Customer Reviews:
Not for the weak of faith...........2007-08-30
After a recent trip to Israel, I started to wonder why, if the beginnings of Christianity was in fact Jewish, does the church look nothing like Judaism? Why does Judaism celebrate Biblical holidays, while the Christians make up their own and claim they are of God? I did not get it. Who are we fooling....December 25 was not the birthday and we all know it. Yet, the Jews celebrate holidays that they KNOW were given by God Himself.
I tried asking many pastors and theologians and found that most are not too thrilled to get questions like this. They squirm and try to get me out of their offices as fast as they can. I get the glossed over fake smile and now most avoid me like the plague =)
I just wanted answers and truth! I firmly believe, by faith, that if you ask, you will receive. If you truly seek, the answers will come to you.
I believe that this book is of great value in that quest for answers and truth, if you really want that. I came to see things differently than I have been taught for years. I think if you are at the starting point of trying to understand these things, this is the book for you. By the time I read the book, I think I was further on the path so a lot of it was review for me. It is a great book for me to give to others as they look at me like I am crazy with my Hebraic roots interest. Who knows, maybe I have lost it. I do know, though, that my faith makes MUCH more sense looking at it through this Jewish lens.
Jewish Roots.......2007-08-16
Excellent book - Dr. Wilson is a marvelous author who takes you through the history of the Church thru Hebraic eyes. I have never learned so much from one author. Churches need to get this book in the hands of their pastors who could use it for sermons and/or bible studies. Haven't you ever wondered how the church came to be what it is today??? Why so many different religions?? Why the anti semetic atmosphere even today?? Read this book!!
Excellent!.......2007-08-07
Dr. Wilson's book is the best single volume work on the Jewish roots of Christianity I've ever read. It may be a tough read for some and not academic enough for others, but I prefer to think it splits the middle! The review questions at the end of each chapter help nail down the most important points in the book. Necessary reading for all Christians.
Necessary read.......2007-08-01
Although this book is a bit difficult to read (due to all the information contained within) it is a must read for those of the Jewish faith or those looking to understand the basis for Christianity! Wonderful book full of heavy reference material. Provides a detailed path from early Judaism to the Christian church (and all that transpired in between).
Indespensable for Christians and Jews.......2007-02-05
Having studied under Dr. Wilson at Gordon College I can recommend this book without any reservations. No teacher has had a more positive effect on my life and personal development. If you want to know about the roots of Christianity, this book is for you.
Average customer rating:
- Great historical fiction
- Excellent Historical Fiction
- you've got to check this one out
|
Faith of Our Fathers: A House Divided
Nancy Campbell Allen
Manufacturer: Covenant Communications
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 United States
| World Literature
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
| 18th Century
| 19th Century
| 20th Century
| African American
| Asian American
| Classics
| Collections & Readers
| Drama
| General
| Hispanic
| History & Criticism
| Humor
| Jewish American
| Letters & Correspondence
| Native American
| Poetry
| Short Stories
| Women Writers
Contemporary
| General
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Fiction
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
Similar Items:
-
To Make Men Free
-
Faith of Our Fathers: Through the Perilous Fight
-
One Nation Under God (Faith of our Fathers, 4th)
ASIN: 1577348974 |
Customer Reviews:
Great historical fiction.......2006-10-12
I love to read historical fiction so that I can be entertained while I learn. This book helped me accomplish just that! Although the writing didn't absolutely captivate me, I was able to put it down and forget to pick it up again until the next day, I did enjoy it. I think I felt this way because it is packed with so much historical information that the characters aren't as well developed as I like. Towards the end of the book though, the writting really picked up and I became hooked! As I read the last page of the book, I noticed that I might be at the end and found myself saying, "Please don't be over, please don't be over!" Unfortunately, when I turned the page, I found it was the end of the book. I immediately went online to order Volumn 2!
Excellent Historical Fiction.......2004-01-21
This book chronicles the lives of the Birmingham Family on the eve of the Civil War. The family is split with one brother and his family living in Boston and the other brother and his family living in South Carolina. The southern family has a son who is decidedly abolitionist and has been disowned by his parents.
This book is an easy read, but has many characters and subplots going at one time. The author includes actual historical figures in the book to help recreate the atmosphere in the United States during this difficult period. I recommend this book for anyone with an interest in American History with the caution to remember that this is still just fiction.
you've got to check this one out.......2002-01-31
This book was very well researched and written. I started reading it three days ago and could not put it down. After finishing it in 3 days I find myself very eager for Volume 2.
I strongly recomend this book to anyone with any remote interest in the civil war.
Book Description
The writings of the Church Fathers affirming the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura.
Customer Reviews:
Quotations of Church Fathers Teaching Formal Sufficiency.......2006-12-18
[This is the same introduction that I gave to my review for Vol. I and II. The actual review below is different.] Although it does not cover every disputed exegetical and historical question in detail (and what book could without making the volume massive!), I give this three volume set five stars since there is simply nothing else like it from the Protestant/Evangelical side out there. Since it is a popular polemical work, I shall use a polemical tone in my review. But, before I get to the review, I would like to note that much of the criticisms of this work by the Roman Catholics below are actually addressed in the three volumes. These people remind me of the militant Darwinists who don't even read I.D. books before giving the book a one-star review and repeating ad infinitum ad nauseum the same tired arguments the book tries to address. So, now to the review:
Volume Three:
This volume is simply a "quote book". In chapter 1, King and Webster list the quotes from the church fathers that explicitly state that all doctrines of faith and morals have their basis in Scripture. As one of the more hostile reviewers (but more thoughtful than the one-star review types) noted, some of the quotes don't actually state material sufficiency; rather, they show that the church fathers derived doctrine from Scripture. Perhaps one could say that the cumulative weight of the quotations, from say Justin Martyr, deriving every major doctrine of Christianity from Scripture would show that he believed in material sufficiency. This is probably what the authors had in mind. Secondly, it must be noted (contrary to a previous reviewer) that, although most Roman Catholic (R.C. from now on) apologists believe in material sufficiency (but deny perspicuity), a denial of material sufficiency was the *most* widely held opinion in the R.C. Church in ages past (including the majority of bishops at the Council of Trent), and it is still denied by some today. Thus, this 128 page section is very much needed simply to establish the historicity of sola Scriptura completely.
