Your personal favorite Founding Father

[PierzStyx]

No. The foundation of liberty is that men do not have free will. If a man's will can be moved by any other power than by God's grace alone, then you have just opened the door to coercion.

The history of Rome will show you what happens when the theology of free will is put to political action. This is why the Reformers like Martin Luther decried the use of force in society: because men do not have wills that can be influenced by anything other than God ALONE.

So you have liberty by having none? Do you not see the doublethink required to even make that make sense? And if man cannot be moved by any other force than God alone then temptation does not exist and God is literally responsible for every sin you commit and responsible for damning you to an ever lasting Hell. After all only God can move you to do one thing or another, Satan can't and you can't choose yourself. That means humans don't truly even exist. We're all just string puppets dancing on the strings of God's will. Calvinism makes God the biggest initiator of force in all of everything. And it makes God the source of evil.

That is not the God of the New Testament. The God of The Bible is the Author of Liberty. You have a choice to choose Him or not. His Holy Spirit touches your heart and mind and you have to choice to choose to allow His saving grace or to reject it. Either way you will be judged for that action, and all other actions you take. God is no tyrant to enslave me to His will or to force me to Heaven. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ I am free to choose either liberty and eternal life through Christ my Savior or misery and death according to way of the Adversary. That liberty, that choice though, is mine thanks to the gift of His Son making salvation possible.

And this liberty extends to everything. Man is free to choose his or her own actions. We can choose good things and support righteous people, or we cannot. It is up to us. The theology of free will shows that men are free to do good or evil. The history of the world will show you that we sadly often choose evil over good. But that is our fault, not God's.

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

I wish I knew more about Calvinism. I'm a Quaker, but I don't think there were any major Quaker founders, besides arguably William Penn.

Nathanael Greene, brilliant military general during the Revolutionary War, was a famous Quaker Founding Father.

 

[PierzStyx]

The denial of free will is the FIRM basis of liberty. This is ABSOLUTELY essential to understanding how theology relates to freedom:

The denial of free will is the FIRM basis of statism and slavery, ETERNAL SLAVERY. If you deny free will liberty does not exist. If you deny free will then the appearance of liberty on the Earth is an illusion and you have no choice to begin with but are merely God's puppet on a string. The denial of free will is the theology of tyranny.

 

[Seraphim]

This.

To be honest I'm a bit shocked (and appalled) how a staunch argument for liberty is being made by stating that free will is the antithesis to liberty.

"FEE FO FI FUM!! If you are thirsty, water will only make you more thirsty!!!!"

The denial of free will is the FIRM basis of statism and slavery, ETERNAL SLAVERY. If you deny free will liberty does not exist. If you deny free will then the appearance of liberty on the Earth is an illusion and you have no choice to begin with but are merely God's puppet on a string. The denial of free will is the theology of tyranny.

 

[PierzStyx]

Didn't the Apostle Paul argue that good works are necessary (faith alone is not enough)? Just an off-topic question, thanks. (I agree with you that justification by faith alone is superior, btw)

It was James. And to say that either faith or works alone is necessary is a false argument. One is saved only by the grace of God, which grace comes because of the faith of the believer. That is what Paul taught. James added that faith only comes by obeying the commandments and doing good works, indeed saying faith without works is dead and couldn't save. So the truth is that one needs to keep the commandments (thus doing good works) to know they are truly of God (thus developing faith), this faith leads one to supplicate God for salvation and through Jesus Christ one receives grace to be perfected and saved. Its about the synergy of both creeds, not the prevalence of one above another.

 

[Meiun]

What?? Where's the vote for the little guy? Ron Paul is today's James Madison.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Didn't the Apostle Paul argue that good works are necessary (faith alone is not enough)? Just an off-topic question, thanks. (I agree with you that justification by faith alone is superior, btw)

No, Paul taught that we are justified by faith alone.

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." - Romans 3:28

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." -Romans 3:22

"Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." -Galatians 3:11

"So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith." -Galatians 3:24

"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," -Romans 5:1

"...know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified" -Galatians 2:16

He can't get any more clearer than the last verse there.

Good works do play a role in the Christian life, but they play a role in our sanctification, not our justification. We are saved only by the grace of God through faith, and our works are simply a indication of our salvation, as James 2 talks about.

