# Abe Lincoln and John Calvin



## Sven (May 22, 2009)

I posted an article on Lincoln and Calvin this year being the anniversary of both men's birth. Hopefully this doesn't get all you Johnny Reb's dander up. 

Article here: Beholding the Beauty: Positive Dogmatics: Lincoln and Calvin

Note: This is not a political article.


----------



## Fly Caster (May 22, 2009)

Some things just weren't meant to go together.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 22, 2009)

Fly Caster said:


> Some things just weren't meant to go together.



Thank you!


----------



## Sven (May 22, 2009)

Fly Caster said:


> Some things just weren't meant to go together.






Hopefully you read the article though.


----------



## Sven (May 22, 2009)

hmmm...it seems as if I've posted an unpopular article.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (May 22, 2009)

Not a big fan of Lincoln. I have a feeling that the old saying, "Who ever wins the war writes the history books" has never been better applied then in Lincoln's case. I read the article but feel that even as people try to tie in Darwin and Lincoln to Calvin's 500th year celabration it is only to take focus away from the great theologian. In my humble opinion


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 22, 2009)

You would be hard-pressed to find a more strident defender of the South than I but I must say I enjoyed your article.


----------



## Sven (May 22, 2009)

Ben,

Much of my sympathies are with the South, but I have to admit that I admire Lincoln. 

Alan,

I do not think this takes away in the least bit from the greatness of Calvin. This year is an anniversary of Lincoln and Calvin and, yes, Charles Darwin. I think it is in the Spirit of Calvin to recognize that we can learn something from these men. Even if we have strong feelings against them.


----------



## Kevin (May 22, 2009)

Here is a difference that you could have explored. 

Calvin spends all of eternity with his Savior, while Lincoln spends all of eternity in torment.

You seem to to be suffering under the mis-aprehension that Lincolns use of a few (non-specific, non-christian) references to providence make him a christian. Far from it.

We are far more likely to see two of the last three democratic presidents in glory then that evil man.


----------



## Sven (May 22, 2009)

Kevin,

You seem to have missed this quote from my article: "He did not have the theological acumen that Calvin had; furthermore, he never seemed to move past a generic civil Christianity into true faith..." That being said, there is a noticable difference in Lincoln's attitude toward Christianity from before his presidency to during the war. He turned more and more to religion and reading the Bible especially after his son Willie died in the Whitehouse. I'd like to give credit where it is due. You seem to pass judgment without really having ascertained the facts. Furthermore, you have usurped the position of God in judging those outside the church (1 Cor. 5:13).


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 22, 2009)

Sven said:


> Kevin,
> 
> You seem to have missed this quote from my article: "He did not have the theological acumen that Calvin had; furthermore, he never seemed to move past a generic civil Christianity into true faith..." That being said, there is a noticable difference in Lincoln's attitude toward Christianity from before his presidency to during the war. He turned more and more to religion and reading the Bible especially after his son Willie died in the Whitehouse. I'd like to give credit where it is due. You seem to pass judgment without really having ascertained the facts. Furthermore, you have usurped the position of God in judging those outside the church (1 Cor. 5:13).




And yet, his actions were worse during the war than before it...


----------



## Montanablue (May 22, 2009)

> We are far more likely to see two of the last three democratic presidents in glory then that evil man.



I feel like I must have missed something... How do you know that Lincoln is in eternal torment? I'm not saying he was a great theologian (or even that he was great politically), but I can't say I've ever seen anything that would indicate that he was more unregenerate that the rest of us - or that he was unrepentant. I'm under the impression that he was a Christian - although possibly not as reformed or mature as we might like - but a believer nontheless. What have you read of his that leads you to think the contrary? (I'm genuinely curious - I hope I don't come off otherwise)

-----Added 5/22/2009 at 09:37:30 EST-----

Oh, and Sven, I really enjoyed the article. Very thought-provoking - thanks!


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 22, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> > We are far more likely to see two of the last three democratic presidents in glory then that evil man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you think Hitler is in heaven?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 22, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > > We are far more likely to see two of the last three democratic presidents in glory then that evil man.
> ...



He could be.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 22, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Montanablue said:
> ...



But would you not be more likely to say that he is in torment?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 22, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > LadyFlynt said:
> ...



Most probably said the same thing about the thief on the cross.


