Imminent Death Of Evangelical Christianity?

[mathonihah]

Rob,

Thanks for sharing this article.

I found this statement especially insightful,

"If three out of four Americans call themselves Christians, we are in big trouble. Three out of four Americans certainly do not live like Christians. Christianity becomes confused when everyone is a Christian but no one is following Christ. We evangelicals believe that most Americans do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ."

Also, I think there is a very common attitude among self-idenfied Christians", "I do not believe in organized religion."

I have an even bigger problem with self-righteous Christians.

[cdowis]

"I have an even bigger problem with self-righteous Christians."

I know what you mean. I met several when I lived in Utah and at BYU. Did you know that chocolate cake is against the WOW.

Edited December 20, 2012 by cdowis

[Vance]

The writer of the blog you link says, near the bottom of the page, "Yes, it is the desire of every believer to try and keep God’s commandments. LDS members grossly misunderstand Christians when they think that we believe that we can run amuck in sin because we believe that we are saved freely. Nothing is further from the truth than that." Obviously, the author of this blog doesn't believe what you claim for him.

Which contradicts what his says here,

"Such an emphasis (on obedience), which violates the biblical teaching that we don’t have the ability to keep the commandments, results in no good. It either blinds people to how pervasive sin truly is causing them to think that they are really keeping the commandments, or else it drives people to despair as they realize that they can’t keep the commandments."

And,

" - the key is not my obedience and my work,"

And,

"Throughout his (Jesus) life he kept the commandments perfectly. “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15) But that’s just the beginning. God credits all that commandment- keeping, all that perfect living, all that righteousness, to believers."

In other words, there is no need to keep the commandments cuz Jesus did it for you.

And here is a perfect example of the false dichotomy of grace and obedience.

"But that is not what Jesus told the young man! He doesn’t even hint at grace. All he talks about is keeping the commandments. If Mormons want to point to these words as a template for gaining eternal life then they had better not mention grace at all – because Jesus doesn’t. Here Jesus says it’s 100% – not 50%, not 25%, not 1% – but 100% about keeping the commandments.

That is God’s consistent answer to the question: “what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” If the question is about what a person needs to do, then God’s answer is you have to do everything. You have to perfectly keep all the commandments. If that is the question, then grace is not part of the answer."

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The "dichotomy" between grace and obedience, if there is one at all, is not a dichotomy between believing in God's grace and seeking to obey his commandments. It is a dichotomy between seeking eternal life on the basis of God's grace and seeking eternal life on the basis of one's obedience to God's commandments. I seek to obey God's commandments, but not as a means to securing eternal life. This is what your criticism misses or ignores.

[Vance]

Vance,

The "dichotomy" between grace and obedience, if there is one at all, is not a dichotomy between believing in God's grace and seeking to obey his commandments. It is a dichotomy between seeking eternal life on the basis of God's grace and seeking eternal life on the basis of one's obedience to God's commandments.

That is just a restatment of the false dichotomy.

I seek to obey God's commandments, but not as a means to securing eternal life.

Goodie for you.

This is what your criticism misses or ignores.

I am fully aware of the standard evangelical position.

The problem is when evangelical anti-Mormons use the false dichotomy presented above mixed together with the misrepresentation of the Mormon position for their false and misleading attacks against Mormons.

If the Mormon position is so weak, why must it be misrepresented?

I think that the misrepresentation and the use of a false dichotomy is an implicit admission that the Mormon position is superior. After all, why cheat unless you are afraid that a fair contest will result in your defeat? So to speak.

[cdowis]

I was lamenting the situation and that is the purpose of this thread. This is a situation affecting all Christians, including LDS.

Edited December 21, 2012 by cdowis

[mathonihah]

Vance,

The "dichotomy" between grace and obedience, if there is one at all, is not a dichotomy between believing in God's grace and seeking to obey his commandments. It is a dichotomy between seeking eternal life on the basis of God's grace and seeking eternal life on the basis of one's obedience to God's commandments. I seek to obey God's commandments, but not as a means to securing eternal life. This is what your criticism misses or ignores.

“Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

“To them who

by patient continuance in well doing

seek

for glory and honour and immortality,

eternal life:

“But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

“Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

“But glory, honour, and peace, to

every man that worketh good,

to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

“For there is no respect of persons with God.” (Rom. 2:6–11)

“And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall

reap,

if we faint not.” (Gal. 6:9)

[danielwoods]

I thought the point was well made by that guy that Vance linked to, here's a quote:

One of those talks, entitled “What Shall a Man Give in Exchange for His Soul?”, was given by Elder Robert C. Gay. In it he made the following statement:

“This is the exchange the Savior is asking of us: we are to give up all our sins, big or small, for the Father’s reward of eternal life.

Note how he explicitly says that eternal life is a reward – a reward for a person overcoming both sins of commission and sins of omission. In that he is accurately reflecting the teachings of Mormonism and its heavy emphasis on what people have to do. In fact, his words easily could convince many that, in order to have eternal life, they would have to become sinless.

How different this is from what the Bible says! It explicitly says that “the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)

http://markcares.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/eternal-life-reward-or-gift/

[Vance]

I thought the point was well made by that guy that Vance linked to, here's a quote:

http://markcares.wor...reward-or-gift/

Ah, just more of the false dichotomy stupidity on display.

A reward is a gift. A gift is a reward. Attempting to create a false dichotomy between the two is assinine.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

“Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

“To them who

by patient continuance in well doing

seek

for glory and honour and immortality,

eternal life:

“But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

“Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

“But glory, honour, and peace, to

every man that worketh good,

to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

“For there is no respect of persons with God.” (Rom. 2:6–11)

“And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall

reap,

if we faint not.” (Gal. 6:9)

I guess they don't believe what the Bible clearly teaches.

[danielwoods]

Ah, just more of the false dichotomy stupidity on display.

A reward is a gift. A gift is a reward. Attempting to create a false dichotomy between the two is assinine.

The Dictionary states:

Reward: something that is given in return for good or evil done or received or that is offered or given for some service or attainment <the police offered a

reward

for his capture>

Gift: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

So, one is not the same as the other. They are quite distinct concepts in the english language.

Edited December 21, 2012 by danielwoods

[volgadon]

So, one is not the same as the other. They are quite distinct concepts in the english language.

Perhaps they are in English, but certainly not in Hebrew.

[Vance]

The Dictionary states:

Reward: something that is

given

in return for good or evil done or received or that is

offered or given

for some service or attainment <the police offered a

reward

for his capture>

Gift: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

I think you are failing to grasp some things.

So, one is not the same as the other. They are quite distinct concepts in the english language.

One is given and the other is ah . . . . . given.

So both are GIFTS.

[danielwoods]

Perhaps they are in English, but certainly not in Hebrew.

And yet they certainly appear to be in Greek, as different words indicate different concepts in both languages.

[Vance]

Perhaps they are in English, but certainly not in Hebrew.

Hey, didn't you know that it is the ENGLISH version of the Bible that is inerrant?

:crazy:

[danielwoods]

I think you are failing to grasp some things.

One is given and the other is ah . . . . . given.

So both are GIFTS.

Yes, both are "given" that is a commonality between the two. One is based on compensation, and one is not. A distinction the dictionary makes.

[Vance]

Yes, both are "given" that is a commonality between the two.

And now you will misrepresent their difference.

One is based on compensation, and one is not.

No it isn't based on compensation. It is a gift, given after the completion of a specific task. The completion of the specific task does not, as a natural course of events, insure the reception of "compensation". Only the integrity of the reward promiser insures the reception of the GIFT.

A distinction the dictionary makes.

Actually, no, it doesn't. You misrepresent what it actually says.

[danielwoods]

And now you will misrepresent their difference.

No it isn't based on compensation. It is a gift, given after the completion of a specific task. The completion of the specific task does not, as a natural course of events, insure the reception of "compensation". Only the integrity of the reward promiser insures the reception of the GIFT.

Actually, no, it doesn't. You misrepresent what it actually says.

I quoted the dictionary which stated,

The Dictionary states:

Reward: something that is given in return for good or evil done or received or that is offered or given for some service or attainment <the police offered a

reward

for his capture>

Gift: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

Which makes a clear distinction between the two. One is "without compensation" the other is based on a service or something, as you acknowledge, "rewarded" for something they did. And you continue to think that I am misrepresenting the dictionary?

CFR that I have misrepresented the dictionary definition.

[Vance]

I quoted the dictionary which stated,

Which makes a clear distinction between the two. One is "without compensation" the other is based on a service or something, as you acknowledge, "rewarded" for something they did. And you continue to think that I am misrepresenting the dictionary?

