What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[Calm]

Not when it come to heaven they don't.

Perhaps it will be best to let EVs talk for themselves rather than telling each other what they believe. I will look for some references to support my position, you can look for references for yours.....

Or if you prefer, we can just drop it as undecided for now and you can walk away believing you are right and I can walk away knowing I am right.

****an excellent article: http://www.christian...y/6-2-51.0.html

PS: Pentacostals, which define themselves as far as I can tell as Evangelical, but are not seen as Evangelical by all Evangelicals most definitely see God the Father and Christ as different.

http://docs.google.c...T2veQ6qsGGB0gPQ

PPS: Should point out that some Evangelicals believe that Christ will still have his body and some do not, while all believe the Father is a Spirit, if so there is a difference between them.

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Vance]

He reports that he heard the gospel, . . .

Ok, and from the missionaries we will presume.

. . . repented of his sins, and put his trust in Jesus Christ alone as his Savior and Lord.

Ok.

Perhaps he did this in response to an "altar call."

I suppose you could call it that.

He gets baptized. He testifies that in coming to Christ for salvation, he understands that his works could not in any way contribute to his right standing before God.

"works" as defined by Paul. But it must be consistent with this Bible verse.

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

His testimony is that the Holy Spirit has sealed him for salvation and that nothing anyone can do and nothing that can happen to him can ever separate him from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Except himself, of course.

He fully expects to spend eternity with God the Father on the basis of nothing but the blood of Christ shed for his redemption.

Ok.

All of this, he says, he is assured of by the Holy Spirit who dwells in him permanently (not temporarily) and guarantees that he can never fall away.

See the verse above. And also this one.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

And,

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

John 6:66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

That is this person's "witness of the Holy Spirit."

Ok.

Now, is this rather typical evangelical claim to "the witness of the Holy Spirit" genuine or not?

The parts that conform to the Bible verses I have quoted may very well be genuine. Those that don't conform are suspect.

Does this evangelical have the Holy Spirit permanently abiding with and in him?

That is dependent upon him. See above.

Is his "witness of the Holy Spirit" as valid or genuine as that of the typical Mormon who also claims to have a "witness of the Spirit"?

If it conforms to verses of the Bible I have quoted, then that is indeed possible.

[Vance]

Perhaps it will be best to let EVs talk for themselves rather than telling each other what they believe. I will look for some references to support my position, you can look for references for yours.....

Or if you prefer, we can just drop it as undecided for now and you can walk away believing you are right and I can walk away knowing I am right.

****an excellent article: http://www.christian...y/6-2-51.0.html

I scanned your article (sorry, it was much to boring for me to read it without falling asleep), and nowhere did I see a distinction being made.

PS.

Maybe I get too much of my information from evangelical anti-Mormons. We all know how reliable their information is.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Vance

[Calm]

I scanned your article (sorry, it was much to boring for me to read it without falling asleep), and nowhere did I see a distinction being made.

Sorry, that was just about heaven in general, though it does talk about Christ having a physical body, IIRC.

I've added some other ones specifically about it.

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Maybe I get too much of my information from evangelical anti-Mormons. We all know how reliable their information is.

There is a broad range of thought among those who identify themselves as Evangelicals, mainstream Evangelicals tend to be trinitarian and IIRC there are some that hold Christ will keep his physical body and others who believe he will lose it. I do not know how those who believe he will lose it view the 'personhood' of Christ after he loses it, if it is any different than before he does.

I have found when someone describes their own belief by using it to define what another's belief is, they tend to leave out some of the details because they are focused on what is different. This can be confusing.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

There is a broad range of thought among those who identify themselves as Evangelicals, mainstream Evangelicals tend to be trinitarian and IIRC there are some that hold Christ will keep his physical body and others who believe he will lose it. I do not know how those who believe he will lose it view the 'personhood' of Christ after he loses it, if it is any different than before he does.

I'm not sure who you have in mind "who identify themselves as Evangelicals" but who would not be trinitarian or who would maintain that Christ has not retained his physical body (in a glorified, immortal state). These are standard, basic elements of evangelical doctrine. There have been a tiny minority of evangelical scholars, such as Murray Harris, who have argued that Christ's resurrected body was so transformed that it might not be accurate to call it "physical," but even Harris insists that it is a human body.

[Calm]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

I'm not sure who you have in mind "who identify themselves as Evangelicals" but who would not be trinitarian or who would maintain that Christ has not retained his physical body (in a glorified, immortal state). These are standard, basic elements of evangelical doctrine. There have been a tiny minority of evangelical scholars, such as Murray Harris, who have argued that Christ's resurrected body was so transformed that it might not be accurate to call it "physical," but even Harris insists that it is a human body.