 

[Meiun]

It was James. And to say that either faith or works alone is necessary is a false argument. One is saved only by the grace of God, which grace comes because of the faith of the believer. That is what Paul taught. James added that faith only comes by obeying the commandments and doing good works, indeed saying faith without works is dead and couldn't save. So the truth is that one needs to keep the commandments (thus doing good works) to know they are truly of God (thus developing faith), this faith leads one to supplicate God for salvation and through Jesus Christ one receives grace to be perfected and saved. Its about the synergy of both creeds, not the prevalence of one above another.

meh. Disagree. A synergy in a sense is correct, but the reality of the matter lies in the words of Jesus himself when he said that blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Aye, Faith to beget Grace, but grace leads not to works, but to love, and love for the one who leads to grace. To be pure of heart is to be singular in purpose. The purpose and perfection of every believer is to Love God. As we love, we do the work of God. That's the center of the mark

 

[Indifference]

Thomas Jefferson was a genius. Unfortunately power corrupted him as he became president.

Jefferson was also an a-hole. He claimed to be the people's person but he also owned slaves.

Also, he was incredibly cruel to Nikolo Tesla. Tesla had some great inventions but unfortunately Jefferson was the first to mass market his "discovery" verse Tesla.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Jefferson was also an a-hole. He claimed to be the people's person but he also owned slaves.

Also, he was incredibly cruel to Nikolo Tesla. Tesla had some great inventions but unfortunately Jefferson was the first to mass market his "discovery" verse Tesla.

That's a common slur. He inherited his slaves, and freed them later on. btw, I like Tesla too, but IP is not property. TJ didn't "steal" from him. I don't know of anyone from that period who wasn't an a-hole in one way or another.

 

[Sola_Fide]

So you have liberty by having none? Do you not see the doublethink required to even make that make sense? And if man cannot be moved by any other force than God alone then temptation does not exist and God is literally responsible for every sin you commit and responsible for damning you to an ever lasting Hell. After all only God can move you to do one thing or another, Satan can't and you can't choose yourself. That means humans don't truly even exist. We're all just ventriloquist puppets dancing on the strings of God's will. Calvinism makes God the biggest initiator of force in all of everything. And it makes God the source of evil.

That is not the God of the New Testament. The God of The Bible is the Author of Liberty. You have a choice to choose Him or not. His Holy Spirit touches your heart and mind and you have to choice to choose to allow His saving grace or to reject it. Either way you will be judged for that action, and all other actions you take. God is no tyrant to enslave me to His will or to force me to Heaven. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ I am free to choose either liberty and eternal life through Christ my Savior or misery and death according to way of the Adversary. That liberty, that choice though, is mine thanks to the gift of His Son making salvation possible.

And this liberty extends to everything. Man is free to choose his or her own actions. We can choose good things and support righteous people, or we cannot. It is up to us. The theology of free will shows that men are free to do good or evil. The history of the world will show you that we sadly often choose evil over good. But that is our fault, not God's.

Well, whenever you go on these rants about free will, I notice that you don't quote the Scripture. The Bible clearly teaches that men's wills are not free, they are fallen and bound to sin. Only God's will is free because only He is sovereign, and as Romans 9 clearly teaches, the Potter has power over the clay, and YOU O man cannot answer back to the Potter. He makes some pots for noble use and some for common use.

Have you read Romans 9 lately?


But it doesn't surprise me that you are so bound up with this error. Mormonism began as a reaction against Calvinism. Joseph Smith envisioned Satan as the one who wanted to "force" us to be saved, and it was Jesus who wanted to give us "free will". So Mormonism began as a reaction against a misunderstanding of the Bible and the doctrines of grace.



EDIT: also, you didn't interact in any way with the Martin Luther quotes I put on page 10 of this thread. What I was talking about initially was how theology relates to political liberty. I wasn't talking about eternal things yet.

 

[klamath]

Jefferson was also an a-hole. He claimed to be the people's person but he also owned slaves.

Also, he was incredibly cruel to Nikolo Tesla. Tesla had some great inventions but unfortunately Jefferson was the first to mass market his "discovery" verse Tesla.

jefferson and tesla lived in different centuries, do a little research.

