Contention Over What Constitutes An Evangelical

[3DOP]

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

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.

The 4th Lateran Council (1215 AD) dealt with a variety of subjects, only one of which was a technical dispute a certain Abbot Joachim had made with regard to some teaching received by the Church favorably in the Sentences of Peter Lombard. In addition to this matter, which was only of interest to academics, and written only for academics, there were some other objects of much more general interest and expressed in an easily reached manner.

Against the claims of the disciples of Peter Waldo, the Council proclaimed that the authority of preaching to the faithful is only lawful if done with permission from the local bishops. Some churches of the Eastern Rite had gained the habit of purifying altars upon which Latin Rite priests had said the Mass, thereby implying that in some way the Latin Rite was offensive to God. This, along with a growing trend toward rebaptizing those previously baptized by the Western churches was proclaimed to be an impediment to reunion. There was a declaration affirming the pre-eminence of all the Patriarchal Sees beginning with Rome and including Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Another decree affirms that we are accountable to receive the Sacrament of penance during the Paschal season and reaffirming the seal of the confessional whereby the priest is canonically bound never to reveal anything learned through confession. Another interesting and easily understood declaration deplored the sale of the relics of the saints and made exacting rules for prohibiting the possible sale of fake articles.

My point in bringing up these other matters is to demonstrate that conciliar language takes into consideration the audience to which it is intended. The highly arcane and technical language used for the dispute with this Abbot Joachim required some precision that was appropriate for the academics who would take an interest. Besides what is mentioned on Wikipedia, the Council document explains how the Abbot is concerned that Lombard's language implies "not so much a Trinity as a quaternity in God". The language used is intended to satisfy the followers of Abbot Joachim and to exonerate Peter Lombard of the charges made:

We, however, with the approval of the Sacred Council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a most excellent..."

Those who were then so inclined, as well as posterity, are freely allowed to peek in to the rooms of the academic debate. But if we have difficulty understanding we should be neither appalled nor surprised. This was never intended for general consumption by all of the faithful. As far as I know, the Council successfully explained Peter Lombard to the Abbot's satisfaction. I could probably figure it out, but I don't care enough to look into these quaternity claims, and so I certainly don't expect to be required to grapple with the demurrer which was ultimately accepted by the Council in its regard.

It is a mistake to think that the Catholic Church has ever required her children to either refrain from delving deeply as Lombard and many great thinkers have done, or to move in less murky waters as most of the faithful always have done, reciting the Creed with faith, and willing to learn more if necessary to defend the Church. Those Wikipedia quotes are nothing that anyone ever intended to be popularly understood as written. This is not bedtime reading, but there are competent and able folk who take these teachings and make them accessible to those of us who care to go deeper. Unfortunately, for those not inclined to the Catholic faith, it isn't difficult just to glance at a text like this once outside of its context, and proclaim it as a bunch of incomprehensible nonsense. The all too common pattern is for someone to remember how something seemed like a bunch of gobbledygook without making the investment of time and energy to read a book by Frank Sheed or Bishop Sheen that might make things clearer. After all, it can be reasoned, knowing these are undoubtedly writings of apostates, we should expect nonsense.

As one who has read books that shed light on such difficult texts, I can imagine how someone might still believe in an apostasy while gaining a newly discovered respect for those with whom one must disagree, but I could never in a billion years think it was a bunch of nonsense.

3DOP

Edited January 14, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

By the way, David Waltz gave me a call this morning, and after we commiserated over the Seahawks debacle at the end of the game yesterday, and shared our amazement over the incredible game played by Colin Kaepernick of the 49'ers on Saturday we talked a little about this thread. Did any of you notice the way that guy just glides and accelerates past even the defensive backs? A quarterback can do that? We are seeing a seachange in my opinion, in the way NFL offenses are going to be run in the future, not just because of Kaepernick's recent success, but Russell Wilson, "RGIII", and even Andrew Luck who is pretty mobile too.

But back to matters at hand, Dave wouldn't promise to post and if he does it won't be today but he said he would at least send me the links to some old threads and look at this one. One thread which he remembered and sounds promising would be titled something like Book of Mormon Metaphysics.

3DOP

Edited January 14, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

For Dr. Midgley,

I fear that perhaps the discussion in which I am engaged may get in the way of your understandable desire to continue exploring your essay. If I start introducing new links to old threads, I will start a new thread in which to do it which may offer this thread as a reference point.

