What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[Franktalk]

Good subject.

When it says you may know the truth of all things just what does that mean? I think this is where many go way beyond what actually happens with the Holy Ghost. For me the truth of all things is that God is the Creator and it is He who established the rules in which all things interact with each other. The Holy Ghost has witnessed this to me so Moroni wrote the truth. But some associate the good feelings that come with the Holy Ghost and apply that feeling to personal questions. Like when an orthodox Christian asks if JS is from Satan and they get that warm feeling because they wish it to be true they confuse the witness of God with their personal desires. This is the root of all inconsistencies when talking about the Holy Ghost. The problem rest in man and not the Holy Ghost. You see there is another rule which God made, that is that we are to come to Him in faith. We can not do that if all questions in all detail are answered by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost will not violate the boundary of faith. So the Holy Ghost will witness and not lead. But it is also said that the Holy Ghost will lead to truth. But the method is to witness one obtained precept at a time.

But of course I use an assumption in the statement above. I assume that the Holy Ghost is consistent and does not lie. So using that as my reference I don't think that what I said is a stretch at all.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

I had asked you:

"I would sincerely be appreciative if you could give me a specific example of me taking information given to me here and selectively presenting it in such a way as to smear the LDS uncharitably or with a lack of integrity."

You responded by quoting three examples of what you consider to be falsehoods in one of IRR's web articles. That's fine, but it doesn't address my request. You had claimed that I was taking information presented to me here in this forum and presenting it selectively and uncharitably on our website. But your examples of "falsehoods" have nothing to do with any discussions here.

I'm willing to discuss your objections to the article in question, and I'm open to consider revising it as appropriate. However, that might be better done in a separate thread.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[jo1952]

But of course the spirit could not testify to you that you are right- because you don't believe that is possible. So go ahead with your rationalizations.

This is exactly what his belief about the Holy Ghost looks like to me! How can he claim we are NOT receiving communication from the Holy Ghost? Especially, how he claim that what we receive contradicts what the Holy Ghost has taught anyone, including what the Holy Ghost taught the ancient Apostles, when he won't pray to find out if he is correctly interpreting what the Apostles wrote? ....and jo's head exploded.....

Well said!!

Best regards,

jo

Edited August 23, 2011 by jo1952

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

Your comments are in the block quotations, with my responses following.

I will try to characterize the essense of the difference as you see it. Please correct my summary as you see errors.

The LDS and Evangelical ideas of testimony are identical in respect to these ideas:

The Holy Spirit will answer questions and convey information

Generally speaking, no, this is not part of the evangelical understanding of "testimony."

The Holy Spirit also includes other gifts like wisdom, peace and sometimes prophecy

Prophecy is a special spiritual gift that some Christians may at various times exhibit. It is not an essential element of an evangelical understanding of a Christian testimony.

The Holy Spirit's #1 job is to testify of Christ's Salvation

Well, certainly one of the essential works of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit can also make us aware of our sins and the need for salvation

Yes.

The primary difference in the LDS and Evangelical views is this:

Latter-day Saints believe that the Holy Spirit will testify to the truth of all things in and out of the Bible (including our open canon)

Evangelicals believe that the Holy Spirit will only testify to those truthes already outlined in the Bible, therefore evangelcals would not ask about things outside of their existing canon.

That's not quite the position I set forth. I don't think that the Holy Spirit typically testifies to us about the truth of specific issues pertaining to the Bible. I can't expect the Holy Spirit to give to me a private revelation concerning whether 3 John belongs in the canon or what genre the Book of Job is or whether John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel. Evangelicals pray, or at least should pray, for wisdom and understanding in all things, including things inside and outside of the Bible, but normally wisdom and understanding do not come in the form of personal, private, direct revelations from God.

Let me know if this is a fair summary of the topic to this point.

You got some things right, but the overall picture is still out of focus.

Assuming I have accurately portayed these points and am not in error (I really am trying to understand here)...

There is full agreement that the Holy Spirit's primary function is to testify of Christ and that all mankind can receive this revelation though asking in faith.

Again, this isn't the way evangelicals approach the matter. We don't encourage people to pray and ask in faith for a testimony from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit convinces people of their sin and of the trustworthiness of Christ, and brings them to repentance and faith. Their changed attitude of trust in Christ and assurance of God's love for them in Christ is the testimony of the Holy Spirit. They don't need a special revelation to be acquired by a special prayer of faith.

