2008, 01:23:14 PM »

I certainly have read the Declaration of Independence and I do really believe that its opening statement is clearly, 100% anti-Christian. No offence intended. Again, there is no such thing as "human unalienable rights," and especially there is no such thing as the right to pursue happiness. That's what the evil one said to Adam and Eve: you guys are entitled to your unalienable right to pursue happiness... Sad

Thank you for replying.  And no offense taken  Smiley  OK, now if you're willing, and have the time, could we go over some of that so that I can understand *why* you think it is "anti-Christian" please.  If you would prefer to not, I apolgize for asking. I want to understand your views.

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. "  

Is there anything in the opening sentence for example that you think is anti-Christian such as the idea of the necessity of dissolving political connections?

The first sentence mentions unalienable rights:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: 

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "


I know that you're busy and I don't mean to intrude on your time, I assure you.

Ebor

« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 01:26:42 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 06, 2008, 01:36:54 PM »

^There is nothing in Romans 13 about dissolving political connections. We, those who are baptized in Christ and clothed ourselves in Christ, are supposed to be "subject to governing authorities" (Rom. 13:1-7). I just cannot see it any other way.
Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2008, 03:17:32 PM »

That's what the evil one said to Adam and Eve: you guys are entitled to your unalienable right to pursue happiness... Sad 

I'm going to have to disagree: the Evil one didn't use the draw of happiness to lure them in, but rather the promise of becoming like God Himself.  They probably were happy without it.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2008, 03:45:06 PM »

I'm going to have to disagree: the Evil one didn't use the draw of happiness to lure them in, but rather the promise of becoming like God Himself.  They probably were happy without it.

But the main thing is, "you are entitled." Not "do what God/God's minister King George V says," but "do what you believe you are entitled to ("dissolve political unions," overthrow the Tsar, amass gold and/or weapons, rule the world, etc.)."
Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2008, 03:51:27 PM »

But the main thing is, "you are entitled." Not "do what God/God's minister King George V says," but "do what you believe you are entitled to ("dissolve political unions," overthrow the Tsar, amass gold and/or weapons, rule the world, etc.)." 

Again, while the entitlement was definitely a part of the draw, it wasn't the entitlement to happiness, but to omnipotent power and equality with the creator.  I think one can make the case that it was happiness, but I think it is a weaker case with little support.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2008, 03:57:56 PM »

Again, while the entitlement was definitely a part of the draw, it wasn't the entitlement to happiness, but to omnipotent power and equality with the creator.  I think one can make the case that it was happiness, but I think it is a weaker case with little support.

Well, maybe the analogy with Adam and Eve is too far-fetched. I am still not convinced that Rom. 13:1-7 does not explicitly forbid "dissolving political unions." Again, the King of England and his appointed governors WERE the ONLY legal "superior authorities" in the North American colonies, and they, as such, should have been viewed (according to the text of Rom. 13) as MINISTERS OF GOD.

I have to say though that I am not comfortable participating in this discussion because I am a first generation immigrant to the USA. I live in this country and, as I know from experience, I can very easily be accused in being ungrateful, un-appreciative etc. Sorry, guys, I must bail out. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #44 on: May 06, 2008, 04:02:09 PM »

Well, maybe the analogy with Adam and Eve is too far-fetched. I am still not convinced that Rom. 13:1-7 does not explicitly forbid "dissolving political unions." Again, the King of England and his appointed governors WERE the ONLY legal "superior authorities" in the North American colonies, and they, as such, should have been viewed (according to the text of Rom. 13) as MINISTERS OF GOD.

I have to say though that I am not comfortable participating in this discussion because I am a first generation immigrant to the USA. I live in this country and, as I know from experience, I can very easily be accused in being ungrateful, un-appreciative etc. Sorry, guys, I must bail out. Smiley 

I'd never view you as un-appreciative or ungrateful, and certainly I find many theological problems with any assertion that the Revolutionary War was Biblically supported.  I just agree with your first statement: Adam and Eve is too far-fetched.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #45 on: May 06, 2008, 07:10:41 PM »

Well, maybe the analogy with Adam and Eve is too far-fetched. I am still not convinced that Rom. 13:1-7 does not explicitly forbid "dissolving political unions." Again, the King of England and his appointed governors WERE the ONLY legal "superior authorities" in the North American colonies, and they, as such, should have been viewed (according to the text of Rom. 13) as MINISTERS OF GOD.

I have to say though that I am not comfortable participating in this discussion because I am a first generation immigrant to the USA. I live in this country and, as I know from experience, I can very easily be accused in being ungrateful, un-appreciative etc. Sorry, guys, I must bail out. Smiley

Heorhij, it is not nor was ever my intent to cause you discomfort or to make any accusations about you.  I'm very sorry if I ever gave that impression.  I'm interested in your ideas and how they apply historically and with human beings in situations that they find intolerable. Or looking at the realities of history, what of such a case as Constantine.  Because of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, where he fought Maxentius then the "Augustus of the Western Empire" Constantine became Emperor of the entire empire and then legalized Christianity.  But would this be a case where he was 'fighting authority' as it were, at least in the Western Roman Empire? 

That leads to another question that occurs to me:  Is *any* person or group that is in power or comes to power a proper "authority"?  What makes it God-appointed?  What of free will as opposed to being all 'programmed' and run by the Creator?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 06, 2008, 07:23:29 PM »

Quote
Interesting.  It is always good to gain new information. Could you please give some links or information on these groups?  Thank you in advance.

I said I know, conservative Prespyterians that still call themselves "puritan". We are not allowed to post other forum links on Oc.net. but there is an infamous conservative Calvinistic & Reformed board called "the puritan board". It is a mixture of conservative Calvinists from different denominations. Reformed Baptist, Southern Baptist, Low church Anglican, Prespyterian, Dutch Reformed, Congregational, Evangelical Free, and some independant Calvinistic Fundementalist type churches.

They have a rule that only those who agree with Calvinism are allowed to post on that board. Everyone else can only read what they say, but they can't respond. But I personally know people that call themself "Puritan". You will just have to meet different kinds of American conservative Protestants. Eventially you will find some.


Quote
Then we will have to agree to disagree.  Smiley  Would you please give some historical references for the Congregationalists and are they the same as the Congregationalist churches of today?

I shouldn't have to give internet historical references. I learned this stuff in history class in middle school, and high school. I also learned it from reading various books.

The Puritans that came to America didn't vanish into thin air.

This book will give you a short history of Congregationalism as well as a host of other groups.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0687069831


Also if you buy a few Church history books, then you will see a connection.....especially in regards to American church history.


Quote
Well, I know of the phrase "Protestant work ethic" which was coined by the German sociologist Max Weber.  He wrote a book on it that was published in 1905
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/weber.htm

I looked your "cliche" as you called it up and it is equated with Weber's idea.

I always knew it as "the Puritan work ethic". Sometimes people confuse the Pilgrims with the Puritans, they do overlap, but in middleschool my history teacher mentioned their "Work Ethic".......the more you work, the less time you have to sin.

But the work ethic stereotype comes from the Reformed tradition of Protestantism. I maybe wrong, but I think Rome use to call the Lutherians "Protestants" while calling the Geneva camp "Reformed".

Now she calls them all by the name "Protestant". But the Work Ethic stereotype would stem from the Reformed Tradition.....not the Lutherian one. And as we all know, the Puritans were "Reformed" in doctrine.


Quote
I know of Harvard and Yale (though one source of information says that it was founded by "Congregationalists" rather then "Puritans".  You appear to think that they are the same, but there seems to be some difference of opinion.)  I beg your pardon, "HBCU"?  Would you please post what those letters mean?

