Contention Over What Constitutes An Evangelical

[volgadon]

I think the Lord or God, wants that for us. Maybe everyone is getting the same message from Him and we are just thinking it was just for us. Just like when a parent tells their child that they're the favorite child. But says that to each of his/her child.

Janusz Korczak was a Jewish-Polish pediatrician, pedagogue, and psychiatrist who ran an orphanage in Poland before WWII. He was allowed to escape to freedom, but decided to perish with his orphans in the death camps. Anyway, I watched some interviews with the orphans who survived. One of them said we knew he loved all of us, but I felt that he loved mischevious boys best. Another said that he loved shy, quiet girls like herself most. Basically, each orphan felt the most loved.

[3DOP]

Paloma:

This is a very good question. The God that is said to have created space and time out of nothing is an it rather an a person. It is a First Thing or what is often described in arguments presumably demonstrating that it is the First Thing, sometimes also called a First Cause, Prime Mover. In classical theism God is what is often called Eternal, meaning timeless and hence with no past or future, and so forth. Though it caused everything and determined everything, this timeless disembodied First Thing cannot have new thoughts, cannot change, cannot adjust to our longings and so forth. If one takes seriously the attributes of God set out in classical theism, God is not a he or she, cannot hear us or weep over our miseries. This is what one gets with arguments such as those that stand behind theology. One strand of classical theism insists that one cannot attribute anything to God, and hence all meaningful God-talk must be negative. This is the famous via negativea of medieval scholastic thought. We can, it was argued, only say what God is not. Hence God has no past or future, is not located here or there, cannot possibly be seen, and on and on.

What I found in my study of the theology of Paul Tillich, when I was a kid, is the attempt to turn the Christian God, the best known person being the resurrected Jesus, into an the Unconditional (nothing conditions it including time and space), Absolute, Infinite Ground of Being or Power of Being--that is, not an existing being, but Being-Itself (or the Isness in everything that is). I hope this helps. I will say more about this later. This was a very good question. And it gave me an opportunity to explain why I dislike theology..

Hi Dr. Midgley, Paloma...

A few comments if I may...

I do not disagree with this assessment Paloma. The God of the Philosophers, the Prime Mover, is not necessarily personal. It is important to believe in these formulations, that one can without the light of faith reach thus far, to a Creator God. Even the Scriptures in Rom. 1 suggest that without revealing a God of love and mercy and condescension, we may at least learn from His beautiful creation that a transcendent Maker exists:

For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity:

---Rom. 1:20

I don't know of anyone who teaches that anybody should get all warm and fuzzy over Rom. 1:20. But what St. Paul and the rest of the Scriptures teach is that this same God, this same Prime Mover, is also revealed through faith, by His revelation to His Son and to the Apostles and to the Prophets to be personal, intimate, merciful, a lover of us and of all His creation, willing that none should perish but willing to share His abundant and transcendent life.

The Catholic Tradition to which many Protestants, if I am not mistaken, adhere on this matter insist upon two sources of revelation about God Himself. The first and available to all through nature, is that He merely exists, not necessarily caring about us, but nonetheless an object worthy of awe and wonder and perhaps fear, (the beginning of knowledge). The second source of information which can be called supernatural, above nature, because it cannot be deducted by the powers of reason observing nature, is that this same God takes superabundant interest in each and every human soul, even offering Himself to come in the Person of the Son to share our relatively miserable condition and to lead us to eternal life. The first kind of revelation we understand by reason, the second is attainable only by faith. This is why I suggest it would be incorrect to insist that belief in the God of nature, the Prime Mover as we have been calling Him, is necessarily impersonal. There are attributes which make us marvel to think that He is our Emmanuel at the same time as He is eternally unchanging. But that is a mystery we can perhaps enjoy unraveling for eternity while contemplating His Blessed Vision.

The Creator God of the Greeks and Rom. 1:20 could possibly be only an It. But happily, we Christians have learned both from Moses and Christ that "He is." He is the eternal "I Am," and our relationship with this Person is of such potential intimate and loving intensity, that in this life, we truly could not bear it. For now we may only like little children, dimly understanding the privileges of maturity, wait, knowing that it has not entered into our hearts what this good and infinitely awesome God hath prepared for those who love Him.

A Blessed Lord's Day to all and Feast of the Holy Family to any fellow Catholics out there,

3DOP

Edited January 13, 2013 by 3DOP

[Tacenda]

Janusz Korczak was a Jewish-Polish pediatrician, pedagogue, and psychiatrist who ran an orphanage in Poland before WWII. He was allowed to escape to freedom, but decided to perish with his orphans in the death camps. Anyway, I watched some interviews with the orphans who survived. One of them said we knew he loved all of us, but I felt that he loved mischevious boys best. Another said that he loved shy, quiet girls like herself most. Basically, each orphan felt the most loved.

Thanks for sharing that story. What I meant by my analogy was that I think the Lord may accept most religions and give credence spiritually that they are correct (loved or the favorite). This thought happened to cross my mind so I posted it. BTW, looking at this story once more, it occurred to me it applies perfectly to my analogy, thanks again! Edited January 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[3DOP]

Well of course Catholicism does not accept our baptisms either so I guess it goes both ways.

Hi bukowski,

You may not have seen the entire exchange. The discussion began with my admission that I tend to to think that the Catholic Church has erred in giving baptism unconditionally to converts from Mormonism. From there our good Calmoriah defended me to Ahab for saying that I wasn't fully united with him in Christian unity, my baptism, from his perspective being lacking. The comment to which you addressed yourself was at the end of this conversation in which I conceded that Ahab's remarks had some merit. Our mutual views tend to exclude each other.

However, I could make an argument, and did, to my pastor a couple of weeks ago that the form, matter, and intent of the minsters of LDS baptisms are of at least doubtful validity. It is a much more difficult matter for the Church to prove that all LDS baptisms are invalid, than it is for me to suggest that some, a few, or even one LDS baptism is valid. The Church would agree that if there is a slight chance that LDS baptisms are valid, it means that we should baptize only conditionally. That is why I am critical of the new policy, and why I believe that better understanding may permit us to not only avoid conditional baptisms, but actually accept LDS baptism. What manifestly does not help is the eager willingness on the part of both Catholics and Mormons to overemphasize our apparent differences regarding our views of the godhead while displaying extreme reluctance in trying to reconcile these differences.

