tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4535476274975504659..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: "American Creation" Migrates to "Old Life" or Would George Whitefield Think George Washington Needed to be Converted?Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65270608191383476292013-07-21T21:09:12.510-06:002013-07-21T21:09:12.510-06:00I wish I'd gotten Dr. Frazer's name spelle...I wish I'd gotten Dr. Frazer's name spelled right but apparently the snark made it through. <br /><br />I went to the SHEAR (Society for Historians of the Early American Republic ) conference this weekend to attend some of the sessions and was between that and heading out to the pub. Haste makes bad spelling.<br /><br />On a brighter note, got to hear Chris Beneke present and sat next to Jack Rakove. What a great week to be a history geek.<br /><br />jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66261942903131300872013-07-21T10:05:19.106-06:002013-07-21T10:05:19.106-06:00JRB:
LOL.JRB:<br /><br />LOL.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41748102959858206422013-07-20T18:39:16.399-06:002013-07-20T18:39:16.399-06:00"Maybe it will be like putting you in a round...<i>"Maybe it will be like putting you in a round room and instructing you to urinate in the corner."</i><br /><br />Oy. Now we'll be getting an opus on why, if he <i>were</i> to water the wall, the very spot upon which he watered would in fact <i>be</i> the corner. Expect lots of selective cutting and pasting in support. <br /><br />And, also too, Frazier is wrong.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39681002634179071562013-07-20T18:33:41.080-06:002013-07-20T18:33:41.080-06:00In short, you are already planning a sophistic res...In short, you are already planning a sophistic response. I don't think you are interested in what's actually true about the history of Christianity and what these creeds said and mean.<br /><br />I think I'll wait a week before responding to this particular point to see if you change your mind.<br /><br />Maybe that will be good for your mental health. Or not. Maybe it will be like putting you in a round room and instructing you to urinate in the corner.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3355897159836128852013-07-20T07:52:20.058-06:002013-07-20T07:52:20.058-06:00Oh, I can see several things in my recent post tha...Oh, I can see several things in my recent post that you might think are contradictory to my position, but I'm afraid that if I took the time to list all of them and demonstrate the error of viewing them in that light, too many people would complain about the length of the post without bothering to read it. Maybe you could just present your position, and then we can discuss it.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47976255425674533272013-07-20T07:15:41.757-06:002013-07-20T07:15:41.757-06:00You aren't playing straight; you are engaging ...You aren't playing straight; you are engaging in sophistry. And I don't think it's because you are dishonest. I think it's a neurosis that once you make a claim you need to twist things around to try to make things "fit." It's a form of egotistical self justifying obsessive compulsiveness. <br /><br />But anyway, you didn't prove what you said you did. In fact, what you reproduced flat out contradicts what you are trying to claim.<br /><br />The answer is right there in black and white in what you reproduced and I'll wait to see if you retract your claim and recognize where in what you reproduced contradicts your claim.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24246798232515106332013-07-20T06:51:53.194-06:002013-07-20T06:51:53.194-06:00No. It's a serious bit of advice.No. It's a serious bit of advice.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11894471785247997612013-07-20T06:42:22.243-06:002013-07-20T06:42:22.243-06:00Wow! A direct ad hominem! That's interesting....Wow! A direct ad hominem! That's interesting.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40015805362545605892013-07-20T05:45:17.743-06:002013-07-20T05:45:17.743-06:00Mr. Fortenberry,
I think you need therapy.Mr. Fortenberry,<br /><br />I think you need therapy.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15738848925099027972013-07-19T20:51:24.811-06:002013-07-19T20:51:24.811-06:00In support of this, let me present the following e...In support of this, let me present the following excerpt from <i>The Unaltered Augsburg Confession and The Three Chief Symbols of the Christian Church</i> by Christian Heinrich Schott:<br /><br /><i>But since the time of Constantine the Great, from which time the Church was governed by emperors, universal (ecumenical) confessions, which were enforced throughout the empire, were formed by the bishops in their councils, in which the simple faith of the Christians was sadly tinctured with the views of an overstrained human reason, and with the subtle definitions of vain and caviling craftiness.