 

[Bonnieblue]

Although the notion of "the founders" is actually ahistorical, the men of the 18th century whom I respect are John Randolph, John Talyor of Caroline, and George Mason IV. They, like Jefferson, were of the Old Domenion and were stridently against monarchy in the Hamiltonian sense, for state sovereignty and were either against the ratification of the Constitution or held to its letter and to the intent of the ratifying conventions from which the Constitution gets its authority.

 

[Davy Crockett]

Another name that should have at least made the list of Founding Fathers for the poll is John Hancock. Without him, the American Revolution would not have taken place for several more years, at least.


John Hancock


Net worth USD $350 thousand at the time of his death (approximately 1/714th of US GNP)[1]

John Hancock (January 23, 1737 [O.S. January 12, 1736] – October 8, 1793) was a merchant, statesman, and prominent Patriot of the American Revolution. He served as president of the Second Continental Congress and was the first and third Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He is remembered for his large and stylish signature on the United States Declaration of Independence, so much so that the term "John Hancock" has become, in the United States, a synonym for signature.

Before the American Revolution, Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the Thirteen Colonies, having inherited a profitable shipping business from his uncle. Hancock began his political career in Boston as a protégé of Samuel Adams, an influential local politician, though the two men later became estranged. As tensions between colonists and Great Britain increased in the 1760s, Hancock used his wealth to support the colonial cause. He became very popular in Massachusetts, especially after British officials seized his sloop Liberty in 1768 and charged him with smuggling. Although the charges against Hancock were eventually dropped, he has often been described as a smuggler in historical accounts, but the accuracy of this characterization has been questioned.

Hancock was one of Boston's leaders during the crisis that led to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in 1775. He served more than two years in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, and as president of Congress, was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. Hancock returned to Massachusetts and was elected governor of the Commonwealth, serving in that role for most of his remaining years. He used his influence to ensure that Massachusetts ratified the United States Constitution in 1788.

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Although the notion of "the founders" is actually ahistorical, the men of the 18th century whom I respect are John Randolph, John Talyor of Caroline, and George Mason IV. They, like Jefferson, were of the Old Domenion and were stridently against monarchy in the Hamiltonian sense, for state sovereignty and were either against the ratification of the Constitution or held to its letter and to the intent of the ratifying conventions from which the Constitution gets its authority.

The founders meaning those who were active in American political life from the 1760s through the early 19th century. And by that post I assume you're more of an anti-federalist, articles of confederation guy.

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

I could not include every founder in this poll. Notably I left out Jay, Hancock, Morris, Mason, and a few others.

 

[PierzStyx]

Nathanael Greene, brilliant military general during the Revolutionary War, was a famous Quaker Founding Father.

I didn't know Greene was a Quaker. Interesting, considering he was a general.

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Also Benjamin Rush for all the ardent abolitionists out there

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

I didn't know Greene was a Quaker. Interesting, considering he was a general.

I am currently reading the David McCullough novel, 1776, and found this out. I found it surprising as well.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Another name that should have at least made the list of Founding Fathers for the poll is John Hancock. Without him, the American Revolution would not have taken place for several more years, at least.


John Hancock


Net worth USD $350 thousand at the time of his death (approximately 1/714th of US GNP)[1]

John Hancock (January 23, 1737 [O.S. January 12, 1736] – October 8, 1793) was a merchant, statesman, and prominent Patriot of the American Revolution. He served as president of the Second Continental Congress and was the first and third Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He is remembered for his large and stylish signature on the United States Declaration of Independence, so much so that the term "John Hancock" has become, in the United States, a synonym for signature.

Before the American Revolution, Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the Thirteen Colonies, having inherited a profitable shipping business from his uncle. Hancock began his political career in Boston as a protégé of Samuel Adams, an influential local politician, though the two men later became estranged. As tensions between colonists and Great Britain increased in the 1760s, Hancock used his wealth to support the colonial cause. He became very popular in Massachusetts, especially after British officials seized his sloop Liberty in 1768 and charged him with smuggling. Although the charges against Hancock were eventually dropped, he has often been described as a smuggler in historical accounts, but the accuracy of this characterization has been questioned.

Hancock was one of Boston's leaders during the crisis that led to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in 1775. He served more than two years in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, and as president of Congress, was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. Hancock returned to Massachusetts and was elected governor of the Commonwealth, serving in that role for most of his remaining years. He used his influence to ensure that Massachusetts ratified the United States Constitution in 1788.

I like Hancock too:

“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.” -John Hancock