Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[diglot]

Actually there's no such thing as theology in the Bible. It was invented by the Greeks and imposed on the Bible. Theology consciously replaced new revelation as the arbiter of the meaning of former revelation.

Wow. Never heard this one before.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Hannah Rebekah,

You wrote:

That's quite a non sequitur. Assuming 1 Corinthians 12:3 is describing what could be called revelation, by that definition revelation never ceased (since people continued to confess that Jesus is Lord throughout the past two millennia) and theology that affirms the Lordship of Jesus is, by that definition, revelation.

Thanks for offering such a compelling refutation of the false dichotomy.

At least its not a non sequitur in logic as your nonsense is. Thanks for admitting, "my fallacy is better than your fallacy."

[Hannah Rebekah]

Actually there's no such thing as theology in the Bible. It was invented by the Greeks and imposed on the Bible. Theology consciously replaced new revelation as the arbiter of the meaning of former revelation.

Makes perfect sense and oh so logical.

BTW...just wanted to say...thanks for the great article I gave a link to. I learn a lot from our wonderful scholars and scholarly minds here.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Bill,

You wrote:

That old chestnut.

The apostle Paul is widely regarded as the first Christian theologian. Theology is simply rational thought about God and matters pertaining to God.

I notice that your don't say who imposed theology on the Bible or replaced new revelation with theology. This is likely because you don't have a plausible suspect. There was no time when some Greeks got together and decided that they were done listening to new Christian revelations and that they were going to replace such new revelations with theology. What happened is clear: new revelation ceased with the passing of the first-century apostles, and Christian pastors, leaders, and thinkers continued to do what they were charged with doing by the apostles themselves, namely, to teach and proclaim what Christ had revealed through the apostles. Using their cognitive faculties to do so was no sin.

Was Paul "widely regarded as the first Christian theologian" by theologians? Well, there you have it. Were they aware that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and he said something completely different:

"no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Cor. 12:3

"by the Holy Ghost" is revelation!!!!

Edited October 18, 2011 by Hannah Rebekah

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I wrote: I do not consider myself to be "the arbiter over" anyone else, but to be a Christian who is responsible for knowing what the theological standards are for genuine Christianity. You replied:

What possible purpose could such a responsibility serve outside of acting as arbiter over someone else regarding their participation in genuine Christianity?

Your question seems so off the wall to me that I hardly know how to respond. I seriously doubt any further effort to explain it to you would do any good. But I'll make one more effort, and I'll have to assume in my response that you need the obvious explained to you. Two preliminary points:

• The definite article the in the expression "the arbiter" indicates that one person is being assigned this function to the exclusion of all others. I do not claim any such function as my exclusive responsibility.
  
• The word arbiter indicates that the person exercises some decision-making role in determining who will be allowed to have their way in some matter. I claim no such role.
  

When I said that I am "a Christian who is responsible for knowing what the theological standards are for genuine Christianity," that statement in no way implies that I am an arbiter, let alone the arbiter, of anything.

Christians need to know what those standards are for a variety of reasons:

• because knowing them is a safeguard to the soundness of their own faith
  
• because they need to teach them to their children
  
• because, if they are teachers or leaders in the church, they have a responsibility to make sure that the members know what sound Christian doctrine is for their own spiritual health and development
  
• because Christians need to have some idea what groups of professing Christians need to be evangelized due to a lack of sound knowledge of the gospel and its supporting doctrinal truths and what groups do not need to be evangelized (e.g., Baptists do not need to evangelize Calvary Chapelites but do need to evangelize Christian Scientists)
  

You wrote:

I have never seen an example of defining the boundaries of Christianity that was cautionary and internal in nature. I have seen numerous, numerous examples of defining the boundaries of Christianity as reactionary and external in nature. In other words, I have never seen people say "these are the boundaries of Christianity, so make sure you stay within them," but I have seen numerous people say "these are the boundaries of Christianity, and you are outside them." Is the latter an inappropriate use of the authority you have?

If you've never seen teachers caution Christians to stay within the bounds of orthodoxy you have lived a sheltered life.