I still take my cues on this from a long discussion of John 4 over at ZLMB where David Waltz, who knows the Book of Mormon like few LDS, demonstrated to my satisfaction, the compatibility of our views. He doesn't do that anymore here. I don't know if he got weary of the resistance from both LDS and non-LDS. But without being able to make the same demonstrations, I am confident that Latter-day revelation is less to blame than "Latter-day philosophy" for our continuing inability to find a way to understand each other in this area. I am convinced, ironically, that the problem isn't with LDS Scripture, the problem is the influence of modern philosophy on LDS who think they have learned that if God is as great as Traditional Christianity says, that He doesn't love, and is unlovable. I dare not make my God smaller just because I can't explain how He loves. Recalling Dave's use of your Scripture, I am afraid I think you guys do this to some degree. I wish we could all be more content to imagine that perhaps we just can't quite comprehend "true love".

In any case, this is how I can believe that LDS who are deeply attached to the Book of Mormon, and unaffected by false philosophies, would be able ministers of baptism.

3DOP

Edited January 13, 2013 by 3DOP

[Paloma]

Hi Dr. Midgley, Paloma...

A few comments if I may...

I do not disagree with this assessment Paloma. The God of the Philosophers, the Prime Mover, is not necessarily personal. It is important to believe in these formulations, that one can without the light of faith reach thus far, to a Creator God. Even the Scriptures in Rom. 1 suggest that without revealing a God of love and mercy and condescension, we may at least learn from His beautiful creation that a transcendent Maker exists:

---Rom. 1:20

I don't know of anyone who teaches that anybody should get all warm and fuzzy over Rom. 1:20. But what St. Paul and the rest of the Scriptures teach is that this same God, this same Prime Mover, is also revealed through faith, by His revelation to His Son and to the Apostles and to the Prophets to be personal, intimate, merciful, a lover of us and of all His creation, willing that none should perish but willing to share His abundant and transcendent life.

The Catholic Tradition to which many Protestants, if I am not mistaken, adhere on this matter insist upon two sources of revelation about God Himself. The first and available to all through nature, is that He merely exists, not necessarily caring about us, but nonetheless an object worthy of awe and wonder and perhaps fear, (the beginning of knowledge). The second source of information which can be called supernatural, above nature, because it cannot be deducted by the powers of reason observing nature, is that this same God takes superabundant interest in each and every human soul, even offering Himself to come in the Person of the Son to share our relatively miserable condition and to lead us to eternal life. The first kind of revelation we understand by reason, the second is attainable only by faith. This is why I suggest it would be incorrect to insist that belief in the God of nature, the Prime Mover as we have been calling Him, is necessarily impersonal. There are attributes which make us marvel to think that He is our Emmanuel at the same time as He is eternally unchanging. But that is a mystery we can perhaps enjoy unraveling for eternity while contemplating His Blessed Vision.

The Creator God of the Greeks and Rom. 1:20 could possibly be only an It. But happily, we Christians have learned both from Moses and Christ that "He is." He is the eternal "I Am," and our relationship with this Person is of such potential intimate and loving intensity, that in this life, we truly could not bear it. For now we may only like little children, dimly understanding the privileges of maturity, wait, knowing that it has not entered into our hearts what this good and infinitely awesome God hath prepared for those who love Him.

A Blessed Lord's Day to all and Feast of the Holy Family to any fellow Catholics out there,

3DOP

Beautifully stated!

Thank you for this gift on this Lord's Day!

And a blessed day to you as well.

(You are correct, I believe, in thinking that Protestants would adhere to the Catholic tradition you described so beautifully. It certainly completely resonates with me!)

Paloma

[Paloma]

Thanks for sharing that story. What I meant by my analogy was that I think the Lord may accept most religion's and give credence spiritually that they are correct (loved or the favorite). This thought happened to cross my mind so I posted it.

Hi Tacenda,

My own thought is that God is trans or supra "religion". I think He graciously accepts us and works through our human nature which creates and adheres to organizational systems. And it's certainly biblical that we gather together to learn and serve together.

But I (Protestant that I am!) believe in the "priesthood of all believers", and I believe that the "Body of Christ", the "church" is all true believers in Christ. I think God looks at hearts rather than religious or denominational adherence.

Having said that, I have a lot of love and respect for the different Christian traditions, and would not want to criticize those who see it differently.

So you can see that I appreciate your comment above!

On the way home from church today, I was listening to Susan Boyle sing "Make me an instrument of your peace" (ascribed to St. Francis, and thus called the Prayer of St. Francis, though I understand that it's unlikely to have originated with him. I'm a St. Francis fan, by the way.) I love the sentiment that we give preference to the other (a very biblical idea!) and so I think that we may bask in God's love, but be more concerned with loving others and having others know they're loved than being loved ourselves.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Paloma

[mfbukowski]

This would only work in English and a few other languages. In most languages 'it' has to be masculine or feminine. Often 'it' doesn't exist, there's only 'he' or 'she.' French LDS definitely say the male form: 'Le' (male 'the') or 'il' (he/male it).

Yes but that would translate into "He" or "Him" just as well

[mfbukowski]

I do not disagree with this assessment Paloma. The God of the Philosophers, the Prime Mover, is not necessarily personal.

Just to clarify, you are speaking of the God of Scholastic, Neoplatonic philosophers here and no others.

Process theologians do not see him this way at all, including Catholic process theologians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Biblio/Thematic/Roman%20Catholic.html

[mfbukowski]

A Blessed Lord's Day to all and Feast of the Holy Family to any fellow Catholics out there,

And Mormons might I add!

Every Sunday is the Feast of the Holy Family for us! The Godhead is a Family and we are all part of it!

