Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
FRiend, I can only go by what I read in many sources: those words are not found in any ancient Greek text from before the 14th century.
That's what it says here (see the footnote).
Therefore, the correct translation is as I posted before:
Again, I grant that you can read it however you wish.
I am here to request that you grant forbearance and respect to those who -- especially our Founders -- may have understood it differently.
It may not have been a particularly good one, but the nature of traps is such that they usually have to be hidden or disguised to avoid detection if they're going to work at all.
Obviously, you use a different definition of the word "deist" than Franklin himself did:
Franklin was also very high amongst Freemasons.
Those are reasons why I consider Franklin, along with many other Founders, as Christians whose ideas were to-greater-or-lesser-degrees influenced by Enlightenment Age deism/theism, Unitarianism and/or Freemasonry.
I am here to ask that you treat such ideas with forbearance and respect.
According to this accounting, about one third of those who signed the Declaration, or the Constitution, or served as Generals in the Continental Army were Freemasons, including Washington himself.
Freemasonry's effect on men like Washington can be seen in my post above.
And the list of those today described as "deists/theists" includes nearly all the "top tier" of Founders -- Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton.
Both John Adams' (father & son) were Unitarians, the father deistically influenced.
Those are the Founders I am here to defend, and to request you treat their religious view with forbearance and respect.
The only "silence" here is your refusal to read what the Founders themselves wrote.
To cite one example, in 1771 Franklin described himself as a "deist", though he still considered himself Christian.
Your quote from the diplomatic language of the Treaty of Paris hardly tells us something about Franklin's or Adams' personal beliefs.
Of course, it does certainly reflect the religious beliefs of the last Founder listed: John Jay.
John Jay was exceptional in being a traditional Trinitarian Christian amongst our "top tier" Founders.
He was Washington's personal friend, and Washington later appointed him Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
That men of religious views as varied as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and John Jay all got along, and indeed were often close personal friends -- that is the level of forbearance and respect I am asking you for, here, on Free Republic's News/Activism forum.
Since BJK's invention bears a striking similarity to an impersonal divine creative substance, it becomes necessary to set a computer program in motion according to which the universe of matter unfolds as a continuous process."
As always, Ms irish, whenever you attempt to summarize my thinking, you get it wrong, usually opposite of truth.
And there's no doubt in my mind, that's deliberate.
In fact, nowhere did I say God is impersonal, or limited, or incapable of whatever He wishes to do.
I did say, or imply, that scientific evidence shows a Universe operating by mechanisms and natural laws which may or may not require God's personal interventions -- science doesn't know the answer.
spirited irish: "As BJK rejects the Revealed Word perspective, it is not possible for us to know how life arose according to the computer program or if the impersonal creative force (psychic energy) intervened at any time or even if the computer program was adequate to allow for life to emerge from nonlife (#4)."
Ms irish, as always, you mischaracterize my views, doubtless deliberately.
I said nothing about an "impersonal creative force" much less "psychic energy".
Instead, I referred specifically to the Bible's God, and merely attempted to acknowledge what science says about the Universe along with God's creation in Genesis.
My views on this are entirely consistent with those of most Christian denominations.
So your attempts to portray me differently are misdirected.
spirited irish: "However, though it is impossible for the posters to this thread to know if life emerged from nonlife (#4) it turns out that it is “entirely possible” for the little 'g' god-man BJK to authoritatively assert that life did after all emerge from non-life since evolution (#5) has become operable----according to BJK's computer program of course."
Now you're just having fun being ridiculous.
What I've said, or implied, is that we don't know exactly where God's laws of nature leave off and God's personal interventions (miracles) begin.
But, since I believe that God is responsible for every "vibration" of every "string" in the Universe, the question is really null.
Of course, I "get" that you desperately need some "Damnable Heresy" to condemn, and my ideas are as close as you've come, so you hammer, hammer them for all it's worth, even if they don't fit.
So enjoy! But don't suppose for a moment there's any truth in your own descriptions of my beliefs.
Remember, FRiend, my major purpose here is to represent and defend -- to the best of my ability -- religious views like those held by most of our Founding Fathers.
I think it should give you some pause to realize that all the condemnations you've heaped on yours truly, BroJoeK, also apply to many Founders.
That's why I continue to request that you treat those views with forbearance and respect.
But, of course, it doesn't say that.
It speaks of "fullness" in that same sense as Ephesians 3:19.
In one verse "fullness" applies to Jesus, in the other to all Christians.
I've said, if you wish to believe that means Jesus was God Himself, then fine, go ahead, I don't object.
However, I do think a more consistent application of the word "fullness" would suggest something like filled with the spirit of God -- something that can apply to both Jesus and Christians.
GarySpFc: "Furthermore, in the attempt you have revealed yourself as an Arian, and hiding behind that mask is a Jehovah Witness."
Shear fantasy on your part.
Yes, I do admire Jehovah's Witnesses, because they were thrown, by choice, into the Nazi concentration camps, and many died there when, unlike Jews & others, all it would take for their release was to deny their own faith.