Chapter 2 is a 13 page section that lists the quotes from fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem and (mostly) Augustine that explicitly state that the Scriptures have ultimate authority and *judge* the doctrines of men, even bishops. In other words, these church fathers expected their hearers and readers to search the Scriptures to see if the bishops' doctrines were true. This clearly presupposes that the laity could understand Scripture apart from the bishop telling them its meaning. For example, I'll quote Cyril of Jerusalem: "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a causal statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures."
Chapter 3 is about an 80 page section that lists the quotes from the fathers that show that they believed that Scripture was, for the most part, clear and easily discernable, especially those doctrines that are necessary for salvation and morals as well. Unlike some of the reviewers below, these quotes are not at all irrelevant since material sufficiency combined with perspicuity is the very substance of sola Scriptura! What need have we of an infallible interpreter or oral "Traditions" (which supposedly also "properly" interpret Scripture) if everything we need is found in Scripture and is sufficiently clear to be discerned?!? Material Sufficiency + Perspicuity = Formal Sufficiency (i.e. sola Scriptura).
The next chapter, ch.4, is a list of church father quotes that teach the principle that clearer Scriptures interpret less clear/difficult ones. This section is very necessary since R.C. apologists frequently mock this foundational belief of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture.
Chapter 5 lists those quotes which teach "The Holy Spirit Makes Scripture Understandable for Those who Pray and Walk in Obedience" (chapter title).
Chapter 6 and 7 is on the necessity of diligent study and private reading of Scripture for an understanding of Scripture. This shows that the policy toward the laity reading the Scriptures differed greatly than that of the Medieval Roman Church and (for the most part) the Roman Church of today.
Now, I would like to respond to a few of the criticisms below. In one review (P.J. Porvaznik), it is claimed that Webster and King are trying to establish that the church fathers believed in sola Scriptura in the full, modern, Protestant sense. On the contrary, they make it clear throughout their work that the fathers sometimes used "tradition" as a guide. However, they also make it clear that the fathers never believed that "tradition" was an *infallible* source of authority. In Vol. II of this series, Webster quotes a Roman Catholic historian that sums up the argument the two authors are trying to make quite well:
"The Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine above all, themselves practiced that devotion derived from Scripture, whose ideal the Protestants steadily upheld; they hardly knew any other. No doubt they were much more careful than many Protestants not to isolate the Word of God in its settled form of Scripture from its living form in the Church, particularly in the liturgy. But, this reserve apart...they were no less enthusiastic, or insistent, or formal, in recommending this use of Scripture and in actually promoting it. Particularly from St. John Chrysostom, one might assemble exhortations and injunctions couched in the most forcible terms; they have often been recalled by those Protestants, from the sixteenth century onwards, the best grounded in Christian antiquity. It would be impossible to find, even among Protestants, statements more sweeping than those in which St. Jerome abounds: Ignoratio scripturarum, ignoratio Christi is doubtless the most lapidary, but not necessarily the most explicit. What is more, in this case just as when the authority of Scripture is viewed as the foundation of theology, the constant practice of the Church, in the Middle Ages as well as in the patristic times, is a more eloquent witness than all the doctors...For them, it was not simply one source among others, but the source par excellence, in a sense the only one."
-Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism (Cleveland: World Publishing, 1964), pp.132-133. Translated by A.V. Littledale. First published by Les Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1954.
Another criticism made by Porvaznik is his appeal to Joe Gallegos' section on patristics as found in "Not by Scripture Alone" as the definitive answer to people like Webster and King. However, Webster, in Vol. II of the series, addresses Gallegos' man-handling of the church fathers extensively. One wonders if Porvaznik actually read the entire work or just read little snippets about it from internet discussion boards.
The next criticism I would like to address comes from A. Renault. His first criticism is the typical "we need the Church Magesterium to determine the books of the canon" argument. Though I don't remember whether this series addresses this argument directly (see especially Chapter 6 of Volume I and Part II of Volume II of this series), it is addressed in just about every standard work on the canon. In my review of Volume II of this work, I suggested Michael Green's "The Books the Church Suppressed". For a popular level work, it goes through how the canon was formed. The canon wasn't done by some Church Magesterium, but rather, it was discovered through historical analysis and debate.
The next few criticisms by A. Renault are all addressed quite thoroughly in Volumes I and II.
Everyone in this debate needs to own this work.
Wonderful quotes, but still lacking.......2005-10-12
The aim of this book is to prove that the Early Church Fathers believed and taught the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which proclaims both the "formal" and "material" sufficiency of Scripture (which is to say that Scripture is our final rule for all matters pertaining to faith, and that Scripture is perspicuous enough to be intelligently understood by anyone apart from what the "church" might say). To that end it consists entirely of quotes from the Fathers about Scripture.
Many things struck me as I read this book. First of all, 95% of the quotes are irrelevant to proving the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but are still wonderful quotes, and help to show us what a reverent and high view of Scripture the Fathers had. This is something that Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics can all rejoice in.
The second thing that struck me is that even the term "scripture" is misleading. The implication is that it means the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New. But the New Testament canon wasn't even universally agreed upon until the late 300's AD. And what about the deutero-canonical books? The quote from St. Cyril on pages 59-60 tells us not to read the apocrypha (except for Baruch), nor should we read the book of Revelation! For many years, and by many churches, other early Christian writings were thought canonical, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, or the epistles of Clement and Barnabas. Most Early Fathers considered the Old Testament apocrypha to be canonical. So if Scripture is all we need, one must ask "Which Scripture?"
