What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[Vance]

Technically you are right so far, at least as far as I can tell from the one video I have seen.

Uh oh. Now we are about to get an interpretation as opposed to what is actually said...

But that is not at all what he says. Again, I do not have a complete transcript of the entire video, but what he says is "The way I know Christianity is true is first and foremost by the witness of the Holy Spirit- it is self authenticating wholly apart from evidence" He in fact says that evidence is secondary to the Witness of the Holy Spirit, and that the HS gives "every generation and person immediate access independent of historical contingency". He further says that we should foster a Witness of the HS so that when we hit the "shifting sands of evidence" we will not have a "shipwreck". Reason may play A role but it is not the CENTRAL role- he says that every doubt is ultimately a spiritual doubt, and implies that doubt comes from Satan. If doubt comes from Satan, certainty can only come from God, not evidence.

It now appears that you are acknowledging at least that the witness of the spirit is "useful" in showing Christianity is true, but it still appears you have missed a step.

Putting "faith in Christ" means you already ARE a Christian, and so you want to repent, be regenerated etc. But why should we put our "faith in Christ" in the first place? There must first be some of stirring- some kind of feeling in the heart that there "must be something to this"- or as Craig says something "self authenticating apart from the evidence" that Jesus is WORTHY of faith. What's that song you sing? "He is WORTHY"? That can only be known by spiritual witness according to Craig.

No, that is circular.You are saying essentially that one must be a "believer" BEFORE one gets the witness of the spirit. That is not at all what is being said- he is saying that the witness of the spirit is fundamental to becoming a Christian in the first place. THIS is exactly the point of disagreement between what Mormons are telling you, and I think what Craig is saying vs. what you are saying.

One must NOT be a Christian first to receive the witness- the witness is fundamental to becoming Christian in the first place. THAT is what Craig is actually saying.

Again, that is very clearly circular. He does not say that the self authenticating experience happens AFTER one is a Christian, because that does not make sense.

Listen to yourself! It's a circular "catch 22"! You can't have the witness until you are Christian- but if you are a Christian you don't need it- that is what you are saying!!

You are just again reaffirming the same circularity- this is not what Craig is saying at all!!

You think you are not, but in fact you are because of the "catch 22" you put on receiving it. You cannot get it prior to becoming Christian, and it is a mistake to seek it after becoming a Christian. That means there is no time in which it is appropriate to receive the witness. Surely that is tantamount to a denial of it being useful at all.

Then how does it "exist"?? If a witness is not something a person needs or should seek- what good is it?? This is a far cry from Craig's saying that it is "fundamental" to a Christian knowing that Christianity is true- one of the first lines in the video.

You are saying essentially that no one should seek guidance from God, because it is either impossible BEFORE one is a Christian and a "mistake" afterwards.

Yet Craig says

"The way I know Christianity is true is first and foremost by the witness of the Holy Spirit- it is self authenticating apart from the evidence"

And yet, one cannot pray to receive a witness.

Excellent analysis!

Isn't there something in the Bible about being prohibited to pray about things?

Well, there are these,

Luke 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Eph. 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

But I think you are thinking about this one,

2 Ne. 32:8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.

He says to take doubts to God in prayer (around minute 2:46) and that one's faith should not be based on the "shifting sands of evidence" whereas "the Holy Spirit gives every generation and person immediate access independent of historical contingency" and he affirms that doubt is ultimately a spiritual problem.

Per your opinion of what he is saying- yet of course you cannot receive that witness before you are a Christian, or seek it aftwards. It is clear to me that this is not what he is saying at all. For me, this is good news. Craig makes sense to me- you don't. That means that Evangelicalism is not as bad as you paint it. You should get out of the apologetics business- I think you are doing Evangelical doctrine a disservice

MFB, we both know Bowman's real mission here, and it isn't "apologetics".

Edited August 24, 2011 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

Excellent analysis!

Well, there are these,

Luke 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Eph. 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

But I think you are thinking about this one,

2 Ne. 32:8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.

MFB, we both know Bowman's real mission here, and it isn't "apologetics".

What is curious is that it is so clear that he disagrees with Craig, but doesn't appear to be aware of it.

I have no problem what Craig actually says in that video

Actually, that scripture I think was this one- I just remembered it "backwards"

Matt 21

22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Bowman would interpret that "believing in Christ" - but I take it to mean "believing you will receive an answer". Either way, it clearly says that we CAN seek revelation - I don't think it means if we want a new car Christ will give us one- so clearly it means revelation.