So they suffered as Christ suffered, and I give them huge credit for that.
But the truth of this matter is that I don't know a single Jehovah's Witness personally.
My real purpose here is to represent and defend -- to the best of my ability -- the religious views of many Founding Fathers, and others similar.
I am here to ask you to show them forbearance and respect.
I should also take note of your use of the word "Arian", since to my knowledge it's the first time anyone on this thread besides myself has used it.
Indeed, so far, Ms irish has lumped all such ideas together and mis-labeled them "Gnosticism" -- the "Damnable Heresy" source of this thread.
Historically, Christian-Arianism was the opposite of Christian-Gnosticism.
If we can begin here to recognize them as two separate "heresies", that would be a start...
And yet Kevmo's charge of "God Damned Heretic" and spirited irish's application of "Damnable Heresy" to opinions expressed by yours truly, BroJoeK -- those are not Alinsky tactics??
Ms boop, what's wrong with this picture?
To Ms boop, because you always mis-understand, you pray for the wrong things.
In that entire discussion, now over 2,000 posts ago, I repeated frequently words to the effect that I believe God responsible for every "vibration" of every "string" in the Universe, and so any discussion of what is "mechanistic" versus "miracle" is theologically null -- they're the same thing.
To Ms boop, I'll repeat as to Ms irish: I understand that you desperately need a "Damnable Heretic" that you can hammer on, but I'm not that person.
I am here representing and defending -- to the best of my abilities -- the religious views of our Founders, and others similar.
If you still condemn them as "God Damned Heretics", I'm suggesting that's a problem more for you than for them.
metmom: "No Reply. Eh?"
Of course I've replied, you just don't like the response.
And you won't like it better if I expand my response to multiple sentences & paragraphs.
So I am not here to proselytize you, only to request your forbearance and respect for those, like our Founders, who saw things differently.
Now there is a voice of reason. Thank you FRiend.
FRiend, there's plenty of room in my cart, I'll enjoy your company, and we'll have lots to discuss on our way to the bonfire. ;-)
My humble opinion on any such question is: where the New Testament is clear and unequivocal, that's gospel.
Where meanings are not-so-clear, then precise understandings are not so important, and all will be revealed in its true glory, in due time.
In short, I don't worry about such things.
No you didn’t. You evaded the question rather than identify who you believe scripture identifies.
CynicalBear: “And just who is it that you think is coming back to this earth?”
BJK: On this question, as on all others, I go by what the New Testament actually says about it.
mm: Which is who exactly?
In an attempt to defend your heresy I’m sure you grasp on to that which supports your position rather than thoroughly research the subject. Nothing before the 14th century you say? Well, let’s see where it shows up.
Cyprian (200-258AD) used it.
Priscillian 350 AD, a Spanish bishop quotes I John 5:7,8.
Idacius Clarus 360 AD, who opposed Priscillian quotes it.
Varimadum 380 AD.
Cassiodorus 485 AD.
Cassian 435 AD.
Victor Vita 489 AD.
Jerome 450 AD.
Fulgentius 533 AD.
Ps. Vigilius 484 AD.
Ansbert 660 AD.
Perhaps early manuscripts that included it would help you.
Old Syriac 170 AD.
Old Latin 200 AD, in North Africa and Italy.
Italic 4th and 5th century. – Italic • Monacensis 7th century.
Italic • Speculum 9th century.
Latin Vulgate 4th, 5th century.
Not before the 14th century ey? Time and time again documented proofs of your errors on multiple subjects have been produced yet you persist. It might be time you take your poorly researched views to a different and less educated forum.
No “forbearance” will be given for proven error.
And still you infer that Franklin denied the trinity yet refuse to see his own words on the subject.
“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble ...[ Van Doren, Carl. Benjamin Franklin. (1938). Penguin reprint 1991]
Franklin didn’t deny the trinity per his own admission when he said, “Tho it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it”. He took no particular position.
Benjamin Franklin became a deist at the age of fifteen. Before the Revolutionary war he was merely a shrewd and pushing business man. He had public spirit, and he made one happy discovery in science. But ‘Poor Richard’s’ sayings express his mind at that time. The perils and anxieties of the great war gave him a deeper insight. He and others entered upon it ‘with a rope around their necks. The Constitutional Convention was on the verge of total failure over the issue of whether small states should have the same representation as large states. In this hopeless situation, 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin offered a suggestion. He was convinced Scripture is right when it states, “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psalm 127:1), so he said: “Gentlemen, I have lived a long time and am convinced that God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? I move that prayer imploring the assistance of Heaven be held every morning before we proceed to business.”
And when the designs for an American coinage were under discussion, Franklin proposed to stamp on them, not ‘A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned,’ or any other piece of worldly prudence, but ‘The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom.’ “
I never stated Franklin was a Christian. Clearly, he wasn't, but he grew with age, and his quotes indicate he was at least a theist near the end of his life.
He is not a Catholic, and has every right to speak as a believer in Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.