The Pilgrims were eventually absorbed by the Puritans, but both the Pilgrims and a good portion of the Puritans were "Congregationalist" in Church Government.

The other batch of Puritans were Prespyterian in Church government and they hooked up with the Church of Scotland. And this is why the Prespyterian denomination is seen as the "Church of Scotland" today.

And this is why I keep saying "Congregationalist, Prespyterian, and low church Anglican".....not to mention the "Baptists" for they too were heavily influenced by the Puritan Congregationalists & their close cousins the English Separatists.....which is what the Pilgrims were....they were English Separatists....but anyway.

HBCU means "Historic Black Colleges & Universities". Some of the New England Puritans (Congregationalists) were also Abolitionists.

My Mother school was started by them "Hampton University". Hampton University sent the founder of my school to Alabama to start what is now "Tuskegee University".

But they started a whole bunch of HBCU's...like Howard....ect.




Quote
You have asserted that there is a "Puritan Influence" on the American Revolution, but you have not provided any sources or documentation to back this up. Would you please provide some support for this claim.  What people or movements in the time leading up to the American Revolution are you thinking of when you write this, please?  Also, the phrase "No king but Christ" was not, from all of my reading, a rallying cry of the American Colonists. I have found a reference to a biography of a Donald Cargill with that title for example (Scots and during the reign of Charles II apparently).  But no reference to the American Colonies and the politics and economics that were motivating forces for the Revolution.

Some of these for people to look up were the Navigation Acts:
http://www.usahistory.info/colonial/Navigation-Acts.html

The Stamp Act:  http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/stampact.htm

What are termed the "Coercive Acts"
http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/Resources/abscoer.html

You've asserted this before.  On what evidence and documentation do you base this claim please?  Have you read the Declaration of Independence which lays out the reasons for seeking to be a separate nation?

Ebor


There were alot of things that influenced them. You had the first great awakening that was an influence, You had King George's Lineancy with the Canadian French Roman Catholics, that was a major influence....especially in New England.

And yes I read the declaration of independence. The Puritan mindset always wanted independence from the English King.

Do you really think the Puritans had amnesia? Do you think they forgot what happened in the British civil war?

Another influence were the works by early Puritans that gave them the "BIBLICAL" right to revolt against a "tyrannical king"!


This is a website that lists some of the books that influenced the founding fathers of this great Nation of ours.

Some of the links don't work anymore, but most of them should work.

http://home.wi.rr.com/rickgardiner/primarysources.htm





JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 07:29:07 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 06, 2008, 08:54:44 PM »

All comments in quotes takin from the "American Colonists's Library". [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34]



http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Ponet1.HTM
Quote
"A Short Treatise on Political Power, John Ponet, D.D. (1556) President John Adams credited this Calvinist document as being at the root of the theory of government adopted by the the Americans. According to Adams, Ponet's work contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke" including the idea of a three-branched government. (Adams, Works, vol. 6, pg. 4). Published in Strassbourg in 1556, it is the first work out of the Reformation to advocate active resistance to tyrannical magistrates, after the Magdeburg Bekenntnis (the Magdeburg Confession)."
[1]
as takin from ther "American Colonists Library"



http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm
Quote
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, John Knox (1558). A vigorous critique of the tyranny of "Bloody Mary's" reign in England, and a call to resist. A large portion of the Americans who fought in the American Revolution were adherents to Knox's doctrines as set forth in this document.
[2]
as takin from the "American Colonist's Library"


http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Beza1.htm
Quote
The Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects, Theodore Beza (1574). Expanding upon Calvin's political resistance theory set forth in the final chapters of his Institutes, this work by Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, was published in response to the growing tensions between Protestant and Catholic in France, which culminated in the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre in 1572. This text suggests that it is the right of a Christian to revolt against a tyrannical King: a principle central to the American colonists' cause.
[3]
As takin from the "American Colonists' Library"



http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm
Quote
"the rule of law."  
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, or, A Vindication Against Tyrants (1579). This Calvinist document is one of the first to set forth the theory of "social contract" upon which the United States was founded. The idea was disseminated through the English Calvinists to the pen of John Locke, and eventually into the Declaration of Independence. John Adams reported the relevance of this document to the American struggle.
[4]
As takin from the "American Colonists' Library"



http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1581dutch.html
Quote
The Dutch Declaration of Independence (1581); This Calvinistic document served as a model for the U.S. Declaration of Independence. In his Autobiography, Jefferson indicated that the "Dutch Revolution" gave evidence and confidence to the Second Continental Congress that the American Revolution could likewise commence and succeed. Recent scholarship has has suggested that Jefferson may have consciously drawn on this document. John Adams said that the Dutch charters had "been particularly studied, admired, and imitated in every State" in America, and he stated that "the analogy between the means by which the two republics [Holland and U.S.A.] arrived at independency... will infallibly draw them together."
[5]
As takin from the "American Colonists' Library"



The Puritan Influence


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/geneva.html
Quote
1599 update of the translation made by the Puritans in Geneva 1560. This was the Bible of choice in New England. These are the footnotes which provide a Calvinistic theological interpretation of the Bible.
[6]
As takin from the "American Colonists' Library"



http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=coke_insts3&PagePosition=1
Quote
The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, Sir Edward Coke (1628) Written by a Puritan leader of Parliament, this document was almost the only textbook for lawyers (e.g., Jefferson) during the American Colonial Period. Coke's influence over the minds of American politicians is inestimable. Clear traces between Coke and the U.S. Constitution are apparent in this work.
[7]


http://www.constitution.org/eng/petright.htm
Quote
The Petition of Right, Sir Edward Coke (1628). This document set forth complaints of the members of Parliament to King Charles I regarding rights of due process. Charles did not receive this complaint warmly. As a result, Charles I shut down Parliament, which ultimately culminated in the English Civil War, and contributed to the exodus of 20,000 Puritans to New England.
[7]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/protests.html
Quote
Protests of the House of Commons, Documents showing the growth of Parliament's hatred for King Charles I, first complaining against his closet Catholicism, his Arminianism, and his presumptuousness in levying taxes without the consent of Parliament.
[8]



http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/massbay.shtml
Quote
(1629). This document sets forth the Puritans' commission in New England.
[9]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/ames.html
Quote
Medulla Theologica (The Marrow of Theology), William Ames (1629). The Medulla was the principal required textbook in the Ivy League in the American Colonial Period. One cannot adequately grasp the intellectual climate of New England without understanding the concepts in this book. The following two sections on the Decrees of God and Predestination highlight the central peculiarities of Puritan theology. Ames was unequivocal in stating that God controls the universe and that humans do not "change" or "determine" God's behavior in any way.
[10]



http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/winthropseparation.html
Quote
John Winthrop, Esq. (1637) A treatise indicating an early desire among the Puritans to keep church and state separate.
[11]



http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/firstfruits.html
Quote
The first written history regarding the founding of Harvard College (@1640)
[12]


http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1823
 
Quote
including many other political writings the 17th century Englishmen.
[13]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/protestation.html
Quote
(1641) An oath taken by British citizens loyal to the Puritan interests in Parliament.
[14]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/decparliament.html
Quote
Declaration to Justify Their Proceedings and Resolutions to Take Up Arms (1642) Thomas Jefferson, in his Autobiography,said that this Puritan "precedent" was an inspiration to the American cause.
[15]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/schoollaw1642.html
Quote
Massachusetts Bay School Laws (1642) Requiring that every father teach his children the Catechism; if not, the children shall be taken from the home.
[16]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/1643.html
Quote
The Establishment of the United Colonies of New England (1643) The first attempt at a union of colonies, foreshadowing the United States. This document combines several colonies together for the primary purpose of national defense. This is the first document resembling a federal constitution in America.
[17]