[mfbukowski]

Hi bukowski,

You may not have seen the entire exchange. The discussion began with my admission that I tend to to think that the Catholic Church has erred in giving baptism unconditionally to converts from Mormonism. From there our good Calmoriah defended me to Ahab for saying that I wasn't fully united with him in Christian unity, my baptism, from his perspective being lacking. The comment to which you addressed yourself was at the end of this conversation in which I conceded that Ahab's remarks had some merit. Our mutual views tend to exclude each other.

However, I could make an argument, and did, to my pastor a couple of weeks ago that the form, matter, and intent of the minsters of LDS baptisms are of at least doubtful validity. It is a much more difficult matter for the Church to prove that all LDS baptisms are invalid, than it is for me to suggest that some, a few, or even one LDS baptism is valid. The Church would agree that if there is a slight chance that LDS baptisms are valid, it means that we should baptize only conditionally. That is why I am critical of the new policy, and why I believe that better understanding may permit us to not only avoid conditional baptisms, but actually accept LDS baptism. What manifestly does not help is the eager willingness on the part of both Catholics and Mormons to overemphasize our apparent differences regarding our views of the godhead while displaying extreme reluctance in trying to reconcile these differences.

I still take my cues on this from a long discussion of John 4 over at ZLMB where David Waltz, who knows the Book of Mormon like few LDS, demonstrated to my satisfaction, the compatibility of our views. He doesn't do that anymore here. I don't know if he got weary of the resistance from both LDS and non-LDS. But without being able to make the same demonstrations, I am confident that Latter-day revelation is less to blame than "Latter-day philosophy" for our continuing inability to find a way to understand each other in this area. I am convinced, ironically, that the problem isn't with LDS Scripture, the problem is the influence of modern philosophy on LDS who think they have learned that if God is as great as Traditional Christianity says, that He doesn't love, and is unlovable. I dare not make my God smaller just because I can't explain how He loves. Recalling Dave's use of your Scripture, I am afraid I think you guys do this to some degree. I wish we could all be more content to imagine that perhaps we just can't quite comprehend "true love".

In any case, this is how I can believe that LDS who are deeply attached to the Book of Mormon, and unaffected by false philosophies, would be able ministers of baptism.

3DOP

Thanks for this post, I always enjoy discussions with you, and you are right- I only skimmed the thread and so apologize for going off without plugging in the brain fully. I tend to do that and I really need to repent of that.

I have a lot to say about this but today is a busy day- but I wanted to get in the apology before I come back with a more detailed answer

I'll do better next time!

[coolrok7]

In a footnote from a book entitled “The Spirituality of the Cross, The Way of the first Evangelicals” by Gene Edward Veith Jr., a brief explanation of the term Evangelical and some historical context for better understanding of how I (as a Christian/Evangelical/Protestant) identify with the term or what this person describes as “Lutheran spirituality”:

THE ORIGINAL EVANGELICALS

A better term for “Lutheran spirituality is “evangelical” spirituality. The term “evangelical” is simply a term derived from the Greek word for “Gospel,” which in turn literally means “good news.” “Evangelical” means someone who focuses on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news that Christ, through His death and resurrection, has won forgiveness for sinful human beings and offers salvation as a free gift.

Today the term “evangelical” is used to refer to a wide variety of more-or-less conservative Protestants. For all the differences, Baptists, charismatics, Calvinists, Wesleyans, and the various non-denominational “para-church ministries” do stress salvation through Christ and emphasize “evangelism,” so the term is apt. But originally, the word “evangelical” meant “Lutheran”.

In the years following the Reformation, “Evangelicals” were those who followed Luther, as opposed to “reformed” who followed Calvin. (A later attempt to bring the two factions together resulted in the “Evangelical and Reformed Church,” today an American denomination.) Even today in Europe, churches that follow a Lutheran theology call themselves not “Lutheran”—a term Luther himself hated, not wanting Christ’s Church to be named after him—but “Evangelical.” The American usage of the term for any Bible-believing, salvation-preaching Christian is starting to catch on in Europe also, but American tourists at times get confused when they go into a German or Scandinavian church with “evangelische” on the sign, expecting revival songs and alter calls, only to find chorales and liturgy.

Though others are entitled to call themselves “evangelicals,” Lutherans are at least the first evangelicals. Keeping in mind the fact that Christians have always focused on the Gospel, from the New Testament days through the early Church and even through the Middle ages—a time when, Protestants contend, the emphasis on the Gospel and its implications became somewhat confused—Lutherans were the first to be called evangelical. They were also the first to emphasize the Gospel to such an extant that it became central to every level of their doctrine and practice. This evangelical focus, made over against medieval Catholicism, opened the door to every other Protestant expression that came later. But evangelical Lutheranism remains distinct.

As something of a spiritual wanderer—drifting from religion, church to church, from the very liberal to the very conservative—I myself finally discovered the Gospel and its implications. I found that I had become Lutheran. This book is partly a record of that pilgrimage, but only partly. It is mainly an account of what I—as a modern or perhaps post-modern American—have found to be of inestimable help and value in the Lutheran spiritual tradition.

This tradition has been somewhat obscured and is little known in the United States—sometimes, I regret to say, even among American Lutherans—but deserves consideration. Among other reasons, the teachings of the first evangelicals prove to be particularly relevant to problems now vexing American Christianity, and they speak in a powerful way to the needs and cravings of today’s generations. (pp.12-13)

An important distinctive of Evangelicals is the preaching of the cross (in dying to sin and living for Christ) in a way that brings the message of the cross concerning Jesus and His sacrificial death for the forgiveness of sin to the benefit of those who will choose to believe the Gospel (Good News)! Not everyone will.

Contending for the truth is nothing new:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?. . .For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 17-18)

[mfbukowski]

....However, I could make an argument, and did, to my pastor a couple of weeks ago that the form, matter, and intent of the minsters of LDS baptisms are of at least doubtful validity. It is a much more difficult matter for the Church to prove that all LDS baptisms are invalid, than it is for me to suggest that some, a few, or even one LDS baptism is valid. The Church would agree that if there is a slight chance that LDS baptisms are valid, it means that we should baptize only conditionally. That is why I am critical of the new policy, and why I believe that better understanding may permit us to not only avoid conditional baptisms, but actually accept LDS baptism. What manifestly does not help is the eager willingness on the part of both Catholics and Mormons to overemphasize our apparent differences regarding our views of the godhead while displaying extreme reluctance in trying to reconcile these differences.

