tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6069500250806070261..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Thanksgiving Proclamation & Civil ReligionBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61313066876459831432008-11-30T18:26:00.000-07:002008-11-30T18:26:00.000-07:00Well, at least it's a factual point from the Bible...Well, at least it's a factual point from the Bible and not just an opinion. Still, I believe the discussion was an arm's-length discussion of how Mormonism is regarded by others and not an explicit examination of its truth claims.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, an arm's-length distance from the actual theology is called for. We're gettin' there, hopefully.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69831195937438914272008-11-30T17:43:00.000-07:002008-11-30T17:43:00.000-07:00OFT:Save it for a blog that gives a care about you...OFT:<BR/><BR/>Save it for a blog that gives a care about your take on the validity/invalidity of a particular religion. Here, nobody care what you have to say on the issue.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38927876735680047702008-11-30T16:47:00.000-07:002008-11-30T16:47:00.000-07:00OFT, perhaps softer language than calling Mormon t...OFT, perhaps softer language than calling Mormon theology demonic is appropriate in a public forum.><BR/><BR/>I was thinking about that last night, and then, wham! another thought goes into my mind. It was that passage in Isaiah, I think it's chapter fourteen, where Isaiah talks about Lucifer wanting to be God, and take God's place. Being a god, that's Satan talking.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59678283094481463212008-11-29T22:02:00.000-07:002008-11-29T22:02:00.000-07:00OFT, perhaps softer language than calling Mormon t...OFT, perhaps softer language than calling Mormon theology demonic is appropriate in a public forum.<BR/><BR/>You can make your point by sticking to the facts and avoiding the pejoratives, nor is your opinion [or any of our opinions] about the worthiness of this or that theology of any importance or relevance on this blog. I don't care about your personal faith or Mr. Abbott's lack of it, frankly. Opinions are like...well, you know the rest.<BR/><BR/>But if you open up your own religion to truth claims like "the Bible has stood the test of time is its harmony with history, archeology, geography, and science," Mr. Abbott would be quite justified in starting a distracting squabble here. I for one would rather leave such stuff for other blogs. Just the facts, ma'am.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46568556651169822862008-11-29T20:38:00.000-07:002008-11-29T20:38:00.000-07:00"Mormon Bashing?" I would be very carefu..."Mormon Bashing?" I would be very careful with your words, OFT. I could just as easily call your religion a contradiction, farce, and full of archeological errors. After all, I am not the one who believes that dinosaurs can be found in the Bible, that snakes talk, and that a flood actually covered the entire face of the earth only a few thousand years ago.><BR/><BR/>Brad, my post was in response to Kristo's comment comparing Christianity and Mormonism using Walter Martin's research. I didn't know you were mormon, nor wanted to offend you. As a Christian, I was offended at what I read in Martin's book. And there was at least thirty more pages of the same crazy stuff, all documented, even testimony by Joseph Smith's Mother.<BR/><BR/>One of the reasons the Bible has stood the test of time is its harmony with history, archeology, geography, and science. Your words may be better answered another time.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58162508608349149762008-11-29T18:49:00.000-07:002008-11-29T18:49:00.000-07:00TVD: "[...] if Washington himself had a personal l...TVD: "[...] if Washington himself had a personal lack of faith in "religion," why did he recommend religion as essential for the moral health of the new American republic?"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are using the word "religion" in different contexts.<BR/><BR/>GW may have thought religion (purpose/morality/dedication/devotion) essential, but lacked confidence that much of what passed as religious in his day was constructive.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78501129479612744462008-11-29T17:09:00.000-07:002008-11-29T17:09:00.000-07:00Our Founding Truth writes:"To say that Mormonism i...Our Founding Truth writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>"<BR/>To say that Mormonism is anywhere in the solar system, or border, of Christianity is a blind leap. In my, and Martin's opinion Mormonism is more blasphemes than any cult...<BR/><BR/>...As Martin points out, Mormonism is filled with scientific, and archeological errors; claiming Indians are semitic, when in fact they are mongoloid, blatant plagiarisms, and contradictions upon contradictions."