A third thought is that if the Scriptures are as perspicuous as Protestants claim, then why do Protestants all differ with the almost universally held Patristic beliefs of baptismal regeneration, venerating the ever-virgin Mary, free will, the ability to fall from grace, the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, etc? If Scripture is so perspicuous, and if the Early Church fathers truly believed in the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura, then why didn't they understand that all these things are supposedly wrong?
Fourthly, it must be admitted that these quotes can be a bit misleading. Many of the opponents and heretics that these Fathers were fighting against believed solely in the authority of Scripture. (See, for example, Gregory of Nyssa's comments on pg. 75, paragraphs 1 and 4, and Augustine's comments on pg. 105, paragraph 3.) Thus, when arguing against them, the Fathers are OBVIOUSLY going to use scripture alone. They won't use Holy Tradition to counter a heretic if the heretic doesn't believe in Tradition to begin with. (Interestingly, on pg. 79, Gregory argues against someone "who interprets scripture at his own sweet will." In other words, "Sola Scriptura"!) Likewise, the opening pages of the book show us Justin Martyr arguing against Trypho using scripture alone, and Trypho commending Justin for doing so. But does the casual reader realize that Trypho is a JEW? Obviously Justin can't appeal to Church tradition or even to the New Testament to prove Christianity. Again, when countering the Gnostic emphasis on mystery and secret knowledge, the Fathers are obviously going to emphasize scripture's perspicuity. This in no way proves they believed the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but will lead the uninformed reader to think they did.
Finally, though the casual reader wouldn't know this from these quotes alone, the Early Church Fathers generally did and taught things that aren't found anywhere in Scripture. Augustine, Basil, Hippolytus, and Tertullian (just for starters) all repeatedly taught the importance of making the sign of the cross on one's forehead, both for protection from the enemy as well as the right sign to accompany baptisms. Jerome (on pg. 81, paragraph 4) suggests a spiritual act found nowhere in scripture, involving a girl going to the temple with her parents. And of course "temple" is not a New Testament term to describe any building. These are all things that the Fathers could never arrive at if they truly believed in Sola Scriptura.
In conclusion, this is a book filled with wonderful quotes that reveal the Early Fathers' beautifully high view of scripture, but it fails to accomplish its purpose. Unfortunately, without understanding the deeper context, the average Protestant is likely to read this book and say, "Aha! The Early Church Fathers REALLY WERE proto-Protestants. This proves it!"
the title does what?.......2003-05-15
catholic4areason should note that the title of the series is based on a quote from the church Father, Irenaeus. So it would seem that he has not read either. To say the title contradicts Scripture is to say Irenaeus contradicts Scripture.
Phils criticisms are dealt with directly in the books and supported by a great deal of documentation. An example of where his review is misleading is when he claims Webster and King say that the early church contrast scripture and tradition. In fact, not only do Webster and King NOT do this, one of their points is that the modern Catholic church DOES. Tradition, as understood by the patristics, is completely circumscribed BY Scripture and that is one of the MAJOR POINTS. Therefore, the supposed 'contrast' or 'dual authority' of Scripture and Tradition is a result of modern Catholicisms redifintion of the early church's understanding of 'Tradition' (pradosis). Why Phil would seem to suggest otherwise could only be to keep naive Catholics from reading the criticism.
Title contradicts scripture itself..........2002-06-26
The title contradicts scripture itself ... "The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" ... has the author never read the scripture with open eyes and did he not recognize that even in scripture, the pillar and foundation of all truth is the CHURCH (see 1 Tim 3:15). Any bible-believing Christian should see that...isn't that what believing the bible is all about - believing what it "actually" says. There's much better stuff out there to read if you're looking for the TRUTH. Try looking where Jesus promised to leave all truth...the CHURCH. And, where in scripture does it say that scripture alone is the basis of all TRUTH. This principal seems to be a tradition of men.
Get the 38 Volumes from Eerdmans instead Volume 3.......2001-12-06
REVIEW CONTINUED...
Let's summarize the work of Catholic scholar and theologian Yves Congar -- since Webster and King have tried to use him to support their Protestant fundamentalist/evangelical assertions -- from Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (1967), pages 23ff
(A) The true Catholic Faith and true interpretation of the Scriptures is found only in the Church which is bound up with the succession of its ministers (apostolic succession, not of doctrine only -- as wrongly claimed by Webster/King -- but of its bishops, ministers, pastors succeeding the authority of the apostles);
(B) The "rule of faith" or "rule of truth" was not the whole of Tradition; it may be the principal part, but there are other things transmitted from the apostles by tradition: rules of discipline, conduct/behavior, on worship/liturgy, etc.
(C) The content of tradition consisted "materially" of the Scriptures, but "formally" of the Faith of the Catholic Church, its reading of the Scriptures in the Creed, etc; the mere text of Scripture alone was insufficient; heretics also quoted Scripture but they did not read that Scripture in the context of the Tradition or the orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church;
(D) The Catholic Church alone has received the apostolic deposit of truth, for in her the Holy Spirit of truth lives (John 14:16f; 16:13f); the Church alone is the sole inheritor of the true Christian teaching from God through Christ to the Apostles;
(E) This Tradition -- the Church's Tradition -- is itself oral; and if there were no NT Scriptures it would have been sufficient for the Church to follow "the order of tradition" received from the apostles; in the minds of the early Christians it made no difference if the transmission was purely oral since there was an assured connection to the apostles through the Churches founded by the apostles to guarantee authenticity;
(F) Scripture was everything for the Fathers, and Tradition was everything also;
(G) What was the nature of the Church of the Fathers? It was one universal visible Church ruled by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters/priests, deacons, etc in succession from the apostles (apostolic succession, again not "succession of doctrine" only);
(H) The entire activity of the Fathers demonstrates that they united three terms that were separated and set in opposition by the controversies of the 16th century -- these three terms were Scripture, Tradition, and Church; it was always affirmed that Scripture is the rule and norm of faith only when conjoined to the Church and her Tradition;
(I) Hence, the Scriptures were never considered by the Fathers as formally "sufficient" or exclusive.
