As my estimable co-blogger Rev. Brian Tubbs defines what it means to be a "Christian":
For my own part, when it comes to assessing whether a Founder was "Christian," I believe in the KISS principle. :-) I keep it simple.
Did the person believe in Jesus Christ as his or her divine and risen Savior? (Romans 10:9-10).
That's certainly a fair biblical understanding of "Christianity." One question I have is what does "divine" mean? This isn't a stupid question. On its face, referring to Jesus as merely "divine," as opposed to "God the Son, Second Person in the Trinity" can mask differences among 1) Trinitarians, 2) Arians, 3) Mormons, 4) Jehovah's Witnesses, 5) Swedenborgs, 6) promoters of the "Oneness" Pentecostal theory, and 7) God knows how many others.
For those who don't know, Arianism, named after Arius (ca. AD 250–336), and the eradication of which was the reason for the Nicene Creed, taught Jesus a divinely created Son of God, Savior of Mankind, subordinate to the Father. Jesus was "divine" but not fully God. More like a demi-God, the first born of all creation, second in charge, below the Father, but above every Angel.
Notable Arians who influenced the American Founding include Isaac Newtown, Samuel Clarke, Richard Price, Jonathan Mayhew and probably Johns Milton and Locke and many others. Arians likewise could answer the question "do you believe Jesus the divine Son of God" affirmatively, without having to assent to Trinitarian logic of 1+1+1 = 1, not 3, with which "rational" minded men might have a hard time.
John Jay, as I noted in my last post, at the very least flirted with Arianism/Trinity doubt.
Who knows what other great "Christian minds" struggle with Trinity issues?
Does that make them not "Christian"? Personally, I can't answer. Historically, though, non-Trinitarianism is labeled "heresy."
As noted above, Trinitarianism distinguishes itself from the more amorphous categorization of Jesus as the divine, risen Son of God. Trinitarians believe in that plus something else. It's that something else that distinguishes them.
That is if one asks the question: Do you believe Jesus Christ the divine, risen Son of God, 1) Trinitarians, 2) Arians, 3) Mormons, 4) Jehovah's Witnesses, 5) Swedenborgs, 6) promoters of the "Oneness" Pentecostal theory, and 7) God knows how many others can honestly answer affirmatively.
Yet, only Trinitarians can answer the question "do you believe in a Triune God, that Jesus is Second Person in the Trinity" affirmatively.
And that's to say nothing of the other "Christians" that John Adams named -- "Universalists,...Priestlyans, Socinians,...Deists and Atheists, and Protestants ‘qui ne croyent rien [Protestants who believe nothing]" -- who were united along with the various sects of Arians and Trinitarians in a lowest common denominator of "general Christianity" that founded American politics.
7 comments:
Jon, I agree that the doctrinal distinctions here are important. Obviously, I'm in the Trinitarian camp.
My point, though, is that the Bible makes the salvation promise pretty basic and straightforward - so simple that a child can understand it.
And if you take it at that level, I think the vast majority of our Founders would be classified as "Christian."
Brian,
Since you are venturing in the realm of personal theology...do you believe that an Arian -- someone who disbelieved in the Trinity, but believed Jesus divine but created, subordinate to and separate from the Father, Son of God and Savior of Mankind, but excluded from the eternally pre-existent Godhead -- is a "saved Christian."
According to the Bible, Jesus is the "Door" (or "Gate") and the "Way" (see John 10:9 and 14:6).
Thus, according to the Bible, Jesus is the entryway and decider as to who gets into heaven - who is "saved."
In my view, since the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible and is thus a doctrine extrapolated from various biblical passages (and one that's been debated over the centuries), I do not believe it is a deciding point for salvation.
According to the Bible, Jesus is the key.
I say that with full respect to all those reading this who do not agree with the Christian faith. I'm only explaining what the Bible teaches. Whether a person agrees or disagrees with the Bible is a personal choice.
But, if God is real, then God has the right to set whatever criteria He wishes. And since I believe that the Bible accurately reflects God's revelation, I'm going to pay attention to what it says. But I understand and respect those who disagree.
Not just a little unfair, Jon---Rev. Tubbs is a Reverend, a pastor, with an interest in history.
I'll leave Brian to negotiate the dilemma you've presented him with, but this is an improper conflation of theology and history, as is the Frazer thesis, since it uses [18th century] churchmen as his judge of what is "Christian" or not.
What do you expect churchmen to say? That theirs is not the proper religion, or in this case, the proper Christianity?
Good luck, Brian, should you decide to step into this.
But Tom didn't you know that 1/2 of the Founders who signed the Declaration were ministers with seminary degrees?
Brian wrote, "if [my] God is real, then [my] God has the right to set whatever criteria He wishes. And since I believe that the Bible accurately reflects [my] God's revelation, I'm going to pay attention to [my straightforward interpretation of] what it says."
When you say, "the Bible accurately reflects God's revelation, do you mean all parts of the Bible?
And when you say that "God has the right to set whatever criteria He wishes" and where I assume you believe this is "one nation under God," does that mean it is [your] God who ultimately sets the criteria that allows the federal government to embrace discriminatory god-platitudes everywhere within the public sphere?
Ray, I was answering Jon's question about my personal beliefs. I wasn't weighing in on government policy.
Post a Comment