CFR that I have misrepresented the dictionary definition.

You said,

One is based on compensation, and one is not.

That is a clear misrepresentation of what the dictionary actually said.

NO WHERE did it say "one is based on compensation".

I really think dialogueing with you is a waste of time.

But I will give you an example to see if you will grasp the difference.

You promise your child that if he get straight A's for a year, you will reward him with a car.

Your child meets your requirements by getting straight A's for a year.

Does getting straight A's for a year, by nature, result in the reception of a car?

No!!!!! The child hasn't "earned" the car in the sense that the reception of a car will by nature result from getting straight A's for a year. You have simply made a PROMISE that the car will be given.

So, the only sense in which the child "earned" the car, is in that the child met the requirements you put forth in your PROMISE.

If the child receives the car from you, it is simply because you rewarded him by GIVING it to him.

It is a GIFT!!!!!!

I look forward to seeing how you will twist this into something I didn't say.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Vance

[danielwoods]

You said,

That is a clear misrepresentation of what the dictionary actually said.

NO WHERE did it say "one is based on compensation".

I really think dialogueing with you is a waste of time.

But I will give you an example to see if you will grasp the difference.

You promise your child that if he get straight A's for a year, you will reward him with a car.

Your child meets your requirements by getting straight A's for a year.

Does getting straight A's for a year, by nature, result in the reception of a car?

No!!!!! The child hasn't "earned" the car in the sense that the reception of a car will by nature result from getting straight A's for a year. You have simply made a PROMISE that the car will be given.

So, the only sense in which the child "earned" the car, is in that the child met the requirements you put forth in your PROMISE.

If the child receives the car from you, it is simply because you rewarded him by GIVING it to him.

It is a GIFT!!!!!!

I look forward to seeing how you will twist this into something I didn't say.

Ok you got me. It doesn't use the exact wording that I used. Rather it stated it like this,

"Gift: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation"

And a Reward is "given for some service or attainment."

So, tell me honestly, you don't see that there is a difference between these two, these are exactly the same?

[Vance]

Ok you got me. It doesn't use the exact wording that I used. Rather it stated it like this,

"Gift: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation"

And a Reward is "given for some service or attainment."

So, tell me honestly, you don't see that there is a difference between these two, these are exactly the same?

Both are gifts.

One gift requires the fulfillment of boths sides of a promise.

The other gift has no requirements at all.

So, "reward" is a sub catagory of "gift".

It is NOT something diametrically opposite as the evangelical anti-mormons would have you believe.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Vance

[danielwoods]

Both are gifts.

One gift requires the fulfillment of boths sides of a promise.

The other gift has no requirements at all.

So, "reward" is a sub catagory of "gift".

It is NOT something diametrically opposite as the evangelical anti-mormons would have you believe.

To say that one is a sub category of another it to say they are different, not the same, right?

One is rewarded a "gift" because of something he/she did, while the other is freely given a gift without reference to things done?

[Vance]

To say that one is a sub category of another it to say they are different, not the same, right?

I am getting the impression that you don't know what "sub category" means.

Chihuahua is a sub catagory of dogs. Are they different?

[danielwoods]

I am getting the impression that you don't know what "sub category" means.

Chihuahua is a sub catagory of dogs. Are they different?

Thanks. I did misunderstand.

Since you see them as the same, then you disagree with the dictionary definition which equates a reward as a form of payment, "given for some service"

As opposed to a free gift, that is "without compensation" as stated by the dictionary definition for gift?

[Vance]

Thanks. I did misunderstand.

Since you see them as the same, then you disagree with the dictionary definition which equates a reward as a form of payment, "given for some service"

I am not sure what you are looking for here. I gave you an example.

So, tell me, in the example I gave, is the car (the reward for straight A's for a year) a gift or not?

Did your child, by virtue of getting straight A's for a year, by nature, earn the full value of the car?

Did your child, by virtue of getting straight A's for a year, by nature, earn anything that could be exchanged for a portion of the value of the car?

What (or who) made up the difference between what the child produced and the full value of the car?

As opposed to a free gift, that is "without compensation" as stated by the dictionary definition for gift?

There you go again, with the false dichotomy. No oposition is involved. The one form of gift (the reward) is not opposed to or opposite of the other form of gift.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Vance