Certainly that is NOT saying that it is a mistake to ask for revelation in prayer- or it would say "All things, except personal revelation, whatsoever you shall ask in prayer, believing, as long as you are a Christian and not asking for a witness of the spirit, ye shall receive"

Now of all these points we have brought up, the usual pattern would be for our friend to answer one or two by misinterpreting the criticism, and leaving the rest.

Let's see what happens.

Of course he might not respond at all- and that would actually be ok with me. His inconsistency can be left just as it is for all I care.

Edited August 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

It would be better to pray something like this: "God, if the Book of Mormon is true, I want to know it; and if it's false, I want to know that, too. Please help me to understand the issues and to see the Book of Mormon for what it really is. If you do want to give me a revelation that the Book of Mormon is true, I'm open to that, but if that isn't your will I'm open to learning in any way that honors you."

This might be a place to start, but at what point does such a person ask God whether his conclusions are correct? To continue in this vein is contrary to James 1:5-8. It is like saying, “If I’m not doing right by God, or if I persist in the wrong direction, or misinterpreting the Bible as my standard, or neglecting the promptings of the Spirit, I have faith that God will stop me, and I will persist until He does.” This seems to be tempting God in a bad way and smacks of double-mindedness, being lukewarm and seeking a sign. It is a very distanced connection with Him who sees the reins of the heart.

[mfbukowski]

It would be better to pray something like this: "God, if the Book of Mormon is true, I want to know it; and if it's false, I want to know that, too. Please help me to understand the issues and to see the Book of Mormon for what it really is. If you do want to give me a revelation that the Book of Mormon is true, I'm open to that, but if that isn't your will I'm open to learning in any way that honors you." Then we should study the issues, test the Book of Mormon according to the biblical standards for testing anything that purports to be revelation from God, and stay determined to put knowing God's truth above personal comfort, human relationships, or anything else.

Yet according to you it would be wrong to do so before we were Christians, and after, it would be a mistake to do so.

So no, we can't even do that.

[Mudcat]

Since this thread has gone down yet another trail of "how do you know your revelations are from God and not Satan?" I will start another thread for Evangelicals to compare and contrast their beliefs with the Latter-day Saints.

DG, you do have the power to close a thread if you feel it's gone awry. I don't exercise this much myself. I suppose I let em die like old soldiers for the most part. But the liberty to kill your own thread is possibly new to you, so I thought I would make you aware.

I figure I am dealing myself out on this one. But for the record it was a good thread. I enjoyed the discussion.

I will say, and I might be alone on this, but Rob Bowman has impressed me . I have encountered him in passing on other threads but haven't paid much attention in general. Very tenacious man of faith, well informed and articulate. Reminds me of an LDS poster that had similar attributes. This other fellow posted on EV forum and I hold a good deal of respect for him as well, for similar reasons.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited August 25, 2011 by Mudcat

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

This is hilarious!

The central criticism you make in your post is that I disagree with William Lane Craig and take an incoherent position regarding when the witness of the Holy Spirit is obtained. Your claim is that Craig thinks that one obtains this witness before coming to faith in Jesus Christ, while, you say, I think that one obtains this witness only after coming to faith in Christ -- when, you contend, it is no longer needed.

Thus, you wrote:

Putting "faith in Christ" means you already ARE a Christian, and so you want to repent, be regenerated etc. But why should we put our "faith in Christ" in the first place? There must first be some of stirring- some kind of feeling in the heart that there "must be something to this"- or as Craig says something "self authenticating apart from the evidence" that Jesus is WORTHY of faith. What's that song you sing? "He is WORTHY"? That can only be known by spiritual witness according to Craig....

No, that is circular.You are saying essentially that one must be a "believer" BEFORE one gets the witness of the spirit. That is not at all what is being said- he is saying that the witness of the spirit is fundamental to becoming a Christian in the first place. THIS is exactly the point of disagreement between what Mormons are telling you, and I think what Craig is saying vs. what you are saying....

One must NOT be a Christian first to receive the witness- the witness is fundamental to becoming Christian in the first place. THAT is what Craig is actually saying....

Again, that is very clearly circular. He does not say that the self authenticating experience happens AFTER one is a Christian, because that does not make sense....

Listen to yourself! It's a circular "catch 22"! You can't have the witness until you are Christian- but if you are a Christian you don't need it- that is what you are saying!!...

You are just again reaffirming the same circularity- this is not what Craig is saying at all!!...

You think you are not, but in fact you are because of the "catch 22" you put on receiving it. You cannot get it prior to becoming Christian, and it is a mistake to seek it after becoming a Christian. That means there is no time in which it is appropriate to receive the witness. Surely that is tantamount to a denial of it being useful at all....

