tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6444256132653430400..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: The Search For that Right TermBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68040114780057357722009-03-30T22:02:00.000-06:002009-03-30T22:02:00.000-06:00It doesn't matter WHO taught WHAT in seminary or w...It doesn't matter WHO taught WHAT in seminary or what YOU think my "biblical knowledge" is. The concept of "orthodoxy" supercedes these things.<BR/><BR/>You've got LOTS of homework to do. Dig in.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13784305576239563642009-03-30T21:43:00.000-06:002009-03-30T21:43:00.000-06:00Anything beyond Nicene Trinitarianism (like TULIP ...Anything beyond Nicene Trinitarianism (like TULIP or transubstantiation or being "born again") are just additional elements that don't disqualify one from being "orthodox" but are not part of the LCD definition of "orthodoxy."><BR/><BR/>You're wrong, because they don't teach that in seminary in this country, or I would bet, in this country in the 17th and 18th centuries, since the head of Princeton spoke of the New Birth.<BR/><BR/>Again, your biblical knowledge is weak to say the least.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84973817333330312702009-03-30T21:12:00.000-06:002009-03-30T21:12:00.000-06:00OFT,You lack an understanding of the "American" un...OFT,<BR/><BR/>You lack an understanding of the "American" understanding of "orthodoxy" that I use or the "European" understanding that Kristo has invoked.<BR/><BR/>Being "born again," regardless of what you think of it or of your or your minister's interpretation of the Bible, is not part of the lowest common denominator of "orthodoxy" (of either the definition that I or Kristo invoke). However "born again" Christians, as long as they adhere to Nicene Trinitarianism, "fit" with the American definition of "orthodoxy," just as Roman Catholicism, capital O Orthodox Christianity, Calvinism and many other faiths do. Anything beyond Nicene Trinitarianism (like TULIP or transubstantiation or being "born again") are just additional elements that don't disqualify one from being "orthodox" but are not part of the LCD definition of "orthodoxy."<BR/><BR/>I may be mistaken but according to Kristo's "European" understanding of orthodoxy (the one that disqualifies Calvinism) YOUR "born again" Christianity isn't "orthodox" either.<BR/><BR/>See, that's the problem with you OFT, you DON'T understand the concepts of 1/2 of what we are talking about here and we have to waste our time defining them for you.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89150652229870633592009-03-30T20:54:00.000-06:002009-03-30T20:54:00.000-06:00Further proving my statement that "Christiani...Further proving my statement that "Christianity," "orthodoxy," etc. is in the eyes of the beholder. A Catholic would argue against this with as much vigor as you defend your faith.><BR/><BR/>This is an easy statement to refute; catholics will be the first to tell you the Bible isn't the authority, but the church, and it's interpretation is. <BR/><BR/>Can't we PLEASE put aside our own personal creeds when discussing this?><BR/><BR/>You deny the Bible; that's your business. The Bible is the supreme authority, without it, no one has the basis to call themself a Christian.<BR/><BR/>The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Mother Church is the only true religion. Wise up, people, or burn in hell for ever and ever and ever.><BR/><BR/>Lol! But that's not true anymore, they seem to change their doctrine at the whim of a hat. Now, any person can be saved.<BR/><BR/>Well Kristo has posited a new understanding -- the "European" understanding of "orthodox Christianity" that attaches three points beyond "Christology" (the "American" understand which I have been using here). Accordingly, Roman Catholics, capital O Orthodox Christians, and some Protestants are "orthodox" but Calvinists and I think (if I am not mistaken) OFT's version of "born again" Christianity gets cast into the "unorthodox" box with theological unitarianism and Mormonism><BR/><BR/>Jon, you're really showing your lack of biblical knowledge. Jesus termed "born again" not me. <BR/>It's very simple, Jon. Just post the verse, in context, and see what your belief is in comparison. <BR/><BR/>God, made it so simple. True Christians don't distort scriptureOur Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33442803898385761522009-03-30T14:45:00.000-06:002009-03-30T14:45:00.000-06:00Hehe, good one, Jon. Especially because it's not ...Hehe, good one, Jon. Especially because it's not inaccurate. Let's play "Who's the Heretic?"Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23555944178207273742009-03-30T14:43:00.000-06:002009-03-30T14:43:00.000-06:00Well Kristo has posited a new understanding -- the...Well Kristo has posited a new understanding -- the "European" understanding of "orthodox Christianity" that attaches three points beyond "Christology" (the "American" understand which I have been using here). Accordingly, Roman Catholics, capital O Orthodox Christians, and some Protestants are "orthodox" but Calvinists and I think (if I am not mistaken) OFT's version of "born again" Christianity gets cast into the "unorthodox" box with theological unitarianism and Mormonism.