----------



## Prufrock (May 22, 2009)

I'm not sure speculation about certain folk's eternal state is altogether profitable; we should, indeed, preach the woeful circumstances of those who die outside of the Lord; but we can leave those things hidden from us a mystery and trust in the righteous judgment and gracious mercy of the Lord Jesus. God can grant faith and repentance to anyone he pleases at anytime; this should be enough for us to avoid speculations on such matters. At the very least, we should avoid speculating ill of those already passed who may have shown signs in life of some form of faith. Just a suggestion, take it or leave it.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 22, 2009)

No offense but how can abe lincoln ever live up to the service of John Calvin?


----------



## kalawine (May 22, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



First Calvin is lowered to comparison with Satan's favorite president and now we have the thief on the cross on the same level as Hitler. Sheesh! Shall we now speak of the similarities between Elijah and the prophets of Baal?


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 22, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> I'm not sure speculation about certain folk's eternal state is altogether profitable; we should, indeed, preach the woeful circumstances of those who die outside of the Lord; but we can leave those things hidden from us a mystery and trust in the righteous judgment and gracious mercy of the Lord Jesus. God can grant faith and repentance to anyone he pleases at anytime; this should be enough for us to avoid speculations on such matters. At the very least, we should avoid speculating ill of those already passed who may have shown signs in life of some form of faith. Just a suggestion, take it or leave it.



*properly rebuked*


----------



## Prufrock (May 22, 2009)

No rebuke; just some thoughts.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 22, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> No rebuke; just some thoughts.



Yes, but I was trying to make a point and it just went off rail from there


----------



## Ivan (May 22, 2009)

Threads on Lincoln =


----------



## Montanablue (May 22, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > > We are far more likely to see two of the last three democratic presidents in glory then that evil man.
> ...



Probably not - but Hitler also rejected the gospel outright. Lincoln, for all of his faults, at least claimed to be a Christian - and in everything I've read of his, I haven't seen anything that would indicate that he rejected Christ. I'm not saying he _was_ saved. I just don't know how one could claim that he was "likely" to be in eternal torment. It just doesn't fit with what the man wrote. 

But I digress. As Prufrock helpfully pointed out, its not really our place to speculate to whom God shows grace.

-----Added 5/22/2009 at 10:31:48 EST-----



Ivan said:


> Threads on Lincoln =



So I see... Goodness, I had no idea. Pity, really. He was a fascinating man.


----------



## Ivan (May 22, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Threads on Lincoln =
> ...



Indeed!


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 22, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Montanablue said:
> ...



I've never seen where he claimed to be a Christian though either. He was more of a spiritualist.


----------



## Montanablue (May 22, 2009)

> I've never seen where he claimed to be a Christian though either. He was more of a spiritualist.



That's a valid argument. Lincoln's theology is certain up for argument. However, he wrote a LOT about the sovereignty of God - it was a subject that he really grappled with, especially during the war (as Sven points out). His writings (I think) point to a man who was contemplating and mediating on the Bible and spiritual matters. My own thought is that Lincoln was a theist during his early career, and came to a better understanding of the Bible during his presidency - especially during the war years. Of course, that's only my thought. I could be mistaken or misinterpreting. 

If anyone is interested, there is an interesting Christianity Today article that talks about this. I was looking for another article I had read about this topic in college, but its unfortunately in an academic journal, and one has to pay for access.  This article has some of the same information though. Christian History: The Puzzing Faith of Abraham Lincoln - Holidays


----------



## kalawine (May 22, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> > I'm under the impression that he was a Christian - although possibly not as reformed or mature as we might like - but a believer nontheless. What have you read of his that leads you to think the contrary? (I'm genuinely curious - I hope I don't come off otherwise)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Montanablue (May 22, 2009)

kalawine said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > > I'm under the impression that he was a Christian - although possibly not as reformed or mature as we might like - but a believer nontheless. What have you read of his that leads you to think the contrary? (I'm genuinely curious - I hope I don't come off otherwise)
> ...


----------



## Kevin (May 22, 2009)

Lincoln, never joined a church, was never baptised, and never claimed to be a christian.

So how is it that he may be considered a christian?


----------



## Sven (May 22, 2009)

kalawine said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > > I'm under the impression that he was a Christian - although possibly not as reformed or mature as we might like - but a believer nontheless. What have you read of his that leads you to think the contrary? (I'm genuinely curious - I hope I don't come off otherwise)
> ...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 22, 2009)

Look forward to talking more about Lincoln Sven.