You are saying essentially that no one should seek guidance from God, because it is either impossible BEFORE one is a Christian and a "mistake" afterwards.

This is all baloney. First, let's address your misunderstanding of Craig's position. Craig says that the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit is how he, as a Christian, knows (present tense) that Christianity is true. He never says that it is something he prayed for and got before becoming a Christian that convinced him to become one. For example, you quote him as saying:

"The way I know Christianity is true is first and foremost by the witness of the Holy Spirit- it is self authenticating apart from the evidence."

Notice the present-tense "I know," meaning that this is how he, as a Christian, knows that Christianity is true.

There is a sense in which for Craig, as for me, the witness of the Spirit precedes a person's coming to faith, but you have completely misunderstood what that sense is.

By the way, you don't know this, but not only do I know Bill personally, but I am a leading evangelical scholar in this whole subject area of faith and reason. I am the co-author of Faith Has Its Reasons, a 650-page textbook on apologetic theory and methods that has been used in a good number of evangelical college, university, and seminary courses. The book is in its second edition. It won the Gold Medallion Award in 2002 (an evangelical book publishing award). It was endorsed by such evangelicals as Charles Colson, John Warwick Montgomery, and John Frame. It includes a profile of the views of Craig on faith and reason. I have read more than half a dozen of Craig's books and a large number of his essays and periodical articles, listened to his debates, and again spoken with him personally as a colleague and friend.

Now let's deal with your hilarious hatchet job on my view. I do not at all deny that the Holy Spirit is at work in a person before he becomes a believer in Jesus Christ. This work of the Holy Spirit is vital to a person's coming to believe. The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. He also testifies to or witnesses to Christ, and in this sense the "witness of the Spirit" comes to a person while he is still in the process of moving from unbelief to faith in Christ. That is, the witness of the Spirit is a dynamic reality, not a single experience that -- whoosh! -- one "gets" at a particular moment in time. But once that Spirit-impelled process is complete and the individual has become spiritually alive and is a genuine believer in Christ, that individual is permanently indwelled by the Spirit, sealed as a member of Christ's body, and from then on has the "witness of the Spirit" as a permanent reality effective in his life. It is in that condition that the witness of the Spirit is, for the believer, a "self-authenticating" witness that provides an assurance of the gospel that transcends an individual's changing, contingent knowledge of the evidence and arguments pertaining to all of the various questions that come up with regard to the truth of the Bible. To characterize me as saying that you can't get this "witness" until after it is not needed is simply ridiculous. The unbeliever could not become a believer without the dynamic witness of the Spirit moving him from unbelief to faith, and a believer is in constant need of the abiding, permanent, internal witness of the Spirit, since the believer is constantly bombarded with temptations and other factors that would otherwise foster doubt and unbelief. But this witness functions as "self-authenticating" for the believer, not for an unbeliever. It is neither something an unbeliever is supposed to seek so he can become a believer, not something a believer then needs to seek to be added to his religious experience. It is something that moves a person from unbelief to belief and seals him in the assurance of faith in God's merciful grace and love in Christ alone. You can't be a Christian (in the spiritual sense) without it.

You wrote:

And yet, one cannot pray to receive a witness.

Isn't there something in the Bible about being prohibited to pray about things?

How many times have I specifically and explicitly said that I am not prohibiting or discouraging anyone from praying about anything?! What is the explanation for your persistence in perpetuating this misrepresentation of my position?

Praying about something is not the same as praying to receive something.

Ask God for anything you like, but don't expect to get it if it isn't "according to his will" (1 John 5:14-15). That text proves that there are some prayers that are inappropriate, not because it is wrong to pray about some things but because there are wrong ways to pray about things.

[Vance]

Ask God for anything you like, but don't expect to get it if it isn't "according to his will" (1 John 5:14-15). That text proves that there are some prayers that are inappropriate, not because it is wrong to pray about some things but because there are wrong ways to pray about things.

"according to his will" as in coming to the knowledge of the truth of the testament of Jesus Christ known as The Book of Mormon?

Edited August 25, 2011 by Vance

[KevinG]

see last post

Edited August 25, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

see next post (I really shouldn't think out loud as I type).

Edited August 25, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

Rob,

We keep going round the pole on this discussion and I think I have a question that will help me understand the Evangelical approach to receiving revelation or divine guidance on important topics.

1. Is there any way God would verify or deny through a witness of the Holy Spirit the claim that the Book of Mormon is indeed another Testament of Jesus Christ?

2. If yes then what is the proper form to ask God to verify that claim by the power of the Holy Spirit?

Your answer will help me understand the distinction between an Evangelical testimony and the Mormon testimony.