</EM><BR/><BR/>Since when did this post become devoted "Mormon Bashing?" I would be very careful with your words, OFT. I could just as easily call your religion a contradiction, farce, and full of archeological errors. After all, I am not the one who believes that dinosaurs can be found in the Bible, that snakes talk, and that a flood actually covered the entire face of the earth only a few thousand years ago. <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that specific religions shouldn't be discussed here. Mormonism has been brought up on numerous occasions, and has been scrutinized, as all religions should be. However, I find your comments to be both arrogant and condescending.<BR/><BR/>If you don't like Mormonism then fine. Go to an anti-Mormon site to share your stuff.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89594471208784838892008-11-29T16:10:00.000-07:002008-11-29T16:10:00.000-07:00See my above post which reproduces Martin's work a...See my above post which reproduces Martin's work and begins to answer Kristo's objections.<BR/><BR/>I am also reminded of the debate between Walter Martin and one Roy Masters that I reproduced a little while ago. Masters, like the Mormons and JWs denies the Trinity and is consequently written off as "not Christian" by Martin.<BR/><BR/>I'm using a lot of examples friendly to religious conservatives because Masters, like the Mormons, the JWs and the Moonies, is arch conservative in his politics and worldview (thought the JWs strenuously avoid politics).<BR/><BR/>Masters, because he believes the Bible the Word of God, makes the standard "biblical unitarian" arguments that we saw men like Priestley and Price make.<BR/><BR/>Masters has the potential, in my opinion, to be the next Rev. Moon or Joseph Smith. Already he's got such figures as David Kupelian, Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, and others as followers and owns with his sons Talk Radio Network that syndicates such figures as Savage and Laura Ingraham. Their very interesting debate was a wash in my opinion. Martin had the weight of "historic Christianity" behind him. But, as Masters noted, "historic Christianity" could be wrong.<BR/><BR/>Masters in many respects is a right wing crank of the John Birch Society vein; but he appeals to the many conservative Christians who enjoy WorldNetDaily. And indeed, his disciple David Kupelian is second in charge over there.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1947405570439211812008-11-29T15:30:00.000-07:002008-11-29T15:30:00.000-07:00I do not hold that Mormonism is clearly Christian,...I do not hold that Mormonism is clearly Christian, I hold that "Christianity" is a vague concept (i.e. it admits of borderline cases), and that Mormonism is a good example of a plausible borderline case.><BR/><BR/>Kristo, I am looking at Martin's exposition on mormonism, I assume you are familiar with Walter Martin's work.<BR/><BR/>To say that Mormonism is anywhere in the solar system, or border, of Christianity is a blind leap. In my, and Martin's opinion mormonism is more blasphemes than any cult. <BR/><BR/>As Martin points out, mormonism is filled with scientific, and archeological errors; claiming Indians are semitic, when in fact they are mongoloid, blatant plagiarisms, and contradictions upon contradictions.<BR/><BR/> Smith claimed all Christian sects "wrong" their creeds as "abominations," and all Christians as "corrupt"(Joseph Smith, History 1:19), quoting Martin in Kingdom of the Cults, updated Edition, 1997.<BR/><BR/>Mormon theology is purely demonic! <BR/>1. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man..."(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345).<BR/><BR/>I can't even read the rest. Check out Martin's Kingdom of the Cults.<BR/><BR/>This all coming from a man, Joseph Smith, engaged in the occult, seer-stone divination, using divining rods, talismans, and magic. <BR/><BR/>Quoting Martin, "Mormon theology is polytheistic, teaching in effect that the universe is inhabited by different gods who procreate spirit children, which are in turn clothed with bodies on different planets, "Elohim" being the god of this planet(Brigham Young's teaching that Adam is our heavenly Father is now officially denied by Mormon authorities, but they hold firm to the belief that their God is a resurrected, glorified man).<BR/><BR/>Mormonism denies the fundamentals of Christianity. I definitely recommend Martin's work on mormonism.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23744185846212765032008-11-29T15:15:00.000-07:002008-11-29T15:15:00.000-07:00Of course I'm asking for alot - I'm trying to brin...Of course I'm asking for alot - I'm trying to bring out the best in you. I don't believe in debate for humiliating an adversary, rather for elevating him, calling him to (or shaming him into; whatever works) play his game on a higher level.<BR/><BR/>If, along the way, you hit upon a truth that I didn't know, I'll be able to appropriate it to my own understanding!Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57262861653184905322008-11-29T13:23:00.000-07:002008-11-29T13:23:00.000-07:00You are asking for a whole lot. And it's helpful ...You are asking for a whole lot. And it's helpful because when I write my book every single you point raise can be answered, and answering them would probably require a book. But for today, I promise I'll answer the Mormon/Trinity question.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66117358333683276592008-11-29T12:51:00.000-07:002008-11-29T12:51:00.000-07:00Jon,You talk about "conservative theologically ort...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.<BR/><BR/>I'll be the first to agree with you that there are many on the right, whom I debate often in other contexts (usually Catholicism vs. catholicism), who toss out the "Mormons aren't Christians" line, but they don't stick to it when you push back. You see, they have never discussed theology with Mormons as I have (I live near Palmyra), and they are not particularly committed to the "Mormons aren't Christians" position; it's just a misconception that they can suspend without upending their worldview. By the way, let me clarify my own position: I do not hold that Mormonism is clearly Christian, I hold that "Christianity" is a vague concept (i.e. it admits of borderline cases), and that Mormonism is a good example of a plausible borderline case. Arianism, on the other hand, is not a borderline case, it is clearly Christian despite being heretical. Islam, which Luther thought was a Christian heresy, is in my opinion clearly not Christian. Just so my position is a bit clearer.<BR/><BR/>You, on my understanding, can't abandon the "Barton is committed to trinitarian orthodoxy" position without upending your worldview. It would be bad enough for you to admit that I'm right; as I have pointed out, to accept that America was founded as an unorthodox Christian nation is to accept that it was founded as a Christian nation, and you haven't accepted that regardless of how much you might otherwise appreciate my position. But for you to admit that Barton is right as well, that's just unthinkable. Indeed, I suspect that it is precisely because the line separating my position from Barton's is so narrow that you cannot accept my position, sympathetic though you seem to be.<BR/><BR/>Let's be clear, though, on a point that I have made before, that you know well but have not adopted in your argumentation: we need to separate the definition of "Christian" that we use in historical analysis from the defintion of "Christian" that we use in sectarian bloodsport. There is no inconsistency in saying that America was founded as a Christian nation, in the historical sense of what that means, while also saying that the founders will all burn in hell as heretics (not that I believe that; I'm just saying that the two claims are not contradictory).<BR/><BR/>As for your closing passage, could you please show the links from what you say the founders believed personally, to the principles upon which the nation was founded? Note that I have taken up certain principles upon which the nation was founded, e.g. freedom of conscience, and natural law, and tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to show that they were protestant Christian principles. Could you do the same in the opposite direction (from what the founders believed to their impact on the founding) for your claimed heretical principles?<BR/><BR/>Take, for instance, the idea that "most or all religions (including non-biblical ones) were valid ways to God". Can you show how belief in this principle was instrumental in forming the nation? You would have to deal, of course, with problems like the Christian sabbath being written into the constitution (where it remains to this day), the denial of religious freedom to polygamists following apparently valid paths to God (e.g. Muslims and Mormons), the enforcement of blasphemy laws where blasphemy was defined in terms of maligning Christianity only; but even if you could overcome these exceptions it is hard to see the affirmative link from radical multifideism to the founding of our nation. Not everything that the founders believed was relevant to the founding.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86664907277885529122008-11-29T10:14:00.000-07:002008-11-29T10:14:00.000-07:00One other thing. To the extent that America is or...One other thing. To the extent that America is or is not a "Christian Nation" I stand by the last passage in my original response to your post. (I realize there are still some loose ends, like the reason v. revelation issue that need to be addressed).<BR/><BR/><I>Besides believing in 1) the unitarian heresies, America's key Founders also believed 2) that the Bible was only partially inspired; 3) that man’s reason (not the Bible) was the ultimate determiner of truth; 4) that most or all religions (including non-biblical ones) were valid ways to God; AND 5) they disbelieved in eternal damnation. If those 5 points can be incorporated into the political understanding of "Christianity" then yes, America can be said to have had an authentically "Christian" Founding.