----------



## rbcbob (May 22, 2009)

Christian History Magazine brought out some interesting points a few years ago which seem to at least paint a picture of Lincoln, in the last year or so of his life, searching the Bible diligently for divine answers to the misery that was the Civil War. This new input can be traced in his later speeches. For me that at least places a question mark over whether Lincoln was converted at the end.

Bob


----------



## Theognome (May 23, 2009)

Okay, I read the article.

I found the initial references to the legacies of both men to rub my fur the wrong way- yes, both left legacies, but I'm most uncomfortable with making such a declaration without at least offering some comparison between them- since the two legacies are on opposite sides of the social, political and ecclesiastic spectrum. The similarities between them that you mentioned are primarily of situation and not of character. This is good. Their positions, of whatever alignment, were very much derived from different attitudes- one of fervent faith and the other of pragmatism. Lincolns use of scripture is not unusual for his time- biblical ignorance was not a rampant force in America of the mid 19th century, and a politician could not communicate effectively with his constituates without such knowledge- so I place little weight upon this observation. 

Your closing statement concerning reliance upon the providence of God of both men is more than suspect in Lincoln's case. Again, Lincoln was a master politician, and his use of scripture shows this. His personal life, confessions and political actions were not consistent with such a reliance- Calvin's were.

Theognome


----------



## Sven (May 23, 2009)

Bill,

Your comment tells me that I need to clarify yet another thing in my article (It's a short one and I can't say everything). It is quite true that Lincoln in his early years used religion for political gain, but that is not the case in his later speeches. As I said, the strain from the war and from his son's death caused him to go to Scripture. It was quite often the case that when someone called upon Lincoln at the Whitehouse they would find him reading the Bible. His reference to Providence in his second inaugural speech is by no means a political manuever to get approval. I think it was genuine. He put a lot of thought into that statement, and he firmly believed it. I will grant you that in earlier years any references to providence (which are largely lacking, by the way) are suspect. I will not grant you that in his later years just before he died. Everything about them is genuine. Again, this does not prove Lincoln was a true believer. But it makes one pause.

Oh, by the way, biblical ignorance was rampant in Lincoln's day--the cause? illiteracy. Most people couldn't read. Oftentimes they thought they were quoting Scripture when in reality they were quoting something they heard someone else say and assumed it was Scripture.


----------



## Theognome (May 23, 2009)

Sven said:


> Bill,
> 
> Your comment tells me that I need to clarify yet another thing in my article (It's a short one and I can't say everything). It is quite true that Lincoln in his early years used religion for political gain, but that is not the case in his later speeches. As I said, the strain from the war and from his son's death caused him to go to Scripture. It was quite often the case that when someone called upon Lincoln at the Whitehouse they would find him reading the Bible. His reference to Providence in his second inaugural speech is by no means a political manuever to get approval. I think it was genuine. He put a lot of thought into that statement, and he firmly believed it. I will grant you that in earlier years any references to providence (which are largely lacking, by the way) are suspect. I will not grant you that in his later years just before he died. Everything about them is genuine. Again, this does not prove Lincoln was a true believer. But it makes one pause.
> 
> Oh, by the way, biblical ignorance was rampant in Lincoln's day--the cause? illiteracy. Most people couldn't read. Oftentimes they thought they were quoting Scripture when in reality they were quoting something they heard someone else say and assumed it was Scripture.



Concerning biblical ignorance during the period, I am not in agreement with your assertion- the common writings of the day, from newspapers to slave narratives, deny this claim. And Lincolns later writings/speeches can very much be attributed to political gain- one of a state head attempting to gain the support of a population that is steeped in Christian teaching. So although Lincoln may indeed have come to true faith, one would think that actions behind words would follow; both in public and private life. I am comfortable making such an observation with Calvin- a man whose actions, right through to the point of death, were consistent with his confessions. I am not comfortable with such a claim in Lincolns case.

Theognome

-----Added 5/23/2009 at 12:31:42 EST-----

By the way, Sven, don't be surprised if this short article does not gain sweeping approval. Most common evangelicals and/or liberals will hate having their hero Lincoln spoken in the same sentence with Calvin. Likewise, most learned Reformed folk will be unhappy with Lincoln being put in any camp with Calvin. There are some folk who will appreciate such a comparison, but by the nature of the topic they would be in the vast minority.