Regards,

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

By the way, David Waltz gave me a call this morning, and after we commiserated over the Seahawks debacle at the end of the game yesterday, and shared our amazement over the incredible game played by Colin Kaepernick of the 49'ers on Saturday we talked a little about this thread. Did any of you notice the way that guy just glides and accelerates past even the defensive backs? A quarterback can do that? We are seeing a seachange in my opinion, in the way NFL offenses are going to be run in the future, not just because of Kaepernick's recent success, but Russell Wilson, "RGIII", and even Andrew Luck who is pretty mobile too.

But back to matters at hand, Dave wouldn't promise to post and if he does it won't be today but he said he would at least send me the links to some old threads and look at this one. One thread which he remembered and sounds promising would be titled something like Book of Mormon Metaphysics.

3DOP

I've spoken to Dave a few times about it and to expect a different outcome this time I think would be optimistic.

[Ahab]

So where are we in this discussion right now? Can somebody give me a summary, or a question to answer?

Just askin. It's always easiest for me to just answer some questions, unless I have a question to ask, which I just did.

[Louis Midgley]

3DOP:

Please drop the "Dr. Midgley" routine. I actually prefer Louis. I have enjoyed the expressions of piety and devotion that have been worked into this thread. They remind me that I have been writing about theology and historical matters and not about the genuine encounters that the faithful of every tradition have with what were once called Enchiridion, or handbooks of the virtues. Epictetus, a Stoic slave provided on such handbook, and Augustine provided still another. And one virtually ends the Book of Mormon. With Christians these handbooks addressed faith, hope and love.They were once common. Within the Christian faith these handbooks addressed the additional on infused virtues, where virtue either in its Greek or more robust and somewhat twisted form in which we have it in English, where the word means "will she or won't she," rather than human excellence, have often focused on stories of devotion where both dogmatic and systematic theologies were not the issue but transformed lives. The so-called cardinal virtues--moderation, justice, courage, wisdom--are such that anyone can to some degree achieve. Love, undertood as agape and not merely eros, is something that needs more than what humans are capable of without divine assistance. Put another way, it was something like a hundred and fifty years after Augustine had passed away that the contrast between nature and grace (the gifts from God) were contrasted, and we ended up with the contrast between the natural and the supernatural..Trying to follow the flow of the comment has led me to think of things quite apart from my essay. I actually don't mind that.

As you might have noticed, I have been irritated by some of the comments. I have been cautious in my response, I hope. I trust I have not been too defensive of that one essay. My first intention was to show Latter-day Saints that Protestants are all over the map and not just what we tend to most often encounter from countercultists who boast of standing for biblical, orthodox, Trinitarian Christianity and hence blast away at everyone else without listening carefully to the Other.

[Mudcat]

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.

Well if that is true, then they have missed out on a great deal of funding by not selling user licenses, as well as versions to the different denominations. I know I'd have probably put down at least a 20 spot for Evangelical Baptist v 8.1 beta

[Louis Midgley]

Ahab:

I assume that you have read my essay. And perhaps other essays I have recommended. My essay is where the discussion began and it has been at least a major focal point of the subsequent discussion. But there have also been expressions of piety and devotion that go beyond the various differences in dogmatic theology that one finds in the Protestant Reformation and also especially in the Post WW II "new evangelical" movement. And also see my comments above to 3DOP.

[Ahab]

My first intention was to show Latter-day Saints that Protestants are all over the map and not just what we tend to most often encounter from countercultists who boast of standing for biblical, orthodox, Trinitarian Christianity and hence blast away at everyone else without listening carefully to the Other.

All over the map and yet all are called by the same name - evangelicals?

... kinda like how Christians, in general, are all over the map?

If the terms don't really help to distinguish one attitude or philosophy from another do you think it would be best to just drop the terms, then?

Personally, I really don't care what you call me, just as long as you understand who I strive to follow.

[Louis Midgley]

Away from this list, someone has asked what I see in Roger Olson's general accounts of the history of Christian theology that might be of special interest to Latter-day Saints and others. So I add a review below of a little pocket sized history for your enjoyment and, I hope, edification:

Roger E. Olson and Adam C. English. Pocket History of Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. 112 pp., with index. $8.00 (paperback).