See also Congar in "Excursis A: The Sufficiency of Scripture According to the Fathers and Medieval Theologians" for his conclusions on "material sufficiency" in the Fathers.
Congar demonstrates and concludes (after much evidence and analysis) that the Church Fathers did not believe in Sola Scriptura in the "formal sufficiency" sense required by the Protestant Reformers. Webster/King accept this distinction and set out to prove "formal sufficiency" from many quotations of the Fathers. However, they fail to overthrow the consistent conclusions of Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and Congar above.
Joe Gallegos in his 160 pages on the Fathers (see Not By Scripture Alone, p. 389-554), following Congar's research, analysis and conclusions, has conceded the "material sufficiency" of Scripture in the Fathers, so "formal sufficiency" is where the debate needs to center. The vast majority of quotations brought forward by Webster/King on the authority, inspiration, inerrancy, power, beauty, etc of Holy Scripture in the Fathers ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE. Even the perspicuity (clearness and clarity) of Scripture in the Fathers contradicts the assertions of Webster/King since the Fathers universally interpreted the text of Scripture in accordance with Catholic doctrine today (despite Webster's assertions on Matthew 16:18 which is not a problem -- note the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Matthew 16:18f, paragraphs 424, 442, 552, 586, 756, 881, etc).
Webster/King really could have saved us and them a lot of time by cutting out a great amount of irrelevant material from the three volumes, perhaps add more of a direct "biblical defense" (which is where ultimately their case must be established) of Sola Scriptura, and trimmed it down to one book of about 500 pages.
Volume 3 contains a lot of quotations from the Church Fathers, about 99% of which are irrelevant since no Church Father pitted the Tradition of the Catholic Church or the Dogmas of the Catholic Church AGAINST Scripture, which is what Webster/King would have you believe.
Vatican Council II affirms Sola Scriptura to the fullest extent according to their logic since: the Council Fathers teach the inspiration and authority of Scripture; the inerrancy of Scripture; quote from 2 Tim 3:16-17 the classical Protestant proof text; call Scripture the "Word of God"; say the Word of God for the Church is the "supreme rule of her faith"; that Scripture presents God's own Word in an unalterable form; they are the voice of the Holy Spirit bringing the words of the prophets and apostles to us; that ALL the preaching of the Church, and the ENTIRE Christian religion should be ruled by Scripture; the Word of God has force and power as the Church's support and vigor; the children of the Church get strength for their faith, food for the soul, and find a pure fount of spiritual life in Holy Scripture (see Vatican II Dei Verbum, 11, 21).
If you are an Evangelical or Catholic interested in this issue, you should get these volumes. Then take out the 38 volumes of the Fathers edited by Protestant scholars and see what Webster/King do not tell you. They are available online. And don't forget to purchase the 600 page Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura and compare especially the chapters by Sungenis, Blosser, and Gallegos where they have already answered much that is found in the Webster/King volumes.
Phil Porvaznik
Book Description
In 1998, novelist Frank Schaeffer’s eighteen-year-old son, John, joined the marines straight out of prep school. Their ensuing journey, recounted in Keeping Faith: A Father-Son Story About Love and the United States Marine Corps, struck a fervent chord among the many Americans with a family member in the military, inspired personal communications from three American presidents, and propelled the book and the authors through many printings and onto Oprah, 20/20 and the New York Times extended bestseller’s list. In Faith of Our Sons, Frank Schaeffer picks up his family’s ongoing story as Corporal John Schaeffer is deployed to the Middle East on the day Gulf War II begins. Schaeffer’s powerfully moving and timely account of the universal experience of losing a child—either temporarily or permanently—to war and his attendant emotions (from pride to panic to rage and back again) is punctuated throughout by the voices of the many others in Frank’s situation, thousands of other parents and children, who continue to pour their hearts out to the Schaeffers in countless letters since the publication of Keeping Faith: from those waiting anxiously for loved ones to come home to those who know they never will.
Customer Reviews:
Dan.......2007-07-04
An amazing book. A book every liberal should read. It will clearly test every liberals theology and create ground for their head to be turned back toward what is real and those principals that really make a country & individual. Lets save our country--start the draft!
Tells How his Family Works.......2004-12-30
My uncles have told me this is a good book, but i have not read it. I am reviewing it because my uncle told me it was good and true, since i have cousins who were marines, from 1985 to 1998. My uncle also served but not in the marines, and was surprised at this story of faith.
an incredible journey of how a military family feels.......2004-11-28
Frank Schaeffer is a fantastic author and an excellant speaker. I met Mr.Schaeffer at a convention in Indy and he's very passionate about our military! This books lets the reader feel what it's like to send a son off to war. It's a must-read for everyone today whether you have a family member serving our country or not. We all know someone serving.
