tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post2110294078403935311..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Contemporary Orthodox Theologians Who Deny Non-Orthodoxy As ChristianityBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82510239163311063862009-11-19T20:14:49.776-07:002009-11-19T20:14:49.776-07:00As for me, if the historical definition of what it...As for me, if the historical definition of what it means to be "Christian" must apply, then as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I will gladly opt out from that label, especially since under that definition Jesus Christ himself is not a Christian, the original twelve disciples are not Christians, and the apostle Paul was not a Christian. I will gladly stand by them in following what God says and not what any philosophized historical creed may explain about God. <br /><br />The Savior didn't seem to have any qualms about breaking free from any historical, man-made traditions that the Jews tried to press upon him.<br /><br />I know that knowledge of God can't rely on anything but revelation directly from God. As such, to conclude that the Bible is the ultimate authority on God, is to deny that God is the ultimate authority on God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60496821633565516242008-11-30T20:17:00.000-07:002008-11-30T20:17:00.000-07:00Too many inferences, too few affirmative arguments...Too many inferences, too few affirmative arguments. I do not know what "morally skilled" means, and you refuse to tell us.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87238850734865280632008-11-30T20:04:00.000-07:002008-11-30T20:04:00.000-07:00TVD: "I don't know how you approach the primary ph...TVD: "I don't know how you approach the primary philosophical question, what is good? You don't say."<BR/><BR/>I've encountered such questions before. What alarms me is the implication (inference) that you don't know what is good, but hope morality is a manifestation of obedience.<BR/><BR/>Often obedience does produce moral acts, but we need to be sure those deciding are adept in their moral judgement.<BR/><BR/>I mentioned the other day that this is a purpose that religious leaders should aspire to.<BR/><BR/>I hope that those who follow will be drawn to the more morally skilled.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57177848744252451872008-11-30T19:48:00.000-07:002008-11-30T19:48:00.000-07:00Brad: "[...] this would negate Judeo-Christian pri...Brad: "[...] this would negate Judeo-Christian principles from influencing the founding, since these principles themselves are based on older "pagan" teachings."<BR/><BR/>Good point.<BR/><BR/>As man becomes more enlightened he discards much of the theology/ideology of his ancestors, while improving upon his knowledge, ideals, and principles (discards the bad and collects/preserves the good). The process of improvement is that which is mort important, and the very nature of improvement means that one acts in a manner that is inconsistent with what was done before.<BR/><BR/>To imply that the founding is a result of Christian doctrine appears (to me) to embrace the Christian principles congruent with the actions of the founders while ignoring that which is not.<BR/><BR/>However, that is not my greatest critique of such a claim. There appears (to me) to be an underlying implication that the accomplishments of Christians (specifically the founders) is a manifestation of their faith. Such an implication casts such a broad umbrella that it cannot possible differentiate between the good, the bad, and the ugly. If only "the good" is to be qualified as Christian, the the term "Christianity" becomes so vague as to render it moot.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71294243292434968282008-11-30T19:44:00.000-07:002008-11-30T19:44:00.000-07:00I'll lean on Kristo's post on the Protestant under...I'll lean on Kristo's post on the Protestant understanding of natural law for now. I don't see anyone laying a glove on it and it must be counterargued; it cannot be driven around.<BR/><BR/>As for your own behavior, Ben, I do not know. It certainly could be you've picked up the conventions of a Christian culture without its theological foundations. That Western civilization is "running on fumes" goes the argument. I don't know how you confront moral dilemmas, where one value must take precedence over another conflicting one. I don't know how you approach the primary philosophical question, what is good? You don't say.<BR/><BR/>Further, as you admit, the question of natural law is foreign to you. But don't regret your honesty, it was apparent anyway. But you must address Kristo's thesis or you're simply not in the game.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76848542395945189942008-11-30T19:02:00.000-07:002008-11-30T19:02:00.000-07:00TVD: "Since you guys have no background [or, unfor...TVD: "Since you guys have no background [or, unfortunately, interest] in the history of Christian philosophy and theology, you have no way of making an informed judgment on their influence in the Founding. Sorry. The Adams quote does not mean what you obviously think it means."<BR/><BR/>Tom, that's a bit of a strawman isn't it? Neither I, or Adams, claim that Christians and their theology did not influence the founding. Of course they/it did.<BR/><BR/>Which is quite a different thing than the claim that America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. After all, what makes the founding inconsistent with the absence of Christian doctrine? ... or do you imply that even an atheist like me behaves in a manner consistent with Christian doctrine? ... in which case the claim is rather moot no?