Pentacostals are identified as Evangelical by many.

Pentecostals, like other evangelicals, generally adhere to the Bible's divine inspiration and inerrancy—the belief that the Bible, in the original languages in which it was written, is infallible.

Oneness Pentacostals define themselves as nontrinitarian.

Oneness Pentecostals reject the doctrine of the Trinity. They do not describe God as three persons but rather as three manifestations of the one living God.

http://en.wikipedia..../Pentecostalism

As for Christ not retaining his body after it is no longer needed to witness to men and becoming as God the Father is---pure Spirit, that is the view of some self-identified evangelicals I have known personally, but I do not know if they belonged to a particular denomination.

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

All,

It is curious that no one here has bit the bullet and acknowledged that the evangelical testimony I described cannot possibly be valid if one accepts standard LDS doctrine. According to the LDS Church, a person outside the Mormon faith may have the Holy Ghost visit him or come on him at times, but only Mormons baptized in the LDS Church and having hands laid on them by someone holding the priesthood can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, understood to mean his permanent companionship. Thus, evangelicals who claim to have the permanent companionship of the Holy Ghost (using LDS lingo here) are deceived, according to LDS doctrine. And this is not incidental to their "testimony" or to what they consider the "witness" of the Holy Spirit, since it has to do precisely with the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, any evangelical who claims that he or she is assured of eternal life with God the Father on the basis of Christ's sacrifice alone, apart from any ritual obligations or other works, must from the LDS perspective be deceived. This is because LDS doctrine maintains that only those who in addition to believing in Christ are baptized in the LDS faith (now or by proxy in the afterlife), receive the other ordinances, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, keep the covenants they make in the temple, etc., etc., will gain entrance into the celestial kingdom and eternal life with Heavenly Father.

Thus, Mormons who accept these standard doctrines of the LDS Church should have no trouble denying the validity of an evangelical's testimony that the Holy Spirit resides permanently in and with him, assuring him that his place in heaven with the Father is already secure.

[Bernard Gui]

I'm not sure who you have in mind "who identify themselves as Evangelicals" but who would not be trinitarian or who would maintain that Christ has not retained his physical body (in a glorified, immortal state). These are standard, basic elements of evangelical doctrine. There have been a tiny minority of evangelical scholars, such as Murray Harris, who have argued that Christ's resurrected body was so transformed that it might not be accurate to call it "physical," but even Harris insists that it is a human body.

Does this physical human body exist or reside in an physical location in the universe? At His ascension,

where did Jesus go?

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Pentacostals are identified as Evangelical by many.

Oneness Pentacostals define themselves as nontrinitarian.

http://en.wikipedia..../Pentecostalism

As for Christ not having retained his body, that is the view of some self-identified evangelicals I have known personally, but I do not know if they belonged to a particular denomination.

Trinitarian Pentecostals may be described as evangelicals, but not Oneness Pentecostals. The doctrine of the Trinity is an essential of evangelical theology.

Obviously, I cannot speak for the opinions of unnamed self-identified evangelicals of unknown denominational affiliations. However, I can tell you that denying that Christ retained his body after his resurrection is far out of the mainstream of evangelical belief. The same statement of faith I just linked also affirms Christ's "bodily resurrection" as something all evangelicals are expected to believe.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You asked:

Does this physical human body exist or reside in an physical location in the universe? At His ascension,

where did Jesus go?

I think this question takes us too far afield from the subject of the thread. I felt it important to correct the misperception that the bodily resurrection of Christ is optional for evangelicals, but this isn't the place to get into a discussion about the implications of this doctrine.

[Ahab]

All,

It is curious that no one here has bit the bullet and acknowledged that the evangelical testimony I described cannot possibly be valid if one accepts standard LDS doctrine. According to the LDS Church, a person outside the Mormon faith may have the Holy Ghost visit him or come on him at times, but only Mormons baptized in the LDS Church and having hands laid on them by someone holding the priesthood can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, understood to mean his permanent companionship. Thus, evangelicals who claim to have the permanent companionship of the Holy Ghost (using LDS lingo here) are deceived, according to LDS doctrine. And this is not incidental to their "testimony" or to what they consider the "witness" of the Holy Spirit, since it has to do precisely with the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, any evangelical who claims that he or she is assured of eternal life with God the Father on the basis of Christ's sacrifice alone, apart from any ritual obligations or other works, must from the LDS perspective be deceived. This is because LDS doctrine maintains that only those who in addition to believing in Christ are baptized in the LDS faith (now or by proxy in the afterlife), receive the other ordinances, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, keep the covenants they make in the temple, etc., etc., will gain entrance into the celestial kingdom and eternal life with Heavenly Father.