Thanks!

Edited August 25, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

I'm sorry, but I don't feel inclined to continue discussions with individuals who make such unwarranted judgments about whether I have answered a question honestly.

I removed the language you found offensive and I hope to receive further responses from you on this subject.

[KevinG]

Bump - good morning everyone!

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

I removed the language you found offensive and I hope to receive further responses from you on this subject.

Thanks. My day has been and will be especially full, so there will be a delay in responding.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Thanks. My day has been and will be especially full, so there will be a delay in responding.

Thanks- I noticed you were deep into other discussions and I know how the board vs. real life works. I will be patient and look forward to your views.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

This is hilarious!

Look Rob, let me be totally honest with you. I was going to spend some time going over your posts finding what I saw as inconsistencies in your explanations of Craig, what he said, what you said etc etc but then I realized that this doesn't amount to a hill of beans in discussing. I don't care what books you have written or who you know, and I won't respond in kind- because you know nothing about me personally.

It is all just chest pounding and bovine leftovers ultimately, but what I really want to know from you is if your view makes sense at all, and so far I have yet to see the light of even a consistent statement of exactly how it is that 1- the Moroni 10:4 experience relates to how your perception of a witness of the Holy Spirit and 2- how you see that an altar call experience of an Evangelical differs from the Moroni 10:4 experience.

Here is the way I see the Moroni experience, and would compare it to the altar call experience

1- "An inkling" that something is amiss in one's life- call it a conviction of sin- that works for me too- an idea that one's life is "incomplete" or something lacking- just a feeling of emptiness that is waiting to be filled.

2- "A seeking" for what is missing- or a solution to how one can feel/be forgiven for one's sins- the need for something to "explain" why we are here on earth- a search for meaning.

3- "A possible finding of the answer" This for a Mormon would be receiving the Book of Mormon, perhaps reading some of it, or contemplating the idea of how reasonable the plates and angels are, etc. Perhaps for an Evangelical, it would be finding a Bible and doing some reading, for both groups perhaps finding a friend and asking them about church etc.

4- "An invitation" this for a Mormon could be reading Moroni 10:4-5, or perhaps a missionary's challenge etc. For an Evangelical in an altar call setting, it might be a pastor calling them up to the altar to say the "salvation prayer" and be saved etc.

5- "Action". The person responds and prays about the Book of Mormon, goes forward for the altar call, prays the salvation prayer, etc

6- "Some kind of experience"- confirmation by the Holy Ghost- a "witness" whatever you want to call it, that the action was God's will for that person- possibly Craig's "witness" or a Mormon "burning of bosom"

7- "Further confirmation/ investigation" more steps and further witnesses, perhaps baptism, more instruction and reading etc.

Now I will ask you to please explain your position on these steps and how one correctly (according to you receives a true "witness" of the Holy Ghost. I will go through your post and guess about how you might see the stages above in relation to your posts- of course I am bound to not get it right.

I do not at all deny that the Holy Spirit is at work in a person before he becomes a believer in Jesus Christ. This work of the Holy Spirit is vital to a person's coming to believe. The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. He also testifies to or witnesses to Christ, and in this sense the "witness of the Spirit" comes to a person while he is still in the process of moving from unbelief to faith in Christ.

Now how does this relate to step number 3- a "seeking for answers"? I suppose that you would not regard that as "seeking for a witness" however? What steps would be included in having the Holy Spirit "at work in a person before he becomes a believer in Jesus Christ"?

That is, the witness of the Spirit is a dynamic reality, not a single experience that -- whoosh! -- one "gets" at a particular moment in time.

Not even in an altar call? At what moment is a person "saved"? I have heard individuals say "I know the day and time I was saved!" How does this relate to that?

But once that Spirit-impelled process is complete and the individual has become spiritually alive and is a genuine believer in Christ, that individual is permanently indwelled by the Spirit, sealed as a member of Christ's body, and from then on has the "witness of the Spirit" as a permanent reality effective in his life.

This has a remarkable similarity to what we call receiving the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" and I especially like the notion of being "sealed as a member of Christ's body". That is what we regard as "Confirmation" when one becomes a full member of the church.

It is in that condition that the witness of the Spirit is, for the believer, a "self-authenticating" witness that provides an assurance of the gospel that transcends an individual's changing, contingent knowledge of the evidence and arguments pertaining to all of the various questions that come up with regard to the truth of the Bible. To characterize me as saying that you can't get this "witness" until after it is not needed is simply ridiculous.