The fundamental difference in our understanding of the secondary roles of the Holy Spirit reflect our belief in a complete and closed canon contained soley in the Bible vs. open canon and belief in Latter-day revelation from God.

As I hope I've shown, the fundamental difference goes much deeper than that.

The only diffuculty I have is reconciling how an evangelcal Christian believes that they can receive wisdom and blessings in things like health concerns, job searches, which church to join, family matters, etc. with a belief that Latter-day Saints are in error asking about the truthfullness of the Book of Mormon and which church to join.

There is a big difference between asking God to be at work in us to develop wisdom and understanding through our reading and hearing of Scripture, our interaction with other believers, our testing experiences, etc., and asking God to give us a private, direct revelation answering our questions.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

I have seen no such explanation from you. Where is it? Looks like an avoidance to me.

Oh, good grief. Here we go again.

You badgered me repeatedly to answer this question about what distinguishes the evangelical and LDS views of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. I answered that question in detail here. You could not even bring yourself to acknowledge that I directly answered that question. I also replied to some misunderstandings of William Lane Craig's position, and specifically the claim that he is inconsistent on this subject, here. Yet here you go again, claiming that I am avoiding some issue.

If I choose not to respond to you further, it is because I am really, really tired of you playing this "avoidance" card regardless of how directly I have addressed an issue. Besides, in so many ways you have made it abundantly clear that you don't want me here (see this recent post of yours as an especially good example). So let me suggest that you just ignore me.

[Pahoran]

DaddyG,

Your comments are in the block quotations, with my responses following.

Generally speaking, no, this is not part of the evangelical understanding of "testimony."

Prophecy is a special spiritual gift that some Christians may at various times exhibit. It is not an essential element of an evangelical understanding of a Christian testimony.

Well, certainly one of the essential works of the Holy Spirit.

Yes.

That's not quite the position I set forth. I don't think that the Holy Spirit typically testifies to us about the truth of specific issues pertaining to the Bible. I can't expect the Holy Spirit to give to me a private revelation concerning whether 3 John belongs in the canon or what genre the Book of Job is or whether John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel. Evangelicals pray, or at least should pray, for wisdom and understanding in all things, including things inside and outside of the Bible, but normally wisdom and understanding do not come in the form of personal, private, direct revelations from God.

You got some things right, but the overall picture is still out of focus.

Again, this isn't the way evangelicals approach the matter. We don't encourage people to pray and ask in faith for a testimony from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit convinces people of their sin and of the trustworthiness of Christ, and brings them to repentance and faith. Their changed attitude of trust in Christ and assurance of God's love for them in Christ is the testimony of the Holy Spirit. They don't need a special revelation to be acquired by a special prayer of faith.

As I hope I've shown, the fundamental difference goes much deeper than that.

There is a big difference between asking God to be at work in us to develop wisdom and understanding through our reading and hearing of Scripture, our interaction with other believers, our testing experiences, etc., and asking God to give us a private, direct revelation answering our questions.

So if I've understood your answer Rob, what it comes down to is this:

The "Evangelical witness" (using that designator as useful label) does not purport to offer the recipient a specific, divinely originated revelation to the effect that a given doctrine is correct, a given work is scripture or a given religious body is God's Church, while the "LDS Testimony" does.

That is quite an important difference, and it is useful to know that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

Rob, I am sorry but I don't see how any man can put limits on what the Holy Spirit does or does not do; after all, he is a member of the Godhood and can do anything. If the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible then it is impossible for anyone to state the Holy Spirit does not give knowledge to humanity or to an individual. EV's may set up such parameters, but it is then acknowledged that it has become a personal problem of EV for limiting what God can do and what God cannot do. They themselves have created a construct in which they have put themselves which limits how God will interact with his children.

These created limitations on God's power do seem to crop relatively often within certain Christian sects. Another one is that God cannot make men gods even though the Bible tells us that is what God will do. When did man begin to limit the powers of God?

[Mudcat]

Imo, it can work either way. If one has a testimony of Christ before one reads the BoM then it is an additional testimony to one's testimony of Christ. Yet IF the BoM is true, then all that is in it is also true, and the BoM is "another testimony of Christ". As I mentioned, I did not have a testimony of Christ until I had an experience confirming the BoM.