I used the word authority with deliberate provocation in part because Mormons constantly harp on their supposed "authority" and our supposed lack of authority, and in part because those with whom I was engaged in discussion refused to answer a simple question. I don't claim to have any authority OVER other Christians. I certainly don't claim to have any authority over Mormons. I do claim to be authorized--perhaps that is a clearer word in this context--to speak truth to anyone who is willing to listen.

You wrote:

I disagree quite emphatically. I've already asked you to support this notion, and so far you've been unwilling or unable. Consider this a formal CFR. Show me the Trinity as articulated by the Athanasian Creed is exclusively biblical.

This is ridiculous. You seem to think you are free to make all sorts of broad attacks against my beliefs without providing a single reference or example, and then when I disagree issue a CFR. And then you bring up the Athanasian Creed, even though your unsubstantiated attack was against the Nicene Creed. In fact, this is the first time anyone has mentioned the Athanasian Creed in this thread. So you are apparently trying to pull a fast one.

The Athanasian Creed, though it is called a "creed," is not a statement produced by any of the ecumenical councils. Scholars date it ca. 500 and its author and the circumstances of its composition are unknown. It carries no weight as an official statement of Christian belief, although many denominations in the past used it among other documents. Most orthodox Christians agree in general with the Trinitarian theology of the Athanasian Creed but not with its claim that someone who does not accept its statement in its entirety will surely be eternally condemned.

For that reason, I am going to substitute the Nicene Creed (381) and the Chalcedonian Definition (451), both of which originated from ecumenical councils. I could include the Apostles Creed but everything it says is included in these.

The Nicene Creed (381)

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. [Matt. 23:9; Acts 4:24; 17:24; 1 Cor. 8:6a; 2 Cor. 6:18; Heb. 11:3; Rev. 21:22]

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ [1 Cor. 8:6b; 12:4; Eph. 4:5],

the only-begotten Son of God [John 1:12, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9],

begotten of the Father before all ages [John 1:14, 18; 5:26; 6:57; 17:5; Gal. 4:4],

God of God [John 1:1, 18; Titus 2:10, 13; 2 Peter 1:1-2],

Light of Light [John 1:4-5; Heb. 1:3],

true God of true God [John 1:1, 18; Col. 2:9; 1 John 5:20],

begotten, not made [John 1:14, 18],

being of one substance with the Father [John 1:14; Heb. 1:3],

by whom all things were made [John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10];

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven [John 13:3; 16:28],

and was incarnate [John 1:14; Rom. 8:3; 1 John 4:1]

by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary [Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:35],

and was made man [Phil. 2:6-7],

and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate [Matt. 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 18-19].

He suffered [Matt. 16:21 par.; 17:12 par.; Luke 22:15; 24:26, 46; Acts 1:3; 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:18]

and was buried [Matt. 27:57-66 par.; Acts 13:29; 1 Cor. 15:4],

and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures [Luke 24:44-46; 1 Cor. 15:5],

and ascended into heaven [Acts 1:9-11],

and sits at the right hand of the Father [Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:33, 34; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22].

And he shall come again with glory [Matt. 16:27; Heb. 9:26-28; Titus 2:13; etc.]

to judge both the living and the dead [Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:22-23, 28-29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:7-8; Rev. 2:23];

whose kingdom shall have no end [Luke 1:33; Eph. 1:19b-21; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 11:15].

And we believe in the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19],

the Lord [2 Cor. 3:16-17]

and Giver of Life [Ps. 104:30; Ezek. 37:14; John 3:5-8; 6:63; Rom. 8:2, 6, 10-11; 2 Cor. 3:6; Gal. 5:25],

who proceeds from the Father [John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7],

who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified [Matt. 28:19; Phil. 3:3; cf. Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:29],

who spoke by the prophets [Acts 1:16; 28:25-27; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17; 1 Pet. 1:11].

And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic church [Eph. 2:18-22; 3:5-6; 4:4].

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins [Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Eph. 4:5].

And we look for the resurrection of the dead [John 5:29; 11:24-25; Acts 4:2; 23:6; 24:15; Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 15; etc.],

and the life of the world to come [Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34-35; etc.].

Amen.

