What sets George Washington's Sacred Fire apart from all previous works on this man for the ages, is the exhaustive fifteen years of Dr. Peter Lillback's research, revealing a unique icon driven by the highest of ideals. Only do George Washington's own writings, journals, letters, manuscripts, and those of his closest family and confidants reveal the truth of this awe-inspiring role model for all generations.

Dr. Lillback paints a picture of a man, who, faced with unprecedented challenges and circumstances, ultimately drew upon his persistent qualities of character-honesty, justice, equity, perseverance, piety, forgiveness, humility, and servant leadership, to become one of the most revered figures in world history.

George Washington set the cornerstone for what would become one of the most prosperous, free nations in the history of civilization. Through this book, Dr. Lillback, assisted by Jerry Newcombe, will reveal to the reader a newly inspirational image of General and President George Washington.

Item Specifications...

Pages 1208
Dimensions: Length: 8.9" Width: 6.1" Height: 2.1"
Binding Softcover
Release Date Jul 1, 2006
Publisher Providence Forum Press
ISBN 0978605268
EAN 9780978605261

Availability 180 units.
Availability accurate as of Feb 10, 2012 01:00.
Usually ships within one to two business days from Johnson City, TN.
Orders shipping to an address other than a confirmed Credit Card / Paypal Billing address may incur and additional processing delay.

Product Categories

1	Books > Subjects > History > Americas > United States > Colonial Period > General [0 similar products]
2	Books > Subjects > Nonfiction > Education > Homeschooling > General [0 similar products]
3	Books > Subjects > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Church History > General [0 similar products]

Similar Products

Wall of Misconception
Item: 338341

Reviews - What do our customers think?

	Quantity over Quality never wins Jan 1, 2010
I was so excited to receive this book as a present but alas it did not live up to its length. The Christian or Deist debate aside, I still take umbrage with this book. The book itself sets up the reader to be amazed: it is massive. However, a significant portion (I'd say a third or a quarter of it) are appendices and endnotes. It is absolutely necessary to cite a source of information, however, the authors pad out their endnotes by reproducing their sources verbatim: whole speeches, letters, etc. That is unnecessary: there is no need to reproduce things in full if the information is superfluous or doesn't further the argument. The appendices are dreadfully sloppy and while supplemental material can sometimes add to a work, I find these appendices to be useless. I feel that the authors thought their argument would carry more weight if they had a massive amount of endnotes. I feel the same way about the actual content of the book. These authors, in my opinion, seem to have followed a similar rule of quantity over quality. Nelly Custis' letter testifying about her grandfather's belief is reprinted several times. If the authors had used it once, its impact would have been more profound but they dilute its power by spreading it thin. The authors also make tenuous leaps in attempts to prove their point: for example, they reproduce (again in full!) a reredo from the wall of a Virginia church and contend that because Washington read these words he believed them. How do they even know that? The actual writing was not terrible, but it frequently presented information then didn't really go anywhere with it. Analysis was scant! Another example of quanity over quality was the whole section wasted on a chronology of Washington's life. I think that people should read a good biography about Washington's life before approaching the topic of his religious beliefs. Overall, if you want to read a book that is rife with filler after endless filler, makes untenable or stretched arguments, and is bogged down with unnecessarily reprinted sources in full, then read this book. However, if you want to read an unbiased, excellent book about religion in the life of Washington, read "In the Hands of a Good Providence": Religion in the Life of George Washington by Mary V Thompson (2008). Her arguments are succint but substantial and superb.

	The Source of George Washington's Greatness.... Dec 18, 2009
An absolutely amazing book, fifteen years of research! There are 200+ pages of footnotes! (You'll need two bookmarks, one for the reading section, the other for the footnotes, trust me on this!) This is a thorough study of George Washington's public and private life and is a great critique of those who say that he was only a deist. Once the Hardback comes down in price, I'll purchase it also!