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39961892223073761012009-03-30T13:08:00.000-06:002009-03-30T13:08:00.000-06:00The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Mother Churc...The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Mother Church is the only true religion. Wise up, people, or burn in hell for ever and ever and ever.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23004772829691421252009-03-29T20:52:00.000-06:002009-03-29T20:52:00.000-06:00OFT writes:This isn't a factual statement because ...OFT writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>This isn't a factual statement because I've did extensive study on catholicism, [sp. Catholicism] and it doesn't come from the bible. So, I would leave Catholicism out of the equation.</EM><BR/><BR/>Further proving my statement that "Christianity," "orthodoxy," etc. is in the eyes of the beholder. A Catholic would argue against this with as much vigor as you defend your faith. <BR/><BR/>And please, spare us all your traditional comeback that goes something like this: "It isn't my argument, it's God's. All you have to do is read the Bible. It's all there." <BR/><BR/>Yeah, we got it, bro. YOUR Christianity...oops...I mean GOD's Christianity is the ONLY Christianity. <BR/><BR/>Can't we PLEASE put aside our own personal creeds when discussing this?Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27032684400389340532009-03-29T20:30:00.000-06:002009-03-29T20:30:00.000-06:00Not one of the five points of calvinism is orthodo...Not one of the five points of calvinism is orthodox.><BR/><BR/>I may want to take my comment back. I don't think the Bible teaches any of Calvin's five points, but I guess, if they don't attack the fundamentals of the faith, a person could still believe them a be a Christian. I haven't examined it enough. <BR/><BR/>Jon:<I>Roman Catholics, like Calvinists, are also "orthodox</I>."<BR/><BR/>This isn't a factual statement because I've did extensive study on catholicism, and it doesn't come from the bible. So, I would leave Catholicism out of the equation.<BR/><BR/>Kristo:<I>What about children, unable to wrap their metaphysically immature mind around the concept</I>?<BR/><BR/>Good point! I found the answer in John Locke. Locke is correct, belief that Jesus is Messiah is sufficient for salvation, as long as someone at the age of accountability doesn't deny the fundamentals. This question is why he denied original sin. He mistakenly thought children could go to hell for not understanding the "mysteries"(trinity) of religion. <BR/><BR/>Tom:<I>America was not founded as an orthodox Christian nation</I>.<BR/><BR/>According to the fundamentals of Christianity, I believe America was founded on orthodox Christian nation principles. I think there is ample evidence for that fact.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37236102971441325412009-03-29T12:56:00.000-06:002009-03-29T12:56:00.000-06:00America was not founded as an orthodox Christian n...America was not founded as an orthodox Christian nation. <BR/>The concerns of the Christian unitarians were accommodated in the Founding. They did not believe Jesus was the second person of the Holy Trinity.<BR/><BR/>America was not founded on the proposition that Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity. This is sometimes argued by our commenter OFT and I suppose he's free to do so, although he is in the minority here and in America, disputed even by those who reject "theistic rationalist" as too generic a term to adequately describe the religio-political landscape of the Founding.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10393446181054815792009-03-29T11:59:00.000-06:002009-03-29T11:59:00.000-06:00Sorry for jumping in so late on this one folks. G...Sorry for jumping in so late on this one folks. Great discussion!<BR/><BR/>J. Rowe writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>Mr. Isaacson and Rev. Kowalski as present day Unitarian-Universalists believe that Unitarians and many others can be "Christians," but this is precisely because of UUs "generous" understanding of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Brad Hart, a Mormon, considers himself a "Christian," but is keenly aware of the arguments of the "orthodox" that non-Trinitarians are not "Christians." Indeed, one notable reason why many present day orthodox Trinitarian Christians don't consider "Mormonism" to be "Christianity" is because of Mormonism's non-Trinitarian theology.<BR/><BR/>Ray Soller, another Mormon, would probably see things the same way.<BR/><BR/>Tom Van Dyke -- I'm not sure exactly how he stands, and I know he will correct me if I am wrong -- but I see him comfortable using "Christian" as an adjective that qualifies non-orthodox theologies, but not as a noun. Thus, he is comfortable with terms like "Christian-Deist" or "Christian-Unitarian." </EM><BR/><BR/>As Jon points out, a number of us have a diverse understanding of "Christianity," "Orthodoxy," etc. In comments above, Mr. Rowe, Mr. Miettenen, and OFT have debated over the "orthodoxy" of Calvinism. <BR/><BR/>I wonder if this simple exchange could go a long way in making sense of this discussion. If we have such diversity in our individual understanding of "Christianity," and "Orthodoxy" doesn't it stand to reason that the founders would as well? Couldn't some have (and did) classified themselves in diverse ways? Jefferson called himself a Christian, as did Franklin (who also called himself a deist). I imagine that Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll, John Jay, Patrick Henry and others would strongly disagree with both Jefferson and Franklin’s (along with one another) personal declarations, just as many would disagree with a Mormon (myself) saying that I am a Christian. To put it simple, it's all in the eyes of the beholder, which is why it's impossible, in my opinion, to come up with a blanket term for all founders.