tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post6196382412184683694..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-56793846724658726302008-11-30T00:44:00.000-05:002008-11-30T00:44:00.000-05:00Jon,What a bizarre post from you. Do you really m...Jon,<BR/><BR/>What a bizarre post from you. Do you really misunderstand me so completely? I doubt it. You can't afford to admit what I'm saying, so you pretend to argue against me while really addressing a phantom of your own making, rather as you deal with Barton.<BR/><BR/>First of all, you do realize, don't you, that for the historical question that we are discussing, it is not the opinion of "orthodox Christian theologians" that matters, but rather the standard appropriate for historians of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>I've cited Pelikan, but I could add Kung, Latourette, and McManners (limiting myself to authors within arms' reach as I type this). By the standards of any serious history of Christianity that you care to name, heretics like Arius were Christian, despite not being orthodox. "Orthodox Christian" is not a redundant expression, it is an expression that picks out a subgroup among Christians.<BR/><BR/>I have no interest in knowing of "theologically-politically conservative Christians who define 'Christianity' with orthodox Christian doctrine and define unorthodox groups like the Mormons 'outside' of the definition of Christianity". Don't put words in my mouth.<BR/><BR/>I have no issue with the quotes that you muster, except to point out that they conflate christianity with their varying versions of orthodoxy, positions that are fine for anyone within a Christian community looking to judge his fellow men. From a sectarian standpoint, you get no bonus points for being a Christian if you fail to achieve salvation, and next to salvation (or lack thereof) nothing else matters, so the only relevant definition of "Christian" to a sectarian is whatever it takes to achieve salvation, which is orthodoxy at least, and probably more (varies by denomination).<BR/><BR/>This is fine, as I have told you before, for sectarian squabbles, but not for the historian. 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. In order to defend the position you are wedded to, you have to cling to an unhistorical definition of "Christianity", and furthermore you have to pretend, against contrary evidence, that your opponents (like Barton) cling to that same unhistorical definition, when in fact they don't (for historical purposes).<BR/><BR/>BTW, in closing, your "bright, young, orthodox Christian missionary" is incoherent in the passage you cite. Of course orthodoxy is Christianity, it is the converse that is in question. Why didn't you catch this obvious error yourself before endorsing the quote? Jon, I am confident that you are smarter than you present yourself to be.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.com