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1644cromwell-marston.html
Quote
Letter of Oliver Cromwell (1644)
[18]


http://www.constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm
Quote
Lex Rex This treatise systematized the Calvinistic political theories which had developed over the previous century. Rutherford was a colleague of John Locke's parents. Most of John Locke's Second Treatise on Government is reflective of Lex Rex. From Rutherford and other Commonwealthmen such as George Lawson, through Locke, these theorists provided the roots of the Declaration of Independence. This page provides the list of questions Lex Rex addresses.
[19]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/rutherford.html
Quote
Lex, Rex, Samuel Rutherford (1644). This excerpt shows Rutherford's social contract theory and includes the Puritan theory of resistance to a tyrant.
[20]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/character.html
Quote
The Character of A Puritan, John Geree (1646)
[21]



http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC.html
Quote
The Westminster Catechism (1646) Second only to the Bible, the "Shorter Catechism" of the Westminster Confession was the most widely published piece of literature in the pre-revolutionary era in America. It is estimated that some five million copies were available in the colonies. With a total population of only four million people in America at the time of the Revolution, the number is staggering. The Westminster Catechism was not only a central part of the colonial educational curriculum, learning it was required by law. Each town employed an officer whose duty was to visit homes to hear the children recite the Catechism. The primary schoolbook for children, the New England Primer, included the Catechism. Daily recitations of it were required at these schools. Their curriculum included memorization of the Westminster Confession and the Westminster Larger Catechism. There was not a person at Independence Hall in 1776 who had not been exposed to it, and most of them had it spoon fed to them before they could walk.
 [22]


http://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/agreement.html
Quote
An Agreement of the People (1647) A proposal for a republican government in England
[23]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/charles.html
Quote
King Charles I's Speech at His Trial (1649); Including Judge Bradshaw's response appealing to social contract theory.
[24]




http://www.constitution.org/eng/agreepeo.htm
Quote
An Agreement of the Free People of England (1649) The manifesto of the Levellers, the leaders of the 1649 English Civil War that deposed Charles I and brought a period of parliamentary rule. It expresses many of the ideals that later inspired the American Revolution.
 [25]




http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Tenure.HTM
Quote
The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1650) by John Milton in defense of the execution of Charles I by the British Parliament a few days after its occurance. It includes an excellent evaluation and summation of the political literature produced on the Continent in the 16th Century. Charles I was the first monarch executed in Europe by his subjects, setting the stage for a religious struggle which would grip Britain for several decades to come. The language and spelling of this edition has been done directly from the 1650 edition
[25]


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1653intrumentgovt.html
Quote
(1653); The Constitution of the English Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. Many of the founders, such as Samuel Adams, considered Oliver Cromwell their hero, and considered the Commonwealth as the glory years of England.
[26]



http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/navacts.html
Excerpts from the Navigation Acts, 1660-1696, The first Parliamentary legislation toward the colonies which would lead to the colonial rebellion of the eighteenth century. [27]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/theopolis.html
Quote
Theopolis Americana ("God's City: America"), Cotton Mather (1709) This excerpt from Mather's sermon shows how Mather, with other Puritans, believed that America was truly the "Promised Land." This thinking led ultimately to the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, whereby Anglo-Americans believed that it was their divine commission to spread their culture from Atlantic to Pacific.
[28]




http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/wise.html
Quote
Vindication of the Government of New England Churches, John Wise (1717) A Puritan political sermon which included most of the principles of government embraced by the founders of the U.S.
 [29]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/spg2.html
Quote
Intentions of the SPG (Society for the Propagation of the Gospel) (1740) The desire of this group to land an Anglican Bishop in the American colonies ignited the American Revolution.
[30]



http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2299/default.asp
Quote
A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers, Jonathan Mayhew (1750) About this document, John Adams wrote, "It was read by everybody; celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies... It spread an universal alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just apprehension, that bishops, and dioceses, and churches, and priests, and tithes, were to be imposed on us by Parliament." This sermon has been called the spark which ignited the American Revolution. This illustrates that the Revolution was not only about stamps and taxes but also about religious liberty.
[31]




http://www.leftjustified.org/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/decl/gls4.html#HOB2
Quote
Resolution of the House of Burgesses in Virginia (1774) This resolution was inspired by similar resolutions made in the Puritan Revolution of 1641; the Burgesses resolved to commit their crisis to prayer and fasting.
[32]


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/arms.htm
Quote
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, Jefferson and Dickinson, July 6, 1775. This document was inspired by the Puritan Declaration of August, 1642, "Declaration of the Lords and Commons to Justify Their Taking Up Arms," available in John Rushworth, ed., Historical Collections of Private Passages of State, Weighty Matters in Law, Remarkable Proceedings in Five Parliaments (1680-1722),vol. 4, pp. 761-768.
[33]


http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/decsources.html
Quote
Sources of the Declaration of Independence (1776) Documents which prove that Jefferson modeled the Declaration largely upon the 1689 Declaration of Rights.
[34]







JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 08:55:49 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 06, 2008, 09:10:57 PM »

All comments in quotes takin from the "American Colonists's Library". [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34]
jnorm888,
I'm having trouble working out what part of Ebor's post this is meant to answer. I've read a few excepts from the links, but I'm not exactly sure what I'm looking for. Am I looking for evidence that the Puritans had a direct influence on the Civil War, the Declaration of Independence, or should I be looking for something else?
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 09:22:23 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 06, 2008, 09:25:49 PM »

jnorm888,
I'm having trouble working out what part of Ebor's post this is meant to answer. I've read a few excepts from the links, but I'm not exactly sure what I'm looking for. Am I looking for evidence that the Puritans had a direct influence on the Civil War, the Declaration of Independence, or should I be looking for something else?


I'm trying to show that the Puritans had an influence in getting us to revolt against King George.......thus causing the Revolutionary War.

Those links show that the founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the works of the Puritans...as well as the works of the earlier Calvinists that influenced the Puritans to cause the British Civil war.

Calvinism in general is what made it possible to have both wars.


Those links are just showing the primary works of what the Founding Fathers were influenced by. Basically, it's just showing the works that they themselves read. and talked about, and sometimes used as references.

I know they were influenced by more than just Puritanism, but my focus was to show that Puritanism played a role to inspire them to revolt.




The Puritan influence starts with number 6

numbers 32 & 33 show that the Puritans were still around in the 17 hundreds. They didn't vanish when they came to North America in the 16 hundreds.









JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 09:40:07 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 06, 2008, 09:35:44 PM »


I'm trying to show that the Puritans had an influence in getting us to revolt against King George.......thus causing the Revolutionary War.

Those links show that the founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the works of the Puritans...as well as the works of the earlier Calvinists that influenced the Puritans to cause the British Civil war.

Calvinism in general is what made it possible to have both wars.


Those links are just links showing what the Founding Fathers were influenced by.



numbers 32 & 33 show that the Puritans were still around in the 17 hundreds. They didn't vanish when they came to North America in the 16 hundreds.
Thanks. I know what I'm looking for now!

MODERATORIAL NOTE: I have split off the discussion about Calvinists, Hugeonots & Roman Catholicism and moved it here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15862
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #51 on: May 06, 2008, 09:39:05 PM »

Thank you for the information on the Puritan Board. 

I shouldn't have to give internet historical references. I learned this stuff in history class in middle school, and high school. I also learned it from reading various books.

Why shouldn't you have to provide references to support your assertions please?  Why should your or my or anyones post be taken as necessarily true without any support from other sources? 

Though I have learned many things it is possible that I don't always recall them accurately or with details. I supply references so that others may read other information and not just take *my* word that something exists or is true. That is why in the post on the real history of Maryland I posted links to the Tolerance Act and other information rather then just an unsupported contering statement.