I still take my cues on this from a long discussion of John 4 over at ZLMB where David Waltz, who knows the Book of Mormon like few LDS, demonstrated to my satisfaction, the compatibility of our views. He doesn't do that anymore here. I don't know if he got weary of the resistance from both LDS and non-LDS. But without being able to make the same demonstrations, I am confident that Latter-day revelation is less to blame than "Latter-day philosophy" for our continuing inability to find a way to understand each other in this area. I am convinced, ironically, that the problem isn't with LDS Scripture, the problem is the influence of modern philosophy on LDS who think they have learned that if God is as great as Traditional Christianity says, that He doesn't love, and is unlovable. I dare not make my God smaller just because I can't explain how He loves. Recalling Dave's use of your Scripture, I am afraid I think you guys do this to some degree. I wish we could all be more content to imagine that perhaps we just can't quite comprehend "true love".

In any case, this is how I can believe that LDS who are deeply attached to the Book of Mormon, and unaffected by false philosophies, would be able ministers of baptism.

3DOP

I have a lot to say about this but today is a busy day- but I wanted to get in the apology before I come back with a more detailed answer

Maybe someone who is better at using the search function can find a post/thread in which I discussed these points with David Waltz- I think he doesn't post here much any more - in which we discussed this.

I have a notepad copy of part of the discussion I copied for later use, but I hesitate to post it because I am not sure if I edited it or if the quotes would be accurate- I sometimes re-write posts I write for this forum and use them on blogs and in other places, so I am not sure if my notes are accurate as quotes.

But the exchange in question (at least the post David made) seems to be date stamped 07 June 2012 11:42 AM and is about the use of the term "substance".

Indeed I think we are quite far apart on our conceptions of God- the Catholic conception of God is transcendent and the Mormon conception of God makes him more immanent.

The distinction has been noticed and runs through much of Mormon "theology" insofar as such exists and was discussed extensively by McMurrin in his Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion.

McMurrin became a controversial figure but made some excellent points in this volume in my humble opinion.

I think that it is important that differences between Catholic theology and Mormon theology be made very clear- if we don't do so there is no need for a Restoration.

I mean ecumenism and Christian Unity is great and all, but the reality is there WAS a Restoration for a reason, and that reason was that Mormons believe that ultimately there was an Apostasy and therefore a need for a Restoration.

Perhaps what is not being understood here, is that if Mormons agree that Catholic Baptisms are valid, then there is no need for Mormonism to exist.

Clearly we need to learn to love one another, but there are some principles which I think are just plain dealbreakers and it has nothing to do with Mormon "false philosophies."

Either there was an apostasy or not- that is the issue.

[mfbukowski]

3DOP

OK I found the discussion with David Waltz

http://www.mormondia...od/page__st__40

It starts with post 54

Edited January 14, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Mudcat]

I don't know of anyone who teaches that anybody should get all warm and fuzzy over Rom. 1:20. But what St. Paul and the rest of the Scriptures teach is that this same God, this same Prime Mover, is also revealed through faith, by His revelation to His Son and to the Apostles and to the Prophets to be personal, intimate, merciful, a lover of us and of all His creation, willing that none should perish but willing to share His abundant and transcendent life.

My thoughts also. Thanks for the explanation.

[mfbukowski]

Jason and Rory

Guys you know I love you both but there are things we just won't agree about.

Until of course you convert.

[volgadon]

An important distinctive of Evangelicals is the preaching of the cross (in dying to sin and living for Christ) in a way that brings the message of the cross concerning Jesus and His sacrificial death for the forgiveness of sin to the benefit of those who will choose to believe the Gospel (Good News)! Not everyone will.

Do you mind elaborating on this?

[3DOP]

3DOP

I think that it is important that differences between Catholic theology and Mormon theology be made very clear- if we don't do so there is no need for a Restoration.

I mean ecumenism and Christian Unity is great and all, but the reality is there WAS a Restoration for a reason, and that reason was that Mormons believe that ultimately there was an Apostasy and therefore a need for a Restoration.

Perhaps what is not being understood here, is that if Mormons agree that Catholic Baptisms are valid, then there is no need for Mormonism to exist.

Clearly we need to learn to love one another, but there are some principles which I think are just plain dealbreakers and it has nothing to do with Mormon "false philosophies."

Either there was an apostasy or not- that is the issue.

In my opinion, the LDS Scripture, untainted by philosophy, is compatible with my beliefs. (Maybe I can find that ZLMB thread. In fact I'll get hold of Dave. I know he'll have it somewhere.) And my beliefs, traditional though they be, if they are ever finally understood by LDS in an atmosphere free from concern about apostasies, will be recognized as being very familiar, satisfying, and believable. It is discouraging, though understandable I guess, to see that there are motives to maintain a distance because of possible ramifications regarding apostasy theories. Obviously, I don't have any investment in maintaining apostasy theories. But surely, even if the Traditional teaching properly understood, is entirely compatible with LDS Scripture, there would be other ways and reasons for maintaining LDS Restoration claims?

It seems to me like sometimes over the years, we make a little progress in explaining what we mean, to put it in a shape that can be more readily appreciated by ordinary LDS, and people start to understand each other. Then modern philosophy comes along and blows up the bridges with a philosophy of language and its refusal to grant that traditionalist's words have any meaning. It isn't Latter-day revelation, but modern philosophy that effectively shuts the traditionalist down by in effect, refusing discussion. I suspect that the thread you have referenced, if it is the one I remember with Dave this summer, will show such a pattern as I have suggested.