The Definition of Chalcedon (451)

We, now, following the holy Fathers [Matt. 16:18; 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:2; Jude 3]

all with one consent [1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 4:5, 11-16],

teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ [2 Cor. 11:4; Eph. 4:5],

the same perfect in Godhead [Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3]

and also perfect in manhood [Phil. 2:7-8; Heb. 5:8-9];

truly God [John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; ***. 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1]

and truly man [Acts 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:21; Heb. 2:5-9],

of a reasonable soul [Matt. 26:38-39; John 11:33; 12:27; Acts 2:27, 31]

and body [Matt. 26:12; 27:56-59; John 2:21; Heb. 10:10];

consubstantial [homoousion] with the Father according to the Godhead [theoteti, Grk.; deitate, L.] [John 1:1; 10:30; 14:9; Col. 1:19, cf. 2:9; Heb. 1:3];

and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood [John 1:14; Acts 2:31; Rom. 1:3; 8:3-8; 1 John 4:2];

in all things like unto us, without sin [Heb. 2:14, 17; 4:15; 5:8-9];

begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead [John 1:14, 18; 5:26; 6:57; Gal. 4:4],

and in these latter days [Heb. 1:1-2],

for us and for our salvation [Luke 2:10-11],

born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God [theotokos], according to the Manhood [Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:27, 31, 34-37, 43; 2:7];

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-Begotten [Luke 2:11; John 1:14-18],

to be acknowledged in two natures [phuseon] [Rom. 1:3-4; 9:5; Phil. 2:6-8; Col. 2:9],

inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably [Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8; see texts cited above];

the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person [prosopon] and one Subsistence [hupostasis] [Luke 8:22-25; John 8:57-58; 1 Cor. 2:8; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6-8; Heb. 2:14-18],

not parted or divided into two persons [Eph. 4:5],

but one and the same Son, and only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ [John 1:1-3, 14-18];

as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him [Heb. 1:1-13];

and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us [Matt. 28:19-20; John 3:16],

and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us [1 Tim. 3:16; Jude 3].

You wrote:

Every place where Christ explicitly describes himself as distinct from and inferior to God, the Bible conflicts with the Trinity. Attempts to mitigate this fact by insisting on a functional/ontological dichotomy in Christ's subordination to God are derivative and don't fully solve the problem. Christ's assertion, for instance, that he is not good, and that only God is good, expresses a quite explicit ontological subordination. Christ's prayer that his followers become one with him and the father exactly as he is one with the Father undermines the idea that Christ's oneness with God is ontological. That conflicts with the Nicene Creed. Christ's own distinction between himself and the Father as "the only true God" conflicts with the Trinity. The descriptions of Christ as the first or beginning of God's creations conflict with the Trinity. Many more examples could be highlighted.

You need to do some study. In addition to my "The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study" (I am not allowed to give the link but I'm sure you can find it), see also my article “Crux Examinatio: Socinus on the Doctrine of the Trinity.” Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics 1 (2008): 59-77, which discusses John 17:3 in some detail; my blog series "In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One?" which you can find on Parchment and Pen (which deals with John 17:20-23 and related texts), and the book I co-authored with J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007).

You wrote:

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I don't mean to say dozens of points within the creed conflict with the Bible. I am saying that the few innovative portions of the Nicene Creed conflicts with the Bible in dozens of places.

Okay. But you're still mistaken.

You wrote:

Ok, here's some substance. The fourth century CE framers of the Trinity held three principles as inviolable in their development and exposition of the doctrine. Only the first is explicit in scripture, and that is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were three different entities. I don't say "persons" or "beings" because these carry baggage in the Trinitarian lexicon that simply did not exist in the first two centuries of the Christian church. No real practical distinction was made between a "person" and a "being" when discussing a sentient entity. That distinction was manipulated in the fourth century in order to accomodate the first and the second interpretive axioms.

You're already off the trail. The word entities is simply a synonym for beings.