Thus, Mormons who accept these standard doctrines of the LDS Church should have no trouble denying the validity of an evangelical's testimony that the Holy Spirit resides permanently in and with him, assuring him that his place in heaven with the Father is already secure.

That's right, Rob. You do understand the truth on those points according to what our Lord has revealed to us... or as you would probably say, "according to our doctrine".

Would it have helped you if one of us had "bit the bullet" and acknowledged those facts about the "evangelical" testimony earlier? I don't know if it would have, but maybe it would.

Who knows, maybe it's the fact that the Holy Spirit left you when you first heard our Lord's doctrine and didn't choose to accept it that is now that is causing you to not see things correctly now, "according to our (Lord's) doctrine".

There has to be some explanation for the fact that you understand at least "some" of our Lord's doctrine and yet are not choosing to fully embrace it by accepting the ordinances our Lord has required.

p.s. And btw, even some LDS who have had hands laid upon their heads for the gift of the Holy Ghost don't have the Holy Ghost with them all of the time, because that blessing is contingent upon being obedient to our Lord's commands, including repenting when necessary... and I mention that just in case you didn't know that about our Lord's doctrine.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Ahab

[Calm]

is optional for evangelicals

Since Evangelicals are a movement including individuals that do not belong to any church and not a denomination with a central authority, it seems rather odd to be dictating that some nuanced beliefs aren't optional for Evangelicals. The Evangelicals that I knew that believed that at some time in the future (Postjudgment) Christ would no longer need a physical body seemed quite sure they were Evangelical and I am content to allow them to be even if you aren't, especially since the four core doctrines of Evangelism do not include from what I see the ultimate form of Christ's body.

• The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
• A high regard for biblical authority, especially biblical inerrancy
• An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.^[2]
• Actively expressing and sharing the gospel

It appears the wikipedia needs some clarification on differentiating with a bit more detail between Classical and Oneness to avoid confusion: http://www.onenesspe...evangelical.htm

ReligiousTolerance.Org has the same problem, including Pentecostals under Evangelism and then Oneness Pentecostals under Pentecostals without adding any clarification whether or not Oneness Pentecostals see themselves as Evangelicals, it would seem that at least one Oneness Pentecostal agrees with Mr. Bowman though.

Edited August 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[LeSellers]

As I've said before, with the LDS testimony, *anything* can be "confirmed" to be true. With an "Evangelical Witness" it has to correspond to biblical standards.

With an "Evangelical Witness" it has to correspond to my interpretation of biblical standards.

There, I've fixed it for you.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

That's right, Rob. You do understand the truth on those points according to what our Lord has revealed to us... or as you would probably say, "according to our doctrine".

Would it have helped you if one of us had "bit the bullet" and acknowledged those facts about the "evangelical" testimony earlier? I don't know if it would have, but maybe it would.

No disrespect intended, but I don't think I'm the one who needs help here. Let me spell out the point for you and everyone else. Throughout this thread Mormons have been arguing that evangelical critics of Mormonism (like William Lane Craig, and like me) are inconsistent and even hypocritical because we claim that our experience of the Holy Spirit's witness is valid while denying the validity of the Mormon experience of the Holy Spirit's witness. In response to this accusation, I am simply bringing out the fact that Mormons, if they are true to their own doctrine, must do the same thing: they must claim that their own experience of the "witness" of the Holy Spirit is valid but deny the validity of the typical evangelical experience of the "witness" of the Holy Spirit. Unlike the Mormons who have accused Bill Craig and me of inconsistency and hypocrisy, I would not make such accusations against any Mormon who forthrightly affirmed the validity of their testimony and denied the validity of ours. But when Mormons claim to accept the validity of our experience of the Spirit's witness and whine (and that is what some of this has been) about us not accepting theirs, such Mormons are not being faithful to their own religion's doctrine. Whether this is because they are ignorant of their doctrine, or because they fail to see the problem, or whatever, I will not speculate, but there is a clear disconnect.

You wrote:

Who knows, maybe it's the fact that the Holy Spirit left you when you first heard our Lord's doctrine and didn't choose to accept it that is now that is causing you to not see things correctly now, "according to our (Lord's) doctrine".

There has to be some explanation for the fact that you understand at least "some" of our Lord's doctrine and yet are not choosing to fully embrace it by accepting the ordinances our Lord has required.