Lots of stuff packed into that statement Bukowski.

Underline mine. I wanted to ask this a bit earlier, but your statement offers a better setting for the questions.

First question has to with what seem to be deductive verifications. If it is revealed to you that the BoM is true, then what can actually be deduced from such a revelation aside from the revelation of it's truth?

Bold mine. IIRC, your background was Catholic before you became agnostic/atheist. So were you sort of a Catholic in name only? It sounds that way. I had been under the assumption you were a believing Catholic at some point, but after reading this it seems I was likely making a faulty correlation.

Overall, I think we have a real basis for discussion of these points- unlike Rob who doesn't seem to want to budge an inch in his condemnation of Moroni 10:4-5.

I think you and I are very close, whereas I feel like I am galaxies away from Rob. From that perspective, I think you are a far better missionary for Evangelicalism- if that is a word- than Rob.

I agree that you and I likely have more in common towards belief than you and Rob, and I do sincerely appreciate the compliment. But I also hate to see that such a compliment is comparatively stationed against Rob. In a way it sounds like a bit of a snub to Rob but given your differences with Rob.. and the fact that Rob and I are self-professed EV's, I don't blame you for the comparison.

I dunno enough about Rob to make much in the way of an assessment about him. I know he is an EV apologist that seems to have done his homework, an educated man, that sort of thing. I know he seems to be a man of conviction about his beliefs and writes quite a bit. IIRC he follows more of a Calvinistic line in regards to free will, which puts he and I at odds on a point or three. However from my reading of him here, there is quite a lot he and I do agree on, our beliefs about LDS in specific notwithstanding. But I think, even though you two seem galaxies away on things, he seeks your best interest in the best way he can as I imagine you do for him.

In regards of me being an EV missionary of sorts. My ego certainly feels stroked at the comment but I am more of a two bit hack actually than a missionary. I'd make a poor one.

I know what I believe and why I believe it and have a fair grasp of LDS theology... that's about it. I enjoy sharing and learning, and a good debate from time to time. But I don't see the divisions that separate my views from LDS views, as also separating LDS from the Christ I profess to know. I do think we have some different views on him. So it is certainly worth discussing.

I think it is worth noting that the group of non-LDS Christians that actually do think LDS are Christians is a larger group than those that don't. It's marginal but IIRC, it was 52% that did rather than those that didn't. I actually would like to see that number get larger. I don't think it is fair for Christians to treat LDS as exiles of Christianity because I don't think they are.

If a non-LDS Christian is willing to acknowledge that the LDS across the table from them is actually a Christian it changes the game altogether. It removes the unnecessary "us vs. them" mentality and brings discourse to a level where we can actually talk about things as an "in house" sort of discussion.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited August 23, 2011 by Mudcat

[Mudcat]

askance?

Although I think I know what you are trying to convey here, your usage of "askance" just doesn't fit.

Yes.. that is a vocabulary fumble on my part Vance. My apologies. I am glad you got the gist of it, despite my error in language selection.

I have hosed enough people over English that your comment was certainly more than well deserved.

Regards,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Evangelicals pray, or at least should pray, for wisdom and understanding in all things, including things inside and outside of the Bible, but normally wisdom and understanding do not come in the form of personal, private, direct revelations from God.....

How precisely are you supposed to receive the wisdom you are praying to receive if it doesn't come from God?

Why would you pray for something you don't believe God can give you? Can you see the contradiction here? It's a catch 22. You pray for wisdom, but if God gives it to you, it becomes a "personal revelation". If he doesn't give it to you, you are on your own- right back where you started relying on your own wisdom and not God, so it makes no sense to pray for it.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

[Mudcat]

To the point that if the dishwasher feels he wants to start his own church, he does. From our point of view- that does not lead to "One Faith One Baptism". Not meant as a put-down; but you would probably not take it as one anyway, I hope.

Bold mine. Given my perspective, one man's dishwasher is another mans prophet. If such a fellow can lead others to Christ, then IMO he has led them to faith in Christ and baptism by the Spirit.

No I didn't take it as an offense and I thought I was quite polite considering that immense gap you left open for a punchline.

Thanks.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Oh, good grief. Here we go again.

You badgered me repeatedly to answer this question about what distinguishes the evangelical and LDS views of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. I answered that question in detail here. You could not even bring yourself to acknowledge that I directly answered that question.

