This was my original attempt at a correlation with the modern fundamentalists, which eschew the more charismatic type of worship.
The (not so) Great Awakening
- Thread starter DrHuk&Duck
- Start date
I guess when using the term “fundamentalists,” I probably should have specified the more traditional fundamentalists—the Bob Jones, HAC, PCC types. In South Carolina, I grew up in a more conservative, traditional fundamentalist type church. On the other hand, I spent plenty of time at my grandparents’ fundamentalist church in the mountains, and it was full of shouting, running the church aisles, forming the “gospel train,” etc. I believe Chauncy would have approved of the type I grew up in, whereas he’d have disapproved of the mountain fundamentalist church.
What did you think about that?
I made that clear, but I noticed you have a very dim view of the British, and my guess is that like most Americans, you are ignorant of the fact that the Founders drew great inspiration from the British in the founding of our country, and in particular the Constitution. You might want to do some brushing up on the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights in order to have a better understanding of where the American Bill of Rights originated.
LOL. No you didn't. I'm asking about 'Civil Magistrates Must Be Just' specifically. For instance, what you think about where he says it's not enough that they be just, but that they must be positively righteous in their governing?
Do I? What gives you that idea?
You're the one pooh-poohing the GA. Not me.
He’s referring to an early form of egalitarianism. “Righteous” should be understood in the context of a fair government, free of corruption, not in the literal biblical sense.
I’ve got news for you, some of the bedrock of America’s founding might be uncomfortable for you. I’m no Calvinist, but they had a greater religious influence than any other sect. It is said that up to possibly as high as 75% of America’s Founders were Calvinists (98% Protestant). Calvinists in particular had a belief system that laid the preface for the Constitution. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2020/07/06/mark-david-hall/calvinism-american-independence/
Yes, I understand that. But he said it's not enough that they themselves be just, but that they should be proactive in rooting out corruption. Do you agree with that?
You're not telling me anything here I don't already know.
You keep moving the goalposts. We could do this tap dancing for a long time. Bottom line: I think you’re embarrassed that you pegged Chauncy as someone who was somehow anti-American due to his stance against the Great Awakening, when in fact he was the polar opposite—a fervent hero of riling up the citizenry for freedom against tyranny and oppression. (It’s okay to get it wrong every now and then, Ekk.) 
LOL. No, I'm just reading the docs you link us to, but it doesn't appear that you are.
I knew nothing of Chauncy. Didn't pretend to. Certainly didn't have him pegged. Knowing that you, like the MSM, idolize the lukewarm Christianity and milquetoast statesmanship of Carter, I had my doubts. I certainly suspected you were citing a loyalist.
It's fashionable among libs to be cynical about the history most of us have been taught about the American Revolution, and the motives of its heros, and the reasoning they cited. So I came right out and asked if that was your purpose.
Still not so sure about that. There's nothing about casting off the chains of tyranny in what you've posted thus far, but I like what I've been reading about him. After reading what it means for a magistrate to be just, my next question was going to be, And you think Carter fit the bill?
LOL. Time will tell what I've gotten wrong.(It’s okay to get it wrong every now and then, Ekk.)
I know a Carter fanboy when I see one, but we’re not moving the goalposts again. Nice try.
Were there any goalposts to begin with? LOL
Yes, and you’ve now gone from Chauncy, to me, to Carter. Your purple prose cannot fool me. We all know Carter failed as a president (with regard to reelection), most likely because he was mostly a moral luminary for a politician, but this was never about Carter. I know you’re itching for that subject, but you’re not ready for the breadth of the subject.
Last edited:
I’d further point out the fact that the philosopher who had the greatest impact on the American Founders was none other than the Englishman John Locke. I’m assuming you’re familiar with Lockean philosophical principles, namely his “state of nature” and his theory of natural law. His idea of all men being granted “life, liberty and property” was whole cloth stolen by Thomas Jefferson and turned into “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence.
Ah, there we go. Yes the founders were a bunch of mountebanks spouting war rhetoric from plagiarized and twisted propaganda. I figured that's where you were headed, and you didn't disappoint.