Pocket History of Theology is a reduction of Roger Olson's book The Story of Christian Theology (1999) into a much less intimidating survey of the main twists and turns in the complex history of speculation, conflicts, and challenges that have fretted Christianity from the end of the apostolic period to the present. The story told is divided into five "acts," the first beginning in the second century. "Act I: A Story Takes Shape" (pp. 9–28) opens with this observation: "The story of Christian theology does not begin at the beginning. . . . Theology is the church's reflection on the salvation brought by Christ and on the gospel of that salvation proclaimed and explained by the first-century apostles" (p. 9). The New Testament itself is not theology; instead, it records the founding stories about Jesus of Nazareth, the agent of redemption from sin and death, as well as the author of a new covenant and a New Israel (or the community of Saints).

If there had been no subsequent conflict and contention over what Jesus had done and who he was, we would have had no theology about which Olson and English could tell a story. Some of the initial challenges were from without—from Jewish and Pagan writers (p. 11; compare p. 25). But other challenges came from within the church and hence from competing understandings of the founding stories and their meaning. In telling this compelling story, the authors seem to grant that the earliest Christians believed in theosis (divinization or deification). "Salvation[,] in such a view, is not merely a one-time decision but a lifelong journey toward godliness. As 2 Peter 1:3–4 [NRSV] indicates, the life of godliness means that we 'become participants of the divine nature'" (p. 12 n. 3).

Many similar statements that will resonate with Latter-day Saints will challenge contemporary conservative Christian theology. For example, The Shepherd of Hermas, which "contains a series of visions and their explanations given by an angel to Hermas himself" (p. 14), indicates that

God's mercy is narrowly limited. God will forgive, but not endlessly. Furthermore, forgiveness is conditioned on keeping the commandments. The Shepherd tells Hermas that "there will be forgiveness for your previous sins if you keep my commandments; in fact, there will be forgiveness for everyone, if they keep my commandments and walk in this purity." (p. 14)

"This summary of the gospel," we are told, "not only speaks for Hermas but also summarizes nicely the overall sentiment of the apostolic fathers. While all mention God's mercy in response to true repentance and occasionally express the necessity of God's grace through the cross of Christ, the apostolic fathers seem more concerned with promoting Christian virtue and obedience by instilling fear of judgment for moral failure" (pp. 14–15).

Olson and English grant that the later "apologists defended Christian faith by using Greek (or Hellenistic) philosophy to meet their critics on their own terms" (p. 15; compare p. 17 on the apologists' use of "non-Christian philosophy"). "The relationship between philosophy and Christian theology has been a major point of controversy within Christian thought" (p. 19), according to these authors. This remark introduces the stance on this issue taken by Tertullian (AD 150–212), who strongly "advised Christians to avoid rationalizing Christian beliefs with Greek philosophical categories" (p. 21). Tertullian radically contrasted what he called the wisdom of Athens (the Platonic Academy) with the wisdom of Jerusalem (the words and deeds of Jesus and the teachings of his apostles). Yet even Tertullian was eager to engage in what he warned about when he tried to blunt the modalist (or Sabellian) heresy by inventing the Trinity, defined by Olson and English in these terms: "the God Christians believe in is one substance and three persons (una substantia, tres personae)" (p. 22, emphasis in original).

Like other early Christian apologists, Origen (ca. AD 185–254) loved speculation and tried to fashion a synthesis of Greek wisdom with the biblical message (pp. 22–23). He also introduced the so-called allegorical interpretation of the scriptures in an effort to clear the way for what has come to be called classical theism. In this kind of theological schema, "God is 'simple substance' without body, parts or passions" (pp. 24–25), and hence "is Spirit and Mind, simple (uncompounded), incorporeal, immutable and incomprehensible" (p. 24), and so forth. All this, according to Olson and English, was "strengthened . . . through the use of Platonic philosophy" (p. 25).

In "Act II: The Plot Thickens" (pp. 29–49), Olson and English indicate that "absolute static perfection—includingapatheia, or impassibility (passionlessness)—is essential to the nature of God according to Greek thought, and nearly all Christian theologians came to agree with this" (pp. 29–30). This dogmatic assumption provides the context of the great ecumenical creeds (pp. 30–31) and explains the "use of extrabiblical terminology" (p. 31). Latter-day Saints will find a useful brief account of the ideological battles, if not the very nasty political intrigue, behind the great ecumenical councils (pp. 30–49).