<BR/><BR/>Or do you see something specific about the formation of our Nation that is uniquely Christian?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40430147045789183462008-11-30T18:15:00.000-07:002008-11-30T18:15:00.000-07:00Quite so, Brad, that was precisely John Adams' pro...Quite so, Brad, that was precisely John Adams' project, to "universalize" Christian principles. He made some headway, but admits in a letter to Jefferson that the Bible is still "the best book in the world" and "contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."<BR/><BR/>The letter is often quoted but always cherry-picked by one side or the other. A full and careful reading is necessary.<BR/><BR/>http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/72/Letter_from_John_Adams_to_Thomas_Jefferson_1.html<BR/><BR/>Zoroastrianism is of particular interest---Adams mentions it, although the Cyrus Cylinder<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder<BR/><BR/>hadn't been unearthed yet. There is a very interesting history of the confluence of the Persian Empire and the Israelite exiles, and Cyrus is explicitly praised in the Bible as a good man.<BR/><BR/>Something I've been meaning to get to, but I'll let the cat out of the bag here.<BR/><BR/>Still, we are a long way from claiming that the Founders "rediscovered" the principles of the cylinder---even if that were true, it was [Judeo-]Christianity and its philosophical tradition that conveyed them to the Founding era, just as they conveyed Plato and particularly Aristotle.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33851928811933477392008-11-30T17:53:00.000-07:002008-11-30T17:53:00.000-07:00I think you have a point, and I agree to a point. ...I think you have a point, and I agree to a point. I am, however, interested in how you would confront the opposition on this issue. For example, one could argue (and I am in no way advocating this particular take) that Christianity, with its morals and doctrines, is based on older philosophies (Zoroastrianism, Platonism, etc. come to mind) As a result, this would negate Judeo-Christian principles from influencing the founding, since these principles themselves are based on older "pagan" teachings. <BR/><BR/>Your thoughts...Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48653794707976410362008-11-30T17:40:00.000-07:002008-11-30T17:40:00.000-07:00."Since you guys have no background [or, unfortuna....<BR/><I>"Since you guys have no background [or, unfortunately, interest] in the history of Christian philosophy and theology, you have no way of making an informed judgment on their influence in the Founding."</I><BR/> .<BR/> That's funny.<BR/> .<BR/> I was raised in a family that was instrumental in bringing Christian Fundamentalism to north eastern Michigan. Some of my family have made their living as missionaries. I breathed Christianity since I was a child back during the Great Depression of the 1930s..<BR/> .<BR/> I'm pretty well versed on the subject.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40833182507627109402008-11-30T17:35:00.000-07:002008-11-30T17:35:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26655873479376528692008-11-30T17:09:00.000-07:002008-11-30T17:09:00.000-07:00Since you guys have no background [or, unfortunate...Since you guys have no background [or, unfortunately, interest] in the history of Christian philosophy and theology, you have no way of making an informed judgment on their influence in the Founding. Sorry. The Adams quote does not mean what you obviously think it means.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83095633435355497082008-11-30T16:57:00.000-07:002008-11-30T16:57:00.000-07:00.Too bad we don't have a jury with all these lawye....<BR/>Too bad we don't have a jury with all these lawyers arguing their cases.<BR/>.<BR/>heh heh hehPhil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84178392087763868192008-11-30T16:56:00.000-07:002008-11-30T16:56:00.000-07:00.I think you are correct, Ben..I think the case ha....<BR/>I think you are correct, Ben.<BR/>.<BR/>I think the case has been settled and a long time ago.<BR/>.<BR/>But, absolutists have a hard time letting go--they keep wanting to find an exception to the obvious.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69903755784134640092008-11-30T16:14:00.000-07:002008-11-30T16:14:00.000-07:00Pinky: "Then you should be able to make the case q...Pinky: "Then you should be able to make the case quite easily by merely outlining those "Judeo-Christian principles"."<BR/><BR/>TVD replied: "That our rights and liberties come from God is a good start. Kristo's argument for the Christian understanding of natural law is a powerful corollary, if not the lead argument itself."<BR/><BR/>hmmm ... there are ample examples where individual rights are trampled by Judeo-Christian values. So I'm at a loss to agree.<BR/><BR/>Further if there are some principles that are specifically necessary for the founding, and those principles were embraced by men who called themselves Christians, that does not make those principles uniquely Christian ... *unless* those principles were (1) part of Christian doctrine, and (2) originated in Christian scripture.<BR/><BR/>In any event, regarding the principles which founded the nation, at least one of the founders expressed his opinion on the subject.