David Barton - historical scholar or fraud?

Jefferson made comments like this as well. He even wrote the book "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians". However we both agree he was not a Christian. The same is true for many other Founding Fathers who were clearly not Christian (as in, not even people like Barton seriously claim they are).

So comments like this show that Washington had a positive view of Christianity in general, but they show little else. He accepted the role Christianity played in his culture, but the quote indicates nothing about any personal faith in Christ or a view of Christ as a personal savior or even that Christ was God.

1. There is latitude withing orthodox Christianity. However, evangelicals generally agree the personal faith in Christ is necessary for one to be a Christian. No evidence exists that such was the case with GW.

2. Maybe he was truly a Christian. I totally agree that we can't really know. My point however is that the evidence used by evangelicals to claim that he was is inconsistent and fallacious. You will never find me claiming that GW was not a Christian, merely that there is no good evidence that he was. Thus claiming that he was is just as much revisionism and claiming that he wasn't.

 

I believe that most Christians have heard the Gospel and been baptised by the age of 20, so that is really not significant.

In post #52 you state definately that Patrick Henry was a Christian (and I agree he probably was), but it would be just as easy to poke holes in that certainty as it is with George Washington.

Henry was known to make statements such as this: "The general diffusion of Christian knowledge hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society", comments very similar to those of (deist) Jefferson and (Christian) Washington. Very easy to play out those sorts of parlor tricks if we want to question anyone's true faith.

 

But Jefferson had enough writtings that would show him not to be a Christian.

 

And GW doesn't have enough writings to show that he is a Christian. No testimony of faith in Christ. If there was one instance of this, then the whole position would change. But, just as there is not enough evidence to show for certain that he was not a Christian, there is also not enough to show that he was. Claiming that he was is not based on good evidence. If you want to believe that he was, fine, but keep that distinct from any claims that there is actual evidence that he was. "I like to think that GW was a Christian." vs. "GW was a Christian."

Evidence is that he was a good person with a belief in God. One could say the same about a devout Jew or Muslim - yet unless they accept Christ as savior they are not Christian. The only substantial difference we can see between them and GW is that GW happened to live in a society where Christianity was the norm.

 

Not following your point. The age of the observer certainly does matter. She might have been saved by that point, but it is unlikely she had an objective basis for judging whether GW was. This is esp. true given the lack of any details in her testimony - the fact that her testimony ultimately boils down to "of course he was, how could one think otherwise." In short, her testimony has some serious short comings. Her age is merely one of several.

If the above sort of statement was the only type that PH made, then you would have an excellent point - thats not the case though. Unlike GW, PH makes statements which go beyond this general sort of statement. The firsthand evidence for GW having any sort of personal faith in Christ is non-existent. Yet, not even deist and secularists dispute that PH was a Christian because the type of evidence for this goes beyond general statements like you mention above and enters personal statements of faith made by PH. Such is not the case with GW. If there were even one solitary statement of faith in Christ by GW, or even a statement of Christ as Savior in general, then that would change everything.

So, with PH, claiming he is a Christian has direct and explicit evidence. With GW, the claims can only be made in the void of any such evidence. The two situations aren't really comparable.

 

Yes, it does matter. You said that Nellie's testimony was "very shaky pillar" because she had observe Washington "from the eyes of a youngster only", but it was pointed out that she lived with them 20 years and was not a youngster when GW died.

She admitted that he "was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself" and that "I was, probably, one of the last persons on earth to whom he would have addressed serious conversation", and that she didn't know details of his faith, so to that extant you are right.

But there was not a lack of details in her testimony. She said that Washington regularly attended a Christian church, that he believed in the power of prayer, that he had private devotionals. We know that he read the Bible. We know that he believed he had seen God's intervention in his own life.

Washington said, "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ." He wrote, "Without an humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation."

Which author was he talking about? Not Mohammed. He was speaking of Christ.

 

This sort of discussion is asinine because there is no way to demonstrate that anyone "is" a Christian because there is no objective proof of one's regeneration. We could all be faking it. HOW COME you all demand that all statements conform to the rules of deductive logic except when it comes to the matter of your own regeneration?

 

I am not requiring that any demonstrate the GW "is" a Christian. I am pointing out that the evidence used by evangelicals is inconsistent. Evangelicals rarely if ever accept that someone is a Christian based on the sorts of things they use to demonstrate that GW is a Christian. If an evangelical went witnessing and asked someone if and why they were a Christian, they would be unsatisfied with anything less than a profession of faith in Christ. If someone said they were a Christian and the typical evangelical asked them how they know they are a Christian, an answer the failed to include a statement of personal faith in Christ would not satisfy them. Answers such as the person praying, being a good person, going to church, etc. would all be considered red herrings by the typical evangelical. They would point out that such things do not make one a Christian.

D. James Kennedy is a classic example of this inconsistency. He developed Evangelism Explosion. One of the things you learn in EE is to ask two questions designed to help determine if someone is a Christian. Answers which revolve around one's goodness - prayer, church attendance, moral uprightness, etc. - are considered "bad" answers, answers that don't give evidence of one's Christianity. Yet D. James Kennedy will use the same sorts of evidence to argue that GW is a Christian. This is inconsistent.

I am not asking for evidence that GW *is* a Christian (such evidence is impossible to get as one cannot know the heart of another), what I am asking for is evidence that is consistent with the normal evangelic standards. I am not asking for something outside the bounds of deductive logic, you simply misconstrue my position.