</I><BR/><BR/>I've gone on many discussion threads with conservative Christians and have posed this issue to them. Further I have monitored what many notable orthodox Christian theologians have to say on the issue. And the overwhelming response is that these 5 points are not compatible with "Christianity" that they refer to some *other* theological system. In short, they react to it not unlike they react to Mormonism.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45144515502118742402008-11-29T10:08:00.000-07:002008-11-29T10:08:00.000-07:00Kristo,I think the mistake you make is you think B...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.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34840061147569503462008-11-29T09:34:00.000-07:002008-11-29T09:34:00.000-07:00Jon, Brad,By all means, give us the entire argumen...Jon, Brad,<BR/><BR/>By all means, give us the entire argument. And as for the Hart/Rowe test, if it isn't a litmus test (a point that I made before you did, e.g. by showing how it fails when applied to me), then that begs the question: what is it? A red herring?<BR/><BR/>But note that where you are drifting now is toward channeling David Barton, even while denying him. As Jon put it, "David Barton and the other Christian Nationalists are sympathetic to the notion that the organic law of the United States is 'Christianity generally.' " This is the position that you two are now in, isn't it?<BR/><BR/>To claim that Washington was a Unitarian Christian is to endorse Barton's position.<BR/><BR/>Tom's point is well taken, and I agree with it as a hypothetical (i.e. if Washington had weak faith or no faith, then that makes his public position that much more telling regarding religion and the state), but the whole "argument" over whether he was "orthodox" is a distraction. And don't blame Barton for taking the argument there, unless you have a different passage in mind than the one I'm familiar with, namely chapter 2 of MoS.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can tell, and I have made this point before, so it shouldn't be a surprise (at least not to Jon), this whole argument about who was orthodox is a refusal by anti-CNers to admit that America was (and to some waning degree still is) a Christian nation.<BR/><BR/>If America was founded as an unorthodox Christian nation, then it immediately follows that America was founded as a Christian nation. QED.<BR/><BR/>If you want to deny this, then arguing that America was not founded as an orthodox Christian nation fails to achieve your objective even if you win the argument.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67750560431748677682008-11-29T04:14:00.000-07:002008-11-29T04:14:00.000-07:00We all have a fair area of agreement that the evid...We all have a fair area of agreement that the evidence of George Washington's Christian religious orthodoxy is inconclusive. As previously stated, my own opinion leans against, based on the available clues.<BR/><BR/>But again, I remake the argument that if Washington himself had a personal lack of faith in "religion," why did he recommend religion as essential for the moral health of the new American republic?<BR/><BR/>Aw, we already know the answer. That's where the rubber meets the road, where theory meets practice, where the abstract meets reality.<BR/><BR/>The more we make Washington an unbeliever personally, the stronger we make his argument politically.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10058848900448042882008-11-28T20:10:00.000-07:002008-11-28T20:10:00.000-07:00Kristo:I just wanted to point out one thing here t...Kristo:<BR/><BR/>I just wanted to point out one thing here that I believe is important to this discussion. I don't believe that Jon Rowe is necessarily using some kind of religious litmus test to determine where the founders fall on the orthodox/agnostic spectrum. Speaking for myself, I believe that to create such a test would be a mistake, since each founder's life and faith takes on a life of its own. There are just too many variables to consider.<BR/><BR/>Instead, I believe that Jon and I have suggested on this blog that the TOTALITY of the evidence points to a particular likelihood. In Washington's case, this likelihood is that he was not orthodox in his faith, but was more of a unitarian. His "God talk" as we have mentioned in these past two posts, is simply one of the many pieces of evidence, which, in my opinion, suggest that Washington was not orthodox in his religious beliefs/practices. <BR/><BR/>If we were exclusively relying on Washington’s “God talk” then yes, I would agree with you that this is anything but conclusive. However, this is not the only evidence available on the issue.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79853491929724754502008-11-28T17:31:00.000-07:002008-11-28T17:31:00.000-07:00I don't think you are aware of the entire argument...I don't think you are aware of the entire argument. Yes, some deists, unitarians and trinitarians could speak in that generic God talk; that was the point of speaking philosophically about God, to draw a broad unitive lowest common denominator. We don't rest our entire case of GW's lack of orthodoxy on his generic God talk. Though you might want to pick up a copy of David Holmes' book on the Faiths of the Founding Fathers where he gives his reasons why GW wasn't orthodox but Jay and S. Adams were.