Frank Schaeffer's words carry an important message.......2004-05-31
Yesterday, May 29th, I watched the World War II Memorial dedication on TV. I was very moved by the program and had a overwhelming feeling this memorial on the Washington Mall is long overdue. I'm glad it's now open and look forward to taking my mother to see it in October (she's a WWII vet). I then watched Frank Schaeffer's C-Span Book TV presentation, then bought a copy of the book. I'm ordering additional copies through Amazon.com. His talk was straight forward and truthful. Our servicemen and women are treated poorly, and deserve so much more. These are the people that watch our backs, allow us to sleep at night and uphold our freedom, yet their pay and benefits are pitifully low. I applaud Frank Schaeffer for speaking up. This truly is a scandel. Our politicians should be ashamed their children are not serving, but they don't have any problem sending other young adults into harm's way. They certainly have no problem lipping "be of service to your country". This goes for Democrats and Republicans alike. Now it's time they walk the walk, and quit grandstanding for the media. Imagine what our country would be like without the wonderful and dedicated military. One additional note, my 4.0 GPA college bound daughter has deferred college in order to serve. It's her decision, of course we are nervous but very proud. By the way, she does have a college fund. Thank you Frank Schaeffer for being the voice of many. MH
True to my experience.......2004-05-30
As the brother of a Marine who has recently come home from Combat, I can vouch for the realistic portrayal that this well written volume offers of the inner life of those who stay behind. Frank and John Schaeffer's two books really tell it like it is. Like Frank and his family, I was (and am) so proud of my brother, and yet like them, I really suffered knowing what might happen to him. Reading this book confirmed for me just how devastating it would be to my own parents if anything where to happen to my brother. Frank is willing to go where so few men are willing to go in his open discussion of the feelings of love, pride and fear he has concerning his son and the affect these feelings have on his relationship with the other members of his family. I have watched fights in my family that I know were not about a burnt dinner but really about no email from my brother for a week. Frank reveals what so many of us know; we can watch ourselves do things and know that we are not in control; we can even know why we are not in control and yet still be powerless to help ourselves. Despite this somewhat dark insight I felt uplifted by this book. This is a slice of my life. I suspect it is a slice of the American experience.
Book Description
Using the writings of the founders and records of their conversations and activities, John Eidsmoe demonstrates the influence of Christianity on the political convictions of the founding fathers.
Customer Reviews:
Ben Franklin was a nerd.......2006-04-15
Eidsmoe is clear about his bias but the book certainly isn't an emotional diatribe. Exceptionally well researched, it's a fair and reasonable alternative to the standard dialogue in public schools and academia. A large section of the book is short and simple biographies of 13 old school patriots focused towards their religiosity. Eidsmoe's writing flowed reasonably well and they were interesting. What is outrageous is that, with the widely available historical documentation that Eidsmoe quotes from, some academics still assert that most the founding fathers were deists. Even Franklin himself advocated for official daily prayer during the constitutional convention, asserting that no empire can be made without the direct assistance of God. The original source material is completely twisted out of context or ignored all together to support the modern interpretation of church/state separation.
One can intelligently argue that current case law on church/state issues is right and proper or even that it doesn't go far enough in removing religion from government. It's a legitimate philosophical debate. However, when original source material from the founding fathers is read, it is impossible to argue the current state was ever the original intent. The founding fathers had absolutely no intention of placing the limits on religion that the modern courts do. Eidsmoe documents how Jefferson, though a Universalist and not a Christian, actually advocated earmarking federal funds for Christian missionaries to Native American tribes.
If you think Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists and his "wall of separation" phrase completely eliminated the comingling of religion and government, then read this book. Given the actual history, I don't understand why there's really any debate about this issue. This book really shows how history can be distorted and ignored to support the current spirit of the times.
Definitly worth reading.......2004-11-01
Oh how I wish every Christian in America would read this book. Too often we are weak only because we don't know our history.
The book starts out with a discussion of Calvinism, Puritanism, and some of the other "isms" that molded peoples opinions around the time of our Country's birth.
Much of the rest of this book is devoted to biographies of thirteen of our founding fathers, including Jefferson, Washington, Henry, and Adams (two of them). Some were Christians, some weren't. But the extent to which our Government was founded on Christian principles and morality is evident by studying their own writings.
The remainder of the book discusses the Biblical principles found in our founding documents (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), and how we've come from there to the godless mess we're in now. Just the last couple of chapters were in themselves worth the entire cost of the book!
Political TRUTH at last!.......2004-08-17
I'm familiar with the Founders own writings (original source documents) and I find this book to be an excellent faithful and true account of the important role of religion (Christianity) in the founding of this great nation - Gods New Israel (the New Jerusalem). I note that there are certain high-minded, haughty critics who with their post-modern jargon and foo-foo biased propaganda seek to belittle this great book however I exhort all those seeking for political truth to read this book. It is excellent, and once you have this knowledge, you will not be deceived by foo-foo propaganda from the limp-wristed liberal left. Thank you John - brilliant work.
A bit simplistic.......2004-01-09
John Eidsmoe's book is definately relevant to any inquiry into the relation between the Church and the Civil magistrate, particularly in regard to that relation at the founding of the constitution. The naive assumption that politics operate in an epistemic vaccum is, hopefully, washed away by Eidsmoe's presentation of general philosophical and religious precommitments of our nation's early politicians.
I believe Eidsmoe is a bit optomistic in regard to the orthodoxy of the faith of the constitutional founders, definately underplaying the Masonic influence on their views. Whatever their particular views, Christians should hardly claim them in defense of a thoroughly anti-christian covenantal document that established the *people* as the Sovereign of the nation. Vague references to God hardly establish a Christian nature to the document, though undoubtably, as Eidsmoe states, the structure itself can obviously be attributed to the Presbyterian model of government.
With that said, the book is, in the end, worth reading. Particularly the 22nd chapter, "Into the Third Century: Where does the US go from Here?" Eidsmoe, likely unintentionally, evidences the futility of a covenantal document that establishes human autonomy as Sovereign by it's thorough subjectivism. Eidsmoe demonstates this with a number of penal examples (what *exactly* is the normative referant for 'cruel and unusual' punishment today?)