Theognome


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 23, 2009)

Sven said:


> Bill,
> 
> Your comment tells me that I need to clarify yet another thing in my article (It's a short one and I can't say everything). It is quite true that Lincoln in his early years used religion for political gain, but that is not the case in his later speeches. As I said, the strain from the war and from his son's death caused him to go to Scripture. It was quite often the case that when someone called upon Lincoln at the Whitehouse they would find him reading the Bible. His reference to Providence in his second inaugural speech is by no means a political manuever to get approval. I think it was genuine. He put a lot of thought into that statement, and he firmly believed it. I will grant you that in earlier years any references to providence (which are largely lacking, by the way) are suspect. I will not grant you that in his later years just before he died. Everything about them is genuine. Again, this does not prove Lincoln was a true believer. But it makes one pause.
> 
> Oh, by the way, biblical ignorance was rampant in Lincoln's day--the cause? illiteracy. Most people couldn't read. Oftentimes they thought they were quoting Scripture when in reality they were quoting something they heard someone else say and assumed it was Scripture.



The illiteracy rate has been strongly debated with the US having a higher illiteracy rate in present day.


----------



## Edward (May 23, 2009)

Sven said:


> Oh, by the way, biblical ignorance was rampant in Lincoln's day--the cause? illiteracy.



Biblical knowledge was probably HIGHER among ordinary folks in those days than it is today. 



> Most people couldn't read.



Given the discussion thus far, my assumption is that we are discussing the US. I'm not sure where you are doing your research, but I question your source materials. 

According to a US Department of Education report, the illiteracy rate in 1870 was about 20%. That's no where close to 'most'. 

You can start here if you don't want to dig through primary materials:

National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) - 120 Years of Literacy


----------



## kalawine (May 23, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> > Montanablue said:
> ...


----------



## Montanablue (May 23, 2009)

> "Also, let's leave Mary Todd out of it. She's just a little too...weird...for me to figure out. "
> 
> Kathleen,
> 
> Mary Todd Lincoln should be given a little slack. She lost three of her four children, watched her husband receive some of the worst criticism a president has ever received, and then watched him get assassinated. Is it any wonder that she was a little, as you say, "wierd"?



Sven, I think maybe I didn't phrase that right. I was referring to her theological beliefs rather than her personality. You're completely right - anyone that went through the trauma that she did would probably have some "weirdness." I _do_ think that her theological beliefs were indeed "odd," but I have a great deal of sympathy for her as a human being. I apologize if I came off sounding judgmental of her. It wasn't my intention, but what I wrote did come off as harsh. My tone wasn't very charitable! Apologies.

Kalawine,

I am afraid that I just don't have the time to respond to everything you've said. I think we'll have to respectfully disagree and leave it at that. It wasn't my intention to get into a discussion of Lincoln's political issues or a discussion of the Civil War. From past discussions I've see on the PB, those tend to get messy really fast, and I'm not sure I want to get involved. I've had enough PB drama to last me for a while! 

I do want to say that for the most part, I would agree that its important to read historical subject's own words as well as the well as the word's of those who knew them well. However, in a matter as personal as religious faith family matters, or the like, its generally best to rely on the individual's own thoughts/journals. (In my opinion). 

Also, I don't dispute that there were war crimes against people in the South. I want to make that clear. Southern soldiers weren't all saints either, but that's a story for another day, and not an argument that I'm willing to get into on the PB. I'd like to remain friends with everyone here!

One last thing - I actually read portions of the book you recommend (although not the whole thing) for a history class during college. Although he has an obvious agenda, it is an interesting book and he brings some relevant things to light. (Although, we didn't read the whole thing, so I can't really comment on it has a whole). So don't think I'm completely unaware of the "the North was bad too!" argument. I'm not under the impression that northern soldiers or generals were lovely people. They were unregenerate just like the rest of us and thus capable of great evil.


----------



## kalawine (May 23, 2009)

I am afraid that I just don't have the time to respond to everything you've said. I think we'll have to respectfully disagree and leave it at that. It wasn't my intention to get into a discussion of Lincoln's political issues or a discussion of the Civil War. From past discussions I've see on the PB, those tend to get messy really fast, and I'm not sure I want to get involved. I've had enough PB drama to last me for a while! 