<BR/><BR/>As for the communion issue, I believe that is is/was a fundamental component of orthodoxy (to some at least). For Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc., communion is a fundamental component to one's piety and devotion. For members of these faiths to ignore communion would be damnation (according to those church's doctrine). Now, Kristo is right in pointing out that many people avoid communion for personal reasons. It is at least possible that the founders did the same. But to ignore communion throughout one's life would indicate only one thing: that the individual didn't hold communion in high regard as a necessary component of salvation (which is of course acceptable in many forms of "Christianity.")<BR/><BR/>In conclusion, "Christianity" is defined about as clearly as words like "love" "independence" "happiness" etc. They are all in the eyes of the beholder.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90676115163746162422009-03-29T11:54:00.000-06:002009-03-29T11:54:00.000-06:00Thanks for the on Pelikan; I'll look into it in mo...Thanks for the on Pelikan; I'll look into it in more detail and am working on a post that references the First Things article and that very book. The "American" way of viewing "orthodoxy" focuses on Christology only.<BR/><BR/>I also think you hit the nail on the head w/Jefferson and the church he attended.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66173979636229741892009-03-29T11:33:00.000-06:002009-03-29T11:33:00.000-06:00Another thought occurred to me w/r communion while...Another thought occurred to me w/r communion while at service today...<BR/><BR/>Many founders, like Jefferson, attended the only church available to them, rather than the one they would have wanted (no Unitarian congregation in his neck of Virginia back then; it was a New England fad). In such circumstances a church member would likely consistently not commune (e.g. I would not commune at a Catholic chuch if that was all that was available to me, but I would still attend).<BR/><BR/>The issue is deep disagreement over what is going on in preparation and presentation of the host.<BR/><BR/>As for the unworthiness reason, many people feel that as a permanent state of affairs (Luther is a great example of such a tortured soul).<BR/><BR/>As for the numbers, how many founders did not commune, as a fraction of their population? A handful or less of many dozen, perhaps of a hundred? That's not unreasonable given the number that sit in the pews and do not commune every week at my church...Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62703823519529324452009-03-29T11:23:00.000-06:002009-03-29T11:23:00.000-06:00Hi Jon!Using the search feature on PosLib I found ...Hi Jon!<BR/><BR/>Using the search feature on PosLib I found this example...<BR/><BR/>http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/11/dont-ever-say.html<BR/><BR/>Volume 1 of Pelikan's "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" is the story of orthodoxy in slightly less than 400 pages ["The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)]". Chapter 7, the final chapter of the volume, is called "The Orthodox Consensus", and brings it all together. The four elements of orthodoxy are christology, mystagogy, anthropology, and ecclesiology, each of which is a developed system settled in the first centuries of the church, the first two in the east, the latter two in the west.<BR/><BR/>Ecclesiology is the key point that I have been making (there are others to be made) on which the founders' entire generation was deeply, vociferously unorthodox. I have pointed out the lack of bishops, even among those who should have them; the rampant anti-clericalism; and even the usurpation of church discipline by civil authority in colonial and revolutionary America.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54634480530508327272009-03-29T10:38:00.000-06:002009-03-29T10:38:00.000-06:00Kristo,I did a quick google search and wonder if t...Kristo,<BR/><BR/>I did a quick google search and wonder if this is the Pelikan (Jaroslav) to whom you refer.<BR/><BR/>Based on the First Things obituary of him, I don't see his position on orthodoxy conflicting with the "American" or anything I've put forth.