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

In my opinion, the LDS Scripture, untainted by philosophy, is compatible with my beliefs. (Maybe I can find that ZLMB thread. In fact I'll get hold of Dave. I know he'll have it somewhere.) And my beliefs, traditional though they be, if they are ever finally understood by LDS in an atmosphere free from concern about apostasies, will be recognized as being very familiar, satisfying, and believable. It is discouraging, though understandable I guess, to see that there are motives to maintain a distance because of possible ramifications regarding apostasy theories. Obviously, I don't have any investment in maintaining apostasy theories. But surely, even if the Traditional teaching properly understood, is entirely compatible with LDS Scripture, there would be other ways and reasons for maintaining LDS Restoration claims?

It seems to me like sometimes over the years, we make a little progress in explaining what we mean, to put it in a shape that can be more readily appreciated by ordinary LDS, and people start to understand each other. Then modern philosophy comes along and blows up the bridges with a philosophy of language and its refusal to grant that traditionalist's words have any meaning. It isn't Latter-day revelation, but modern philosophy that effectively shuts the traditionalist down by in effect, refusing discussion. I suspect that the thread you have referenced, if it is the one I remember with Dave this summer, will show such a pattern as I have suggested.

3DOP

I understand what you mean, but allow me please to give you my very honest opinion. "Apostasy theories" aside, a Neoplatonic God cannot be reconciled with what Catholics commonly believe and hold as a loving Father.

Having been Catholic myself I agree with you, that Catholics do not really believe in a Neoplatonic God, but that is what their theology dictates.

I think the greatest hope is in an interpretation of sensus fidelium which eventually affirms a move away from Scholasticism toward a more, perhaps, process view of theology.

But honestly Unmoved Movers are not loving Fathers. There is a reason that we say in English that we are "moved" emotionally by love or compassion. Indeed human interaction is incompatible with a Platonic Form of Goodness or an Unmoved Mover.

On the other hand, God is not limited by having a body. Jesus now has a body and is the Yahweh of the Old Testament- yet somehow Scholastic Neoplatonic theology dictates that having a body limits the Biblical God of the old testament.

It argues that God would be limited by having a body but somehow that Christ is not.

It is not the Mormon view of God that limits him because he is immanent- it is the Neoplatonic view which would, if held consistently, limit Christ's omnipresence because he has a resurrected body. The view is just not consistent. You can't have an embodied personal Christ who is omnipresent and transcendent. One has to go- the two views are inconsistent.

It is reconciled, supposedly in the Trinity and the dual "natures" of Christ, or by simply dismissing the problem as a "mystery".

Yes, paradoxes are indeed mysteries. It is fine to postulate God as a Mystery- indeed we cannot know much about him and indeed he IS a mystery. But if one is going to postulate that, don't try to come up with a consistent theory that is supposed to be reasonable and reconcile the paradox. Either it is a mystery or it isn't. Either it is a paradox or it isn't.

I agree that ordinary rank and file Catholics who actually worship a loving Father and a compassionate embodied and resurrected Christ, do not really believe in the whole theory behind an Unmoved Mover, to their credit.

[mfbukowski]

Going over this, I suppose I could look like the bad guy who is anti-Catholic but nothing could be further from the truth. But the truth IS that after taking some philosophy I myself realized that my OWN Catholic position did not make sense.

Indeed I myself believed that if there was a God, he would have to be a loving Father and that just plain did not square with Neoplatonic Catholic theology, and the theology of substance as in "transubstantiation" and how the persons of God are "consubstantial".

I know this is wikipedia, but just read it. The good news is that anybody can edit wikipedia, so the trinitarians have had plenty of time to edit this as they like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or hypostases:^[1] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".^[2] A nature is what one is, while a person is who one is.^[3][4][5]

The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.^[6] According to this doctrine, there is only one God in three persons. Each person is God, whole and entire. They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds". While distinct in their relations with one another, they are one in all else. The whole work of creation and grace is a single operation common to all three divine persons, who at the same time operate according to their unique properties, so that all things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.^[6] The three persons are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial.

Clearly and admittedly they are trying to describe a "mystery" and instead of leaving it at that and going on to how our Father loves us or something else, there is a lot of rather ambiguous wording there trying to explain it all intellectually and, now inserting my prejudice I suppose, without any success whatsoever. I don't understand a word of it.

So yes, I suppose philosophers of language would have a problem with this language. But should we blame them for "blowing up the bridges" of understanding that Catholics might have with the Book of Mormon?

Clearly if a Catholic understands the Book of Mormon it is because it is written clearly and concisely and doesn't deal with this rather confusing and ambiguous intellectual explanation of what is assumed from the beginning to be a "mystery" anyway. That is one of the major reasons I intellectually love the Book of Mormon, though my testimony is based on spiritual experience. It is what it is. It does not pretend to have explanations of things it cannot explain, and does indeed explain clearly those things which are explainable. My invitation to the Catholic who found it simple, concise and understandable would be to go ahead and embrace it as the scripture it is, and leave behind all the confusion and "mystery".

Blaming philosophers for pointing out the confusion is like blaming the little child who first recognized that the emperor had on no clothes. I think you don't have to be a philosopher to NOT understand the alleged "explanation" of the trinity, and I don't think it is because we are all stupid.

I honestly do not mean this in any way to be an attack on Catholicism, but there is a reason I left that church and a reason I am now Mormon, and if the subject is brought up, I am certainly not going to go out of my way to remain silent while ideas I disagree with in a major way are being bandied about.

[Louis Midgley]

I have noticed some confusion concerning what is commonly called classical theism, which involves, among other things, proofs for God fashioned from reason alone, without the necessity of divine special revelation. The famous five proofs fit snugly into this category. One is the ontological proof for God. On, as you all know, is a Greek word meaning "being." Hence ontology is words about being, where “being” is what really “is.” The proof runs as follows: “being is and cannot but be. And not-being is not and cannot but not be.” Hence “God is.” But God is what? The answer is Being, but not just any ordinary being like that tree, or this mountain, but Being-itself, or the ground or power of being in everything that is (to the extent that anything stands out of non-being and hence exists.