That second axiom was a specific brand of monotheism. Christ could not be divine and distinct from God. This was a framework that developed in the second and third centuries CE as Greek intellectual categories were appropriated by Christian apologists. Justin Martyr shows the early stages of the transition to this period in his insistence that Jesus is "another God" who is a separate being from the Father. He explains their unity as one of will, not of number. While some manner of monotheism existed in Greco-Roman period Judaism, Christianity's innovation was not immediately or easily reconciled to that ideal. There is a reason the question of how the earliest Christians viewed Christ's deity has been such a popular topic over the last couple decades, and the reason is not that it was quickly or clearly understood (see here, here, here, here, and here, for starters).

You really need to read Putting Jesus in His Place. The authors of three of the five books you cite here (Hurtado and Bauckham) endorsed it. You are assuming that continued study of the Bible did not play a role in the church abandoning the subordinationism that Justin Martyr exemplified.

The third axiom was the last to be developed, and that's because it came from completely outside Judaism and Christianity. It was the notion that all three members of the Godhead had to be ontologically equal.

Your use of the term "Godhead" betrays your LDS theological presuppositions. The early church did not think in terms of a "Godhead" in the sense of a collective of deities that ran the universe. They worshiped God, not three Gods in one Godhead. As Christian thought matured on the subject they realized more clearly and articulated more effectively the fact that the NT explicitly describes Jesus Christ not as a subordinate deity but as God. This was the critical point at Nicea.

You wrote:

You earlier implied that those who are outside the theological circle who become spiritual Christians will resolve their theological problems and move inside the theological circle. You said some Mormons have been spiritual Christians because they were in the "process" of being led out of their religion and into an "authentically Christian church." Thus a lack of theological orthodoxy is unilaterally a symptom of a lack of a genuinely saving relationship with Jesus Christ unless that lack of orthodoxy is in the very process of being remedied. Can one be a spiritual Christian while remaining a theological non-Christian? According to what you said before, one cannot. According to what you say here, one can. You are redrawing your lines, Rob.

No, just clarifying them. Am I permitted to do so? Naturally, some people get further along than others do in the process of learning the doctrinal truths on which the gospel rests. Your criticism ignores this obvious qualification.

This post is already way too long and I have already spent far too much time on it.

[Rob Bowman]

Huh?

At least its not a non sequitur in logic as your nonsense is. Thanks for admitting, "my fallacy is better than your fallacy."

[Mudcat]

Sorry, but it doesn’t appear so certain to me. If you want to look at it in its full context, you should bring verse 1 into it as well:

For Discussion's sake and Context's, as well lets just put Jude up, since it's a short book.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.

Jud 1:2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.

Jud 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Jud 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

Jud 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Jud 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

Jud 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Jud 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Jud 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Jud 1:25 To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

We normally understand that our sanctification comes by Jesus Christ, don’t we, which is of course correct (e.g. 1 Thes. 3:12-13). But in verse 1 Jude says that we are sanctified by the Father. Likewise in verse 24, “him” and “his” appear to be reflexive, and refer to the Father Himself rather than to a third person.

Given v.1, Jude certainly affords sanctification to the Father, but notably the actual preservation of such sanctification relies upon Christ. If left to ourselves, without the Grace of Christ, certainly such a sanctimonious state would fall flat.

I disagree with your reference to the "reflexive" points you are trying to make. I do think, given v.1, if Christ, as Jude asserts preserves our sanctification, then verse 24 refers to Christ's preservation that keeps us from falling, rather than the Father, as you suggest.

Also worth noting in verse 24, is the second portion of it. If the Father is who Jude refers to, then who does the Father present us faultlessly to?

Yes, I do. That is perfectly consistent with LDS theology. Here is a quote from Lecture Five of the Lectures on Faith by Joseph Smith, showing not only that the Father and the Son possess the same Mind, but the Saints will share the same Mind with them when they are fully sanctified and exalted:

I haven't heard much about this. It's new to me. Seems the text pushes for the interchangeability of "mind" and "spirit". I don't have a problem with that.. just talking out loud.

The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

Certainly sounds different than what I have understood. I thought LDS thought their was independence on the part of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and this "oneness" they shared wasn't a literal sharing of the same mind. Rather that each had independently consistent agreement.

In that regard, how do you treat that bit in the Garden of Gethsemane.. "not my will, but thine"?

It is one of the harder sayings of Christ. How do you feel it fits in scope of what you have presented?