Bless you my sister! I was just telling my boys this morning how I dreaded getting on the PB today and reading your response and then writing another myself. Verbatim, I added "Oh boy! Another Civil War on the PB!" 

I do want to say that for the most part, I would agree that its important to read historical subject's own words as well as the well as the word's of those who knew them well. However, in a matter as personal as religious faith family matters, or the like, its generally best to rely on the individual's own thoughts/journals. (In my opinion). 

And I do see your point and submit to the idea that I need to read some of Lincoln's works myself (which I haven't).

Also, I don't dispute that there were war crimes against people in the South. I want to make that clear. Southern soldiers weren't all saints either, but that's a story for another day, and not an argument that I'm willing to get into on the PB. I'd like to remain friends with everyone here!

As far as any record of Southern soldiers being war criminals (especially in the number that I understand the Northern soldiers to have been) I don't know of any. But I would welcome any books or essays you might recommend - seriously.

One last thing - I actually read portions of the book you recommend (although not the whole thing) for a history class during college. Although he has an obvious agenda, it is an interesting book and he brings some relevant things to light. (Although, we didn't read the whole thing, so I can't really comment on it has a whole). So don't think I'm completely unaware of the "the North was bad too!" argument. I'm not under the impression that northern soldiers or generals were lovely people. They were unregenerate just like the rest of us and thus capable of great evil.

To which I give a hearty "Amen!" (to the "unregenerate just like the rest of us and thus capable of great evil" ) 

As to authors having agendas I have no problem with that.

As to the author bringing "some relevant things to light", I agree.

As to "the North was bad too!" I still stand on the side that the South was a victim of a war on the US Constitution and the true Americanism that was handed down by our forefathers. I don't believe that my beliefs have anything to do with where I live (most people I know down here these days don't have a clue as to what the war was about).

And as to us being brothers and sisters in Christ who need to get along and love one another I say "Ditto!" (That wasn't a quote from you but it is the spirit of your post and I really do appreciate that)  but no . 

BTW I HAVE to love Yankees! My children are 1/3 Minnesotan!  Growing up my best friends were guys that had moved down from Ohio. They taught me that "Pops" aren't "Cokes" but that a "Coke" is a type of "Pop."  Of course, we taught them the importance of putting peanuts in their "Pop."


----------



## Montanablue (May 23, 2009)

Thanks for your gracious reply, Kevin.  I do appreciate it!  I will put on my thinking cap and if I come up with any good/interesting books about southern soldiers and "war crimes" (I'm a little hesitant to use that phrase some times, because its so loaded, but I think you know what I mean - "less than desirable behavior"), I'll pass it along. I read a lot of this stuff during college, and so its not at the front of my mind. But I'm sure that if I wait a few days, I'll remember something good. 

Whew, I am also glad that you did not want to beat a dead horse. Refreshing!


----------



## Knoxienne (May 23, 2009)

but here is yet another example of how brothers and sisters should handle hot topics and controversy on a thread. Kevin and Kathleen, you are both an inspiration and I'm glad to have you both as friends!


----------



## kalawine (May 23, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> but here is yet another example of how brothers and sisters should handle hot topics and controversy on a thread. Kevin and Kathleen, you are both an inspiration and I'm glad to have you both as friends!



Thanks! Sometimes I have to remind myself that I learn more when I listen to people other than just myself.


----------



## Montanablue (May 23, 2009)

kalawine said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > but here is yet another example of how brothers and sisters should handle hot topics and controversy on a thread. Kevin and Kathleen, you are both an inspiration and I'm glad to have you both as friends!
> ...



 Absolutely. This is one of the beauties of the PB, I think!


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28 (May 28, 2009)

Sven said:


> I posted an article on Lincoln and Calvin this year being the anniversary of both men's birth. Hopefully this doesn't get all you Johnny Reb's dander up.
> 
> Article here: Beholding the Beauty: Positive Dogmatics: Lincoln and Calvin
> 
> Note: This is not a political article.



John Calvin goes together with Lincoln as much as he does the likes of Hitler, Stalin, etc. In other words, "Some things just weren't meant to go together. " as Timothy noted in his post.