<br /><br />These symbols, thus decreed at these councils, were declared as universally binding and valid by the emperors, and whoever dared to dispute or gainsay them, was condemned as a heretic. In later times, when the western countries had become entirely subjected to the yoke of the Pope, the dictates of this despot were sufficient to make them binding, and even his simple resolutions were often viewed in the light of symbols!<br /><br />Of the Ecumenical Symbols of the Church, the Reformers adopted these three: -- the Apostolical, the Nicene, and the Athanasian; not, as though they intended thereby to reject the other general Symbols of the Ancient Church, but, because in the Romish Church these three Symbols were held in high estimation; from the bosom of which they at the commencement of the Reformation had had no idea of separating themselves ... And afterwards, when the rupture became decided, they showed most clearly, by their adherence to these three Symbols, that it was not their intention to separate themselves and their followers from the communion of orthodox Christians, as the Papists falsely accused them, but that they desired to preserve the ancient true faith, to which in the first centuries the Church had adhered and which the Romish Church also venerated; proving most undoubtedly that they had merely commenced strife against the unscriptural doctrines and abuses which had in the course of time crept into the Church, and were therefore in nowise to be viewed as heretics.</i>Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7117601570654587192013-07-19T20:25:39.480-06:002013-07-19T20:25:39.480-06:00The Athanasian Creed is included in the Book of Co...The Athanasian Creed is included in the Book of Concord, but it is not included in the Augsburg Confession. The Augsburg Confession was written specifically...<br /><br /><i>in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord</i> <br /><br />According to this Confession, it contains:<br /><br /><i>the Confession of our preachers and of ourselves, showing what manner of doctrine from the Holy Scriptures and the pure Word of God has been up to this time set forth in our lands, dukedoms, dominions, and cities, and taught in our churches.</i><br /><br />Therefore, it is only those parts of the Athanasian Creed which are included in the text of the Augsburg Confession which should be considered as components of the official doctrine of the Lutheran Church at that time. The portion of the Athanasian Creed which is somewhat restated in the Augsburg Confession is the claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is true. The portion missing from the Confession is that portion which states that one must believe in this doctrine in order to become a Christian. As far as I know, the only belief stated in the Augsburg Confession as being necessary in order to become a Christian is found in Aritcle IV:<br /><br /><i>Our churches further teach, that man cannot obtain forgiveness of sin, and be justified before God by his own strength, merits or works; but that he obtains the forgiveness of sins, and is justified before God, through grace, for Christ's sake, by faith; if he believes that Christ suffered for him, and that his sins are remitted for Christ's sake, who made satisfaction for our transgressions by his death. This faith God imputes to us as righteousness, as Paul says. (Rom. chap. iii. and iv.)</i>Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77434645358698024172013-07-19T18:26:31.477-06:002013-07-19T18:26:31.477-06:00Okay. You seem to want to tackle the Lutherans fir...Okay. You seem to want to tackle the Lutherans first. Please google "the Book of Concord" and see the evidence for the Lutheran incorporation of the Athanasian Creed contained therein.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50121072796061796722013-07-19T16:34:38.146-06:002013-07-19T16:34:38.146-06:00Okay, why don't we take this one creed at a ti...Okay, why don't we take this one creed at a time. I do not recall any mention of the Athanasian Creed in the Augsburg Confession, and the only reference to the Council of Nicea was an anecdotal account of the practice in the early church of taking the Lord's supper as a group rather than privately. Would you mind pointing out to me where the Augsburg Confession states that one must agree with the Nicen Creed in order to be a Christian?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7839328621700877072013-07-19T09:24:06.307-06:002013-07-19T09:24:06.307-06:00Likewise as Dr. Frazer noted the phrase "that...Likewise as Dr. Frazer noted the phrase "that Christ suffered for him, and that his sins are remitted for Christ’s sake, who made satisfaction for our transgressions by his death" is loaded with implications. <br /><br />The orthodox figures from each of the late 18th Cen. American Churches he listed would and did argue that Christ had to be 2nd Person in a Triune Godhead in order to make a satisfaction.<br /><br />You are reading your desired interpretation into those creeds.