No, you are wrong. I responded directly to the only important point you made in this post, number 151:

Since evangelicals vary among themselves in their doctrinal understanding of such questions, I cannot rule out that some evangelicals may think about the testimony of the Holy Spirit in a way that is analogous to the Mormon testimony of the Holy Ghost to the Book of Mormon.

I don't know about anybody else, but this is all I need.

The rest is Rob Bowman's personal opinion and therefore irrelevant. He has admitted they can be seen as, and for some ARE the same.

And then I responded further to you in comments on CV75's post in post 153, indicating that I agreed with his assessment of your original post.

This is not only true of the evangelicals you characterize here.

1. Anyone who equates factual knowledge with spiritual knowledge is not spiritually inclined.

2. Anyone who attempts to sustain a relationship without knowledge is ignorant of how relationships work, and can sustain only ignorant relationships.

3. Anyone that does not settle the question of which version of Christianity is true by appealing to or receiving a private religious experience simply hasn’t found the question to be important enough.

4. Anyone that feels or reasons that he should not pray for divine guidance (a private revelation or spiritual experience) simply lacks the interest to do so, or lacks a fuller personal relationship with God.

Sometimes these things are done in ignorance, sometimes in pride. In either case, the Light of Christ calls upon all God's children to move forward in developing a fuller relationship with God through the ministrations of the Holy Spirit. Everyone responds in their own way, at their own pace, and sometimes not in the way God wants them to.

I agree. Rob is setting up a strawman not reflecting our beliefs at all.

As always, his understanding of our position is deficient.

We do not (typically) pray about factual matters. We pray about spiritual matters, or about decisions to make in our lives. Those are not "facts".

The only way of determining even that the Bible is "true" is by the spirit.

The Bible asserts that Jesus died for our sins. That cannot be determined by "facts", but only by the spirit.

I felt no need to further respond to your original post- if you really want me to, I will be glad to go line by line. But the reason I didn't was that I agreed perfectly with CV75's assessment.

You said:

I also replied to some misunderstandings of William Lane Craig's position, and specifically the claim that he is inconsistent on this subject, here. Yet here you go again, claiming that I am avoiding some issue.

THAT is your reply? A few one- liners? Though you did not respond to me, I will respond as if your post was not to jo, but to me:

Actually, that's not what he said. He said nothing about praying about the question until you receive some type of answer. He said to research it and study it "into the ground" until you come up with an answer that you find fully satisfying

That, sir, is a distortion. In fact, what he said (this is not an exact transcription, but the sense is:) "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"

Later indeed, he says REGARDING INTELLECTUAL QUESTIONS, that one should "study it into the ground" - but this is not what he says regarding the "first and foremost" witness of the Holy Spirit which tells one that Christianity is true.

Here is the link to the video again- see for yourself!

This is incorrect, because he did not previously advise people to pray for revelations answering their unanswered questions

Jibberish. I don't even know what this sentence is supposed to mean. So we should pray for revelations to only answer our answered questions? Absurd!

As I have explained, you have misconstrued Craig's comments and thus your conclusion about him is not supported by the facts.

Laughable!

I'm sorry you didn't understand me any better than you did Bill Craig. By the way, I know Bill personally. We have been to many conferences together, and I used to live about a mile from his house. I even filled in for him in his Sunday School class a few times when he was out of town. I know Bill's positions very well and can assure you from that personal knowledge that you have misunderstood him.

I am terribly impressed. Of course this is irrelevant to your misrepresentation of what he said.

If I choose not to respond to you further, it is because I am really, really tired of you playing this "avoidance" card regardless of how directly I have addressed an issue. Besides, in so many ways you have made it abundantly clear that you don't want me here (see this recent post of yours as an especially good example). So let me suggest that you just ignore me.

No sir, I am not about to ignore you.

Edited August 23, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Lots of stuff packed into that statement Bukowski.

Underline mine. I wanted to ask this a bit earlier, but your statement offers a better setting for the questions.

First question has to with what seem to be deductive verifications. If it is revealed to you that the BoM is true, then what can actually be deduced from such a revelation aside from the revelation of it's truth?

Bold mine. IIRC, your background was Catholic before you became agnostic/atheist. So were you sort of a Catholic in name only? It sounds that way. I had been under the assumption you were a believing Catholic at some point, but after reading this it seems I was likely making a faulty correlation.

