John Owen was one of the greatest Puritan thinkers, a dean at Oxford, where he MENTORED John Locke who was one of his students. Where did you get "referenced?"
Here's a list of Owen's writings at Wikipedia just so his credentials are clear:
Works in print[edit] As of 2007, the majority of Owen's voluminous works are still in print: Communion with God, Christian Heritage. ISBN 1-84550-209-4. Works of John Owen (2000). On CD-ROM from Ages Software. ISBN 5-550-03299-6. Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture; with Considerations on the Prolegomena and Appendix to the Late "Biblia Polyglotta," in vol. IX, The Works of John Owen, ed. Gould, William H, & Quick, Charles W., Philadelphia, PA: Leighton Publications, (1865) Collected Works in 16 Volumes from the Banner of Truth Trust. ISBN 0-85151-392-1. Commentary on Hebrews in 7 volumes from the Banner of Truth Trust. ISBN 0-85151-619-X. The Mortification of Sin, Christian Heritage Publishers. ISBN 1-85792-107-0. Biblical Theology: The History of Theology From Adam to Christ or The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth, In Six Books, Soli Deo Gloria Ministries. ISBN 1-877611-83-2. Sin & Temptation: The Challenge to Personal Godliness. An abridgement by James M. Houston for modern readers of two of Owen's works. ISBN 1-55661-830-1. The Glory of Christ: His Office and His Grace. ISBN 1-85792-474-6. John Owen on Temptation - The Nature and Power of it, The Danger of Entering it and the Means of Preventing the Danger, Diggory Press, ISBN 978-1-84685-749-2 The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Diggory Press, ISBN 978-1-84685-740-9 The Divine Power of the Gospel, Diggory Press, ISBN 978-1-84685-740-9 A Dissertation on Divine Justice, Diggory Press, ISBN 978-1-84685-785-0 Gospel Grounds and Evidences of the Faith of God's Elect, Diggory Press, ISBN 978-1-84685-757-7 John Owen on The Holy Spirit - The Spirit and Regeneration (Book III of Pneumatologia), Diggory Press, ISBN 978-1-84685-810-9 John Owen on The Holy Spirit - The Spirit as a Comforter (Book VIII of Pneumatologia), Diggory Press, ISBN 978-1-84685-750-8 John Owen on The Holy Spirit - The Spirit and Prayer (Book VII of Pneumatologia), Diggory Press, ISBN 978-1-84685-752-2 John Owen on The Holy Spirit - The Spiritual Gifts (Book IX of Pneumatologia), Diggory Press, ISBN 978-1-84685-751-5 The Oxford Orations of Dr. John Owen. Ed. Peter Toon. Trans. [from the Latin] supervised by John Glucker. Callington (Cornwall): Gospel Communication. 1971. ISBN 9780950125213 Online edition. A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, as also of the Person and Satisfaction of Christ (1699) - a refutation of Socinianism, in particular against the teaching of John Biddle.[8]
Whoops, somehow I read "mentored" as "referenced". Senior moment. So that invalidates what I wrote.
But I'm still not impressed. People do turn against mentors sometimes. The challenge for you is to produce evidence or argument that Owen affected the Enlightenment/Locke.
Which you've already admitted you can't do. No matter whether or not your claim is true you have no support. Since the Enlightenment was significantly anti-religion I strongly doubt your claim.
The first time, I let it slide as I assume you were talking to the 'crowd' - but I am definitely not an American.
Apologies, a terrible, terrible insult. You must feel badly abused; I know I would. I was blind-sighted by you speaking about American beliefs as though you were an American.
(Btw, i was born West of Manchester, went to Manchester Uni. Lived in Salford for a couple of years. Still don't like Eccle's cakes or football.)
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I bet I'd enjoy hearing all you Brits talk to each other with your accents.
I bet in real life we're all actually quite human.
Longshot.....
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Wow, I must say I really DID enjoy that, immensely. Thank you. There's no way anyone can really anticipate what a person you only know on an internet message board would sound like, or look like or act like, it's always going to be a surprise though I don't even really know what I expected, it's just a surprise to hear you in person. Nice voice by the way. OK, maybe lower than I expected? More baritone than tenor? Softer than I expected. So I guess I had some expectations though I didn't know it until I heard you. As for the accent I hear some Scottish in it? But what do I know?
Thanks again, that was fun.
ABE: I had to look up "rhotacism" -- but I didn't hear it in your voice. I guess I'll have to listen more.
Putting God in the Constitution as was done in the Declaration of Independence would not be joining church and state but it would be declaring the essential Christian nature of the nation.
Which raises two points:
"God" was never put into the Constitution -- except for an Anno Domini dating convention, as I recall -- , which renders your statement completely moot, or purely hypothetical at best. If you know of any place where "God" was put into the Constitution, then do please point it out and quote it exactly.
It would be difficult to argue that your particular "God" was placed into the Declaration of Independence (which is not part of the Constitution -- your wording was confusing and appeared at first to say otherwise). It did not mention the "God of the Bible", but rather "Nature's God". What that should mean can be found in Thomas Paine's Age of Reason in which he compared the false "God of the Bible" with the true "God of Nature." The language of the Declaration so strongly parallels Paine's that some think that he may have co-authored it or at least influenced it strongly.