<BR/><BR/>"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."<BR/>-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88),bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53172822514075403962008-11-30T13:16:00.000-07:002008-11-30T13:16:00.000-07:00That our rights and liberties come from God is a g...That our rights and liberties come from God is a good start. Kristo's argument for the Christian understanding of natural law is a powerful corollary, if not the lead argument itself.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76488445676767906912008-11-30T12:37:00.000-07:002008-11-30T12:37:00.000-07:00."Is America founded on Judeo-Christian principles....<BR/>"<I>Is America founded on Judeo-Christian principles? I say yes.</I>"<BR/>.<BR/>Then you should be able to make the case quite easily by merely outlining those "Judeo-Christian principles".Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58323781884656151642008-11-30T12:29:00.000-07:002008-11-30T12:29:00.000-07:00Actually Tom -- Father Neuhaus' opinions were enti...<I>Actually Tom -- Father Neuhaus' opinions were entirely relevant to the point of my post. I needed a prominent Roman Catholic theologian's position [the others I quoted were all Protestant] and he's the most prominent one from First Things I could get for the position -- you can read it right there in his article -- that Mormonism is NOT Christianity because it flunks the historic standards for Christianity set out in the Nicene/Apostles' Creed.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, that's your point, but I disagree with its relevance. Mormonism is NOT the religion of any of the Founders, it's quite different. Your argument is by analogy, and I do not think it's a true one. It is a bridge too far.<BR/><BR/>Is America founded on Judeo-Christian principles? I say yes. Is Mormonism founded on Judeo-Christian principles? So they claim. This is the key question, not doctrinal differences. A poke through the scores if not hundreds of sects at the Founding shows that doctrinal differences have always been the rule and not the exception in America.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3752601380183617072008-11-30T10:00:00.000-07:002008-11-30T10:00:00.000-07:00J. Rowe writes:"I've got MY thesis and I'm going t...J. Rowe writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>"I've got MY thesis and I'm going to stick to it. I think Kristo and I see eye to eye on the fact that many of the key FFs were NOT orthodox Trintiarian Christians and if America was founded as a "Christian Nation" orthodox Trinitarian doctrines like original sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and infallibility of the Bible must play NO determinative part in the definition of "Christianity."</EM><BR/><BR/>I am 100% in agreement and think that your thesis on this matter is the right one. If the Christian Nation crowd wishes to defend their angle they must do so without invoking orthodox Trinitarian principles. If, however, they wish to define their argument by appealing to the influences of "infidel" -- I.e. Theistic Rationalism, unitarianism, etc. -- Christianity I will gladly agree with them.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57693904324759672472008-11-30T09:27:00.000-07:002008-11-30T09:27:00.000-07:00Okay. I am working on another post that clarifies...Okay. I am working on another post that clarifies my position, if I did misrepresent Kristo's position, it certainly was not intentional. And let me note, I'm NOT interested in fighting any kind of Tit for Tat battles here. I've got MY thesis and I'm going to stick to it. I think Kristo and I see eye to eye on the fact that many of the key FFs were NOT orthodox Trintiarian Christians and if America was founded as a "Christian Nation" orthodox Trinitarian doctrines like original sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and infallibility of the Bible must play NO determinative part in the definition of "Christianity." <BR/><BR/>However I DO dispute Kristo's understanding of David Barton and his "Christian Nation" acolytes. And I further dispute that "historians" would necessarily necessarily yield to the broader understanding "Christianity" in the "Christian Nation" question. And THAT is going to be the topic of my next post.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14160913325000583222008-11-30T09:20:00.000-07:002008-11-30T09:20:00.000-07:00With that said, I still believe that your comparis...With that said, I still believe that your comparison of orthodox religion v. unorthodoxy is both applicable and valid.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89471827316099140122008-11-30T09:19:00.000-07:002008-11-30T09:19:00.000-07:00I have to side with Kristo on this one. I think h...I have to side with Kristo on this one. I think his views have been a little misrepresented here. It is almost as if we are seeing a mixing of the political Christian interpretations with the historical ones. I think its clear that Kristo is looking to the standard historical angle as opposed to the political/theological one that Jon is presenting. <BR/><BR/>I could be wrong. I am no mind reader, however, the quotations you mention, Jon do not (in my opinion) represent the standard historical perspective on this issue.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23585774271961207942008-11-30T08:55:00.000-07:002008-11-30T08:55:00.000-07:00.Scribes and Pharisees are a peculiar sort of bein....