I agree that you and I likely have more in common towards belief than you and Rob, and I do sincerely appreciate the compliment. But I also hate to see that such a compliment is comparatively stationed against Rob. In a way it sounds like a bit of a snub to Rob but given your differences with Rob.. and the fact that Rob and I are self-professed EV's, I don't blame you for the comparison.

I dunno enough about Rob to make much in the way of an assessment about him. I know he is an EV apologist that seems to have done his homework, an educated man, that sort of thing. I know he seems to be a man of conviction about his beliefs and writes quite a bit. IIRC he follows more of a Calvinistic line in regards to free will, which puts he and I at odds on a point or three. However from my reading of him here, there is quite a lot he and I do agree on, our beliefs about LDS in specific notwithstanding. But I think, even though you two seem galaxies away on things, he seeks your best interest in the best way he can as I imagine you do for him.

In regards of me being an EV missionary of sorts. My ego certainly feels stroked at the comment but I am more of a two bit hack actually than a missionary. I'd make a poor one.

I know what I believe and why I believe it and have a fair grasp of LDS theology... that's about it. I enjoy sharing and learning, and a good debate from time to time. But I don't see the divisions that separate my views from LDS views, as also separating LDS from the Christ I profess to know. I do think we have some different views on him. So it is certainly worth discussing.

I think it is worth noting that the group of non-LDS Christians that actually do think LDS are Christians is a larger group than those that don't. It's marginal but IIRC, it was 52% that did rather than those that didn't. I actually would like to see that number get larger. I don't think it is fair for Christians to treat LDS as exiles of Christianity because I don't think they are.

If a non-LDS Christian is willing to acknowledge that the LDS across the table from them is actually a Christian it changes the game altogether. It removes the unnecessary "us vs. them" mentality and brings discourse to a level where we can actually talk about things as an "in house" sort of discussion.

Regards,

Mudcat

I quoted your whole post because I am not quite sure what you want me to respond to. Yes, as a little boy I was a believing Catholic and an altar boy, but I stopped believing in my 20's and was a communist student radical and atheist.

It was actually reading William James and other pragmatists that helped me realize that religious experience could justify religious beliefs- and then I had a strong experience with the Book of Mormon. I see no intellectual reason whatsoever to believe the Bible or even in the existence of Jesus Christ, quite frankly- I believe only because I believe God has spoken to me through the Holy Spirit, THAT is the basis for everything.

Does that answer your question?

[mfbukowski]

Bold mine. Given my perspective, one man's dishwasher is another mans prophet. If such a fellow can lead others to Christ, then IMO he has led them to faith in Christ and baptism by the Spirit.

No I didn't take it as an offense and I thought I was quite polite considering that immense gap you left open for a punchline.

Thanks.

LOL!

I guess you have driven a truck through that one- and you did!

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

So if I've understood your answer Rob, what it comes down to is this:

The "Evangelical witness" (using that designator as useful label) does not purport to offer the recipient a specific, divinely originated revelation to the effect that a given doctrine is correct, a given work is scripture or a given religious body is God's Church, while the "LDS Testimony" does.

That is quite an important difference, and it is useful to know that.

That seems like a fairly accurate statement of the difference. The evangelical "witness" of the Holy Spirit does presuppose some doctrinal truths (e.g., that the Holy Spirit exists and is God) and insofar as that witness testifies to God's saving grace and love in Christ obviously has some doctrinal implications about God, Christ, and salvation. But the evangelical testimony is fundamentally relational or personal. No evangelical goes around claiming to have a testimony of the Holy Spirit to the truth of the Southern Baptist denomination or to the teaching of John Calvin or even to the prophets and apostles of the Bible. When evangelicals use the word "testimony," it is uniformly in reference to what God has done for them in Christ, period.

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

Rob, I am sorry but I don't see how any man can put limits on what the Holy Spirit does or does not do; after all, he is a member of the Godhood and can do anything. If the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible then it is impossible for anyone to state the Holy Spirit does not give knowledge to humanity or to an individual. EV's may set up such parameters, but it is then acknowledged that it has become a personal problem of EV for limiting what God can do and what God cannot do. They themselves have created a construct in which they have put themselves which limits how God will interact with his children.