And references aren't just "internet" but also books such as the one that you did provide in the Amazon link.  Thank you for that.  I'm not sure, but we might have a copy of that on our shelves. 

Quote
The Puritans that came to America didn't vanish into thin air.

No, they did not.  Over time groups of people shift or change as some die or move on and others take their places and also as situations change.

Quote
Also if you buy a few Church history books, then you will see a connection.....especially in regards to American church history.

I submit with respect that you do not know what I have read or that I do have a number of books on the history of Christianity in general and in particulars on my shelves.  Rather then telling me to read in general, what particular points support your ideas please?  What "connection" to *you* see?

Quote
I always knew it as "the Puritan work ethic". Sometimes people confuse the Pilgrims with the Puritans, they do overlap, but in middleschool my history teacher mentioned their "Work Ethic".......the more you work, the less time you have to sin.

In which case this is somewhat different from Weber's "Protestant Work Ethic" which is not based on sin.

Quote
The other batch of Puritans were Prespyterian in Church government and they hooked up with the Church of Scotland. And this is why the Prespyterian denomination is seen as the "Church of Scotland" today.

From my reading the Prebyterian Church/Church of Scotland dates from 1560 with John Knox *in Scotland*.  But someone who has more knowledge of the Presbyterians might be willing to post with more information.


Quote
And this is why I keep saying "Congregationalist, Prespyterian, and low church Anglican".....not to mention the "Baptists" for they too were heavily influenced by the Puritan Congregationalists & their close cousins the English Separatists.....which is what the Pilgrims were....they were English Separatists....but anyway.

These are your connections.  Low Church Anglicans are not Puritans. The persons on the board you mentioned may call themselves "puritans" as they like.  I know the Pilgrims were English Separatists; I believe that I wrote about that above.


Quote
HBCU means "Historic Black Colleges & Universities". Some of the New England Puritans (Congregationalists) were also Abolitionists.

Thank you for the clarification.  There were many Abolitionists in New England, belonging to a number of Church bodies, as well as Anti-Slavery societies.  Benjamin Franklin for example started one.

Quote
There were alot of things that influenced them. You had the first great awakening that was an influence, You had King George's Lineancy with the Canadian French Roman Catholics, that was a major influence....especially in New England.

And yes I read the declaration of independence. The Puritan mindset always wanted independence from the English King.

How do you see the "Puritan mindset" in any of the signers of the Declaration please? Can you please give some specific examples?  There is not a nebulous kind of cloud of "mindset" but the ideas and beliefs of individual people and groups.  Many of the men involved were either Unitarians (John Adams for example) or from Anglican backgrounds (Jefferson and others).

Quote
Do you really think the Puritans had amnesia? Do you think they forgot what happened in the British civil war?

Do you have any original words from any American "Puritans" on the English Civil war or that they should be separate from England. England was the source for money and materials and support and more people for the colonies.

Quote
Another influence were the works by early Puritans that gave them the "BIBLICAL" right to revolt against a "tyrannical king"!

What works, please?  How did the Puritans in North America "revolt" against the King prior to your contention that they were involved in the American Revolution? The colonies revolted because of Economics because England tried to enforce and control all trade through the mother country (See the Navigation Acts for example). They revolted because the relative freedom that was enjoyed for the first century or so was being restricted by the Crown. (the Royal Governors such as in Maryland).  They revolted because an Act was passed that forbade the colonies from expanding across the Appalachian mountains which prevented trade, new resources and expansion.  Jefferson and others left primary source doucuments about the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and other important points in the founding of the United States.

Thank you for the link. I know of these documents in history, though this site is new to me.  Which documents do you have in mind in support of your assertions please?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 06, 2008, 10:39:57 PM »

Quote
From my reading the Prebyterian Church/Church of Scotland dates from 1560 with John Knox *in Scotland*.  But someone who has more knowledge of the Presbyterians might be willing to post with more information.

I never denied John Knoxes influence on those who call themselves Prespyterian. I just said that a batch of them were English Puritans, and that when they came to North America they hooked up with Scotland.

This is from the "Handbook of Denominations in the United States"



Quote
"Dominant in Westminister Assembly, Prespyterians soon also dominated the British government during the English civil war and the interregnum. Oliver Cromwell completeted the ousting of the King Charles I in 1649 and established the Commonwealth. When the commonwealth fell apart after Cromwell's death in 1658 and the monarchy was restored, British Prespyterians fled to North America with the Puritans." page 292 from "Handbook of Denominations: in the united States"
11nth edition by Frank S. Mead & Samuel S. Hill.

Now they make a distinction between the Prespyterians in the revolt and the Puritans, other books don't make that distinction, and this is why I called both "Congregationalists & Prespyterians" Puritans.


This is from the book "the History of Christianity in the united states", and in this book she says that the disputes among Puritans made them split into groups of "Congregationalists, Prespyterians, Baptists, the Society of Friends,(Quakers), and many small radical sects."

And this is pretty much saying what I was trying to say. But she goes on and talks about how Puritanism in general affected America.


Quote
"New England: The Puritan Society of visible Saints

The first Puritan colony in New England was Plymouth, Massachusetts (1620); it was followed by the colonies of Massachusetts bay (1628) and Boston (1630). Between 1630 and 1640, the "great Migration" brought some twenty thousand English Puritans to the NEw England colonies. Puritans also settled in the middle colonies, mingling with other types of Protestants. The Puritan movement did much to shape Christianity not only in the New England colonies but in the United States more broadly. So before continuing with the story of the Puritan colonies, we must sketch the broad range and reach of Puritanism.

As we have seen, Puritanism was a late-born child of the Reformation, dedicated to purifying the Church of England. theologically, the Puritans drew from the Reformed wing of the Reformation, as articulated by John Calvin and his heirs. The challenge was how to put Calvinist theology into practice in an English context. Not all puritans agreed on how this was to be done. Their various reform strategies gave rise to several groups: Congregationalists, Prespyterians, Baptists, the Society of Friends,(Quakers), and many small radical sects. Later on, in the United States, Uniterianism split off from Congregationalism to become a sort of free-thinking grandchild of Puritanism. Many nineteenth-century reforms, including abolitionism, had deep roots in the Puritan tradition. Puritans saw themselves as God's chosen people, devlivered from bondage and given a divine mission in a promised land. As David Gelernter points out, this set of beliefs arose from the Old Testament story of Israel as God's chosen people which, animated Puritanism and lives on today as the essence of "Americanism". This belief(in a divinely chosen people with a special role to play in the World) runs like a red thread from the first Puritan settlements down to politics and foreign policy in the early twenty-first century. To be sure, there are also discontinuities between then and now. The Remnant in the wilderness has become a superpower, and the old Puritan sense of accountabiltiy to divine judgement has all but vanished. Yet the chosen nation idea lives on. One need not accept this worldview to recognize its power in history.

The original Puritans wanted a godly society- a fully reformed church and nation. When they lost their political power in old England, New England became their last chance to complete the Reformation. This "Holy Experiment" was guided by religious convictions."
pages 15 & 16 from the book "The History of Christianity in the United States" by Nancy Koester







JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 10:51:05 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 06, 2008, 10:42:57 PM »

Quote
Thank you for the link. I know of these documents in history, though this site is new to me.  Which documents do you have in mind in support of your assertions please?

Ebor


All of the links on that webpage show alot of the primary documents that influenced our founding fathers. I gave some of the Calvinistic and Puritan links from that site, that showed the puritan influence on the foundation fathers of our Nation.