An interesting speculation, and one that at least tries to maintain the integrity of the LDS Church's doctrine, so I give you credit for that. But the reality is that if the Holy Spirit has left me because I would not accept Mormonism when I first learned about it, then my testimony before I heard the Mormon gospel was false and invalid even then.

You wrote:

p.s. And btw, even some LDS who have had hands laid upon their heads for the gift of the Holy Ghost don't have the Holy Ghost with them all of the time, because that blessing is contingent upon being obedient to our Lord's commands, including repenting when necessary... and I mention that just in case you didn't know that about our Lord's doctrine.

I already fully understood this point. It doesn't affect or undermine my argument at all. Given that the continuation of the gift of the Holy Ghost's abiding companionship is contingent on a person's remaining faithful and obedient, from that LDS perspective no evangelical has or can have that gift, because evangelicals have not had a Mormon priesthood-holding man lay hands on them. And again, the typical evangelical (like me) maintains that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a permanent, unconditional blessing of salvation received through faith alone. This is a claim no faithful Mormon can acknowledge as valid. That means that at its core, the typical evangelical testimony or claim of the witness of the Holy Spirit must be regarded from the LDS perspective as invalid.

[Calm]

Bernard,

You asked:

I think this question takes us too far afield from the subject of the thread. I felt it important to correct the misperception that the bodily resurrection of Christ is optional for evangelicals, but this isn't the place to get into a discussion about the implications of this doctrine.

Clarification: the Evangelicals believed in the physical resurrection of Christ, they also believed that sometime in the future (Post Judgment IIRC) he will put it aside as he will no longer need it for a witness of who he is to mankind.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

Thanks for that clarification. Very few if any evangelical theologians take this view (I can't think of any at the moment), but I wouldn't be surprised if some evangelicals without theological training entertained such ideas.

Clarification: the Evangelicals believed in the physical resurrection of Christ, they also believed that sometime in the future (Post Judgment IIRC) he will put it aside as he will no longer need it for a witness of who he is to mankind.

[Hughes]

With an "Evangelical Witness" it has to correspond to my interpretation of biblical standards.

There, I've fixed it for you.

Lehi

Since all of life is subject to our own interpretation of things, events, doctrine, and people, the bible is no different, this isn't new.

[altersteve]

Rob,

It seems to me that you are confused about our doctrine and practice of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. We do not believe that the Holy Ghost cannot be a constant companion to others. But the gift of the Holy Ghost, is more than just "constant companionship." In Acts 10, Cornelius the centurion received a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost that the gospel of Jesus Christ was true; such a testimony remains with a person. That is, in a sense, constant companionship, but Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. The gift of the Holy Ghost allows one to receive inspiration and divine guidance from the Holy Ghost in all things. You have said that the primary role of the Holy Spirit is to testify of Jesus Christ, and that is entirely true, but with the gift of the Holy Ghost one can know the truth of all things from God. God can reveal portions of truth to others, and I strongly believe that He does so, but only those with the gift of the Holy Ghost can be revealed the fullness of truth of the fullness of the gospel. Our doctrines of divine revelation and the gift of the Holy Ghost are inseparably interconnected and it goes all the way back to the time of Adam, as do all other principles of the gospel.

Again, though, that is not saying that God cannot reveal things to those without the gift of the Holy Ghost, it is just that only those who have received the gift can be shown the truth of all things from God directly. It's more than just constant companionship. Evangelicals, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and all others have access to the power of the Holy Ghost, through which they can learn whatever truth God decides to give them. And sometimes that truth is far greater than anything spiritual. But the fullness of truth is for those whom God decides can also bear it, and that comes via the gift of the Holy Ghost after they have accepted what you call the "Mormon gospel." But that absolutely does NOT mean that the Holy Ghost is not with others. We do not believe that you are deceived. When you tell us that you have received a witness of Jesus Christ from the Holy Ghost, we are in no place to deny it. To do such a thing would force us to deny our own doctrine that the Light of Christ is given to all of God's children.

I'm very tired right now so I might just be rambling here and not really getting to the point or making a lot of sense. If so, I'm sorry; just let me know and I'll try to clarify later.

By the way, to everyone else, the tone that everyone is using when talking to Rob and other critics is a little harsher than it should be. I think we need to try to be a bit more civil and Christlike in our discussions. It helps the conversation go a lot smoother. Even though we may not agree with Rob, we can still all be friends here and disagree respectfully. That, if anything, is what the Lord would want.

Edited August 30, 2011 by altersteve

[LeSellers]

Since all of life is subject to our own interpretation of things, events, doctrine, and people, the bible is no different, this isn't new.

So, you are agreeing that your position is nothing more than your opinion, and that "biblical standards" ares not something we can use to decide whether your actions and beliefs are truly what God has revealed for us.