After reading this book, I would highly recommend Gary North's "Political Polytheism" to supplement it with a little Biblical orthodoxy (keep in mind, Eidsmoe is a dispensationalist - *gag*)
A bit simplistic.......2004-01-09
John Eidsmoe's book is definately relevant to any inquiry into the relation between the Church and the Civil magistrate, particularly in regard to that relation at the founding of the constitution. The naive assumption that politics operate in an epistemic vaccum is, hopefully, washed away by Eidsmoe's presentation of general philosophical and religious precommitments of our nation's early politicians.
I believe Eidsmoe is a bit optomistic in regard to the orthodoxy of the faith of the constitutional founders, definately underplaying the Masonic influence on their views. Whatever their particular views, Christians should hardly claim them in defense of a thoroughly anti-christian covenantal document that established the *people* as the Sovereign of the nation. Vague references to God hardly establish a Christian nature to the document, though undoubtably, as Eidsmoe states, the structure itself can obviously be attributed to the Presbyterian model of government.
With that said, the book is, in the end, worth reading. Particularly the 22nd chapter, "Into the Third Century: Where does the US go from Here?" Eidsmoe, likely unintentionally, evidences the futility of a covenantal document that establishes human autonomy as Sovereign by it's thorough subjectivism. Eidsmoe demonstates this with a number of penal examples (what *exactly* is the normative referant for 'cruel and unusual' punishment today?)
After reading this book, I would highly recommend Gary North's "Political Polytheism" to supplement it with a little Biblical orthodoxy (keep in mind, Eidsmoe is a dispensationalist - *gag*)
Product Description
It's not whether you have a creed or not, just which.
"No creed but Christ." This claim tries to remove the mess of doctrinal controversy. After all, doesn't everyone know that "doctrine divides"? But would avoiding creeds and confessions really clear away confusion? What do you believe about Jesus? Was he really God? The answers to these important questions make a creed, even if it's poorly worded or false. Creeds are unavoidable.
As the church's first "official" ecumenical creed, the Nicene Creed has protected and shaped the life of God's people for centuries. L. Charles Jackson's popular study walks readers through every line of the creed, highlighting its history and contemporary application, and revealing its grounding in Scripture. It shows us a Nicene Creed that is pastoral, practical, and personal.
Book Description
n the past, books on feminism in the 1960s and 1970s have excluded women in religion entirely. This void is filled with a new collection that details the stories of sixteen prominent women leaders in religious communities who actively fought to change society's views of women in religious realms. Letty Cottin Pogrebin, co-founder of Ms.; Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza, feminist Biblical scholar; Carol P. Christ, leader of the Goddess movement; Riffat Hassan, Muslim feminist theolo-gian; and many more share their heroic stories and shed light on issues of faith, feminism, struggles, and triumphs. This com-- pelling compilation of spiritual journeys is essential for any-one inter-ested in the religious lives of women in the United States.
Customer Reviews:
Diversity of religious feminisms.......2006-05-04
I highly recommend this book of personal stories by women who shaped religious feminism. It is an excellent resource for understanding the diversity of religious feminisms--Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical), Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, and Goddess spirituality.
Feminism finds religion at last.......2004-06-13
Thanks go to Ann Braude for her stellar work in breaking down the artificial divide between feminism and religious belief! This book shows that feminists have taken much of their inspiration from religious traditions and from the power of belief in their own lives. This book makes fascinating reading and will help to correct the bias against faith in the historical accounts of feminism.
Customer Reviews:
worthless read.......2007-10-03
I wish that I had read the previous reviews of this book prior to spending my money. Instead I believed the cover that read, "Dr. Tim LaHaye moves past all the rhetoric, argumentation, and historical revisionism and simply examines the plain evidence". That is why I bought the book and why I was so terribly disappointed. This book is nothing but a thinly veiled attack on 'secular humanism'. And LaHaye couches that attack in useless, un-cited anecdote and terms like 'Secular Humanist Animals'. LaHaye laments that 'Creation Science' is not taught in school. (Dr. LaHaye, there is no such things as 'Creation Science', because there is no way to hold creationism up to the rigors of scientific inquiry).
If you are looking for a book that pours gasoline on the flames of your fear of the ACLU and the NEA, by all means, buy this book. If you are looking for a book that really does examine the facts of the role faith played in the founding of our nation, keep looking and don't waste your money on this rag.
Faith of Our Founding Fathers.......2007-01-15
Everyone needs to read this book so that they can remember from their childhood education or learn for the first time what our country was founded on!
historical depth.......2006-08-20
An important book for anyone involved in the educational, political, legal or spiritual activity of this nation.
Less than honest.......2004-12-09
As a pastor I suggest that Tim Lahaye vision of the Founding Fathers is a less than honest interpretation and revisionism of the lives of these men.
He regularly removes quotes for their historical context and readily leaves false impressions of the spirituality of what was a broadly diverse group of men. Deists, Unitarians, athiests, orthodox and more were the roots of American constitutional government.
Some like Patrick Henry are discussed as beacons of Christian orthodoxy without acknowledging that many of the most orthodox worked against the ratifying of the constitution by the states.
Individual quotations never tell the whole story of the man. The language of God was part of the general public discourse and was used often by many founders for its effect. While at the same time they, also, spoke boldly of the destructive nature of religion, the absence of God from this world in any intimate mannet, the evil of the institutions of faith, etc.
Jefferson's work on his missal called "The Jefferson Bible" displayed a rationalistic distaste for all things supernatural in the Gospels. He and many recognized the destruction the faith wars of europe had caused and believed the philosophies of Hume held more hope than irrational faith.
All in all LaHaye's work borders more more on fiction than fact and serves neither the church nor the public discourse of these men and the events they forged.
Here are some facts to consider... from a Christian.......2004-08-21
As a Christian who studies the Bible on a daily basis, I'm disgusted by how people will listen naively to whatever Tim Lahaye and others say because it sounds pleasing, without thinking critically. (The Bible has many warnings about that too.)