Well I thought that was what you were saying-

The unbeliever could not become a believer without the dynamic witness of the Spirit moving him from unbelief to faith, and a believer is in constant need of the abiding, permanent, internal witness of the Spirit, since the believer is constantly bombarded with temptations and other factors that would otherwise foster doubt and unbelief. But this witness functions as "self-authenticating" for the believer, not for an unbeliever.

Uh oh, you're confusing me again. So there are two witnesses? The "dynamic witness" which is NOT self authenticating? And then the "self authenticating" witness AFTER one is a "believer"?

How does one tell the difference between the "dynamic" and the "self authenticating" witness?

If the dynamic witness is not self authenticating- how could one EVER be sure that they were making the right decision? You mean that the first witness is provisional? You mean that it parallels exactly our concept of the difference between the "vistation" of the Holy Ghost, and the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" which means that the Spirit takes up residence with the person, unless he through sin etc "chases away" the Spirit.

I don't see the difference.

It is neither something an unbeliever is supposed to seek so he can become a believer, not something a believer then needs to seek to be added to his religious experience. It is something that moves a person from unbelief to belief and seals him in the assurance of faith in God's merciful grace and love in Christ alone. You can't be a Christian (in the spiritual sense) without it.

I must confess I find this tremendously confusing, but I am not very bright, as you are fond of pointing out. Can you help me with this?

How many times have I specifically and explicitly said that I am not prohibiting or discouraging anyone from praying about anything?! What is the explanation for your persistence in perpetuating this misrepresentation of my position?

Golly I'm not sure how many times. Should I count? I was confused by your saying that one should not seek the witness of the spirit, but I am still confused by how you cannot be a Christian without the witness and yet you shouldn't seek it. I suppose that is the two different witness right? Exactly like how we believe in the "visitation" of the Spirit vs. the Gift of the Holy Ghost- right?

Praying about something is not the same as praying to receive something.

So Christians do not pray to receive answers about where to live, who to marry, etc? That's funny because I have heard that a lot on Christian boards and from friends.

Ask God for anything you like, but don't expect to get it if it isn't "according to his will" (1 John 5:14-15). That text proves that there are some prayers that are inappropriate, not because it is wrong to pray about some things but because there are wrong ways to pray about things.

¹⁴And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: ¹⁵And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Gosh, that's funny, it sure seems to me that it's saying that we can have confidence that if we ask ANYTHING we can be sure that he heard us and he has given us what we desired regardless of if we immediately understand that or not.

Silly me. Where's the part about the "wrong way to pray about things"? I guess I missed that part.

If you can, please answer all the questions because I really want the answers and will continue to repeat them until you at least take a shot at them ok? I am not saying I will agree, but if you even say "I don't know" I won't bug you about it.

Edited August 25, 2011 by mfbukowski

[jo1952]

Look Rob, let me be totally honest with you. I was going to spend some time going over your posts finding what I saw as inconsistencies in your explanations of Craig, what he said, what you said etc etc but then I realized that this doesn't amount to a hill of beans in discussing. I don't care what books you have written or who you know, and I won't respond in kind- because you know nothing about me personally.

It is all just chest pounding and bovine leftovers ultimately, but what I really want to know from you is if your view makes sense at all, and so far I have yet to see the light of even a consistent statement of exactly how it is that 1- the Moroni 10:4 experience relates to how your perception of a witness of the Holy Spirit and 2- how you see that an altar call experience of an Evangelical differs from the Moroni 10:4 experience.

Here is the way I see the Moroni experience, and would compare it to the altar call experience

1- "An inkling" that something is amiss in one's life- call it a conviction of sin- that works for me too- an idea that one's life is "incomplete" or something lacking- just a feeling of emptiness that is waiting to be filled.

2- "A seeking" for what is missing- or a solution to how one can feel/be forgiven for one's sins- the need for something to "explain" why we are here on earth- a search for meaning.

3- "A possible finding of the answer" This for a Mormon would be receiving the Book of Mormon, perhaps reading some of it, or contemplating the idea of how reasonable the plates and angels are, etc. Perhaps for an Evangelical, it would be finding a Bible and doing some reading, for both groups perhaps finding a friend and asking them about church etc.

4- "An invitation" this for a Mormon could be reading Moroni 10:4-5, or perhaps a missionary's challenge etc. For an Evangelical in an altar call setting, it might be a pastor calling them up to the altar to say the "salvation prayer" and be saved etc.

5- "Action". The person responds and prays about the Book of Mormon, goes forward for the altar call, prays the salvation prayer, etc

6- "Some kind of experience"- confirmation by the Holy Ghost- a "witness" whatever you want to call it, that the action was God's will for that person- possibly Craig's "witness" or a Mormon "burning of bosom"

7- "Further confirmation/ investigation" more steps and further witnesses, perhaps baptism, more instruction and reading etc.