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81933368893179097172013-07-19T09:16:07.112-06:002013-07-19T09:16:07.112-06:00Every single one of those churches -- perhaps incl...Every single one of those churches -- perhaps including the Baptists -- affirmed the Athanasian Creed which says:<br /><br />"This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66765938427523854842013-07-19T07:25:05.466-06:002013-07-19T07:25:05.466-06:00Ah, I had forgotten that I copied and pasted that ...Ah, I had forgotten that I copied and pasted that particular section onto Hart's blog. In that case let me point out my claim that "Nowhere in any of these creeds is there to be found any other belief which is necessary for salvation." Can you point to any statement within the five creeds that I listed in which they state that an additional belief is required for salvation apart from the belief "that Christ suffered for him, and that his sins are remitted for Christ’s sake, who made satisfaction for our transgressions by his death"?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68703593593141515752013-07-19T06:29:56.518-06:002013-07-19T06:29:56.518-06:00Nope. You are wrong; I read what you wrote about t...Nope. You are wrong; I read what you wrote about those groups at DG Hart's blog. It is a fact that with the possible exception of the Baptists (and perhaps they aren't even an exception) all of Frazer's groups incorporated the Athanasian creed into their doctrines and don't consider Athanasianism to be capital C Roman Catholicism.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87128925836331772762013-07-19T06:20:55.269-06:002013-07-19T06:20:55.269-06:00You are simply mistaken. I have presented a defin...You are simply mistaken. I have presented a definition that was accepted by four of the five groups in Frazer's list. Unfortunately, you have not bothered to read my presentation of that definition, and thus you are not aware of the fact that I documented their agreement with it. Perhaps it is you who is fooling yourself by thinking that you can know the contents of my booklet without actually reading it. Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78951144237430468042013-07-19T05:05:05.498-06:002013-07-19T05:05:05.498-06:00"On the contrary, I have presented a definiti..."On the contrary, I have presented a definition which is grounded in the teachings of the Bible"<br /><br />Yes you provided a definition based on the Bible over which there are 27,000 sects of Protestants capable of providing their own competing definition, including Dr. Frazer who provided his definition based on the Bible here:<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/01/standards-for-determining-christianity.html<br /><br />"and which was accepted by four of the five groups that Frazer supposedly consulted in order to obtain his definition.<br /><br />"The only group in Frazer's list that did not agree with my definition was the Catholic church, but that shouldn't be too surprising since the "official creed" of that church condemns everyone to Hell who dares to disagree with it including Frazer. All of the other groups expressed agreement with the definition that I provided."<br /><br />This is simply not true.<br /><br />I need not repeat the rest of your comment; but I submit, like everything here, it reflects your own peculiar interpretation of those creeds and not the authors' intent.<br /><br />Last I remember, you claimed that you "demonstrated" St. Athanasius -- and the Athanasian Creed -- represented capital C Catholicism.<br /><br />That would come as news to EVERY single one of Dr. Frazer's subgroups with the possible exception of the Baptists -- I'll admit I have to confirm this -- who officially accept the Athanasian creed.<br /><br />If I understand your thesis, you claim that Arians can be "Christians" (Hell, you claim Bolingbroke as a Christian, which goes way beyond claiming Arians can be Christians).<br /><br />You are simply fooling yourself if you think the creedally orthodox theologians behind those churches of the late 18th Century would accept these folks as Christians.<br /><br />Yes there were some Christians in those churches who WOULD accept Arians, Socinians and deistically minded thinkers as "Christians" too and there is a name for them: Freethinkers. The orthodox theologians are not freethikers.<br /><br />Benjamin Rush was a freethinker.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74363065308222416462013-07-18T22:58:42.183-06:002013-07-18T22:58:42.183-06:00Jon, you said, "Mr. Fortenberry can define te...Jon, you said, "Mr. Fortenberry can define terms whatever ways he so chooses," and I agree that this possibility is open to me. I am quite capable of providing any sort of definition. However, the definition by which I have chosen to measure whether or not an individual is a Christian is not just my own personal definition. On the contrary, I have presented a definition which is grounded in the teachings of the Bible and which was accepted by four of the five groups that Frazer supposedly consulted in order to obtain his definition. <br /><br />The only group in Frazer's list that did not agree with my definition was the Catholic church, but that shouldn't be too surprising since the "official creed" of that church condemns everyone to Hell who dares to disagree with it including Frazer. All of the other groups expressed agreement with the definition that I provided. To demonstrate this, I provided quotes from the Augsburg Confession, The Thirty-nine Articles, The Philadelphia Confession and the Westminster Confession. I also went a step further than Frazer and demonstrated that my definition is embraced by the Standard Confession in addition to the others already listed. Thus, applying Frazer's own standard of querying the major denominations of the 18th century, I demonstrated that my definition is the proper historical definition by which to determine who is a Christian.