This is not an accurate characterization of my position. It is not about me telling the Holy Spirit what he can or cannot do; it is a matter of coming to terms with what the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does and does not do. Your theology places some interesting "limits" on the Holy Spirit that are clearly unbiblical. For example, the LDS Church teaches that no one can receive "the gift of the Holy Ghost" who has not been baptized by someone holding the LDS priesthood. That is a limitation not found in the Bible that is based on an unbiblical understanding of priesthood. (Another topic, to be sure.)

It is not my position that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to reveal to an individual that, say, the book of Leviticus is a true book of Scripture. It is, rather, my position that this is not how God normally works. This is not to deny that the Holy Spirit is involved in a Christian's learning about the Bible, Christian doctrine, and so forth, but that the way the Holy Spirit works in these functions is through a person's reading and hearing Scripture, being taught in the normal process of discipleship, talking to other Christians about such matters, and so forth. These activities take place along with other regular Christian functions, including prayer.

You wrote:

These created limitations on God's power do seem to crop relatively often within certain Christian sects. Another one is that God cannot make men gods even though the Bible tells us that is what God will do. When did man begin to limit the powers of God?

See above. I am not putting limits on God but recognizing that there are certain things God does and other things God does not do.

Furthermore, there are certain things that God cannot do because they are nonsense. For example, God cannot make us human amoebas. Nothing can be an amoeba and a human at the same time. Saying so is not limiting God's power but understanding that God's power is consistent with logic and meaningfulness. God also cannot make it so that I was born in 586 BC. Since I was born in 1957, that is a fact that cannot be changed. I suppose God could have made it so that I was born in 586 BC, though I would probably turn out rather differently, but even God cannot make it so that I am born in 586 BC and in 1957. More to the point, if I am a temporal being whose existence 54 years ago, God cannot change things so that my existence had no beginning at all. Once a creature begins to exist, it is always in the category of that-which-began-to-exist. Just as God cannot make me be a man and an amoeba, God cannot make me a temporal being and a beginningless being. And since one of the essential characteristics of God is that he is a beginningless being, it is simply impossible to make temporal creatures into Gods (in that sense). God can transform me in all sorts of wondrous ways, but he cannot do nonsense.

[Storm Rider]

That seems like a fairly accurate statement of the difference. The evangelical "witness" of the Holy Spirit does presuppose some doctrinal truths (e.g., that the Holy Spirit exists and is God) and insofar as that witness testifies to God's saving grace and love in Christ obviously has some doctrinal implications about God, Christ, and salvation. But the evangelical testimony is fundamentally relational or personal. No evangelical goes around claiming to have a testimony of the Holy Spirit to the truth of the Southern Baptist denomination or to the teaching of John Calvin or even to the prophets and apostles of the Bible. When evangelicals use the word "testimony," it is uniformly in reference to what God has done for them in Christ, period.

If this is how the Holy Ghost works, then how does any EV condemn a LDS over a doctrinal dispute? After all, LDS believe the same things you stated above yet you condemn them over doctrinal grounds that are outside the purview of the Holy Spirit?

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

How precisely are you supposed to receive the wisdom you are praying to receive if it doesn't come from God?

Why would you pray for something you don't believe God can give you? Can you see the contradiction here? It's a catch 22. You pray for wisdom, but if God gives it to you, it becomes a "personal revelation". If he doesn't give it to you, you are on your own- right back where you started relying on your own wisdom and not God, so it makes no sense to pray for it.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Nonsense.

Wisdom is not a piece of information. Wisdom is skill in applying knowledge to life (see any Bible dictionary or encyclopedia for background on the Hebrew and Greek words and their uses in the Bible). For example, in James 1:5, the text to which you are alluding, wisdom is the ability to make good choices in the face of temptation or trials (see James 1:2-5). To pray for wisdom is to pray that God will be at work within us to develop our practical moral life, so that we will become mature in the way we handle life's difficulties and temptations. The believer can and should recognize God as the source of this wisdom even while also recognizing that God does not drop wisdom into our heads like a quarter into a gumball machine.

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

Huh?

