Comments on: Barton controversy at Louisiana College

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:02:44 +0000

Bill – The next sentence says: However, some consider his broad categories so inclusive that they would exclude few Christians of any stripe.
As my history colleagues said in my post on this topic, the theological wars at the time were about orthodoxy and the Unitarians were on one side and the Trinitarians were on the orthodox side. Parse it if you must but there is no meaningful sense that Unitarian were considered theologically orthodox at that time or now. Yes, they had high thoughts about the Bible and believed that Jesus was special. But he wasn’t God which must be a part of any definition of evangelical. If you can be evangelical and not believe Jesus is God then the term has no meaning distinct from Christian.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:01:44 +0000

In reply to Tom Van Dyke.

I suppose “a very evangelical denomination” could have a zillion meanings but the meaning in the ears of his listeners (Liberty University) is evangelical like you.
Quibble over it if you must but there is no meaningful sense in which Unitarians were evangelical in today’s sense of the word. Barton’s point was that the founders were really evangelicals like us because the Unitarians didn’t become liberal non-evangelicals until 1838. He also used that approach to questions about John Adams and the Trinity on the Daily Show. Here is the link with transcript – /2011/05/david-barton-on-john-adams-the-trinity/

By: Bill Fortenberry

Bill Fortenberry — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:21:33 +0000

Warren’s claim that the unitarians were not evangelical, however, is not exactly correct. The claim was made in the following two articles:
/2011/09/were-unitarians-evangelical/
/2011/09/unitarianspart2/
However, as Tom pointed out, “very ‘evangelical’ is subject to interpretation.” This phrase could have at least two different meanings. It could be a reference to a particular set of dogmas which are held in common by most of the churches which have historically identified themselves as being evangelical. This is the interpretation that Warren gives to the term in his articles. It could also be a references to the belief in the evangel or, as it is more commonly called, the gospel.
I’m not sure which reference Barton intended to make, and I’m not the least bit interested in speculating, but I would like to point out that if he was referring to a belief in the gospel, then his statement would be correct. In the 1801 book The Practical Efficacy of the Unitarian Doctrine, Joshua Toulmin made the following statement about the evangelical nature of the unitarianism of that era:
“I then accompany Peter before the tribunal of the high-priest, and I again listen, to hear his doctrine: not disgusted with the simplicity of his former discourses, but impressed with their simplicity and the energy with which they acted. Such was that energy, that I see no occasion that there was for him to introduce, in a future discourse, any other, new principles to aid its operation on the human mind. I wait, however, to hear what he will say’ and how far he will pursue the same strain of address or deviate from it. The same strain is adopted, and the same principles as before, alone are urged. ‘Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ, of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man (i.e. the lame man of whom we read in the former chapter) stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought by you builders, which is become the head of the corner: neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.’ I can discover here, also, no other doctrines but the unity of God, the humanity of Christ, his resurrection from the dead, and salvation through him. Peter speaks as would an Unitarian.”
Mr. Toulmin continued throughout his book to give multiple attestations to the fact that the Unitarian doctrine of the late 18th and early 19th centuries included the doctrine of salvation by grace through the finished work of Jesus Christ. Mr. Toulmin’s book can be read online at this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tfCgrjO8YY0C&lpg=PA21&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false
And I would also recommend reading the article “On the Trinity” which appeared in the 1831 edition of the Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate. That article is available at this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-zMrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA366#v=onepage&q&f=false

By: Scotty G.

Scotty G. — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:17:58 +0000

Well said, Zoe.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:55:40 +0000

I don’t know what he was getting at and neither do you. To try to hang Barton with a single interrupted sentence fragment is uncharitable at least and dishonest at worst. And I already said you’re right about about the Holy Ghost in the private [post-presidential] letter, but that pales next to his use of Trinitarian language as president. Regardless of his private letter, in public the “unitarian” John Adams acknowledged the Holy Ghost. this is significant, far more significant than a snotty letter he wrote in retirement. I’m trying to tell the unfortunate reader the whole story, not just the Barton Bash so he walks away more informed about religion and the Founding, so that this isn’t a complete waste of time.
Obsession with other people’s errors is not the same as a love of the truth, and neither is it remotely as satisfying.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/07/an-error-worse-than-error/rr-reno