I have to leave for a moment- to be continued in a bit

Well done MF! I put him on ignore several days ago, and at least for the time being, will not be responding to Rob. Nonetheless, I can still read his comments through your posts and the posts of others. Your tenacity is admirable; and for what it is worth, I think your points are right on the money. I don't know if your efforts are going to get you anywhere, as we can only do so much. Jesus taught the following:

Matthew 15:12-14 (emphasis added)

12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Regards,

jo

[mfbukowski]

Thanks. My day has been and will be especially full, so there will be a delay in responding.

No problem- take your time. But eventually I would appreciate answers, even if in several posts a bit at a time would be fine with me.

Thanks

[KevinG]

I'm begginging to see how that whole ecumenical conference thing went down in 400A.D. and why they locked the heretics out of the conference.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Rob,

We keep going round the pole on this discussion and I think I have a question that will help me understand the Evangelical approach to receiving revelation or divine guidance on important topics.

1. Is there any way God would verify or deny through a witness of the Holy Spirit the claim that the Book of Mormon is indeed another Testament of Jesus Christ?

2. If yes then what is the proper form to ask God to verify that claim by the power of the Holy Spirit?

Your answer will help me understand the distinction between an Evangelical testimony and the Mormon testimony.

Thanks!

I'm honestly not sure what your first question means. Are you asking if it is possible that God would give such a witness of the Holy Spirit?

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

I'm honestly not sure what your first question means. Are you asking if it is possible that God would give such a witness of the Holy Spirit?

Yes. (is it within the scope of what you feel God would do through the Holy Spirit).

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

Your question is difficult to answer with a simple "yes" or "no," as I shall try to explain.

What do we mean in the first place by a "witness of the Spirit"? By this expression one might mean overt verbal revelations, spiritual intuitions, miraculous occurrences, providential occurrences, an inner peace, a sense of assurance, or perhaps something else. In my view the witness of the Spirit is a subjective experience of assurance or confidence in God's redeeming grace and love in Christ alone. But I think what you want to know is whether, in addition to this normative work of the Spirit, I would agree that it might be possible that God might provide some sort of spiritual or supernatural indication to an individual regarding the truth or falsity of the Book of Mormon. You then want to know whether I would agree that it might be permissible or proper to request such a spiritual or supernatural indication pertaining to that question.

The issue certainly isn't whether God has the capacity or ability to provide such a "witness." God could cause the letters The Book of Mormon is God's word to appear in the sky if he wanted. Nothing I say should be construed to mean that I doubt God's ability to communicate with us anything he wishes at any time and in any way he wishes. The issue is also not whether we should pray about the Book of Mormon. I think we should pray about anything of such religious or spiritual significance.

One problem with your line of questioning (assuming I've understood your intent correctly) is that any answer one might give to it would not be relevant to Moroni 10:4, which asserts not merely that it is possible that God might provide such a witness but that the reader ought to request it and God promises to give it. Supposing for the sake of argument that it is possible that God might be willing to provide such a witness at least in some instances (to some people), it does not follow that God will do so whenever someone requests it and meets the conditions specified in Moroni 10:4.

A hidden assumption at work here, I think, is that anyone receiving a spiritual or miraculous indication that appears to that individual to provide an answer to the question about the Book of Mormon's truth should regard that "witness" as sufficient in and of itself to settle the matter. I have heard conflicting (or at least potentially conflicting) comments from Mormons on this point. Some Mormons seem to regard the "witness" they have received as definitive in and of itself, needing no other support or confirmation. Other Mormons seem to take the view that the "witness" they have received is not the sole way of knowing the truth about the Book of Mormon, but has its significance in the context of personal study, searching, and reflection. A spiritual intuition or sense concerning something like the Book of Mormon might be a place to start, or it might be a place to arrive at the end of a searching process, or it might be something that arises in the course of one's search for the truth. These varying hypothetical possibilities make a simple Yes or No answer to your question problematic.