We were talking about the way the Holy Spirit works within believers with respect to an individual's "testimony." This doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit doesn't work in other important ways. Specifically, the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture. We are responsible to learn what Scripture is, to learn what Scripture teaches, and to conform our lives to that teaching. When we engage in that pursuit with faith and integrity, the Holy Spirit illuminates our minds to receive and accept what he has revealed in Scripture. This is a different function than the "witness of the Holy Spirit," but it is a vital function. When a religion purports to represent God but denies or distorts the teachings of the Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures, believers have a responsibility to take a stand against such false teachings.

If this is how the Holy Ghost works, then how does any EV condemn a LDS over a doctrinal dispute? After all, LDS believe the same things you stated above yet you condemn them over doctrinal grounds that are outside the purview of the Holy Spirit?

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

No, you are wrong. I responded directly to the only important point you made in this post, number 151.... And then I responded further to you in comments on CV75's post in post 153, indicating that I agreed with his assessment of your original post.... I felt no need to further respond to your original post- if you really want me to, I will be glad to go line by line. But the reason I didn't was that I agreed perfectly with CV75's assessment.

My point was that you did not acknowledge that I had indeed responded directly to the original question. I don't need you to go through it line by line. A courteous "thank you for answering the question" would have been nice.

You had claimed that I was "avoiding" answering the criticism that Craig contradicted himself. I pointed you to the post where I answered this criticism. You replied:

THAT is your reply? A few one- liners?

Sometimes a brief response is all that is needed.

Jo had written:

Notice that in the video, how William Lane Craig is supporting the concept of occasionally taking a doubt (unanswered question) out of your doubt bag and to study, ponder and pray about it until you have received some type of answer.

I replied: "Actually, that's not what he said. He said nothing about praying about the question until you receive some type of answer. He said to research it and study it 'into the ground' until you come up with an answer that you find fully satisfying."

You replied:

That, sir, is a distortion. In fact, what he said (this is not an exact transcription, but the sense is:) "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"

Later indeed, he says REGARDING INTELLECTUAL QUESTIONS, that one should "study it into the ground" - but this is not what he says regarding the "first and foremost" witness of the Holy Spirit which tells one that Christianity is true.

As anyone with minimal reading skills can plainly see, I was responding to a statement by Jo about what Craig said concerning such "intellectual questions."

I wrote: "This is incorrect, because he did not previously advise people to pray for revelations answering their unanswered questions." You commented:

Jibberish. I don't even know what this sentence is supposed to mean. So we should pray for revelations to only answer our answered questions? Absurd!

As I said, there are some minimal reading skills required to follow a train of thought or of a simple argument. Jo had claimed that Craig said that if we have unanswered questions we should pray for God to reveal the answers to those questions. I pointed out that he did not say any such thing. What I said was neither gibberish nor absurd.

[Franktalk]

.............. When a religion purports to represent God but denies or distorts the teachings of the Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures, believers have a responsibility to take a stand against such false teachings.

Really, then explain the different denominations of Christian Churches? Explain the different doctrines of the different Churches and why you feel you can pick and choose what Church to attack but not all? Explain why it is that a Church which teaches its members to listen to the Holy Ghost is somehow inferior to a Church which (by men) teaches the way to read scripture?

It is obvious by just looking at the number of Christian Churches that the Holy Ghost does not in fact offer a strong witness but a weak one. But this is by design. To imply that your view of scripture is true and any other is false comes from you and not from God. No ones view of scripture is complete. People seek God and get what they need. I don't know how and what that means but I trust God. If one truly seeks God it does not matter what door of a Church you walk through on Sunday morning. In time all will find the right path. Some on this earth and most will find it after this life. I accept this. You on the other hand see your self as some kind of soldier of God. When I come across a Christian and talk with them I find that most of them love God and love their fellow man. Why would I do anything at that point to tell them they pray to the wrong God? Why would I do anything to the faith of that person that might make them question their faith? If I did I would be acting as a soldier of Satan.

[Rob Bowman]

Franktalk,

You wrote:

Really, then explain the different denominations of Christian Churches? Explain the different doctrines of the different Churches and why you feel you can pick and choose what Church to attack but not all? Explain why it is that a Church which teaches its members to listen to the Holy Ghost is somehow inferior to a Church which (by men) teaches the way to read scripture?

We teach our members to listen to the Holy Spirit. He speaks to us in and through Scripture. He also illuminates our minds, convicts us of sin, and stirs us to love and good deeds. So to characterize evangelicals as denying that we should "listen to the Holy Spirit" is incorrect. We simply don't think the Holy Spirit normally "speaks" in the way Mormons claim. More important, we deny that the Holy Spirit revealed the LDS religion, not on the basis of man-made doctrines but on the basis of what the Holy Spirit has already revealed in Scripture.