 

20 years IS a youngster, its what I meant when I said it. If you don't like the term, thats fine, I withdraw it. I will point out that she was only 20 when GW died. That is too young to be considered an objective and reliable observer for a question like this. Is is certainly old enough for *specific* observations she makes to be sound, but it is not old enough for her *analysis*, esp. when it lacks specific supporting details, to be considered sound. People of that age weren't considered competent enough to vote, and thats a considerably less involved process than objectively determining the faith of one's adoptive parents.

Yes, her testimony should be taken into account, but to center one's argument around her testimony is unsound from both a logical and scholarly point of view. Esp. since her testimony mostly boils down to "of course he was, how could you say otherwise". I am not saying her testimony is worthless, merely a shaky basis for the foundation of an argument. It is, at best, a supporting document to clarify what is already known from other sources. As it is though, its the CENTRAL document. Thats extremely poor scholarship and logic.

Now, if she had said the GW claimed faith in Christ, then that would be a whole nother ball game. In that case, she would be recalling pertinent details and we wouldn't have to rely on her suspect analysis. She doesn't do that though. Its not even clear that by "Christian" she meant the same thing as an evangelical would.

Hence her testimony needs to be taken in that light.

All these details are known w/o the need for her testimony. The problems with these details is that they don't add up to his being a Christian. Not from an evangelical point of view at least.

He spoke about Christ because that is
a. what he knew
b. what was applicable to the society he was in
c. furthermore, he doesn't speak of Christ in the second quote (as is the case with most all of his religious quotes)

What you will never find is where he ever refers to Jesus as divinity or savior (personal or otherwise). One can find parallels of his quotes from many other moral and devout people - people that everyone agrees were no Christian. Jefferson is an excellent example of this. In fact, Jefferson actually says "I am a Christian".

So, where quotes like the ones you give are shown as proof of GWs Christian faith, they aren't accepted as evidence of say, Jefferson's Christian faith (with a few exceptions). This is only because GW was largely silent - but taking his silence as evidence is a fallacy of argument from silence. In the end, GW is only considered a Christian because one can't find clear evidence that he isn't.

 

Furthermore, quotes need to be placed in context.

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.

Notice the perspective the more complete quote gives about GWs view of the religion of Jesus Christ:
- GW said it is something to learn. Evangelicals would generally downplay that its something to learn. Their emphasis is that it is something to believe. With one's heart.
- GW said that its is something to learn because it would make them greater and happier as a people. Evangelicals would tend to refrain from such statements. To them, that is merely a social gospel. To the evangelical, the purpose of the religion of Jesus is for salvation.

Now, certainly, GW's quote is not contradictory to the evangelicals view of Christianity. However, given the context, it is a highly inconsistent piece of evidence to use for GW's Christian faith. One might hear the same sort of thing from a deist. In fact, Jefferson wrote a book exactly for such a purpose. Yet the book isn't considered evidence of Jefferson's Christian faith. So it would be inconsistent to hold such a quote as evidence of GWs Christian faith.

It is clear evidence that GW believed in the social efficacy of Christian religion. It is *not* evidence that he believed in its efficacy for personal salvation.

 

Yes but then Washington was no deist. No Deist ever thought that God answered prayers and had protected him personally as Washington did.

You could say the same things concerning Patrick Henry's words. He said of Christianity "The general diffusion of Christian knowledge hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society", and yet you accept without question that Henry was a Christian.

Oh really? How do you know that wasn't also the case with Henry?

Patrick Henry -"There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations."

Washington believed the same.

Patrick Henry - "We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power"

Washington believed the same.

Henry attended an Episcopal Church in Virginia - So did Washington.

Patrick Henry - "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience."

What? No mention of the Lord as his guiding light? Are you sure Henry was a Christian?? See how easy that sort of game is to play.

And that is really what it comes down to: refuting James Kennedy types.
You realize that Dr Kennedy has passed on don't you?

 

I agree with you that there is no good evidence that he was a deist either. The best evidence suggests that he simply was not that interested in questions of doctrine or philosophy in either direction. So, he attended church, but was not a communicant. He believed in an active Providence but gives no evidence in believing in the essentials of Christian faith.

My whole point is that there is simply no good evidence one way or the other. GW was simply too silent on the subject and the things he did say could easily be interpreted in various ways.

I agree. My point with PH is that many of his statements are more specific.

And its not just me making this distinction. Even the secularists who like to downplay religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers don't really dispute that PH was a Christian. So, while I can't absolutely say that PH was a Christian, there is very good evidence that he was - good enough that not even the secularists dispute it.

I am not even saying for certain that this was the case with GW. I merely point out that such a fact exists and we need to be careful of reading into GWs statements an evangelical way of thinking. It is possible that GW meant these statements in the same way an evangelical would - I merely point out that there is no good evidence that this is the case. You asked me to distinguish how this is different from the Muslim and I did.

If this were all the evidence that could be used to show PH was a Christian, then I would agree that it is equally a weak a case as for GW. However, none of these sorts of things are the sort of evidence I would point to for PH being a Christian. And really, my "certainty" about PH stems mostly from the fact that not even the secularists dispute him being a Christian. "Certainty" in this case means "good enough evidence that not even those who might wish to dispute it bother doing so".

My points with comparing GWs quotes to Jefferson's is not to prove GW is *not* a Christian (such a claim goes beyond the evidence as well), but to point out that such quotes are insufficient by themselves to demonstrate the GW *was* a Christian. Ditto for the PH quotes you give above.

I don't seek to refute his type or person (I greatly respect the man for many other things). I point out the weakness and inconsistency of his type of reasoning. His reasoning just happens to be a prominent example of the two sides of the inconsistencies.