Originally posted by TexasSky:
We'll be known by our fruits.
Yes, we will. But visibility of fruit, or the lack of fruit, does is not litmus for a determining a person's salvation. Saved people produce bad or no fruit all the time. Unsaved people often produce fruit that one would expect a saved person to produce.
George Washington attended a Christian church when he attended church. In fact, history records that he helped build that church. Nelly said that it was wrong to question his faith.
His church attendence and faithfulness in his younger years is not in dispute. Likewise, Peter Jennings' church attendence and faithfulness in his younger years is likewise not in dispute. Yet one is being called a Christian, another is not.
As for Nelly's comments, she did not say it was wrong to question his faith. Look at the whole letter in its full context. She said that when she was young, it would never have occurred to her that his faith was even in question. It was only to his early years that she was attesting to. She as not attesting to his later years. It is accurate to say that, while Washington was probably a Christian, evidence to support that is lacking.
Its clear from the writings that are not disputed, that he believed in "a supreme being". The disputed writings indicate a believe in Christ.
There are no disputed writings. The "Washington prayer book" was not written by him. It's not in his handwriting, and not even his grammer and composition. That's a cold hard fact.
Now, in his writings, there are only a few references to God. There is no doubt that he was a Deist. No one has questioned this. However, references to God in his writings are very few in comparison to the quantity of his writings.
Yet - people try desperately to say, "Don't call him a Christian!" And they use the same arguements that most athiests use.
No one here has said this. You have put words in other peoples' mouths. What people have said is that, while it's a strong possibility that he was a man of Christian faith, the evidence for him being so is lacking.
I want to know why Christians try so hard to point to men that for about 150 years, the world accepted as Christian witnesses and examples, and now go, "Don't! Better the world think he is secular."
I wasn't aware that the world thought of him as a Christian for 150 years. If the definition of a Christian was a churchgoer, then sure, he fits. If, however, the definition is being born again, the evidence is lacking. Simply visit any thread about church attendence and affiliation on this site, and you'll find a lot of people that don't equate salvation with church attendance.
WHY is it better for the world to believe that great men did not love and respect Jesus Christ?
No one here has said that. We've simply said that, while he might have been, the evidence is lacking.