Has this demonstration led you or yours from unfaith to faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Lord God and hence to devout piety? Of course it has not done that. I standard Roman Catholic theology–that is, in Thomism (from Thomas Aquinas)–it has been common to claim that God as a first thing can be proven. This is called the revelation available to anyone and hence to everyone from analogies from nature (natura in Latin). This is the “natural theology” that St. Augustine set out as one of his three types of theology in his famous massive City of God. Incidently, he never once mention a revealed theology, perhaps because the word “theology” has from its first use mean the words of mere human beings about God. But long after Augustine, Roman Catholic theologians, and especially Thomas Aquinas, argued that God’s existence can be proven by reason, but his nature–think of the Trinity, and the incarnation and death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, are mysteries that can only be known by divine special revelation which in to be found in the Bible and elaborated in tradition, and so forth.

There are other so-called proofs for God. One is from causation. Every cause has a cause, but there must be an uncaused cause, therefore there is a Great First Cause, which is God. Or another proof begins with motion and ends up presumably with a Prime unmoved Mover. Then there is a proof that takes for its name the Greek word telos (meaning end or purpose). Versions of this “proof” begin with the simple observation that, if we desire to accomplish anything we have a purpose in mind. Hence, by analogy, if we see order in nature, we see purpose telos and hence,by analogy we must assume that we see God at work. Some versions of the so-called “intelligent design” business that has recently generated contoversy are, it seems, merely new efforts to revive the teleological argument for an Unconditional, Infinite, Absolute or First Thing. This proclivity can be found in the descriptions of God an Wholly Other, or on the claim that there is an infinite qualitative distance between human beings as mere creatures and the Creator.

But classical theism has also fallen on hard times. One objection to it has come from open theists. See the fine little, easy to read book by Gregory A. Boyd, entitled God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000). I reviewed this in the FARMS Review 19/2 (2004): 405-406, but my review does not do the book justice. I highly recommend this little book.

[3DOP]

bukowski

I understand what you mean, but allow me please to give you my very honest opinion. "Apostasy theories" aside, a Neoplatonic God cannot be reconciled with what Catholics commonly believe and hold as a loving Father.

3DOP

I don't know that much about Plato or those who leaned on his teachings. But that is because there is nothing in Catholic teaching that proclaims we have reconciled Neo-Platonism with a loving Father. We certainly have a tradition of commending Greek philosophy, in particular Plato and Aristotle, and maybe some of their disciples, for groping their way to a belief in a mighty Creator God. Where it can be demonstrated that a neoplatonic God is incompatible with the loving God of faith, we are not dissatisfied to distance ourselves from the philosopher. However, we think there is plenty of evidence from the sources of supernatural revelation to point to the fact that the God who is with us, is at the same time almighty and never changing. Catholics are willing to admit that possibility that Plato or Aristotle erred, but the Psalmist or St. James, no.

Do not err, therefore, my dearest brethren. Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.

---James 1:16, 17

"Well then", you might say, "if we interpret it as you do, God cannot love." Yes...I cannot demonstrate that a passionless unchanging God loves as I do. But I am content to believe that He loves us as He loves. He has revealed Himself to us as all-loving and when we consider His power and greatness, it makes His tender care even more fetching. We are warned over and over in Scripture to not doubt what God can do. It is not the philosopher that makes us fear to diminish the grandeur of the Almighty, but the Scriptures. Assuredly there are skeptical philosophies that would try to make us doubt either the greatness of our God or doubt His tender mercy. We would think it is the devil who would strip God of either His goodness or greatness. We will not yield either the one or the other.

If we must needs be declared apostates for that than so be it. If the God of changing passions is so offended with us for bragging over much about our Father's greatness, then I do not understand Him very well. We think He has done too little to prove to us how upsetting it is to Him that we would think He is transcendent above all things. And even if we were wrong, what good father is offended when his loving sons exaggerate his abilities? If LDS say we are apostates unto Him for this, I cannot believe it. We are little children doing our best and we can incur His wrath because we think Him too great? I would be much more concerned if I should dare to take it upon myself to judge that my Father could not love me unless I should diminish His grandeur. I am afraid I must remain unmoved by the claims of modern philosophy. If modern philosophy is the basis, and not readings from the Scriptures explicitly denying our interpretation of James 1 for why you think we are apostate, I would be in fear of being such a Latter-day Saint, leaning too heavily upon philosophies that for the most part, don't even originate from the minds of men with any faith at all.

Of course I do not believe in an apostasy at all. But I think thoughtful LDS should give serious reconsideration to their own theories if a big beef is that we think God is too great.

bukowski

Having been Catholic myself I agree with you, that Catholics do not really believe in a Neoplatonic God, but that is what their theology dictates.

3DOP

I believe in the omnis of God. I believe in the love of God. But in both cases it is because of what we find in Scripture. I don't know what Neoplato says. If our faith agrees or disagrees with Neoplato we can't care. I am not as a Catholic committed to what a faithless philosopher, whether ancient or new has to say about the love and grandeur of God. I think you are imposing your own view so that you can make us appear rigid, held fast to ancient mistakes for the purpose of establishing an apostasy. You have probably discovered that Neoplato would agree with us about the greatness of God while having to demur regarding God's love. That's fine. Neoplato's problem is that he only brings philosophy to the table.

What is wrong with acknowledging that reason can take us so far as to believe in a great God that might be worthy of fear, while at the same time denying that we can reason our way to the God of love? Without denying that reason is valuable, we must leave it behind where faith intervenes. And if reason objects and says that he cannot understand, we say with Augustine that we believe in order to understand, not the other way round, and the philosopher must submit with wounded pride, or declare us inconsistent in his haughty arrogance, intruding into matters where reason has no competence.

bukowski

I think the greatest hope is in an interpretation of sensus fidelium which eventually affirms a move away from Scholasticism toward a more, perhaps, process view of theology.

3DOP

I disagree. The scholastics honour philosophy, but keep it where it belongs. Of course this remains to be demonstrated, but modern philosophy has developed an ingenious strategy whereby it is impossible to communicate what the intended meanings were when they used Aristotelian vocabulary to help describe our theology. Before trying an entirely new system, it would seem premature to abandon hope regarding what has never even been understood by the well-meaning perhaps, but misguided detractors of the Catholic faith.

bukowski

But honestly Unmoved Movers are not loving Fathers. There is a reason that we say in English that we are "moved" emotionally by love or compassion. Indeed human interaction is incompatible with a Platonic Form of Goodness or an Unmoved Mover.