One of the major problems that Godists have is in misinterpreting each and every mere mention of the word, "God", as referring directly and solely to their own particular idea of "God". Virtually every different religious group (and even many individuals within each group) has its own particular idea of "God" which differs from the ideas of the others, often greatly. Just because someone uses the word "God" does not mean that he is referring only to your "God" -- there's even a Unitarian hymn which says, "Some call it God, some call it evolution" (so obviously not your idea of "God").
The point that I do see raised over and over again in the writings of the Founding Fathers and of the Constitution's first interpreters is the idea that every single person has "rights of conscience" in which he believes and practices and worships only in accordance with his own conscience and that nobody can be allowed to abridge his rights by forcing a particular religion upon him -- giving the State control over the practice of religion would lead to such an abridgment. In addition, religion has proven to have such a corrupting influence over government that government must be protected from religion. That is why the metaphor of the Wall of Separation appears and was used even before the drafting of the First Amendment (and of course long before Jefferson coined that specific term in his 1811 letter to the Dansbury Baptists); eg, Madison's "Great Barrier which defends the rights of the people". One interpreter pointed out that believers will use government to commit atrocities which atheists would not, so, as much as he hated atheists, the government is by far much safer in the hands of atheists than in the hands of believers.
Please learn some history along with some basic geology.
Rights of conscience is particularly a Christian idea. John Owen, the Puritan I mentioned who was a dean at Oxford when Locke was a student there, was a great champion, and possibly the originator of the idea. Because the Puritans had been persecuted by the Church of England. This kind of experience was of course the reason to oppose the idea of a state church. Catholicism traditionally refuses to grant freedom of conscience aned historically persecuted and murdered those who did not follow their doctrines. Same with Islam. There's no freedom of conscience in Muslim countries. But they are all in favor of it in America where they benefit by it.
However, rights of conscience is a personal matter that of course should be allowed to anyone, but power in the running of the nation is another thing. The nation should have been clearly defined as Christian in inspiration and all other religions given freedom of conscience but no power.
There was an attempt by many of the majority Christians during that era who protested the leaving out of God, to rewrite the Constitution to include God, including many who were officially founders, yes many of them just not the Big Five who had so much unfortunate power,
There is no doubt that the God of the Declaration was intended to be the Christian God. It would be utterly ridiculous to suppose anything else considering the majority mindset of the day.
Christianity cannot be trusted with any power or authority.
Faith writes:
There is no doubt that the God of the Declaration was intended to be the Christian God. It would be utterly ridiculous to suppose anything else considering the majority mindset of the day.
The majority mindset of the day was that there was no such thing as "The Christian God" and that Christianity should never gain any power beyond verbal persuasion. The whole experience of the colonies was that no Christian Sect should have any political power or could be trusted with any power.
Thank God the very FIRST amendment to the Constitution made that very clear.
Re: Christianity cannot be trusted with any power or authority.
Every one of the colonies had a state Christian church. That was rejected rightly in the Constitution, but that the nation was to be run on general Christian principles was not rejected, and in practice that is what happened for the first hundred or more years anyway, with Christian prayer in Congress, Bibles printed for use in the schools, laws against anti-Christian speech and many other indications of the essential Christianity of the nation. Until the pagans and atheists started reinterpreting the meaning of the Constitution.
The First Amendment says that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. Meaning a state church at least and that Congress was to keep its nose completely out of religious concerns. The way it is interpreted now is the perfectly idiotic and dangerous result o judicial revisionism.
Re: Christianity cannot be trusted with any power or authority.
Faith writes:
That was rejected rightly in the Constitution, but that the nation was to be run on general Christian principles was not rejected, and in practice that is what happened for the first hundred or more years anyway, with Christian prayer in Congress, Bibles printed for use in the schools, laws against anti-Christian speech and many other indications of the essential Christianity of the nation.
Yes, there were violations of the Constitution particularly by individual states but thank God those abominations like Bibles printed for use in the schools or laws against anti-Christian speech were rightly deemed as violations of the Constitution and forbidden.
And there is no such thing as "essential Christianity" as is amply demonstrated by all of the evidence ever seen.
There are no general Christian Principles just as there is no evidence of a Young Earth or Biblical Flood or Special Creation.
Re: Christianity cannot be trusted with any power or authority.
It was the federal government, not the individual states, that "violated the Constitution," that very Constitution that had just brought the United States government into being.
To be honest, although I was born and raised a traditional Christian in an overwhelmingly Christian community the stuff I hear you Americans talking about never ever came up. Evolution was universally taught and young earth was never ever raised. Maybe that's an English Christain thing.
I wouldn't say my small town was overwhelmingly Christian. There were three churches in the town and I have no idea how many attended. I got evolution in school but not a word in church, for or against, and nothing about the young earth or creationism in either the church or the school.
™ Version 4.2