Some of those documents are from the British civil war and a justification to revolt against the government(king)


JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 10:43:33 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #54 on: May 06, 2008, 11:03:01 PM »


I'm trying to show that the Puritans had an influence in getting us to revolt against King George.......thus causing the Revolutionary War.

Those links show that the founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the works of the Puritans...as well as the works of the earlier Calvinists that influenced the Puritans to cause the British Civil war.

These links are excellent as reading the original words.  The site is extensive in the number of documents linked to, and in checking who set up the site (as my history professor taught that we had to do, since not all sites or site creators are 'created equal'  Wink ) the gentleman behind it seems to have good credentials and grounding in history.  It is the connections, the insistance that there were "Puritans" in Revolutionary era politics that are not clear at times.  These and other works were part of the body of English political/social thought.  However, educated men also read Classics such as Greek and Latin works and other materials.  

Quote
Calvinism in general is what made it possible to have both wars.

?  There were wars of "rebellion" against kings and leaders long before there were any "Calvinists".  And what of the influences of the Enlightenment which in some ways was counter to the Great Awakening?

Quote
I know they were influenced by more than just Puritanism, but my focus was to show that Puritanism played a role to inspire them to revolt.

I agree that religion was an influence as it is in many societies.  But there were more then "Puritans" in the American Colonies, as I wrote above.


Quote
numbers 32 & 33 show that the Puritans were still around in the 17 hundreds. They didn't vanish when they came to North America in the 16 hundreds.

How do 32 and 33 show that?  Jefferson and Dickinson were not "Puritans". Nor were the House of Burgesses in 1774, that being the elected legislative assembly of the Colony of Virginia where there was no Puritan foundation. These materials are *based* on earlier documents.  Basing something on a document from over 100 years in the past from the English Civil War does not make them somehow the same as the writers of the original.  If I base some writing now on a document from say St. John Chrysostom, that does not make *me* Byzantine but a person of this century (non-EO even) who is drawing on a source for some reason.  


Thank you, though, for providing materials.  Now, how do *you* interpret them to support your earlier ideas?

With respect,

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #55 on: May 06, 2008, 11:17:23 PM »

I apologize for this quibble, but the word is "Presbyterian" with a "b".  Are you typing in the quoted passages because if the books are being published with such a spelling error there is something wrong with their editors.

Now they make a distinction between the Prespyterians in the revolt and the Puritans, other books don't make that distinction, and this is why I called both "Congregationalists & Prespyterians" Puritans.

You choose to lump them together under one name where others do not.  I understand that and as I wrote, this seems to be a point on which we must agree to disagree.

Thank you also for the references to both books.  Is the orange line in parentheses on the quote from The History of Christianity in the United States" by Nancy Koester your emphasis or did you put it in to show what you consider an important point? 


Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 07, 2008, 09:49:16 PM »

Quote
I apologize for this quibble, but the word is "Presbyterian" with a "b".  Are you typing in the quoted passages because if the books are being published with such a spelling error there is something wrong with their editors.

I think it is a miss spelling on my part. I was typing it and I put a "p" instead of a "b". My bad.



Quote
You choose to lump them together under one name where others do not.  I understand that and as I wrote, this seems to be a point on which we must agree to disagree.

Thank you also for the references to both books.  Is the orange line in parentheses on the quote from The History of Christianity in the United States" by Nancy Koester your emphasis or did you put it in to show what you consider an important point? 


Ebor


It's ok, we can agree to differ. I'm fine with that.

yeah, it was a quote from what Nancy said. I just never highlighted that part from the larger quote. I'll high light it in red now.

Quote
quote:
"New England: The Puritan Society of visible Saints

The first Puritan colony in New England was Plymouth, Massachusetts (1620); it was followed by the colonies of Massachusetts bay (1628) and Boston (1630). Between 1630 and 1640, the "great Migration" brought some twenty thousand English Puritans to the NEw England colonies. Puritans also settled in the middle colonies, mingling with other types of Protestants. The Puritan movement did much to shape Christianity not only in the New England colonies but in the United States more broadly. So before continuing with the story of the Puritan colonies, we must sketch the broad range and reach of Puritanism.

As we have seen, Puritanism was a late-born child of the Reformation, dedicated to purifying the Church of England. theologically, the Puritans drew from the Reformed wing of the Reformation, as articulated by John Calvin and his heirs. The challenge was how to put Calvinist theology into practice in an English context. Not all puritans agreed on how this was to be done. Their various reform strategies gave rise to several groups: Congregationalists, Prespyterians, Baptists, the Society of Friends,(Quakers), and many small radical sects. Later on, in the United States, Uniterianism split off from Congregationalism to become a sort of free-thinking grandchild of Puritanism. Many nineteenth-century reforms, including abolitionism, had deep roots in the Puritan tradition. Puritans saw themselves as God's chosen people, devlivered from bondage and given a divine mission in a promised land. As David Gelernter points out, this set of beliefs arose from the Old Testament story of Israel as God's chosen people which, animated Puritanism and lives on today as the essence of "Americanism". This belief(in a divinely chosen people with a special role to play in the World) runs like a red thread from the first Puritan settlements down to politics and foreign policy in the early twenty-first century. To be sure, there are also discontinuities between then and now. The Remnant in the wilderness has become a superpower, and the old Puritan sense of accountabiltiy to divine judgement has all but vanished. Yet the chosen nation idea lives on. One need not accept this worldview to recognize its power in history.

The original Puritans wanted a godly society- a fully reformed church and nation. When they lost their political power in old England, New England became their last chance to complete the Reformation. This "Holy Experiment" was guided by religious convictions.""






 I would like to post what Dr. Alister Mcgrath said. I was looking at it last night. I'll highlight the important stuff in red.



Quote
""When Charles appointed the high Churchman William Laud as archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, the Puritan faction within the Church of England was incensed. At this time, Puritans were divided into factions-such as Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Separationists. Presbyterians believed in an organic church, with a graded hierarchy of government; Congregationalists held fast to the idea of the Sovereignty of local congregations. There is no greater disruptive force, no greater incentive to fragmentation, than a common creed held with a difference. The perception of a difference often leads to its accentuation, sometimes to the point where what is held in common seems to recede into the background, overshadowed by the suspicion and hostility evoked by the division. A seemingly minor divergence tus had the potential to become the cause of division and strife within Puritanism-if it was allowed to do so.

Yet the increasing perception of a dangerously hostile establishment caused Puritans to see their differences from a somewhat different perspective and to bring a sense of realism to their differences. Internecine hostilities were suspended in order to concentrate on the greater threat that confronted the movement. Puritanism became an increasingly well organized movement, alert to both dangers and opportunities. Whether, taken in isolation, that would have led to anything much remains open to question. In the context of the growing tensions between Charles and Parliament, however, the position of Puritans could be seen as much more serious."
[1]

pages 136-137 from the book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution-A history from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first" by Dr. Alister Mcgrath.


On pages 153-154 he says:

Quote
"The Pilgrims Fathers were not, it must be appreciated, typical of Enhlish Puritanism at this time. They were separatists whose beliefs were more characteristic of the Anabaptists than of Calvin: they were convinced that each congregation had the democratic right to determine its own beliefs and choose its own ministers. Most English Puritans of the age were Presbyterians who were committed to the notion of a single mother church with local outposts-a "universal church" with "particular congregations" bound together by shared beliefs and leaders. It was only a matter of time before the defining conflicts of the Old World would find themselves being replayed in the New. But this time, decentralization would win.