If you really want to learn about the "Faith of Our Founding Fathers" from a scholarly source by somebody who actually has researched facts, then I recommend an accurate and fair (and enjoyable) book instead called, "The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America" by Frank Lambert instead. (ISBN 0691088292)
Yes, the U.S. colonies were established primarily as Christian colonies. However, there were so many disagreements in beliefs, that the states ended up persecuting people who preached different doctrines. People were being hung in Massachusetts because of their beliefs, and that was why Roger Williams left to found Rhode Island, a state that tolerated different religions.
In Virginia, Baptists preachers were thrown in prison because they disagreed with the established Anglican church. One of the people impacted by this was James Madison, who himself had attended a presbyterian seminary. His first action as a freshman lawmaker in Virginia was to fight for the rights of religious minorities. He became a decisive force for the separation of church and state.
Because of the persecution of religious minorities and the efforts by the established churches to silence dissent, the popular attitude was to hate the established churches, because they were seen as power-hungry and corrupt (like some today). That is why people like Madison and Jefferson fought for the creation of a secular government that "deregulated" churches and created a free-market of religious ideas.
Yes, there were other people (like Patrick Henry) who wanted to establish a Christian church, but guess who won in the end? Madison and Jefferson sold the founders on the idea that keeping the church and state in their own separate spheres was best for everyone, and the conventions agreed!
The framers were afraid that if they mentioned God in the Constitution, then that might lead to entanglement between the church and state. Instead of deriving their governmental authority from God, as had been done by other states before them, they wrote a Preamble that said, "We the people...do ordain and establish this Constitution," rather than saying "God ordains this Constitution" (which was proposed). Their preamble was completely different from the "City on a Hill" ideology of the past.
Madison was friends with Thomas Jefferson, a Deistic Unitarian who penned the words "separation of Church and State" in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. This letter was important because Jefferson was expressing what he believed was the "original intent" of the first amendment.
Has God cursed our nation as a result of this separation of church and state? Quite the contrary! Just look around and see how God has blessed us. Churches have grown, AND we probably have a higher percentage of Christian believers than before the Constitution was drafted.
God never needed civil power to grow his church. Look at what the apostles faced--the early church grew despite persecution. As soon as the church gained political acceptance and power, it becamed corrupted by greed, idolatry and syncretistic pagan practices.
What is the agenda behind the push by some zealous Christians to take control of the government, and why do they feel they need civil power? Is it because their theology is weak and devoid of spiritual power? (Those who rely on the law are legalistic.)
Book Description
In The Faiths of Our Fathers, widely acclaimed historian Alf Mapp, Jr. cuts through the historical uncertainty to accurately portray the religious beliefs of 11 of America's founding fathers, including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Visit our website for sample chapters!
Customer Reviews:
A great idea, poorly executed.......2007-09-03
Mapp's The Faith of our Fathers is a light read, appropriate for high school students perhaps. But the editing is poor, factual assertions are inaccurate, and all too often the analysis is weak and deep understanding absent.
The book opens on a note both strong and true: "There was no monolithic national faith acknowledged by all Founding Fathers. Their religious attitudes were as varied as their political opinions." (pp. 1-2). Yet Mapp does not quite deliver on the promise of clearly explaining the Founding Fathers' many heterodoxies.
Consider Thomas Jefferson. Mapp observes that one of Thomas Jefferson's "dearest friends was Joseph Priestley, a liberal clergyman as well as a distinguished scientist," (p. 14), but he fails to note that Jefferson attributed to Priestley's Unitarian theology the foundations of his own religious faith. Mapp acknowledges that "Jefferson rejected the trinitarian concept of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit)." (p. 11). But the word "Unitarian" appears not even once in the chapter of the faith of our nation's third President, who earnestly expressed hope that Unitarianism would soon become our nation's the general religion.
Mapp's chapter on John Adams opens by giving the impression that Adams was bound by "Puritan and Calvinist doctrines," (p. 56), though what Mapp means to say is far from clear, as his discussion of Adams's religious beliefs quickly demonstrates that our nation's second President - rejecting such fundamental doctrines as eternal hell and the divinity of Christ - was anything but a Calvinist.
Mapp tells us that Adams declared: "An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient author of this stupendous universe, suffering on a cross!!! My soul starts with horror at the idea, and it has stupefied the Christian world. It has been the source of almost all the corruptions of Christianity." (p. 62). Many of today's evangelicals - who insist that only those who believe Jesus was God can call themselves Christians - would have to deny that Adams was a Christian. By their standard, three of our nation's first six presidents - John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams - were not Christians. One can only wonder why Mapp never points this out.
Mapp says that Adams also "declared his disbelief in demoniacal possession," and then "[a]nticipating the anger his declaration would provoke in some quarters, he wrote, 'Howl, snarl, bite, ye Calvinistic, ye Athanasian divines, if ye will. Ye will say I am no Christian. I say year are not Christians, and there the account is balanced.'" (p. 61). In context, however, the quoted phrase - which appears in a September 14, 1813, letter to Thomas Jefferson - relates not to Adams's disbelief in demoniacal possession, but to his rejection of the Calvinists' doctrine of eternal damnation. Yet Mapp does adequately convey Adams's inability to believe that a loving God would consign human beings to eternal hell: "My adoration of the author of the universe is too profound and too sincere." (p. 61).
Many have noted the role that religion has played in objections to the institution of slavery. Of James Madison, our federal Constitution's principal author, Mapp writes: "His determined, lifelong opposition to slavery also cost him support and perhaps some personal friendships. But, though a master of compromise in negotiation, he would not compromise on what he regarded as a major moral issue." (p.50). Yet Madison did compromise on precisely this issue. The Constitution that he did so much to frame, that he signed, and whose ratification he vigorously promoted, included both a clause protecting the slave trade from federal regulation (Article I, sec. 9, cl. 1), and also the notorious fugitive-slave clause, mandating that escaped slaves be returned to their owners: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." (Article 4, sec. 2, cl. 3).