So as you can see, not only the Father and the Son have the same mind, but the Saints will also have the same Mind when they are exalted, and become like them. Did you find that surprising?

Yes. I actually find it quite surprising. I underlined a bit, "become like them". I don't really know what to make of that. It all has to do with this notion you have presented of sharing a mind with another person or persons.

What happens to individuality? If 5,000 persons literally share the same mind, then what good reason is there to think there are 5,000 persons rather than 5,000 automatons controlled by one singular mind? Hopefully, that isn't to hard to follow.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited October 18, 2011 by Mudcat

[Hannah Rebekah]

Huh?

Yeap...it makes about as much sense as all of your mumbo jumbo you been espousing . You have not even come close to refuting my opening post. You make it all so complicated that I don't even think the you even really understand yourself. So let me make it quite simple because it really is.

Those who followed Christ, his disciples (pupils) are referred to as Christians in the Bible. The Bible is your sole authority (Sola Scriptura) therefore it is on good authority that those who follow Christ are therefore Christians.

Mormons follow Christ therefore the conclusion is:

Mormons are Christians!!!!

End of story!!!

Edited October 18, 2011 by Hannah Rebekah

[maklelan]

Rob-

This blasted website won't let me post my response because it insists I don't have matching opening and closing tags, which is not true. I have saved my post as a PDF here. I'm sorry it is not as convenient to read in the current format.

[Calm]

I bet the use of brackets for parentheses confused it, also possibly the lack of a space before the final tag though it should not make a difference. Perhaps it is too many quotes and it cut off the last tag leaving it uneven...next time try posting in pieces to locate the problem so you can avoid it in the future maybe....i'd experiment but am exiled to my iPad where I haven't figured out how to cut and paste yet, which is a major drag.

Now I will go back and actually read it rather than counting quote tags.

[Robert F. Smith]

No. Obviously. The LDS Church isn't involved here in interfaith discussion, though a few members are, and it is speaking for itself, and to its members, when it claims to be the only true church. How did you miss these two critical qualifiers in your failed attempt at a tu quoque?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually many wards and stakes are directly involved (at the leadership level) in interfaith fellowship and discussion -- often to see what can be done in concert to deal with poverty, homelessness, and other problems faced by whole communities. There is a very ecumenical and accepting attitude by most participants. In a ward in southern California, for example, I recall an LDS bishop who had once regularly attended the local Catholic parish and knew one of priests quite well: When the LDS guy became a bishop, his old friend the priest commented to him that he had always wanted to be a bishop, but he was still just a parish priest. They both laughed.

The same kind spirit was exhibited by the religious staff at the local Federal Prison: The Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim clerics who ran the program at the Prison were gracious and very accommodating to Evangelicals, Mormons, Jews, and others who gathered each Sabbath for worship (a couple of visitors from each faith were allowed to come in from outside and participate).

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

Such an evangelical Presbyterian minister is, in my opinion, taking too narrow of a view of the issues between evangelicals and Mormons. I am not here addressing the question of the salvation of Mormons who believe they are saved by the blood of Christ. There are some soteriological issues that the minister has overlooked or perhaps even chosen to ignore (I don't know who he is, of course), but even granting that many Mormons might be genuinely saved because of their faith in Christ, the LDS religion remains heretical from an orthodox perspective, just as orthodox Christianity remains apostate from a Mormon perspective. Neither side can be "inclusionary" in the sense of papering over these serious differences.

I am thinking more of the everyday "inclusionary" kindness toward each other of those who may come from quite divergent religious points of view. I once worked closely for a time with a man who was a graduate of Biola College, even visiting in his home with others of our colleagues. I observed that he was a good man, and told him privately that I considered him a fine Christian gentleman. I never discussed my own religious point of view with him, judging that fellow workers ought to be off limits. I once spent years working closely with Jews and never breached the unspoken trust which we shared. I recall with particular warmth the years in which I frequently visited with members of a young evangelical organization on a midwestern university campus. They knew nothing about me, but regarded me as unsaved anyhow. Once when I bought them lunch, I commented that whereas Christians used to be fed to the lions, today I was feeding the Christians!! We laughed.