One of the most remarkable features of the early history of New England Protestantism in the 1620s and 1630s is that most Puritan communities appear to have abandoned a Presbyterian view of church government within months of their arrival and adopted a congregational polity instead. The Plymouth COlony Separatists appear to have been significant in bringing about a major shift in how congregations organized themselves and related to other congregations. Reacting strongly against the rigid hierarchical structures of the European state churches, the American settlers opted instead for a democratic congregationalism. Local congregations made their own decisions. Instead of centralized authority stuctures-such as presbyteries or dioceses-the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay area developed "a highly decentralized and well-nigh uncontrollable Congregational church order which licensed any individual congregation to revise Calvinist theology as it saw fit. And revise it they did."
[2]



And in regards to the American Revolution he says:

Quote
"Protestantism and the American Revolution

The Historical roots of the American Revolution are complex, and it is difficult to assign priority to any factor as the ultimate cause of the rebellion against British rule. The burdens of taxation, the lack of due representation, and the desire for freedom were unquestionably integral ingredients in the accumulation of grievances that drove many colonials to take up arms against the kings. Yet religious ussue also played their part, not least in intensifying a sense of injustice over the privileged status of the Church of England in the British colonies. The Church of England had become established by law in the southern states of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, and even in four counties of New York State. Although dissent was permitted, the situation rankled Baptists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians. Opposition began to grow.

In the early 1770s, Congregationalist ministers in New England regularly preached on the theme of religious and political freedom, linking both with resisting English tyranny. Throughout Puritan Massachusetts, pamphlets appeared offering a religious justification for the use of armed force against an oppressor and urging young men to join militias. The rhetotic and theology were not entirely unlike the rhetoric and theology that prevailed during the prelude to the English civil War.

So was the American Revolution actually a war of Religion? It is difficult to make the case for its being so. Religious elements were involved-above all a desire to ensure religious freedom and eliminate the privileges of the established church. Yet it would not be true to say that these concerns dominated the agenda of those driving the Revolution. The Patriots came from a wide variety of relious backgrounds, only some of which were driven by the theological backgrounds, only some of which were driven by the theological vision of the New England Congregationalists. The "black Regiment" of preachers such as Charles Chauncy, Samuel Cooper, and Jonathon Mayhew(so-called on account of their clerical dress) criticized the British from their pulpits. Yet the Great Awakening had renewed a sense of vision among Lutherians, Methodists, and Baptists, and that renewal widened and diversified the theological base of the Revolution."
[3]

pages 160-161



I will also quote something from the handbook of Denominations in the USA .....in regards to Congregationalism. The important stuff will be highlighted in red.



Quote
"The proper from of church polity of structure of authority has been an issue in Christianity since New Testament times. the dominant Catholic/Orthodox tradition resolved that issue in favor of episcopacy or rule by bishops. As the protestant Reformation developed in the sixteenth century, polity became one of the key issues. The Reformed tradition, associated with John Calvin (1509-64) and John Knox (ca. 1513-72), rejected episcopacy in favor of a presbyterial system in which a council  of clergy had authority. In England, dissent took corporate form in the Puritan movements, of which Congregationalism represented the most radical wing.
page 120 [4]


Quote
"Between 1630 and 1640, 20,000 more Puritans arrived at Massachusetts Bay. Even less inclined toward Separatism than was the Plymouth colony, the sttlers of the bay established an effective "theocratic" government. Church and commonwealth were that society's two instruments. Contrary to popular belief, it was not a stern and rigid regime of the saints, but it was strict and could be as intolerant of religious dissent as the church of England was. The story of the banishment of radicals like Anne Hutchinson (1591-1643) and Roger Williams (1603-83) are well known. When four quakers (see Friends), including a woman, were hanged on Boston Common in the 1660s (after the end of the Puritan  Commonwealth in England), there was a public outcry in England. Following the Golden Revolution, New England was forced to accept the Act of Toleration in 1689.

Congregationalists like Jonathan Edwards (1703-58) of Northhampton played leading roles in First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s. That revival was marked not only by the eloquence of george Whitefield (1715-70) but also by vigorous writings and preaching of Edwards, whose books are now regarded as American classics.

Congregationalists in New England were leaders in the American Revolution, and during the next century Congregationalism played a major role in developing American institutional and religious life. In the field of education, this church had already made tremendous contributions. Members of this church founded Harvard in 1636. Yale (dounded 1797) was a project for the education of Congregationalist clergy in Connecticut. Dartmouth (founded 1769) developed from Eleazer Wheelock's (1711-79) school for Native Americans. These schools were among the first colleges in North America."
pages 120-121 [5]






JNORM888


[1],[2],[3] from the book "Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution-A history from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first" by Dr. Alister Mcgrath. Copyright 2007, published by Harperone.

[4],[5] from the book "Handbook of Denominations: in the United States" 11nth edition by Frank S. Mead & Samuel S. Hill revised by Craig D. Atwood. last copyrighted in 2001. published by Abingdon Press Nashville
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 10:46:49 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
JustinianPrima
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 347



WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 08, 2008, 08:39:53 PM »

I'm going to have to disagree: the Evil one didn't use the draw of happiness to lure them in, but rather the promise of becoming like God Himself.  They probably were happy without it.

Here's a twist to this, for my own sake: But don't the Church Fathers also teach us to become gods?


Also, I have to take the stand that although I'm not convinced that the founding fathers of America were necessarily 'anti-Christian', but I think we can agree that they weren't Orthodox Christian.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2008, 08:43:07 PM by JustinianPrima » Logged

This poster was also registered under the username "macedonia74" and had been banned from OCnet under that name.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #58 on: May 08, 2008, 09:08:35 PM »

Here's a twist to this, for my own sake: But don't the Church Fathers also teach us to become gods? 

It's not much of a twist: The Evil One wanted us to become like God Himself without the help or guidance of God Himself, i.e. self-directed, -motivated, and -centered theosis.  The Church Fathers keep God in the equation, so that it is a God-motivated, -directed, and -centered theosis.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #59 on: May 08, 2008, 10:17:56 PM »

The Evil One wanted us to become like God Himself without the help or guidance of God Himself, i.e. self-directed, -motivated, and -centered...

This is how I view atheists.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2008, 10:29:44 PM »

Here's a twist to this, for my own sake: But don't the Church Fathers also teach us to become gods?


Also, I have to take the stand that although I'm not convinced that the founding fathers of America were necessarily 'anti-Christian', but I think we can agree that they weren't Orthodox Christian.

A lot of the founding fathers were meant to be Deists.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #61 on: May 08, 2008, 10:33:37 PM »

Thank you for the passages and taking the time to type them into your post.  I was not trying to nit-pick about the misspelling of "Presbyterian", I assure you, and hope that I did not give that impression.  Thank you also for clarifying about the highlighted/differently coloured parts.

I would like to post what Dr. Alister Mcgrath said. I was looking at it last night. I'll highlight the important stuff in red.

I have looked up Dr. Alister Mcgrath and find that he is an Anglican priest, with a scholarly background in science, and theology. According to his biography on his website, he is also a former atheist. It's important to know something of people when looking at their ideas and viewpoints.  Smiley

I understand and follow his thought in the pasages you posted.  This clears up some misunderstanding, as from your earlier posts it seemed that you were saying that the Puritans in the Colonies *then* connected with people in Scotland and that was the source of the Presbyterian Chuch.  Whereas, Mcgrath sets it out that the Class or "set" as it were of "All Puritans" had several 'subsets' during the time of Laud in the 1630's , one of which was "Presbyterian".  The mid 17th Century was a time when the North American colonies were getting established and struggling (some of them) to survive and *some* of those had settlers coming who were "Puritan" but mostly in New England with a smaller portion in the middle area.