As Mapp tries to outline the religious beliefs of eleven Founding Fathers, he unfortunately gets many points of American religious history dead wrong. He confuses two distinct groups, the Pilgrims and the Puritans, for example, when he writes: "At home in England and during their self-imposed exile in Holland, the Puritans had been rebels. But in Massachusetts they had built their own society, which they were confident was ordained by God." (p. 26). In fact, the Puritans who would dominate the government of Massachusetts came direct from England. And although lay people are apt to confuse the Puritans with the Pilgrims, those Separatist "rebels" who spent some time in Holland, it is surprising to find such confusion in a book about the religious background of our nation's Founding Fathers.
This is by no means the only confusion in Mapp's book. Mapp tells us, for example, that by George Washington's time, "Anglicans constituted the established church of England and its colonies." (p. 66). That, of course, is gross overstatement. For Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Delaware had no established churches while throughout New England - excepting establishment-free Rhode Island - the established churches were Congregationalist, not Anglican.
Discussing Benjamin Franklin's beliefs, Mapp even confuses polytheism and pantheism. (p.32).
Poor editing causes problems throughout. When Mapp purports to quote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, for example, he adds to the Statute's text lines coming instead from Thomas Jefferson's 1787 Notes on Virginia, to the effect that "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (p. 8). The title of the landmark 1947 Supreme Court opinion, Everson v. Board of Education, so influenced by Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state, is given as "Emerson." Mapp is off by two decades when he writes: "In 1775, following Braddock's defeat and the experience of remaining unharmed when several bullets pierced his coat, Washington exclaimed in a personal letter: 'See the wondrous works of providence!'" (p.73). The year was 1755, not 1775.
And if I, as a casual reader, can spot these errors, there must be many more.
In all, this is a book based on a great idea that opens with great promise, but that falls short of its potential.
Eric Alan Isaacson
Muddle assessment of our major founding fathers.......2007-02-08
I read this book along with David L. Holmes' Faiths of our Founding Fathers and I realized that the author of this book really have a hard time dealing with the concept of Deism which was a popular theological thought among the well educated during the 18th century. Mapp's inability to truly understand how Deism influenced many of his subjects like Franklin, Adams, Madison and Washington proves to be a major failing of this book. While the author went through the motion of describing Deism, he never really explained how this theological thought effected the actions, behavior and political beliefs of these founding fathers of our nation. But what is so surprising is how the author muddled Deism belief of Thomas Jefferson considering that the author wrote several books on Jefferson so he must be well aware of the fact that Jefferson was a die-hard Deist for most of his adult life. Still, its ironic that the reader will put down this book with a muddled understanding that these five men were not exactly following the Christian faith for most of their adult lives. This muddle effort by the author is the main reason why I gave this book only two stars.
While the first five chapters dealt with the most important of our founding fathers, the next six chapters dealt with the supporting players of our founding fathers (John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, George Mason and Charles Carroll. Hymn Solomon was Jew). In most cases, these men were more closer to the orthodox religious faiths of their time and they were easier to assess on how faiths and their politics interlaced with each other.
The book is short and easy to read but I cannot say that it was well reseached or well written. The author blew it on the five most important subjects of this book who were the most difficult to understand due to their Deist belief.
I would recommended David Holmes' The Faiths of the Founding Fathers as the more ideal and far more superior book on this subject.
will not please the evangelicals.......2006-04-03
This book decisively shows that many of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, and even some of those who were members of a church in fact did not conform to Christian orthodoxy. A better book on the same subject is David Holmes' The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, Oxford UP.
Well researched and presented........2005-04-29
This book presents an excellent look at the extent to which faith played a role in the lives, beliefs and actions of eleven of our founding fathers. The author appears to have no preconceived notions concerning the faith of these men, nor does he attempt to persuade the reader that any religion or single faith was necessary at all. Indeed, the title speaks for itself in that it is "Faiths" plural. The beliefs of these men varied widely as did the extent to which they exercised their faiths. Having read numerous, lengthy biographies of our founding fathers, I found this book to be factually consistent with what others have researched and written -- and best of all it is set forth in a concise, easy to read manner that permits the reader to consider the evidence and reach his or her own decision concerning the founders faiths and how, if at all, their faiths influenced the founding of our nation.
The Faiths of Our Fathers.......2004-02-17
Faiths of Our Fathers is easy to understand and helps bring history to life. Each chapter gives the reader a chance to learn some of the differences in the religious beliefs of America's founding fathers. In the light of current events the subject is a timely one.
Books:
- Positive Coaching: Building Character and Self-Esteem Through Sports
- Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases: 2-Volume Set
- Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach (4th Edition)
- Reiki The Ultimate Guide Learn Sacred Symbols & Attunements plus Reiki Secrets You Should Know
- Reinventing Development?: Translating Rights-Based Approaches from Theory into Practice
- Remembering Wholeness: A Personal Handbook for Thriving in the 21st Century
- Reverberations of Faith: A Theological Handbook of Old Testament Themes
- Roots of Wisdom (with InfoTrac )
- Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, A
- Snow Flower and the Secret Fan: A Novel
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Good Husband of Zebra Drive
- How to Teach a New Dog Old Tricks
- Billy Boy: A Novel
- Gaviotas: A Village to Reinvent the World
- Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done
- Lie Algebras in Particle Physics
- Green Clean: The Environmentally Sound Guide to Cleaning Your Home
- Capital Markets, Growth, and Economic Policy in Latin America
- Combating Sexual Harassment at Work
- Business Strategies For A Caring Profession: A PRACTITIONER'S GUIDEBOOK
Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebrew Perspective
Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church
Jesus the Jewish Theologian
The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation
New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from His Jewish Context