<BR/><BR/>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5334<BR/><BR/>The article suggests that he seemed to equate "Christianity" with Trinitarian orthodoxy itself. Here is a taste from their article:<BR/><BR/><I>By doctrine Pelikan did not mean just any teaching. He meant the central truths of Christianity: that God is triune, that Christ is fully God and fully man—those teachings that were solemnly declared in the ancient councils and are confessed in the ecumenical creeds. His historical study had convinced him that the most faithful bearer of the apostolic faith was the great tradition of thought and practice as expounded by the orthodox Church Fathers. <BR/><BR/>In the last generation, it has become fashionable among historians of Christian thought not only to seek to understand the Gnostics or the Arians but also to become their advocates and to suggest, sometimes obliquely, sometimes straightforwardly, that orthodox Christianity made its way not by argument and truth but by power and coercion. The real heroes in Christian history are the dissidents, the heretics, whose insights and thinking were suppressed by the imperious bishops of the great Church.<BR/> <BR/>Pelikan never succumbed to this temptation. In the classroom, in public lectures, and in his many books, he was an advocate of creedal Christianity, of the classical formulations of Christian doctrine. In one of his last books, Credo, he cited such writers as Edward Gibbon, Adolf von Harnack, and Matthew Arnold, who believed that “creeds pass” and “no altar standeth whole.” But he answered them with John Henry Newman, who said that dogma is the principle of religion, and Lionel Trilling, who wrote that “when the dogmatic principle in religion is slighted, religion goes along for a while on generalized emotion and ethical intention . . . and then loses the force of its impulse, even the essence of its being.” <BR/><BR/>Pelikan knew, and his scholarship demonstrated, what many Christian theologians and Church leaders have forgotten, that over the Church’s long history, the orthodox and catholic form of Christian faith, what the Church “believes, teaches and confesses on the basis of the Word of God,” has been the most biblical, the most coherent, the most enduring, the most adaptable, and yes, the most true.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you can shed light on what you think Pelikan's test for orthodoxy was, why the Nicene-orthodox Trinitarian standard is not sufficient, and why Calvinists, who fervently adhere to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine wouldn't qualify as "orthodox."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42198494669552887722009-03-29T09:34:00.000-06:002009-03-29T09:34:00.000-06:00Jared: "If only one individual was systematically ...Jared: "If only one individual was systematically rejecting communion I think Kristo point is stronger, but don't we have reason to believe there were several Founders who systematically rejected communion?"<BR/><BR/>Jared, you had qualified your question so as to restrict it to <I>theological</I> reasons.<BR/><BR/>I'd suggest there are many non-theological reasons to do so.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the theological reasons, I think it clear that this particular practice was incompatible with GW's theology.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10065744708356303992009-03-29T09:33:00.000-06:002009-03-29T09:33:00.000-06:00David Holmes suggests that the systematic avoidanc...David Holmes suggests that the systematic avoidance of communion was a way to determine whether one was a "Christian-Deist" as opposed to an "orthodox Christian." (A non-Christian-Deist wouldn't be in Church at all.)<BR/><BR/>There is evidence on GW and Marshall on avoiding communion. I couldn't IMAGINE that Jefferson took communion in the Anglican-Episcopal Church, but I'm still searching for the primary sources where he discusses not taking communion because it represented that in which he didn't believe (and it's clear that TJ didn't believe in the Trinity which doctrine he absolutely hated).Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82964426093236702162009-03-29T09:29:00.000-06:002009-03-29T09:29:00.000-06:00If only one individual was systematically rejectin...If only one individual was systematically rejecting communion I think Kristo point is stronger, but don't we have reason to believe there were several Founders who systematically rejected communion? Off the top of my head I can remember Washington & John Marshall, but I think there was one or two others. (Sorry, I'm not at my office so I don't have my books to provide the names.) So Kristo's explanation is stronger if we were only dealing with one individual, but when there are several individuals all acting in the same fashion, it become less probable as a valid explanation. It's possible, just not probable.Jared A. Farleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79704692443737695512009-03-29T08:30:00.000-06:002009-03-29T08:30:00.000-06:00Yes. Many feel themselves unworthy. Many denominat...<I>Yes. Many feel themselves unworthy. Many denominations teach a required purity before partaking, and many congregants take to heart Jesus' admonition that you not approach the altar until you have first set right everything in your relations to others.</I><BR/><BR/>This might explain why someone would avoid communion at times in their lives. I don't think this explains why someone would systematically avoid communion.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10433814421134019112009-03-29T08:27:00.000-06:002009-03-29T08:27:00.000-06:00Kristo,I must admit I haven't heard of Pelikan...Kristo,<BR/><BR/>I must admit I haven't heard of Pelikan. <BR/><BR/>But given that we are talking about the "American" Founding, it makes sense to use the "American" understanding of orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>David Holmes of William & Mary, one of the leading scholars of America's Founding era religious history, has a whole chapter in his book published by Oxford University Press (Chapter 12) that discusses this.