I know evangelicals who have had all sorts of experiences with the Book of Mormon. Some evangelical Christians have testified that when they started reading the Book of Mormon they quickly had a spiritual intuition that it was not from God (they use different wordings to express this idea). Other evangelical Christians say they read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it, and believe that God made it clear to them (in some inner, spiritual way) that the Book of Mormon was not true. Other evangelicals have read it, prayed about it, and reported feeling or sensing nothing at all. Of course, on the other side, some people from evangelical churches or other denominations have read the Book of Mormon and report receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true; these individuals give this report as part of their story of converting to the LDS faith. But then there are the many Mormons who grew up in the LDS faith and have not experienced this "witness," even though they have read the Book of Mormon many times and prayed to receive that witness. In short, reported experiences in regard to the Moroni 10:4 promise are all over the map. This fact leads me to conclude that at most a spiritual experience regarding the Book of Mormon, yea or nay, might be regarded as something to be taken into consideration, but not as something that definitively settles the question of whether the Book of Mormon is true. Even if some individuals have such spiritual experiences, it is all too easy to misinterpret such spiritual experiences or to be deceived by them. Again, that doesn't mean all such experiences are bad; it means that not all such experiences are good, even if they seem good.

My own position is that the Moroni 10:4 promise cannot be a valid promise from God. I have more than one reason for this conclusion.

(1) Even assuming for the sake of argument that God might make such a promise with regard to some book, it is clear to me from the factual evidence that this is not actually the case with the Book of Mormon. Of course, the factual issues are many and in some cases complex, but I honestly think the evidence is clearly and compellingly against the Book of Mormon being what it purports to be.

(2) The Moroni 10:4 promise is out of sync with what I find in the Bible, where people are consistently directed to apply objective tests to alleged revelations and not to base their acceptance or rejection of such alleged revelations on subjective experiences. The Bible teaches that false revelations will be known by the failure of their predictive prophecies, their representations of false deities, their denial of fundamental truths about Christ, and so forth. These are objective, publicly accessible standards, not inner subjective experiences or spiritual intuitions. Individuals may have such experiences or intuitions, but these are not supposed to be the basis for public acceptance or rejection of alleged revelations.

(3) At least some evangelical Christians who have faith in Jesus Christ have read the Book of Mormon, really wanted to know if it was true, prayed for God to guide them in coming to know if it was true, and concluded that God made it clear to them that it was not true. Since these individuals satisfied all of the conditions of Moroni 10:4 but did not receive the answer promised, their experiences count against the truth of that promise and therefore against the truth of the Book of Mormon.

In my view, the first two reasons are the main reasons for rejecting the claims of the Book of Mormon. The third reason is supplementary and is less compelling in my opinion, but nonetheless significant because it is directly relevant to the truth of Moroni 10:4.

I am far more interested in the concrete issue of whether the Moroni 10:4 promise is a genuine promise from God than I am in the purely hypothetical, vague, and open-ended question of whether it is possible or conceivable that God might under some circumstances give some unspecified sort of spiritual experience to some people indicative of the truth or falsity of some alleged revelation like the Book of Mormon. All sorts of things are possible or conceivable that are not actual or valid real-world truths.

[CV75]

(1) Even assuming for the sake of argument that God might make such a promise with regard to some book, it is clear to me from the factual evidence that this is not actually the case with the Book of Mormon. Of course, the factual issues are many and in some cases complex, but I honestly think the evidence is clearly and compellingly against the Book of Mormon being what it purports to be.

(2) The Moroni 10:4 promise is out of sync with what I find in the Bible, where people are consistently directed to apply objective tests to alleged revelations and not to base their acceptance or rejection of such alleged revelations on subjective experiences. The Bible teaches that false revelations will be known by the failure of their predictive prophecies, their representations of false deities, their denial of fundamental truths about Christ, and so forth. These are objective, publicly accessible standards, not inner subjective experiences or spiritual intuitions. Individuals may have such experiences or intuitions, but these are not supposed to be the basis for public acceptance or rejection of alleged revelations.

(3) At least some evangelical Christians who have faith in Jesus Christ have read the Book of Mormon, really wanted to know if it was true, prayed for God to guide them in coming to know if it was true, and concluded that God made it clear to them that it was not true. Since these individuals satisfied all of the conditions of Moroni 10:4 but did not receive the answer promised, their experiences count against the truth of that promise and therefore against the truth of the Book of Mormon.

In my view, the first two reasons are the main reasons for rejecting the claims of the Book of Mormon. The third reason is supplementary and is less compelling in my opinion, but nonetheless significant because it is directly relevant to the truth of Moroni 10:4.

I am far more interested in the concrete issue of whether the Moroni 10:4 promise is a genuine promise from God

RE: the 3 reasons for Moroni's Promise not being valid:

(1) This is an instance of refusing spiritual truth on the basis of temporal evidence, which is discussed often.

(2) This is one subjective and selective interpretation of the Bible.

(3) There is no evidence that such individuals satisfied all the conditions of Moroni 10:3-8. For some, at some point an interest becomes so important that it moves beyond a scholarly or religious pursuit related to a belief in Christ and requires faith in Christ for a spiritual solution.