	IMO Mr Washington was a pure Deist Dec 1, 2009
It seems the main reason Dr. Peter Lillback calls George Washington a Christian,and not a Deist is because he believed in Divine Providence,or the belief that God is active in peoples lives. When we think of Divine Providence we think of the word Theism, and all the Abrahamic faiths that claim God personally spoke to key individuals called Prophets in the form of personal revelations. Understandably as words do change (proving that the written word is not a good vehicle for the "word of God") from their original meaning, Mr.Lillback confuses the word Deist with the word Atheist (non-Theist) which really is the opposite of Theist. In todays world the word Atheist for the most part implies that there is no God. The word Atheist has changed from its original meaning,but we know that whenever you add an "a" in front of a word it means the opposite,so its the Atheist that believes in a inactive God,and not a Deist. The word Deist is derived from the word Deism that is derived from the word Deity which is simply the Latin word for God. A Deist is just someone who believes that God is,and the word Deism just implies a path of understanding. George Washington IMO was a Deist who was a Theist who followed the path called Deism. He believed in God,he thought that God was active in his life,and he knew to look towards the Creation (the product that comes from God) to gain true insight. Since Mr. Lillback uses Thomas Paine for an example of a Deist we should at least take Thomas Paine's definition on who,or what a Deist is,and what a true Deist believe. "Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed. It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation" Thomas Paine thought that anyone who believes in God was a Deist (including all Christians) in the first article of his creed, which is the belief in a God. Mr. Lillback states in his book that Thomas Paine was a "hard Deist". "Hard Deist", apparently a new title that Mr. Lillback says he made up to describe a Deist that doesn't believe in Divine Providence,or again the belief in the God that went away,and no longer intervenes in mans affairs. Again a "Hard Deist" if we must use the phrase describes what an Atheist would think,and not what a pure Deist would think. Dr. Peter Lillback either never read Thomas Paines works,or he's out right lying about Thomas Paines character in matters of God. All self professed Deists in our founding fathers day believed in Divine Providence even Thomas Paine. So "Hard Deist",or even Atheist would not apply to Mr. Paine because Thomas Paine was a Deist (he believed in God) who was a Theist (he believed that God was active in his life) who followed the path called Deism. In Mr. Lillbacks book he quotes Thomas Paine several times,but he takes his words out of context to make his point clear about who,or what a Deist is,and what a true,or pure Deist really believes about our Maker. Before I quote some key phrases from Thomas Paine that clearly prove that he, like George Washington believed in "Divine Providence" I ask the reader to examine "A Discourse At The Society Of Theophilanthropists" This was a Theistic church that Thomas Paine was a key founder. Proving that Mr. Paine believed in an active God right up till the end of his life. Thomas Paine called God "the Almighty lecturer". God had something to say to Thomas Paine,and luckily for us he wrote most of it down in all his Theological writings. "The Almighty Lecturer, by displaying the principles of science in the structure of the universe, has invited man to study and imitation. It is as if He said to the inhabitants of this globe, that we call ours, 'I have made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort, and learn from my munificence to all, to be kind to each other.' " "The world has been amused with the term revealed religion, and the generality of priests apply this term to the books called the Old and New Testament. The Mahometans apply the same term to the Koran. There is no man that believes in revealed religion stronger than I do; but it is not the reveries of the Old and New Testament, nor the Koran, that I dignify with that sacred title. That which is revelation to me, exists in something which no human mind can invent, no human hand can counterfeit or alter. The Word of God is the Creation we behold; and this Word of God revealeth to man all that is necessary for man to know of his Creator." Mr. Lillback is using his own definition of what a Deist is to prove that George Washington wasn't a Deist,and his definition is wrong. Instead of making up your own definition of these words (Deist,or Deism) to prove your point why not get the correct definition from those who actually claim to be true,or pure Deists? Most (not all) of todays self professed Deists of today like days of old will tell you that they believe in a active God. Did George Washington believe that our Creator overshadowed a young virgin girl who was engaged to be married to save us from the sins of the world,and all the mythologies that would also need to be believed as fact to prove this absurdity? George Washington was enlightened enough to know mythologies from reality. Lets not taint this great mans legacy by saying he believed the Bible as an absolute literal truth just because you do Mr. Lillback. This book IMO in no way proves George Washington was a true Christian. Like they did with the man called Jesus years after his death making him into something he was not Dr. Peter Lillback does this with our great American hero George Washington. Turning,or perverting true 'history" into his story,and twisting reality in the process. People who look for truth will know the difference. Mr.Lillback, we're all Deists who believe that God is. Where we differ is our path of understanding. If you want to learn all about the faiths of our ancestors then the Bible,Koran,and the like are a great place to gain insight, however if you want to learn about God then you must look towards the Creation,or all the products that come from God. I think George Washington knew this truth as he was surrounded by other enlightened "pure" Deists. Mr. Washington knew that books prove that man is real,and the Creation proves that God is real. This book will look great next to the other fat book in the evangelical library. Remember just because a book is thick,and fat doesn't make it fact.

	Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, a Christian Jan 14, 2009
"we have presented the evidence that proves that George Washington was, without doubt, a Christian." Earlier in the book, Lillback is more circumspect: "The only honest standard that can be employed in historical research is the same that is used in a legal process, namely, `beyond a reasonable doubt.'" The authors' certitude has a better basis than other authors who make alternate claims, such as Ellis' claim to know Washington's deathbed mindset. Now and then Lillback pushes some evidence the way he wants it to go (that Washington recommended a Christian to the post of chaplain isn't quite proof of Washington's Christianity, though Lillback argues it to be) he makes a very good argument for Washington's Anglican orthodoxy, a far better argument than those who argue for his Deism. For me, I enjoyed absorbing the wealth of information Lillback brings - I enjoyed the footnotes (though in my copy the type is annoyingly small) and the appendices. A lot of information is irrelevant to the major theme of Washington's spiritual life. Lillback makes an effective case without much Weems input, yet he includes an entire chapter on Weems and Washington. Lillback also includes much on the 110 Rules of Civility, where God is mentioned exactly once, and though many rules have biblical origin, they're purely behavioral instructions, not theological, and Washington's interest in them is compatible with deism or Christianity. But they're great to read anyway. In addition, Lillback includes a passage on how Washington's sickness in Barbados saved the USA by giving Washington a resistance to smallpox - yet Lillback gives no evidence that Washington believed that this was divine intervention designed to create a United States, so it's apparently more relevant to Lillback's religious faith than to Washington's. The authors also slip at least once, including the questionable "so help me God" inaugural story without question. And there's this acontextual cut and paste hodge-podge of Washington quotes patched together by the authors that they call "Washingtonian Creed." Skip that and move on to the hard information. Which there's plenty of. The basic arguments of the book are sound. There are only a handful of quotations that pin Washington as a Christian, but they're not as easily dismissed as some would like. Washington would have had to have been a systematic liar to recite creeds in church, state oaths of the godparent, etc. Also, he'd have to have been deeply cynical to command divine services for his men, promote spreading Christianity to the Indians, and advise personal friends to behave in a Christian fashion while believing it was just something to keep the rabble in line. Lillback also points out a handful of much more convincing witnesses for Washington's prayer than Parson Weems' Quaker. Additionally, the testimony of Nelly Custis and of Martha Washington is very difficult for anyone to explain away. The only serious omission I found was the letter Ashbel Green wrote to Washington on behalf of a group of Philadelphia ministers. In that incident, Green hoped Washington's would reply would state his Christianity more explicitly. It didn't. Martha Washington and Nelly Custis were in a better position to discern his faith, but here are people who knew and spoke with Washington - why did they believe that Washington was not a Christian? This confusion is one of the primary reasons for the existence of George Washington's Sacred Fire and that the authors don't fully address the issue is a weakness. George Washington's Sacred Fire is a terrific pile of information on George Washington and his spirituality. I enjoyed the pure volume of information. And Lillback has made an excellent case for Washington's Christianity - if not absolutely, his argument is beyond any reasonable doubts that I'm aware of.

	Christian patriot Aug 29, 2008
This book clears the air from a lot of revisionist historians who are trying to blurr how Christianity shaped the foundation of the United States. This volume tells a compelling story about George Washington's faith during some of the most trying times individuals as well as our country faced. Provides the rest of the story.

Write your own review about George Washingtons Sacred Fire


	Terms Of Use \| Privacy Policy Powered By DeeperCalling Web Store Hosting Services.