In the second Mcgrath passage he is talking about a change in *polity* in how the groups operated.  Rather then a central body "a single mother church with local outposts" the local groups changed to a "congregational" or what I've heard called a "Baptist" polity structure, that is, "Local congregations made their own decisions."  Now I can think of a couple of reasons why this might be, one of which is the living situation in the Colonies.  This is small groups in a new and mostly unsettled "wilderness".  Communication is not easy, traveling is difficult with few roads or vehicles, new settlements and their church unit are isolated.  I suggest that this reason is a likely cause for the change in polity, at least in part.  The same pattern can be seen in the West as new areas are settled, small churches may be planted, but with slow communication, in isolation people may change things.  So in this I don't see necessarily any "rebellion" against authority/the Crown.  

In the third Mcgrath passage, you highlighted the second paragraph, but to my reading it is the first and third are important.  He clearly states that "The burdens of taxation, the lack of due representation, and the desire for freedom were unquestionably integral ingredients in the accumulation of grievances that drove many colonials to take up arms against the kings."  The sentence following this talks about a religious aspect: That the Church of England was the established Church in many colonies and *had a privileged position* over the "dissenting" bodies.  It is not a case of "No King but Christ" but that "The King's Church had advantages".  The paragraph you highlighted referrs to sermons preaching religious and political freedom.  With an established Church (C of E) the other Christian bodies were not as free.  The British Crown and its Established Church were linked and the 'dissenting' preachers urged a struggle for freedom from both, it seems to me.
 
Finally, in the third paragraph the lines before your emphasized section are what I've been trying to get across:

"So was the American Revolution actually a war of Religion? It is difficult to make the case for its being so. Religious elements were involved-above all a desire to ensure religious freedom and eliminate the privileges of the established church. Yet it would not be true to say that these concerns dominated the agenda of those driving the Revolution. The Patriots came from a wide variety of religious backgrounds, only some of which were driven by the theological backgrounds...

My emphasis added.

Your earlier posts, I got the impression, were saying that the cause of the American Revolution was "religious", that the "Puritans" were driving the colonial governments to declare independence.  The passages you emphasized need to be read in context and here Mcgrath does not seem to support that idea.  

Another point to discuss perhaps, if you're willing, is even if the "puritans" had been the force behind the American Revolution, why, considering the circumstances of British Rule and laws on the colonies would that necessarily be a Bad Thing?


With respect,

Ebor

« Last Edit: May 08, 2008, 10:39:17 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #62 on: May 08, 2008, 10:46:17 PM »

Also, I have to take the stand that although I'm not convinced that the founding fathers of America were necessarily 'anti-Christian', but I think we can agree that they weren't Orthodox Christian.

Well, that is simply a point of Historical Fact.  Smiley  Many were Christian of some variety and/or came from Christian backgrounds and this is a matter if record.  But the simple facts of which people were immigrating to the British Colonies in North America makes the chances of many EO in 17th-18th Century Colonial America are, imo, very very slim.   Smiley

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
JustinianPrima
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 347



WWW
« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2008, 11:35:44 PM »

Well, that is simply a point of Historical Fact.  Smiley  Many were Christian of some variety and/or came from Christian backgrounds and this is a matter if record.  But the simple facts of which people were immigrating to the British Colonies in North America makes the chances of many EO in 17th-18th Century Colonial America are, imo, very very slim.   Smiley

Ebor

I have no problem admitting that this was historical fact. I guess what I was saying was, just because they were "Christians of some variety" doesn't mean I have to subscribe to their "variety" of Christianity. Nor do I have to accept modern politicians who base their political platforms on these historical facts.Therefore, if I do not subscribe to their version of Christianity, I reserve the right to question American history, our constitution, etc. and choose not to mindlessly accept American ideology, not based upon Orthodox Christianity, rather heterdox teachings as something "good" when it may in fact not always be "good." (Even though for the most part, I do any how  Cheesy )

Just IMHO
Logged

This poster was also registered under the username "macedonia74" and had been banned from OCnet under that name.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,700


WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 09, 2008, 01:28:17 AM »

I've observed that most "Protestant" writers take the view of suffering and how man is free not to suffer by choosing not to suffer.  Martin Luther got tired of seeing people suffer under the financial weight of indulgencies, papal infaliability, etc.

However, most of today's "New Age" writers fail to understand that suffering is the ultimate cost of discipleship where man may not be able to evade suffering.

For example, take the former Governor of New York; he committed adultery and resigned from his office.  There were immediate consequences for his actions except that we live in a world where private suffering is rarely seen unless it is used for political gains or entertainment (e.g. Brittney Spears).

People suffer for all different reasons - it is those who can keep a bright face while sharing suffering that helps one approach theosis.  All one has to do is look at the entire book of Job (who was descended from Esau who was descended from Abraham).
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #65 on: May 09, 2008, 06:52:23 AM »

A lot of the founding fathers were meant to be Deists.

Well, maybe. I've been researching this of late, and the truth seems to be pretty complicated. One figure is unquestionably a deist: Tom Paine. He used the word for himself, and he defined it in a way that makes it clear that he meant it in the commonly used sense. On the other end of the scale, Patrick Henry and Alexander Hamilton were devout Anglicans; John Adams was a Christian unitarian. Jefferson was more or less like a modern unitarian.

After that, it gets quite murky quite fast. A lot happened in 19th century American religion, and the Great Awakenings, the Oxford Movement, and higher Criticism would go on to have a substantial impact on every American church. Colonial worship was quite different from what we are used to today, and the conventional language of faith was likewise shifted. It makes it hard to interpret the signs of piety for someone who isn't directly relating their beliefs.

And that's the problem: for most of the FFs, we have to surmise their beliefs indirectly. To take the worst case first: George Washington, at some point in his life, seems to have stopped taking communion.  Or maybe he didn't: there is contradictory testimony from witnesses. But assuming that he did, what does this mean? Well, there is one line of argument that draws upon this and upon the language he used in talking about God in general to surmise that he had adopted deist views. However, there is another line which views this as a projection of modern attitudes upon colonial churchgoing. What it comes down to is that we cannot be sure.

After that the going gets quite murky. Was Madison a deist? Well, it's quite hard to say, because the never really said much about his own religion. He definitely wasn't a churchy person, and he said a lot about religious freedom; but again, all is surmise. Monroe is even more obscure: he hardly said a thing about religion. That doesn't stop people from claiming that he was a deist.

The tendency of modern secularists is to paint the FFs as religiously unconventional; from the opposing camp, there is a tendency to play up FF piety, to the point where there originated in the 1950s a preposterous RC urban legend that George Washington was baptized Catholic on his deathbed. (There isn't the slightest possibility that this is true, BTW.) The truth seems to be that ,for a lot of the FFs, the details of religious belief just weren't that important.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 09, 2008, 10:26:00 PM »

Ebor,


My whole focus was in regards to the Puritans, not the Deists, not the other groups. Those who did have theological reasons were mostly from New England (and the mid-atlantic, but I'm not including them at this time). And that was my focus. For they were the ones that mostly came directly from the Puritans.

Alot of groups seemed to have different reasons for fighting against the King.


The Puritans did have an Influence in getting us to fight against the King.


I will admit that I don't have the evidence to prove that it was thee greatest influence. But I think I at least proved that it was "an" influence.

It is my personal view that it was a great influence. But we can agree to differ on that.


Quote
Another point to discuss perhaps, if you're willing, is even if the "puritans" had been the force behind the American Revolution, why, considering the circumstances of British Rule and laws on the colonies would that necessarily be a Bad Thing?


They were very upset with King George for being nice to the Canadian French Roman Catholics. This was also one of the reasons why the British civil war got started. The King at that time was seeking to have good political relations with Roman Catholics, and the Puritans(back then) didn't like that.