I think that this matter is more about civility and kindness toward those who may differ on religious issues. One ought to be particularly cautious about making unjustified criticisms. For example, evangelical Mark DeMoss (a Southern Baptist), says that he decided to launch his Civility Project when he observed the horrific anti-Mormon incivility directed at the Mitt Romney campaign for President last time around: “I’m ashamed to say some of the worst, most uncivil treatment of Mormons came from fellow evangelicals” (Salt Lake Tribune, Aug 29, 2009, C3). We are now seeing some of that same intolerable calumny being directed at Romney again from some evangelicals. Does this disturb you? What do you tell your fellow evangelicals when they are incivil?

By the way, I am not a Romney partisan, since I differ markedly from his political points of view.

You wrote:

Evangelicals are no more plotting Mormonism's demise than Mormons are plotting evangelicalism's demise. Or perhaps I could say no less. Evangelicals properly view Mormonism as heretical and Mormons, if they are being true to their founding scriptures, properly view evangelicalism as apostate. As you admit, both sides seek to convert the other. I don't consider Mormons dishonest merely because they seek to convert evangelicals, nor are evangelicals less than "honest in heart" for wanting to see Mormons come to an evangelical faith in Christ. (Evangelicals are actually not seeking to convert Mormons to their institutional religion or denomination. I could care less which denomination a person joins, as long as that person knows Christ and is growing in the truth of the biblical gospel and worldview.) Nor would I plead guilty to "lying in wait to deceive." I and other evangelicals with whom I associate in ministry to Mormons work very hard to speak accurately and fairly about the LDS religion.

I don't see this moral equivalence which you suggest. One has only to troll the average Christian bookstore to find books and pamphlets with astonishingly inaccurate information about Mormons, including reprints of books that have long outlasted the lives of their authors -- who made no effort to accurately describe the LDS faith. As an honest evangelical you ought to be first in line to fault such improper and unchristianlike conduct by your fellow evangelicals. I see nothing of this sort of vicious literature in LDS bookstores.

Indeed, evangelicals Paul Owen and Carl Mosser determined that their own community of "scholarship" had completely missed the fact that LDS apologists had actually done a very creditable job of defending their faith, and that anti-Mormon literature was characterized by misinformation and an abysmal ignorance of Mormonism (“Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 19/2 new series [Fall 1998], 179-205).

Finally, President Richard J. Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary has been harshly critical of his fellow evangelicals for “bearing false witness against” Mormons (in the foreword to F. Beckwith, C. Mosser, and P. Owen, The New Mormon Challenge [Zondervan, 2002], 11). Likewise for Professor Douglas E. Cowan of the University of Missouri - Kansas City (Bearing False Witness? An Introduction to the Christian Countercult [Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003]). Mormons have been and are being bullied and they are not happy with it. Well, perhaps the true followers of Christ have to expect that sort of thing . . .

[Calm]

Took longer to load up the page then I realized, only checked the first two pages before......found the extra quote tag, it is right after "you need to some some study" at the end of the third page.

[zerinus]

For Discussion's sake and Context's, as well lets just put Jude up, since it's a short book.

<snip>

Given v.1, Jude certainly affords sanctification to the Father, but notably the actual preservation of such sanctification relies upon Christ. If left to ourselves, without the Grace of Christ, certainly such a sanctimonious state would fall flat.

I disagree with your reference to the "reflexive" points you are trying to make. I do think, given v.1, if Christ, as Jude asserts preserves our sanctification, then verse 24 refers to Christ's preservation that keeps us from falling, rather than the Father, as you suggest.

Also worth noting in verse 24, is the second portion of it. If the Father is who Jude refers to, then who does the Father present us faultlessly to?

The object of the exercise was to show that Jude 1:25: "To the only wise God our Savior, ..." cannot be interpreted as rigidly as you assumed.

I haven't heard much about this. It's new to me. Seems the text pushes for the interchangeability of "mind" and "spirit". I don't have a problem with that.. just talking out loud.

Certainly sounds different than what I have understood. I thought LDS thought their was independence on the part of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and this "oneness" they shared wasn't a literal sharing of the same mind. Rather that each had independently consistent agreement.