Sven said:


> William Herndon has turned out to be unreliable as a source for the life of Lincoln. He had some sort of vendetta against Mary Lincoln (understandably so, for she was not the most pleasant of ladies, plus she rejected his offer of marriage). Anybody who wants to smear Lincoln usually turn to Herndon's work.



This is quite simply false; it has no factual basis. William Herndon says of Lincoln that he was his "warm and personal friend,"(i) and Lincoln was "for Twenty Years His Friend and Partner."(ii) Therefore, my friend Al Benson, Jr. turning to Herndon's work isn't in anyway what you make it out to be. 



Sven said:


> There has never been any evidence to prove that he wrote a book to discredit Christianity.



This statement is absurd, Lincoln's first cousin Dennis Hanks stated: 

When Lincoln went to church, he went to mock and came away to mimic. When he went to New Salem he consorted with free thinkers [atheists] and joined with them in deriding the gospel story of Jesus. He wrote a labored book on this subject, which his friend Hill put in the stove and burned up. Not until after Mr. Lincoln's death were these facts denied [by the Republicans].... 
At an early age Abe began to attend the preachings around about, but mostly at the Pigeon Creek Church, with a view to catching anything that might be ludicrous in the preaching, in the manner or matter, and making it a subject of mimicry as soon as he could collect a crowd of idle boys and men to hear him. He frequently reproduced a sermon with a nasal twang, rolling his eyes, and all sorts of droll aggravations, to the great delight of the wild fellows assembled. Sometimes he broke out with stories passably humorous and invariably vulgar.(iii)

Ward H. Lamon, Lincoln's close personal friend and former bodyguard, states:

"[Lincoln] never joined any church. He did not believe the Bible was inspired. He denied that Jesus was the Son of God. Overwhelming testimony out of many mouths, and none stronger than out of his own, place these truths beyond controversy."(iv)

Also, Greg Loren Durand writes:

John Matthews, who described himself as Lincoln's "personal and political friend," testified that he "attacked the Bible and the New Testament," and "would come into the clerk's office where I and some young men were writing... and would bring a Bible with him; would read a chapter and argue against it."(28) John G. Nicolay, who was Lincoln's private secretary throughout his Presidency, and who "probably was closer to the martyred [sic] President than any other man,"(29) declared, "Mr. Lincoln did not, to my knowledge, in any way change his religious views or beliefs from the time he left Springfield till his death."(30) Even Lincoln's own widow confessed in a letter to family friend Lamon that, "Mr. Lincoln had no hope and no faith in the usual acceptance of these words."(31) Finally, we have the testimony of Lincoln himself, who, following the death of his son Willie in 1862, wrote in a letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield these words: "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."(v) 



Sven said:


> As to his mimicing of preachers, he did that in his youth. Now even I have been known to mimic and mock preachers in my youth. This does not prove that Lincoln was an infidel.



This is another mere assertion, and again with no facts to back it. Furthermore, it's contrary to statements made by Lincoln's friends and family, etc.(vi) 



Sven said:


> Benson's book is not taken seriously by any scholars. It is known to be filled with historical inaccuracy and takes many things out of context. Plus, it relies heavily on Herndon who is unreliable. In short, it distorts facts to paint Lincoln out to be an evil man; this is clearly against the ninth commandment.



Benson's book? Kevin wasn't quoting a book, but an article by Al Benson, Jr. What "scholars" are you talking about? Also, I see no evidence from you whatsoever to back up your assertion that Al Benson, Jr's article "is known to be filled with historical inaccuracy and takes many things out of context." And, contrary to your repeated assertions; Herndon, Lincoln's close friend, isn't "unreliable." 

Furthermore, I don't appreciate you falsely accusing my friend, and Brother in Christ, Al Benson, Jr. When you accuse him of purposely distorting facts to paint Lincoln out to be an evil man, it's you that's "clearly against the ninth commandment." I hope you will be kind enough to apologize to Al Benson, Jr. for doing so.

Speaking of Al, I've known him for around a decade now. In that time, Al Benson, Jr. has impressed me as one of the most kind and humble Christian gentlemen I know. Al's not a member of the Puritan Board, but he is a Reformed Christian. And though he's no "admirer" of Lincoln such as yourself. It isn't due to "hatred" or lack of "Christian charity," nor is it due to Southern birth or ancestry. Al was born in Rhode Island and grew up in Massachusetts, he lived there till his 30's, then moved to Illinois and lived there for 16 years, and he's lived the last six years in Louisiana. I find Al to be very honest in his approach to history. I believe he would echo these words by Patrick Henry: "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."