No, the difference is you’re intellectually dishonest in your pro-American approach. The Founders were British! Our country started as British! Heck, in the American South, where there were more Loyalists, it wasn’t completely foreign for houses to fly both the American and British flags all the way up to the 1950s in some small towns. The American Enlightenment was nothing more than a modified Scottish and English Enlightenments. But go ahead and pretend that we were never British and that all of the American ideas were completely original….Ah, there we go. Yes the founders were a bunch of mountebanks spouting war rhetoric from plagiarized and twisted propaganda. I figured that's where you were headed, and you didn't disappoint.
LOL. How so? I think the thing that is tripping you up is that I have no hidden agenda or ulterior motives.
First, you open a thread with a title expressing a cynical attitude toward a truly significant and consequential movement akin to the Protestant Reformation. In your first post you boast of a re-education which has supposedly exposed the lies with which you were indoctrinated. You tack on a non-correlation with the IFB movement, probably to sound relevant.
Seeing that, and knowing of your laudation and disproportionate admiration for a political figure remarkable only for an anemia that he tried to hide behind a specious mask of Southern Baptist principles that resulted in the worst destablization of the post war world and the weakening of America...
I got suspicious.
But...I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and asked questions. They weren't leading. The were probing, and I was open and honest about why I was asking the questions.
You were unwilling to answer...I'd say unable to answer...and then got all defensive and pulled wild presumptions about my motives and agenda out of your rear...hey, I guess they were ASSumptions! LOL...
Anyway, I continued to read about this Chauncy fellow, and I've found nothing objectionable about what he was saying, but I've also seen neither the resistance to the central figures or dogmas being preached in the GA, nor the champion of independence that you say he was.
Come to find out there were some fringe elements and abuses as there are in any reformation, revival, or movement, that he was reacting to.
...and there you go again.
Duh.
Duh.
Hey. You want to hear something really wild? George Whitefield was British, too.
And?
This is going to blow your mind...but this can be traced all the way back to ancient Palestine and this little band of Jews headed by a radical of questionable parentage.
Okay...
Your real issue is that you can’t wrap your mind around how a person could be anti-Great Awakening and still be pro-independence and Christian; how one can be supportive of a politician you don’t support (Carter), and still be pro-American…or dare I say, conservative?!?
I’ll address more of this later. You can stew on that for the afternoon.
I’ll address more of this later. You can stew on that for the afternoon.
I would disagree, but whatever.
That certainly wasn’t my intention. As I alluded to, I was unaware of Christians from the era who were anti-Great Awakening. So what’s the problem?
Quit trying to make Jimmy Carter a scapegoat for every post I make that you don’t agree with. He’s 100 years old and hasn’t been president since January 1981. We’ve had long discussions in the past about Carter, and I recall the opinions of most people on here.
Actually, it can be traced back before that to some guys named Aristotle, Plato and Socrates.
There is a cadre of Americans who want to rewrite history and pretend that all of America’s history began with George Washington. Doing so is just as much an intellectual crime as those liberals who reject teaching students about slavery and the mistreatment of Native Americans. The United States is a country that borrowed the best of different philosophies while eschewing the rest. I literally gave you the example of Jefferson inserting “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence as an example of John Locke’s “life, liberty and property” as a perfect example, but your response, as typical, twisted into some garbling about Jimmy Carter and liberalism.
First, I know of no one who says that, except in contempt of the ones who resist said revisionism. Second, said cadre actually asserts that the founders were secularists, and that God was only cited as propaganda and rhetoric to build support with the people, and that the Gospel had little to do with Western Civilization, English Common Law, and ultimately the establishment of the United States. You seem to be among them.
Now see, you're shading it here, too. What you said was that Jefferson 'stole' it. Now why would you say it that way? And I've alluded to Locke's parsing myself a time or two on this forum.
LOL. Revised, it may appear that way.
You might need to get out more.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about, and I don’t think you do either.
I didn’t realize you were one of those leftists worried about wording stuff in a politically correct manner. (See, two can play that game.)
Yeah, that’s because it is that way.