Which gets us back to the original question: how do you know whether you are right?

The only way is to rely on the Holy Ghost. The Bible, per se, is inadequte to this purpose.

Lehi

[Hughes]

So, you are agreeing that your position is nothing more than your opinion, and that "biblical standards" ares not something we can use to decide whether your actions and beliefs are truly what God has revealed for us.

Which gets us back to the original question: how do you know whether you are right?

The only way is to rely on the Holy Ghost. The Bible, per se, is inadequte to this purpose.

Lehi

We group ourselves based on our collective agreement.

Those in the USA tend to believe a certain way about Government for example.

Those who follow the LDS doctrines believe those are accurate and true.

Those who follow the Evangelical teachings believe those are accurate and true.

The standard for determining what is right and wrong is different for those LDS than those who are Evangelical.

Your attack on "interpretation" as if it is an unreliable method is itself an interpretation. So, it certainly can't be deemed completely unreliable since you used it.

[altersteve]

Those who follow the LDS doctrines believe those are accurate and true. . . . Your attack on "interpretation" as if it is an unreliable method is itself an interpretation. So, it certainly can't be deemed completely unreliable since you used it.

No, we don't use it. We use a witness from God Himself. We believe that the LDS doctrines that we follow are accurate and true because God told us so.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

I'm sorry you are feeling very tired. I can relate--I think I got up too early this morning. And thanks for your kindness in asking your LDS brethren to tone down the rhetoric.

Consider the following statement from LDS.org (emphasis added):

The gift of the Holy Ghost is different from the influence of the Holy Ghost. Before baptism, a person can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost from time to time and through that influence can receive a testimony of the truth. After receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, a person has the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead if he or she keeps the commandments.

The website mormon.org, also an official website of the LDS Church, says the same thing:

Almost everyone has felt the Holy Ghost at some time. But there is a difference between experiencing the occasional influence of the Holy Ghost and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Although the Holy Ghost may temporarily comfort someone or reveal truth to them, the gift of the Holy Ghost is reserved for those who have been baptized and confirmed into Christ’s Church. This gift is the privilege of enjoying the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost conditional upon keeping the commandments. The gift of the Holy Ghost is given when a person is confirmed a member of the Church after baptism by someone having priesthood authority from God.

I believe I have represented the LDS Church's teaching on this subject accurately. According to the above statements, only after receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost does a person have "the right to the constant companionship" of the Holy Ghost.

Evangelicals claim that the Holy Spirit is their constant companion. We claim that we have received the gift of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost). Mormons should reject this claim, according to LDS doctrine, as illustrated in the above quotation.

[wenglund]

All,

It is curious that no one here has bit the bullet and acknowledged that the evangelical testimony I described cannot possibly be valid if one accepts standard LDS doctrine. According to the LDS Church, a person outside the Mormon faith may have the Holy Ghost visit him or come on him at times, but only Mormons baptized in the LDS Church and having hands laid on them by someone holding the priesthood can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, understood to mean his permanent companionship. Thus, evangelicals who claim to have the permanent companionship of the Holy Ghost (using LDS lingo here) are deceived, according to LDS doctrine. And this is not incidental to their "testimony" or to what they consider the "witness" of the Holy Spirit, since it has to do precisely with the Holy Spirit.

Rob,

Please don't put words into our LDS mouths. You are mistakenly projecting your own Evangelical way of thinking onto our beliefs. That doesn't work. The reason we haven't "bit the bullet" as you say, is because it doesn't exist for the simple reason that we don't view ourselves as in a position to judge. To us, such judgements are God's, and while you may think it okay in your faith to usurp God's role in such things, we don't. To us, the claim of Evangelicals to having the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit is between them and God, and not between them and us. So, your attempt at a "gotcha" fails.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

I'm not putting words in your mouths. I am simply taking seriously the words that come out of the mouths of the LDS Church itself. As I have documented, the LDS Church does judge that non-Mormons cannot have the gift of the Holy Ghost and therefore cannot have his constant companionship. If you don't view yourself as in a position to agree with that judgment, that's your business.

Rob,

Please don't put words into our LDS mouths. You are mistakenly projecting your own Evangelical way of thinking onto our beliefs. That doesn't work. The reason we haven't "bit the bullet" as you say, is because it doesn't exist for the simple reason that we don't view ourselves as in a position to judge. To us, such judgements are God's, and while you may think it okay in your faith to usurp God's role in such things, we don't. To us, the claim of Evangelicals to having the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit is between them and God, and not between them and us. So, your attempt at a "gotcha" fails.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-