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55839062550855184512008-11-28T16:57:00.000-07:002008-11-28T16:57:00.000-07:00That's my point. So now, does someone have the re...That's my point. So now, does someone have the resources to cull his public prayers for phrases the same way Washington's have been culled? And if we do, what portion of the referencs to divinity are generic in nature?<BR/><BR/>If even an uncontested trinitarian used generic God-talk in his official capacity, then your experiment doesn't show what you have claimed it shows.<BR/><BR/>John Jay would be a better example, owing to his visibility on a national stage, where Sam Adams never really played much of a role in national affairs after the revolution.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15811111775945317802008-11-28T16:41:00.000-07:002008-11-28T16:41:00.000-07:00It's pretty clear from S. Adams' writings that he ...It's pretty clear from S. Adams' writings that he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. And David L. Holmes and a number of other notable scholars categorize S. Adams, along with Patrick Henry, John Witherspoon, and John Jay as notable orthodox Christian Founders.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-989056245993185152008-11-28T16:06:00.000-07:002008-11-28T16:06:00.000-07:00Hey Jon, a thought:I lack the resources to test th...Hey Jon, a thought:<BR/><BR/>I lack the resources to test this, but how would Sam Adams, whose faith is not in dispute, score on your test, if applied on the same basis as applied to Washington?Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70941226092198857812008-11-28T15:11:00.000-07:002008-11-28T15:11:00.000-07:00You score par for the course for orthodoxy, as I u...You score par for the course for orthodoxy, as I understand the concept. The qualifications from points 5 onward are those items with which the orthodox Christian community reasonably disputes, sort of like all 5 points Calvinism are disputed among the orthodox, but the Trinity is not.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49901284018266545922008-11-28T13:16:00.000-07:002008-11-28T13:16:00.000-07:00Jon,I never pray to Jesus, nor do I know anyone wh...Jon,<BR/><BR/>I never pray to Jesus, nor do I know anyone who does. I do know people who add "in Jesus' name, Amen" to the end of their prayers, but that's not where you address a prayer, that's where you are seeking an endorsement, as it were. Our friends' prayers (and mine) usually begin "Dear Lord" or sometimes "Dear God".<BR/><BR/>The "in Jesus' name" bit was totally unfamiliar to me until I came to America. I wonder whether you are aware of how much of the ritualistic structure of prayer is cultural? In English, in my experience, we address our prayers to the Lord, but in Finnish, it is always to "Luoja", creator. This has no theological significance, it's just variation in custom in different places.<BR/><BR/>George Washington's prayer habits say more of the culture of his times than of his theological beliefs. That makes it interesting and relevant for our discussion, but not as a window onto GW's beliefs, but rather as evidence of GW's community habits.<BR/><BR/>On your extended test:<BR/><BR/>1) Original Sin - yes.<BR/>2) The Trinity - yes.<BR/>3) The Incarnation - yes.<BR/>4) Christ's Atonement - yes.<BR/>5) Regeneration - as sanctification, yes.<BR/>6) Imputation of Christ's Righteousness - yes for your purposes, no for mine. You have to be a soteriology wonk to appreciate the distinctions I would draw.<BR/>7) Salvation through grace - yes for your purposes, but again, this gets into wonkish territory.<BR/>8) Infallibility of the Bible - depends on what we mean. Yes by my definition, but I would argue with others who hold other definitions.<BR/>9) Eternal Damnation - yes, but again, lots of room to argue over what that means.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29028856326338804402008-11-28T11:38:00.000-07:002008-11-28T11:38:00.000-07:00Kristo: My understanding of orthodoxy relates to ...Kristo: <BR/><BR/>My understanding of orthodoxy relates to the Nicene and Apostles Creed/some of the following doctrines. I wonder how you score on them:<BR/><BR/>1) Original Sin<BR/>2) The Trinity<BR/>3) The Incarnation<BR/>4) Christ's Atonement<BR/>5) Regeneration<BR/>6) Imputation of Christ's Righteousness<BR/>7) Salvation through grace<BR/>8) Infallibility of the Bible<BR/>9) Eternal DamnationJonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51565695385818012362008-11-28T11:33:00.000-07:002008-11-28T11:33:00.000-07:00Kristo: You NEVER pray in Jesus' name?Kristo: You NEVER pray in Jesus' name?Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.com