<BR/><BR/>But you can't beat his pithy summary of the matter on p. 75: "Since the late fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity has been synonymous with orthodox Christianity."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6557568241957603092009-03-29T08:10:00.000-06:002009-03-29T08:10:00.000-06:00Jared,"Can anybody think of any theological reason...Jared,<BR/><BR/>"Can anybody think of any theological reason why someone would systematically reject communion at their own congregation, except that they reject the divinity of Jesus?"<BR/><BR/>Yes. Many feel themselves unworthy. Many denominations teach a required purity before partaking, and many congregants take to heart Jesus' admonition that you not approach the altar until you have first set right everything in your relations to others.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57701244057755061362009-03-29T08:07:00.001-06:002009-03-29T08:07:00.001-06:00Jon,"This is very interesting. It flies in the fac...Jon,<BR/><BR/>"This is very interesting. It flies in the face of every scholar and theologian I've seen explicate (small o) 'orthodoxy.'"?<BR/><BR/>C'mon. Who are you trying to fool? It's fine to disagree with me, but don't pretend you're hearing this for the first time. Or the second. Or that you have ever found any authority comparable to, and contradicting, Pelikan. How many times do I have to quote Pelikan to you? How many times must I mention bishops? Do you not read anything I write? This goes back literally to our first encounters on PosLib, and has recurred numerous times since.<BR/><BR/>Now if you want to insist that the unorthodox American definition of “orthodoxy” is the one that must be used on this blog, fine. But then I suggest that you have pretty much conceded the unorthodox Christian Nation hypothesis at the outset, by conceding that there is something about being here in America that fixes the meaning of “orthodoxy” (something that unifies us, as a nation), and does so in an unorthodox way.<BR/><BR/>OFT,<BR/><BR/>“Yes, I would say the Bible is pretty clear on Jesus' Deity, thereby the Trinity has to be mandatory.”<BR/><BR/>What about children, unable to wrap their metaphysically immature mind around the concept?<BR/><BR/>Where you seem to be headed, and I would caution you not to go there, is that “the Bible teaches X, so you must believe X to be saved”. This would seem to imply that nothing short of learning the entire Bible, in connotation as well as denotation, is good enough. Yet Christ teaches a fairly simple (though practically difficult) salvation.<BR/><BR/>The truth that saves is simple, just hard.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36728138697632959752009-03-29T08:07:00.000-06:002009-03-29T08:07:00.000-06:00Jon,Thanks for the definitions. I like the umbrel...Jon,<BR/>Thanks for the definitions. I like the umbrella term "theistic rationalist" because too often we get bogged down in the definitions of the descriptors we use. Plus, that gets rid of the difficulty between theological unitarians and Unitarian members of actual congregations.<BR/>Can anybody think of any theological reason why someone would systematically reject communion at their own congregation, except that they reject the divinity of Jesus?Jared Farleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23712013548576282932009-03-28T21:53:00.000-06:002009-03-28T21:53:00.000-06:00I think "theistic rationalist" is a made-up word, ...<I>I think "theistic rationalist" is a made-up word, with no foundation.</I><BR/><BR/>All words are "made up." As I noted before, "theistic rationalists" is as much of a "made up" term as "Judeo-Christian." If you look at the Founding record, you NEVER see them using that term.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46365550152585829742009-03-28T21:52:00.000-06:002009-03-28T21:52:00.000-06:00I was going to point this out. Not one of the five...<I>I was going to point this out. Not one of the five points of calvinism is orthodox.</I><BR/><BR/>This point is irrelevant. There are pleny of "orthodox Christians" who believe in ADDITIONAL things that are not necesary to qualify as "orthodox." All 5 points of Calvinism are additional points in which "orthodox Christians" need not believe to qualify as "orthodox." That doesn't necessarily mean that Calvinists are not "orthodox," because they are. <BR/><BR/>Roman Catholics, like Calvinists, are also "orthodox." <BR/><BR/>Small o "orthodoxy" is that lowest common denominator of Trinitarian theology in which Calvinists, non-Calvinists, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Episcopalians, etc., etc., all believe. It's source is the Nicene Creed, which gave birth to many later creeds. As long as you believe in THAT, you are an "orthodox Christian." Anything else is just sectarian difference. <BR/><BR/>The Nicene Creed: As Brad Hamilton said in "Fast Times At Ridgemont High": "Learn it, know it, live it."<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/2qyfcxJonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.com