When looking at the reactions of the Puritans, you will see alot of similarity between the two wars. Like I said before, my focus was on the puritan influence.


Maybe sometime in the future I will focus on the secular humanistic influence, but that wasn't my focus at this time.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 09, 2008, 10:44:36 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2008, 10:51:50 PM »

Well, maybe. I've been researching this of late, and the truth seems to be pretty complicated. One figure is unquestionably a deist: Tom Paine. He used the word for himself, and he defined it in a way that makes it clear that he meant it in the commonly used sense. On the other end of the scale, Patrick Henry and Alexander Hamilton were devout Anglicans; John Adams was a Christian unitarian. Jefferson was more or less like a modern unitarian.

After that, it gets quite murky quite fast. A lot happened in 19th century American religion, and the Great Awakenings, the Oxford Movement, and higher Criticism would go on to have a substantial impact on every American church. Colonial worship was quite different from what we are used to today, and the conventional language of faith was likewise shifted. It makes it hard to interpret the signs of piety for someone who isn't directly relating their beliefs.

And that's the problem: for most of the FFs, we have to surmise their beliefs indirectly. To take the worst case first: George Washington, at some point in his life, seems to have stopped taking communion.  Or maybe he didn't: there is contradictory testimony from witnesses. But assuming that he did, what does this mean? Well, there is one line of argument that draws upon this and upon the language he used in talking about God in general to surmise that he had adopted deist views. However, there is another line which views this as a projection of modern attitudes upon colonial churchgoing. What it comes down to is that we cannot be sure.

After that the going gets quite murky. Was Madison a deist? Well, it's quite hard to say, because the never really said much about his own religion. He definitely wasn't a churchy person, and he said a lot about religious freedom; but again, all is surmise. Monroe is even more obscure: he hardly said a thing about religion. That doesn't stop people from claiming that he was a deist.

The tendency of modern secularists is to paint the FFs as religiously unconventional; from the opposing camp, there is a tendency to play up FF piety, to the point where there originated in the 1950s a preposterous RC urban legend that George Washington was baptized Catholic on his deathbed. (There isn't the slightest possibility that this is true, BTW.) The truth seems to be that ,for a lot of the FFs, the details of religious belief just weren't that important.



I maybe wrong, but I think Goerge Washington stopped taking communion after the war. Or was it during the war?

But it either during or after the war with Great Briton.



But like you said, it's kind of hard to know what that meant.




Also some of the FF's were clergy. However, alot of people don't know that.


This is one of the reasons why I focused on the Puritans, because they were some of the most radical.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 09, 2008, 10:55:23 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #68 on: May 16, 2008, 09:20:05 PM »

I have no problem admitting that this was historical fact. I guess what I was saying was, just because they were "Christians of some variety" doesn't mean I have to subscribe to their "variety" of Christianity.

Indeed, but I'm afraid I don't understand why someone would think you would "have to subscribe" to it.  Please forgive me for being a bit dense.

Quote
Nor do I have to accept modern politicians who base their political platforms on these historical facts.Therefore, if I do not subscribe to their version of Christianity, I reserve the right to question American history, our constitution, etc. and choose not to mindlessly accept American ideology, not based upon Orthodox Christianity, rather heterdox teachings as something "good" when it may in fact not always be "good." (Even though for the most part, I do any how  Cheesy )

Just IMHO

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand your points.  What politicians do you have in mind and what platform points please?  One may 'question American History' even if one is a member of the same Church or group as some politician it seems to me.  Also, I can assure you that real history is not "mindlessly" accepting "American ideology".

Perhaps this would be a useful point to address some more questions and try to look at things with real history:

What ideology is somehow contrary or not in agreement with EO?

Is it really so or are there faithful EO who *do* agree with the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights?

Why would a political entity that was EO be naturally "better" then one that was not?  or would it in fact be "better" rather then different?

Why would it be a "bad thing" if the United States was shaped by Anglicans/Puritans/Methodists in it's politics and laws? 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #69 on: May 16, 2008, 10:07:24 PM »

The Puritans did have an Influence in getting us to fight against the King.

I will admit that I don't have the evidence to prove that it was thee greatest influence. But I think I at least proved that it was "an" influence.

It is my personal view that it was a great influence. But we can agree to differ on that.

We will have to agree to differ, because it is a personal view, as you say.  But real history is not only personal views.  There are primary sources, the words of the people involved in which they set out their ideas, their beliefs and their motives, ideally.  You have showed sources stating that there were persons supporting the Revolution who came from a Puritan background. But even your chosen material from Mcgrath does not support that idea that it was a "great influence" or that the Revolution was religiously based.   I'm afraid I do not see, yet, how there is any deep "puritan" line of thought in the men who were involved in the Continental Congress and the writing of the Declaration or the many works prior to that on the subject of independence such as Patrick Henry of Virginia or John Dickinson of Pennsyvania/Delaware or even Samuel Adams, John Adams or John Hancock of Massachusetts. 

Quote
They were very upset with King George for being nice to the Canadian French Roman Catholics. This was also one of the reasons why the British civil war got started. The King at that time was seeking to have good political relations with Roman Catholics, and the Puritans(back then) didn't like that.

Britain acquired Canada from the French as a result of the "French and Indian War" which was the North American part of the "Seven Years War" which involved most of Europe and other parts of the globe.  I'm not quite sure what you mean by "being nice" to the French Canadians. If you mean the "Quebec Act" which is counted as one of the "Intolerable Acts" of 1774, that was not purely or even mostly about religion.  It was an attempt by the British government have amiable relations with the inhabitants it's true.  But while it gave the RC freedom to practice their religion it did not give them an elected assembly/political power.  The point that caused the greatest agitation in the Colonies was the enlarging of the Quebec Territory to include lands that would have cut off westward expansion such as the Ohio River country. 

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006592

The French exploration and trading in this area was part of the cause for the "French and Indian War"  With France colonies in Canada and in the Mississippi River Valley connecting the two via the Ohio Country would have effectively trapped the British Colonies along the Eastern Seaboard.  No room to expand, no increase in land.

The other "Intolerable Acts" were much more close to home, as it were:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts

May I ask what your sources are for the RC influence on the English Civil War please?  It is true that Charles I had married Henrietta-Marie de Bourbon who was RC.  But the war was much more political with the Parliamentarians and the Royalists.

Quote
When looking at the reactions of the Puritans, you will see alot of similarity between the two wars. Like I said before, my focus was on the puritan influence.

I'm afraid that *you* may see "alot of similarity" but I do not.  I see politics and power and in the case of the American Revolution much more stress on the economic.

Quote
Maybe sometime in the future I will focus on the secular humanistic influence, but that wasn't my focus at this time.

?? "secular humanist influence"?  On the American Revolution?  I'm sorry, but that is an anachronism.

Ebor




« Last Edit: May 16, 2008, 10:51:18 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #70 on: May 16, 2008, 10:45:14 PM »

Also some of the FF's were clergy. However, alot of people don't know that.

Well, it's usually right there in the real history, such as the Rev. John Witherspoon, delegate from New Jersey to the Continental Congress in 1776, the only clergyman to sign the Declaration, president of Princeton College.  What's needed is to teach Real History!  Smiley Wink  With documentation and primary sources! 

Quote
This is one of the reasons why I focused on the Puritans, because they were some of the most radical.

Do you have some particular people in mind?

Ebor





JNORM888
[/quote]
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #71 on: May 27, 2008, 10:25:35 AM »

I would like to bump this thread because of the questions I asked in my reply to JustinianPrima a couple of weeks ago (the third post above).  I'm not trying to be irritating. I really am interested in what people think about the subjects.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Tags: Protestant Christianity Puritans American Revolution 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.322 seconds with 99 queries.