3DOP

Please read my post to Paloma about this. I conceded that nobody is going to get warm fuzzies about the unmoved Mover and that there is nothing necessarily loving about such a being. It would be more calculated in God's pedagogy to invoke fear or awe. But when faith says that He does love, it is not in reason's competence to dispute. Faith tells reason to step aside at that point.

bukowski

On the other hand, God is not limited by having a body. Jesus now has a body and is the Yahweh of the Old Testament- yet somehow Scholastic Neoplatonic theology dictates that having a body limits the Biblical God of the old testament.

It argues that God would be limited by having a body but somehow that Christ is not.It argues that God would be limited by having a body but somehow that Christ is not.

3DOP

This would be where Dave's thread from ZLMB would be helpful. He and I would both agree that having a body, Father and/or Son, is compatible with the transcendent divinity that you are so eager to deny. But the body is not essential to the divinity as Mormons need to concede considering that the Holy Ghost is God without a body. St. Thomas never dealt to my knowledge with anyone claiming that God was corporeal, but I believe that he would have to concede that what you are saying is correct. I would suggest that claims to the contrary are from the minds of rash and foolhardy apologists who know very little about the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. You will search in vain through twelve years of posts at ZLMB and here for an occasion on which I was so foolish as to attack LDS theology because you believe the Father is corporeal like the Son.

bukowski

It is not the Mormon view of God that limits him because he is immanent- it is the Neoplatonic view which would, if held consistently, limit Christ's omnipresence because he has a resurrected body. The view is just not consistent. You can't have an embodied personal Christ who is omnipresent and transcendent. One has to go- the two views are inconsistent.

It is reconciled, supposedly in the Trinity and the dual "natures" of Christ, or by simply dismissing the problem as a "mystery".

3DOP

I do not say that mystery reconciles a paradox. I am saying that reason alone cannot have much to say about questions of supernatural revelation. However, I already told you that I reject Neoplatonism if it is so short-sighted as to allow that the Son can have a body but not the Father. No philosophy has any competence to make such a judgment. The Church has never taught anything to my knowledge in which it allows that the Son can have a body but not the Father. We don't think the Scriptures teach the Father has a body, and that, not neo-Platonic philosophy is why we think only Christ is corporeal.

bukowski

Yes, paradoxes are indeed mysteries. It is fine to postulate God as a Mystery- indeed we cannot know much about him and indeed he IS a mystery. But if one is going to postulate that, don't try to come up with a consistent theory that is supposed to be reasonable and reconcile the paradox. Either it is a mystery or it isn't. Either it is a paradox or it isn't.

3DOP

Mystery does not mean we can learn nothing. It can be a commendable exercise to try to reconcile the paradoxical. But one must not arrogantly presuppose that human reason alone is ever sufficient to bring full comprehension to the hidden meanings of the mysteries of faith. The proper place of reason is humble acceptance of its own capacities. Reason longs to understand. The intellect craves such understanding and it is not wrong for good men to bring their intellects to bear upon paradoxical faith claims.

bukowski

I agree that ordinary rank and file Catholics who actually worship a loving Father and a compassionate embodied and resurrected Christ, do not really believe in the whole theory behind an Unmoved Mover, to their credit.

3DOP

As you probably have discerned, I see no reasons compatible with my faith for why I should concede either. I live with the belief that I do not fully comprehend how the transcendent God is also intimate. To use a profane expression, I will have my cake and eat it. I dare not do otherwise.

We shall say much, and yet shall want words: but the sum of our words is, He is all. What shall we be able to do to glorify him? for the Almighty himself is above all his works. The Lord is terrible, and exceeding great, and his power is admirable. Glorify the Lord as much as ever you can, for he will yet far exceed, and his magnificence is wonderful. Blessing the Lord, exalt him as much as you can: for he is above all praise. When you exalt him put forth all your strength, and be not weary: for you can never go far enough. Who shall see him, and declare him? and who shall magnify him as he is from the beginning? There are many things hidden from us that are greater than these: for we have seen but a few of his works. But the Lord hath made all things, and to the godly he hath given wisdom.

---Ecclus. 43:29-37

3DOP

Edited January 14, 2013 by 3DOP

[Louis Midgley]

Coolrok7 insists that the word evangelical is somehow owned by the Lutherans merely because they chose to call their national denominations by that name to distinguished them from Calvinist church which typically are known as reformed. To explain the use of the very, very common words found in the New Testament–euangelistes, meaning “a messenger of good,” or euanagelizo, meaning “to proclaim glad tidings,” and euangelion, meaning “good news, gospel,” and how those very common words get incoroporated into denominational rhetoric and eccessiastical denominations, I will copy from a review of a nice little book I reviewed by Roger Olson. (Please note that the ending of the word evangel is, in Greek, the word angel meaning messenger.) Now, with this in mind, have a look at the following, which is my response to Coolrok7, as far as I can understand what he posted above in item # 236:

(This is lifted from the FARMS Review 22/1 (2010): 290-292.) My review of Roger E. Olson. Pocket History of Evangelical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007. 151 pp., without index. $8.00 (paperback).

Roger Olson is a prolific writer, fashioning both historical and theological works, some of which, often published by InterVarsity Press, include 20th-Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age (1997), with Stanley J. Grenz; The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform (1999); The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity (2002); The Trinity (2002), with Christopher A. Hall; The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology (2004); Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (2006); and Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology (2007). One constant theme in Olson's essays is the wide variety, fluidity, and diversity of beliefs held by Christians both now and then. He has a reputation for knowing the sources and for setting out his opinions in a clear, evenhanded way. He brings these attributes to his account of the history of evangelical theology.