In that regard, how do you treat that bit in the Garden of Gethsemane.. "not my will, but thine"?

It is one of the harder sayings of Christ. How do you feel it fits in scope of what you have presented?

Yes. I actually find it quite surprising. I underlined a bit, "become like them". I don't really know what to make of that. It all has to do with this notion you have presented of sharing a mind with another person or persons.

What happens to individuality? If 5,000 persons literally share the same mind, then what good reason is there to think there are 5,000 persons rather than 5,000 automatons controlled by one singular mind? Hopefully, that isn't to hard to follow.

We are getting into deep doctrine now, about which enough knowledge has not been revealed. Suffice it to say that I don't believe it implies that "individuality" will disappear. But the "unifying factor" will be so complete that they can be said to have the same mind. The Holy Spirit is that unifying element that enables them to share or have the same mind. They will all be filled with the Holy Spirit to such a degree that they will all know alike, think alike, and believe alike, and possess all knowledge alike, so that there will be no element of discord among them.

Edited October 18, 2011 by zerinus

[Vance]

Your dichotomy between theology and revelation is a man-made dichotomy, . . . .

That is simply a bald assertion.

. . . .and a false dichotomy to boot.

And that is simply a dismissal based on a bald assertion.

Assert and dismiss.

[CV75]

Your dichotomy between theology and revelation is a man-made dichotomy, and a false dichotomy to boot.

I don’t see how. Theology is only a science, an invention and tool of man. It is as worthwhile as biology, psychology or bromatology in bringing people to spiritual life in Christ. Its findings are only as good as the sustaining witness that the Holy Ghost can give them, and the Holy Ghost will not bear witness of any faulty principle, which those who rely on theology adopt.

Its fatal flaw is that at its best, it represents only a human quality of thinking. Like the sciences, its adherents pick and choose which assertions they find “rational.”

“Inspired theology”, almost by definition, is an oxymoron. Revelation trumps or bypasses theology every time. The Holy Ghost will bear witness of true principles wherever they are found and lead people to Christ. Inspired theology might be when, for example, people follow Moroni’s promise by studying things out in their mind first, but ultimately the voice of the Spirit must be heard.

The voice of the Spirit is plain. Theology is convoluted. The doctrine of Christ is plain, and the Spirit bears witness of it. The Spirit does not bear witness of the things of man (theology), but only of the things of God (revelation).

A plug for the Book of Mormon: Many plain things were taken from the Bible, and the Spirit cannot bear witness of things that have lost their plainness. This is where many theologians stumble—they study under their own wisdom that which is spiritually dead and rely on it.

[Rob Bowman]

Hannah Rebekah,

Do evangelicals like me follow Christ?

Yeap...it makes about as much sense as all of your mumbo jumbo you been espousing . You have not even come close to refuting my opening post. You make it all so complicated that I don't even think the you even really understand yourself. So let me make it quite simple because it really is.

Those who followed Christ, his disciples (pupils) are referred to as Christians in the Bible. The Bible is your sole authority (Sola Scriptura) therefore it is on good authority that those who follow Christ are therefore Christians.

Mormons follow Christ therefore the conclusion is:

Mormons are Christians!!!!

End of story!!!

[LeSellers]

Wow. Never heard this one before.

You haven't been here long. Look here.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

I had observed that the dichotomy between theology and revelation is a false dichotomy. You commented:

I don’t see how. Theology is only a science, an invention and tool of man. It is as worthwhile as biology, psychology or bromatology in bringing people to spiritual life in Christ. Its findings are only as good as the sustaining witness that the Holy Ghost can give them, and the Holy Ghost will not bear witness of any faulty principle, which those who rely on theology adopt.

Its fatal flaw is that at its best, it represents only a human quality of thinking. Like the sciences, its adherents pick and choose which assertions they find “rational.”

“Inspired theology”, almost by definition, is an oxymoron. Revelation trumps or bypasses theology every time. The Holy Ghost will bear witness of true principles wherever they are found and lead people to Christ. Inspired theology might be when, for example, people follow Moroni’s promise by studying things out in their mind first, but ultimately the voice of the Spirit must be heard.