<BR/>Scribes and Pharisees are a peculiar sort of being--separated from humanity they position themselves to sit in Moses' seat deciding who will and not be seen as a Christian.<BR/>,Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28951271590389227982008-11-30T08:33:00.000-07:002008-11-30T08:33:00.000-07:00Kristo:"You aspire to be a historian (or at least ...Kristo:<BR/><BR/><EM>"You aspire to be a historian (or at least to write a book on history), so it's time to stop playing silly games with sectarian definitions and start thinking like a historian. Except that as soon as you do, your position collapses."</EM><BR/><BR/>SO are we to assume that <B>YOU</B> are the <B>TRUE</B> historian here?Steve-Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787126423114998767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79131340074615522002008-11-30T07:46:00.000-07:002008-11-30T07:46:00.000-07:00Actually Tom -- Father Neuhaus' opinions were enti...Actually Tom -- Father Neuhaus' opinions were entirely relevant to the point of my post. I needed a prominent Roman Catholic theologian's position [the others I quoted were all Protestant] and he's the most prominent one from First Things I could get for the position -- you can read it right there in his article -- that Mormonism is NOT Christianity because it flunks the historic standards for Christianity set out in the Nicene/Apostles' Creed.<BR/><BR/>Also it's not so easy to separate the political from the theological from the historical. Do you think the evangelical megachurches like Coral Ridge and Robert Jeffress who eat up Barton's work separate these issues? One day they are hearing assertions like "Mormons are not Christian" and the Davinci Code peddles blasphemous "non-Christian" positions because it denied the Trinity. And the next day they hear David Barton preach that almost all of our Founders were "Christians." I've debated plenty of conservative Christians who are resistant to the idea that many notable Founders were unorthodox-non-Trinitarians precisely because that would mean these "Christian" founders really weren't "Christians" to know they exist in abundance.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62826732245199061552008-11-30T07:31:00.000-07:002008-11-30T07:31:00.000-07:00Kristo,Now you are engaging in very uncharitable r...Kristo,<BR/><BR/>Now you are engaging in very <I>uncharitable</I> reading of my argument. I certainly didn't purposefully misread your argument. Let's step back and look at what you AND I wrote.<BR/><BR/>First my original comment:<BR/><BR/><I>Kristo,<BR/><BR/>I think the mistake you make is you think Barton's "Christian Nation" idea fits perfectly well with yours. It's true that Barton and some others have hedged on issues like the Trinity because they seem aware that many of these key "Christian" figures either disbelieved in or were uncertain on issues like the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement. However to the conservative Christian audiences which eat up his work, to BE a Christian means to believe that Jesus was God the Son and made an infinite Atonement on the cross.<BR/><BR/>I submit YOUR position that holds theological unitarianism or Mormonism to be "Christian" (defensible and quite reasonable as it is) is anathema to conservative theologically orthodox Christians of the Protestant, Roman Catholic, or capital O Orthodox Christian faith.<BR/><BR/>I've heard too many of them state things like "Mormonism is not Christianity" and term theological unitarianism to be soul damning blasphemous heresies to be convinced otherwise.</I><BR/><BR/>You replied:<BR/><BR/><I>Jon,<BR/><BR/>You talk about "conservative theologically orthodox Christians of the Protestant, Roman Catholic, or capital O Orthodox Christian faith" as though I wasn't one. If you want to debate the (rabid radical) religious right, I'm right here in front of you. You speak of "conservative Christian audiences which eat up his work"; as for myself, I'll not go that far, but let's say I'm a conservative Christian who appreciates his work (such of it as I have read - about half of MoS). BTW thanks for introducing me to Barton. And I mean that sincerely; this is why I want you to cite the right wing nutjobs that you claim to be rebutting, I have a genuine interest in reading them, if they really exist.</I><BR/><BR/>Now, I explained to you that I wouldn't be rebutting everything you wrote in your long reply, but rather I'd take things one step at a time. I honestly thought that you didn't believe that there were any conservative Christian figures out there who equated Christianity with orthodoxy and defined non-orthodoxy OUT of Christianity. My sole point in that "bizarre" post was to demonstrate the MAINSTREAM idea among religiously conservative Christians that defines "Christianity" as synonymous with orthodoxy and non-orthodoxy as "not Christianity." Note some of the figures I cited buy into the "Christian America" idea and some don't.<BR/><BR/>[Joe Carter, for instance, DOESN'T buy into the "Christian America" idea particular because he understands America's key Founders were not orthodox and consequently "not Christians."]<BR/><BR/>What I could have (and probably SHOULD HAVE) done -- it would take more work -- was feature ONLY figures who promote David Barton's "Christian America" idea/AND who define Mormons/non-Trinitarians out of the definition of Christianity. <BR/><BR/>I wonder if these were the "right wing nutjobs" that you claimed probably didn't exist and whom you stated you'd be interested in reading.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.com