His first task in his Pocket History of Evangelical Theology is to try to provide a definition of the term evangelical. Why is this necessary? "Even some self-identified evangelical scholars have declared evangelical an essentially contested concept—an idea and category with no precise or agreed-on meaning" (p. 7). Olson's strategy is to provide an essentially historical account of the term's variety of senses. Etymologically, the term evangelical means "the good news" of the gospel. In the next sense, the word "is simply synonymous with Protestant." Lutherans like to use it as the name of their denomination (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). Evangelical also identifies a Low Church party within the Church of England (p. 9), and hence it was associated with the Methodist movement. In another sense, the term refers to Pietism and especially that version found among the Moravian Brethren, as well as to the Great Awakening, where it applied to the message spread in revival efforts (p. 10). But evangelical eventually came to identify "conservative Protestant reaction to the rise of liberal Protestantism," and in this sense it came to be nearly synonymous with fundamentalism (p. 11).

The story Olson wishes to tell concerns that most recent meaning given to the word. In the 1940s and 1950s evangelical was used to identify a new postfundamentalist movement—a so-called Neo Evangelicalism, closely associated with Billy Graham (pp. 12–13).

Olson holds that the evangelicalism he describes "is a loose affiliation (coalition, network, mosaic, patchwork, family) of mostly Protestant Christians of many orthodox (Trinitarian) denominations and independent churches and parachurch organizations" (p. 14). This assertion is followed by a long list of beliefs and practices of a loose network of contemporary conservative Protestants, who share revivalist instincts and so forth (p. 15). What keeps the whole thing from flying apart is not some set of core beliefs but "the powerful unifying figure of evangelist Billy Graham" (p. 15). Olson calls this the "Graham glue" and wonders what will happen when it dissolves.

Latter-day Saints probably encounter evangelicals who are essentially from the Reformed (or Calvinist) faction of the movement. This is especially true if they have been confronted by anti-Mormon countercult propaganda, but it is also true if they know conservative Protestantism only from some encounter with the recent "interfaith dialogues." There they will have faced TULIP (five-point Calvinism), but they will not have even a faint idea of the vast variety of competing opinions held by the large majority of those who consider themselves evangelicals. Olson's expert and learned narrative is a corrective for this deficiency in LDS understanding of the conservative Protestant world around them. The Holiness-Pentecostal element in the loose gathering under the evangelical umbrella is far more numerically significant than the Reformed element, with which Latter-day Saints are most familiar.

Olson describes the theologies of leading evangelical theologians, including Carl F. H. Henry (pp. 96–107), E. J. Carnell (pp. 108–11), Bernard Ramm (pp. 112–19), and Donald Bloesch (pp. 120–29). He ends this survey by describing what he calls the "postconservative evangelical theology" (pp. 130–40). In this setting, he introduces Clark Pinnock (pp. 132–38), who, as some Latter-day Saints are aware, espouses opinions close to their own. This is seen, for example, in his rejection of much of classical theism (advancing instead a version of an openness theology), his acceptance of narrative theology, his eschewing of traditional evangelical cessationism (the view that spiritual gifts like prophecy, healing, and tongues ceased early on in church history), and so forth.

As much as Olson prizes and even celebrates diversity among believers, he also longs for a center that can somehow hold all the competing and even warring factions together. However, in his final and most important chapter, in which he addresses the topic "Tensions in Evangelical Theology" (pp. 141–51), he reluctantly but essentially grants that the center simply does not hold. Hence contemporary evangelicalism is in flux, with dynamic forces (some of which involve nasty political and dogmatic powers that he cautiously identifies) on the verge of tearing the movement apart.

This crisp, clearly written little handbook is highly recommended for Latter-day Saints who are interested in or puzzled by what is taking place in conservative Protestant circles.

[signed] Louis Midgley

Edited January 14, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[3DOP]

Dr. Midgley

But long after Augustine, Roman Catholic theologians, and especially Thomas Aquinas, argued that God’s existence can be proven by reason, but his nature–think of the Trinity, and the incarnation and death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, are mysteries that can only be known by divine special revelation which in to be found in the Bible and elaborated in tradition, and so forth.

3DOP

Fortunately, we do not have to lean exclusively upon the arm of reason even to establish that it is indeed reasonable to believe in a Creator God:

The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands. Day to day uttereth speech, and night to night sheweth knowledge. There are no speeches nor languages, where their voices are not heard.

---Ps. 18:2-4

The proof of St. Thomas are certainly subject to scrutiny. And no one proposes that this is why most people are accountable for at least believing in God.

It is fitting that God should create a world which leaves traces of His Authorship to such an extent as to be expressed as a declaration, an utterance, and a showing. Great painters sign their works and so does God. Besides It is unreasonable to think that God would make a world that is so deceptive as to make those who scrutinize it the best become atheists. That would ill befit a good God. We don't imagine that anybody should figure out St. Thomas' proofs. But we imagine that anybody should welcome possible proofs as confirming the reasonableness of the hunches received when one "hears" the heavens declaring God's glory and so forth.

It wasn't Augustine or Thomas Aquinas who hit upon the idea that unaided by faith, a reasonable man is accountable to believe in God because of what is "clearly seen":

For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

---Rom 1:20

It wasn't philosophy, but Scripture which first suggests a theology of nature which proclaims that by means of the creation, the invisible God is clearly seen, along with his eternal power and divinity.

3DOP

Edited January 14, 2013 by 3DOP

[Vance]

Coolrok7 insists that the word evangelical is somehow owned by the Lutherans merely because they chose to call their national denominations by that name to distinguished them from Calvinist church which typically are known as reformed. To explain the use of the very, very common words found in the New Testament–euangelistes, meaning “a messenger of good,” or euanagelizo, meaning “to proclaim glad tidings,” and euangelion, meaning “good news, gospel,” and how those very common words get incoroporated into denominational rhetoric and eccessiastical denominations, I will copy from a review of a nice little book I reviewed by Roger Olson. (Please note that the ending of the word evangel is, in Greek, the word angel meaning messenger.)

The angel = messenger (including John the Baptist) is a concept that Coolrok has failed to grasp in past conversations. It doesn't matter what you show him from what ever sources you may provide. He ain't a changing.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Vance

[Louis Midgley]

Coolrok7:

Please tell me right now that you have learned something.