Sven said:


> Let me set the record straight since many who have read the article can't seem to read my article without their preconceived notions about Lincoln getting in the way. First, I never once claim that Lincoln was a true believer. He may have converted before he died, but as best as I can gather from the facts of his life, he never made a true profession of faith.



It seems we agree that he wasn't a Christian.



Sven said:


> Second, I am not equating Calvin and Lincoln. Calvin was far superior as a theologian, and has been more influential. Nevertheless I have found some interesting similarities. Lincoln grew up in a primitive baptist home, which, back then, many primitive baptists had a sort of "Calvinistic" understanding of predestination. Lincoln once said, "It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what is called the 'Doctrine of Necessity'--that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument." Admittedly this statement is vague and more prone to fatalism than Calvin's doctrine of Providence. However, during his time as president Lincoln referred more and more to Providence and took great comfort in it. Especially after his son Willie died. My point in all this is not to say, "Oh what a great Christian man he was." My point, which is stated in the conclusion, is to show how two men, who shaped not only American history but also world history, didn't claim greatness for themselves but saw themselves as instruments in the hands of a Sovereign God. Lincoln says many things about providence that echo Calvin's thought. I'm not arguing that Lincoln was Christian or that he was as good a theologian as Calvin. But I do want to give credit where credit is due. This is totally in the spirit of Calvin to do so. So I ask you all who think Lincoln is the spawn of Satan to put aside your hateful thoughts toward him and show some Christian charity. It's the Calvinistic thing to do; it's the biblical thing to do; even Lincoln was known to do it too. "With malice towards none; with charity towards all" is not a bad quote.



Again, this is the Lincoln fable or myth that you're pushing, Greg Loren Durand rightly notes:

Lincoln's claim that his "Doctrine of Necessity" was "held by several of the Christian denominations" was an outright lie. This doctrine, in which events are predetermined by "some power over which the mind has no control," was nothing more than a pagan fatalism upon which Lincoln could rely to relieve himself of the responsibility for the deaths of 600,000 American men and the destruction of the Union and its _Constitution_ which he had been sworn to uphold and defend. After all, reasoned Lincoln, "What is to be will be and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree."(42) This was not the predestination taught in the Bible and held by the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, but was the doctrine espoused by the apostate Abolitionists at the helm of Lincoln's Republican party, who merely used religious rhetoric to conceal their true character from their deceived constituents. It was only later, in his second Inaugural Address, that Lincoln attempted to pin the blame for the horrific carnage which he had caused on the righteous Judge of men, for which blasphemy he was not long thereafter summoned before the Heavenly Bench to give an account. 
It is a travesty indeed that Abraham Lincoln, the infidel, is mythologized by so many today as "Abraham Lincoln, the Christian." As this book was written to prove, the sixteenth U.S. President was no friend to the Union he professed to save, no friend to the slaves he professed to emancipate, and no friend to his "fellow countrymen" for whom he professed no malice. It is time for History to execute her long overdue sentence of infamy against the tyrant who, with the wave of his executive scepter, nearly single-handedly destroyed the remnants of a centuries-old social and law order and plunged America into the dark abyss of pagan despotism from which we have yet to recover.(vii)

Lastly, I could go on in referencing Lincoln's dirty deeds, but the above information should suffice, at least for now. Besides, I am fine with agreeing to disagree with you on this subject. In fact, I'd likely ignored your thread altogether had you not made a serious and false charge against my friend Al Benson, Jr. in it.
__

Footnotes:

i Herndon and Weik, _True Story of a Great Life_ (Chicago, Illinois: Bedford, Clark and Company, 1889)
ii Herndon, quoted by Greg Loren Durand in _America's Caesar_. 
iii Dennis Hanks, quoted by Edmonds, _Facts and Falsehoods_, pages 54-55.
iv Lamon, _Life of Abraham Lincoln_; quoted by Durand in _America's Caesar_.
v Durand, _The Cult of Lincoln_, an article extracted from his book _America's Caesar_.
vi _The Cult of Lincoln_ by Greg Loren Durand, _Ibid_.
vii _Ibid_.


----------