The voice of the Spirit is plain. Theology is convoluted. The doctrine of Christ is plain, and the Spirit bears witness of it. The Spirit does not bear witness of the things of man (theology), but only of the things of God (revelation).

A plug for the Book of Mormon: Many plain things were taken from the Bible, and the Spirit cannot bear witness of things that have lost their plainness. This is where many theologians stumble—they study under their own wisdom that which is spiritually dead and rely on it.

All of this really misses the point. What you have done right here is theology. That is, you have offered your own uninspired, man-made reflections on the differences between theology and revelation. Whenever someone thinks rationally about what God has revealed, he is doing theology. It is unavoidable. It is inevitable. When Paul "reasoned from the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2), he was doing theology. Taking the position that theology is bad while revelation is good is akin to saying, "It is wrong to use reason to understand revelation." Such a statement is self-contradictory, since the person making the statement is using reason (badly, as it turns out) to try to understand something about revelation.

[Vance]

That old chestnut.

Well poisoning.

The apostle Paul is widely regarded as the first Christian theologian.

Ad populum.

This is likely because you don't have a plausible suspect.

Speculation.

There was no time when some Greeks got together and decided that they were done listening to new Christian revelations and that they were going to replace such new revelations with theology.

Strawman.

What happened is clear: new revelation ceased with the passing of the first-century apostles, . . .

Clear evidence that Ancient Church was no longer guided by the Holy Spirit because of apostasy.

. . . and Christian pastors, leaders, and thinkers continued to do what they were charged with doing by the apostles themselves,. . .

Bald assertion.

. . . namely, to teach and proclaim what Christ had revealed through the apostles.

Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the philosophies of men corrupted what Christ had revealed through the apostles. The fact that you are not a Catholic is an implicit admission that accept the widespread corruption of true doctrine.

Using their cognitive faculties . . .

rather than revelation from the Holy Spirit,

. . . to do so was no sin.

Irrelevant!

They were using their own human limited understanding rather than the Holy Spirit. Thanks for admitting that they weren't guided by God but rather by their own human limited intellect.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Vance

[zerinus]

Your dichotomy between theology and revelation is a man-made dichotomy, and a false dichotomy to boot.

It depends on whose theology you are talking about. Christianity has spawned a multitude of competing theologies incompatible with each other, which could not possibly be "inspired," for God is not the author of confusion.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

It depends on whose theology you are talking about. Christianity has spawned a multitude of competing theologies incompatible with each other, which could not possibly be "inspired," for God is not the author of confusion.

I totally agree. But zerinus, Joseph Smith alone "spawned" at least two competing theologies incompatible with each other. In 1830 he taught explicitly that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one unchangeable God from all eternity to all eternity (Moroni 8:18; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7; D&C 20:17, 28; etc.). In 1844 he explicitly claimed to refute the idea that God has been God from all eternity (the King Follett Discourse) and taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were three Gods, not one God (the Sermon at the Grove). By your own standard, then, Joseph Smith's teachings cannot be inspired.

[zerinus]

I totally agree. But zerinus, Joseph Smith alone "spawned" at least two competing theologies incompatible with each other. In 1830 he taught explicitly that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one unchangeable God from all eternity to all eternity (Moroni 8:18; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7; D&C 20:17, 28; etc.). In 1844 he explicitly claimed to refute the idea that God has been God from all eternity (the King Follett Discourse) and taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were three Gods, not one God (the Sermon at the Grove). By your own standard, then, Joseph Smith's teachings cannot be inspired.

I totally disagree with your suggestion that Joseph Smith taught competing theologies. The real truth is that you simply do not understand him. If I wanted to look for (seemingly) contradictory doctrines in the Bible, there would be aplenty. But are they really contradictory, or do they look to us to be contradictory? I think it is the latter; and so it is with what Joseph Smith has taught.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

I totally disagree with your suggestion that Joseph Smith taught competing theologies. The real truth is that you simply do not understand him.

So explain it to me.

[altersteve]

I don't have the time or desire to explain all of it right now, but I am confident that there is no contradiction between what is taught in the Book of Mormon and what Joseph taught later in his life.