Historic Christianity

[Jon]

[Friends: This is from my latest blog post and I hope it helps us to
better understand where I am coming from.]

I often use the phrase “historic Christianity” to denote longstanding
traditional orthodox Christianity. Note this tradition goes back
thousands of years; if something occurred in Christendom, for
instance, 150 years ago, I consider it relatively “novel” looking back
at the big historical picture. I also understand there is a long
tradition in Christianity of heresy and dissent (prompting orthodox
Christians to reply: “This isn’t ‘historic Christianity’”). And I have
no personal problem with theologically liberal, unorthodox and
heretical faiths (indeed were I to become a Christian it would
probably be that kind; and then the orthodox could tell me, “no, you
really aren’t a Christian”).

I especially try to remove 20-21 Century, and even late 18th Century
cultural “prejudices” when examining “historic Christianity.” Doing so
permits me to conclude that much of what the American Founders claimed
to do under the auspices of Christianity is either incompatible with
such, or, at the very least had an alien origin. For instance, Locke’s
a-biblical, perhaps anti-biblical notion of the “state of nature” was
preached from Christian pulpits during the Founding era to justify
revolt. Similarly, today the Christian pulpit might lecture on the
need for “self-esteem,” which is either a) anti-biblical (I thought
Christians were supposed to despise themselves as wretched sinners) or
b) at the very least, not of “biblical” origin and thus, not part of
“historic Christianity.”

I’ve further concluded that America’s key Founders [Washington, J.
Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and others] either outright
rejected doctrines central to historic Christianity [Jefferson, J.
Adams, & Franklin] or showed no convincing evidence of believing in
them [Washington & Madison]. These doctrines include original sin, the
trinity, the incarnation, the atonement, eternal damnation, and the
infallibility of the Bible. They were, in short, “heterodox” not
“orthodox.” The orthodox considered this system [which oft-presented
itself under the label of "Christianity"] “heresy” at best,
“infidelity” at worst. Whether these key Founders who tended to
consider themselves “Christians” [not "Deists"] qualify as such
remains a matter of debate.

So with that, we have Founding Father Benjamin Rush, a man who once
described his religion as “a compound of the orthodoxy and heterodoxy
of most of our Christian churches.” You see, as far as I know, he
remained orthodox on matters like the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement,
and infallibility of the Bible [don't know where he stood on original
sin and know he rejected "total depravity"] but he converted from
Calvinism to Arminianism and then to theological Universalism
believing all eventually would be saved. Yet, because Rush remained
orthodox in his Christology, he arguably merits the label “Christian”
more so than do the other above mentioned “key Founders.”

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

That's quite a mouthful you said there.

I'd like to continue the debate about GW being a Christian, and other
important topics.

But I want to do it in such a way that we won't be wasting each
other's
time, hence I'll be asking lots of hypothetical questions (you'll see
what I
mean).

But I'm extremely busy with school; it might be a month before I
continue.

Though Jon, again. I hope your reasons are good into believing in the
things
that you say.
In other wards, I hope you are merely being honest about the history,
and
not biased about the history to convince us into believing a distorted
version.

I hope you want us to believe in the most accurate history. In fact,
if
that's true, you should have no hesitation to say so.

Is this correct? (a hypothetical question)

-NVS

[Jon]

Yes absolutely on my honor as a gentleman.

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Good. I like your elegant response. :)