I see no need for evangelicals to divide over such relatively insignificant issues as whether we practice speaking in tongues or what our views are on the exact order of end-times events. But if a religion denies essential Christian doctrine, we have no choice but to regard such a religion as a false version of Christianity. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus rose physically from the grave. That is a non-negotiable doctrinal truth denied by that particular religion. We have no choice but to regard Jehovah's Witnesses as heretical. The Metropolitan Community Church generally acknowledges Jesus' resurrection from the dead and other doctrinal truths, but it also teaches that homosexual activity is normal and blessed by God. Such a teaching undermines a minimally acceptable Christian value system and leaves us no choice but to view the MCC as heretical. The United Pentecostal Church has a very conservative moral value system (arguably too straight-laced) and affirms the bodily resurrection of Christ, but teaches that Jesus Christ is God the Father incarnate and that only those who have spoken in tongues are saved. Their teachings on those points leaves us no choice but to view the UPC as heretical. Hopefully these examples give you some idea of the reasoning we evangelicals use in determining that a particular professing Christian group is outside the pale of acceptable, sound Christianity.

You wrote:

To imply that your view of scripture is true and any other is false comes from you and not from God. No ones view of scripture is complete. People seek God and get what they need. I don't know how and what that means but I trust God. If one truly seeks God it does not matter what door of a Church you walk through on Sunday morning. In time all will find the right path. Some on this earth and most will find it after this life. I accept this.

By your reasoning, in fact, it does not matter whether one truly seeks God in this life or not, let alone through what church door one walks on Sunday morning. This doesn't negate the fact that truth matters and that some religions that profess to be Christian are unfaithful to the core truths of the Bible.

[Ahab]

There is a big difference between asking God to be at work in us to develop wisdom and understanding through our reading and hearing of Scripture, our interaction with other believers, our testing experiences, etc., and asking God to give us a private, direct revelation answering our questions.

Not really. In both situations you are ASKING God for something, and in both situations it is up to God to answer your prayer by giving you what he thinks you need.

Try just asking for that, sometime. Tell him your problems and your concerns and your questions about things...if you haven't already made up your own mind on certain issues, that is... and then be stilll and listen to God with faith that he will answer you.

Prayer is supposed to be all about communication BETWEEN you and God, you know, rather than you just asking for stuff with your own pre-determined limits for how God will answer you.

I think you'd be amazed at what you could experience if you had more faith that God will answer you in the same way he answers our prayers.

[Ahab]

We simply don't think the Holy Spirit normally "speaks" in the way Mormons claim.

That's part of your problem, Rob, because he actually does.

More important, we deny that the Holy Spirit revealed the LDS religion, not on the basis of man-made doctrines but on the basis of what the Holy Spirit has already revealed in Scripture.

Try considering the idea that your interpretation of scripture may be... just may be... flawed, and then ask God to tell you... not confirm, but to actually tell you.. how you should interpret the scriptures.

You already know what you think, but what you really need to know is what God thinks, so give him a chance to share his thoughts with you with faith that he will actually speak to you in a very real and personal way.

[Vance]

Furthermore, there are certain things that God cannot do because they are nonsense.

Ok.

For example, God cannot make us human amoebas.

Humm, that is an interesting assertion. Let's see where it takes us.

Nothing can be an amoeba and a human at the same time.

And with that, we can clearly reject the Evangelical understanding of God, Jesus and man.

Here is why. The Evangelical understanding of God has a greater separation between God and man than between man and amoeba. And yet the Evangelical understanding of Jesus is that He was 100% God and 100% man. By Bowman's argument that is IMPOSSIBLE.

Sorry for the derail, but I just couldn't resist pointing that out.

Edited to add,

Just as God cannot make me be a man and an amoeba, God cannot make me a temporal being and a beginningless being. And since one of the essential characteristics of God is that he is a beginningless being, it is simply impossible to make temporal creatures into Gods (in that sense). God can transform me in all sorts of wondrous ways, but he cannot do nonsense.

And by this assertion, Bowman declares that (his) God can NOT reproduce thus rendering (his) God IMPOTENT.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Vance