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29099008263192734522013-07-17T15:03:39.617-06:002013-07-17T15:03:39.617-06:00Tom,
You know the response: I don't think I n...<i>Tom,<br /><br />You know the response: I don't think I need to belabor the point: The same One True God that all good, rational men of all world religions worshipped. When speaking to that audience, call that God the name the people feel most comfortable with, etc. To the Jews, Jehovah. To the Natives, The Great Spirit, etc.</i><br /><br />You're not belaboring it as much as missing it. The God of the Bible introduces an added dimension--revelation--that "natural theology" doesn't have.<br /><br />This is the key--essential--distinction.<br /><br /><i>Natural theology is a program of inquiry into the existence and attributes of God without referring or appealing to any divine revelation.</i><br /><br />http://www.iep.utm.edu/theo-nat/Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30115630504162063232013-07-17T13:59:27.707-06:002013-07-17T13:59:27.707-06:00Tom,
You know the response: I don't think I n...Tom,<br /><br />You know the response: I don't think I need to belabor the point: The same One True God that all good, rational men of all world religions worshipped. When speaking to that audience, call that God the name the people feel most comfortable with, etc. To the Jews, Jehovah. To the Natives, The Great Spirit, etc.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81887151010249327172013-07-17T13:16:39.907-06:002013-07-17T13:16:39.907-06:00GWash mentions Jehovah specifically, the God of th...GWash mentions Jehovah specifically, the God of the Bible. This should not be glossed over, as it therefore gives the Bible a cosmic weight that deist Thomas Paine denied. <br /><br />To focus on what GWash or anybody <i>didn't</i> believe rather than on what they did believe is to miss the forest for the trees.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86154684025268644352013-07-17T07:12:55.745-06:002013-07-17T07:12:55.745-06:00To clarify my position: I don't think there...To clarify my position: I don't think there's adequate proof that Washington was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian; in fact I think the evidence properly casts doubt on the fact that GW believed in the Trinity and Atonement.<br /><br />We know he was a theist for sure.<br /><br />Mr. Fortenberry can define terms whatever ways he so chooses. And I'll admit, that under certain understandings, GW was a "Christian." <br /><br />If the "Deist" Bolingbroke who just barely may qualify as a "Christian-Deist" qualifies as a "Christian" to Mr. Fortenberry, then GW probably could meet such a generous standard.<br /><br />Though, given how little GW spoke on Jesus by name or example, it's hard to tell.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42596022122103638682013-07-16T23:31:07.773-06:002013-07-16T23:31:07.773-06:00One of Jon's arguments against the claim that ...<i>One of Jon's arguments against the claim that Washington was a Christian is that</i><br /><br />Bill, I think we need to take at least a half-step back from Washington-as-"Christian." <br /><br /><i>This view of the Great Spirit is remarkably similar to the Christian God, and it would be natural for a Christian of that time period to associate the two.</i><br /><br />Actually, that best fits the <i>Judeo</i>-Christian God Jehovah, which is what I mean by back a "half-step." The foliage gets very thick as you get to Jesus, the church, the sacraments, dying for our sins, the Trinity, and the whole laundry list. There's no direct evidence of Washington's beliefs <i>in his own words</i> on these matters, and the indirect evidence is conflicting.<br /><br />I think it's stupid to even go there. GWash is quite explicit in his theism and there's nothing I'm aware of in his direct writings that conflicts with his God--and America's--being one in the same as the God of the Bible.<br /><br /><i>"May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, planted them in a promised land, whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of heaven and make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah."</i><br /><br />http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/loc/washington.html<br /><br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com