[mfbukowski]

The Bible teaches that false revelations will be known by the failure of their predictive prophecies, their representations of false deities, their denial of fundamental truths about Christ, and so forth. These are objective, publicly accessible standards, not inner subjective experiences or spiritual intuitions. Individuals may have such experiences or intuitions, but these are not supposed to be the basis for public acceptance or rejection of alleged revelations.

Unfortunately, they are not "objective, publicly accessible standards". If that were true, every scientist in the world would be an Evangelical Christian.

They appear to you to be that way because of your cultural biases. There is no way to know the Bible or Christianity is true without a spiritual witness first. There is no objective evidence whatsoever that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world.

[Storm Rider]

I believe the Bible is replete with counsel to follow the Spirit and that it is the final, complete, total conviction of faith to follow Christ and learn of him and this gospel. When Jesus asked Peter who he was and Peter was able to directly report that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus' words in reply set the standard for all witnesses of him, "Blessed art though Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven."

I believe that God is the source of all truth and no truth exists that did not come from him. Of course, we should appeal to him to know the truth of all things; it is his Spirit that is the final arbiter of all truth. I would no more rest my faith on the arm of flesh or solely on the understanding of men unless I was convinced that God did not hear or answer prayers.

There are various gifts given to men. As the D&C states in Section 46:

11 For all have not every ^agift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God. 12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

13 To some it is given by the ^aHoly Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to ^abelieve on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

15 And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the ^adifferences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his ^bmercies according to the conditions of the children of men.

16 And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the ^aSpirit may be given to every man to profit withal.

17 And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of ^awisdom.

18 To another is given the word of ^aknowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.

19 And again, to some it is given to have ^afaith to be healed;

20 And to others it is given to have faith to ^aheal.

21 And again, to some is given the working of ^amiracles;

22 And to others it is given to ^aprophesy;

23 And to others the ^adiscerning of spirits.

24 And again, it is given to some to speak with ^atongues;

25 And to another is given the interpretation of tongues.

26 And all these ^agifts come from God, for the benefit of the ^bchildren of God.

Would that we all had the gifts to believe and have faith; evidently, some are better at believing in the faith of others and remaining faithful. Some find Christ and leave him; does that mean Jesus is not the Christ? Mother Teresa served faithfully, but felt the heavens were closed to here the majority of her life; does that mean that God does not answer prayer?

You have to be careful of the standard you use; every standard is a two edge sword that cuts both ways. Every reason you have used to not believe in the Moroni's promise can be used against having faith in Jesus. Yet, Jesus is the Christ and the Book of Mormon is true.

[Vance]

One problem with your line of questioning (assuming I've understood your intent correctly) is that any answer one might give to it would not be relevant to Moroni 10:4, which asserts not merely that it is possible that God might provide such a witness but that the reader ought to request it and God promises to give it. Supposing for the sake of argument that it is possible that God might be willing to provide such a witness at least in some instances (to some people), it does not follow that God will do so whenever someone requests it and meets the conditions specified in Moroni 10:4.

A strange take for a Bible believer.

Matt 7:7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Matt. 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Those are promises to give it.

A hidden assumption at work here, I think, is that anyone receiving a spiritual or miraculous indication that appears to that individual to provide an answer to the question about the Book of Mormon's truth should regard that "witness" as sufficient in and of itself to settle the matter.

Why wouldn't a "spiritual or miraculous indication" be sufficient? Would it be "sufficient" if the subject of inquiry was the Bible rather than the Book of Mormon?

I have heard conflicting (or at least potentially conflicting) comments from Mormons on this point.

So, they really aren't conflicting unless you skew the point of view sufficient to create the appearance of conflict. Got it.

Some Mormons seem to regard the "witness" they have received as definitive in and of itself, needing no other support or confirmation.

Ok.

Other Mormons seem to take the view that the "witness" they have received is not the sole way of knowing the truth about the Book of Mormon, but has its significance in the context of personal study, searching, and reflection.

No conflict there. Both received the witness.

A spiritual intuition or sense concerning something like the Book of Mormon might be a place to start, or it might be a place to arrive at the end of a searching process, or it might be something that arises in the course of one's search for the truth.

What does this have to do with the "witness" that they received?

These varying hypothetical possibilities make a simple Yes or No answer to your question problematic.

In short, reported experiences in regard to the Moroni 10:4 promise are all over the map.

There is a least one problem with this statement. It ASSUMES that all who have "claimed" to have met the requirements of Moroni's promise actually did. Sorry but that ASSUMPTION is far too big to swallow for those of us who are familiar with human nature. Any conclusion base on this assumption is faulty.