"Act III: The Story Divides" (pp. 50–68) is an account of deepening controversies, beginning with Augustine (AD 354–430). There is nothing novel in stressing divine mercy or grace, but "Augustine introduced into the stream of Christian thought something called monergism, the belief that human agency is entirely passive and God's agency [absolute sovereignty] is all-determining in both universal history and individual salvation" (p. 51). Monergism is a technical label referring to Augustine's obsession with predestination and to his radical stress on grace in which human beings are seen as free to do what they desire, albeit all human desire is fixed by God at the moment of creation (out of nothing). Roman Catholics did not adopt monergism, insisting that Christians should not understand divine grace in such a way as to negate the need for "greater self-sacrificing piety (what modern Christians call discipleship)" (p. 56).

Leaving out a host of details about subtle distinctions and differing nuances, Olson and English reach "Act IV: Reforming, Revising and Rewriting the Story" (pp. 69–88). After explaining some of the ecclesiastical abuses that troubled the Reformers (pp. 69–70), they focus on Luther's mantra about justification by grace through faith alone (pp. 71, 75). In addition, they introduce the Reformer's insistence on sola scriptura and the priesthood of believers (p. 71). They clearly link Augustine to the Reformers (p. 71) but make the necessary qualifications. They also stress the belief in the imputation of an alien righteousness to the totally depraved sinner, who is then supposedly justified at the moment of surrender to God (pp. 72–73). The authors then introduce John Calvin's extreme stress on divine sovereignty, which eventually led to TULIP (or five-point Calvinism, p. 82) and its challenge from the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation (p. 81), from Arminianism (pp. 82–85), as well as from the perfectionism found in the Methodist movement (pp. 86–87).

The final section, "Act V: An Unresolved Plot" (pp. 89–108), takes up the "burgeoning challenge of a modern world," or modernity (p. 89). The authors discuss the rise of Protestant liberalism and the European resistance to cultural Protestantism, especially from Karl Barth's neo-orthodoxy (pp. 95–102). At this point Olson and English reach the end of their story. "Post–World War II Christian theology is diverse as never before. . . . The story of Christian theology has taken so many dizzying twists and turns and splintered in so many new directions that even experts find it difficult to draw it all together into one coherent story" (p. 102). Before turning to evangelical theology and its emergence as a reaction to fundamentalism (pp. 102–4) and to their concluding topic of liberation theologies, the authors provide this revealing remark:

A quick glance at some of the adjectives now affixed to the word

theology

give

a hint of the growing diversity:

post­liberal, liberation, postmodern, death-of-God, process, narrative, postcolonial, feminist, womanist, ecotheological, black, radically orthodox, paleoorthodox, open, evangelical, correlational.

(p. 102, emphasis in original)

Latter-day Saints should benefit from, as well as enjoy, a careful reading of this brief, easily understood summary of the twists and turns of Christian theology.

[signed] Louis Midgley

Edited January 14, 2013 by Louis Midgley

[Paloma]

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.

Just have to mention that Gregory Boyd is one of my favourite authors and speakers. I think I've read everything he's ever written.

(N.T. Wright whom you often reference, Louis, is also a favourite!)

(I saw your post where you mentioned preferring Louis to Dr. Midgley ... so I'm happy to oblige! )

Edited January 14, 2013 by Paloma

[3DOP]

I've spoken to Dave a few times about it and to expect a different outcome this time I think would be optimistic.

Hi again mfbukowski,

I do not propose my friend as a champion for my beliefs. Like you, he has left the Catholic Church. But I know that his respectful reflections from the Book of Mormon have influenced me, and I think they could be appreciated by a few LDS here who are open-minded about limiting their beliefs merely to Scripture alone. I don't imagine that everyone or even anyone will change their mind in a moment. If that were the standard set to judge whether a discussion was worthwhile, what thread would you propose that has ever been worth participating in? My aim is to leave people with a good taste in their mouth to ponder the possibility that there are more difficulties than previously thought with a rash and hasty dismissal of what they still may ultimately judge to be "apostate Christianity".

I do not recollect any conversations where you have been involved that feature observations from the Book of Mormon. With you, it has usually been a situation where the Traditionalist is on the defensive, trying to explain what the churchmen meant who once explained our faith with words like substance, essence, nature, being, and person. I see little value in a repetition of that either. At least not until we can agree to the possibility that the words have distinct meanings that can be communicable to all and even perhaps translated into a more accessible explanation.

Regards,

3DOP

[Louis Midgley]

Ahab:

You pose two questions I wish to address:

1. You ask:"If the terms don't really help to distinguish one attitude or philosophy from another do you think it would be best to just drop the terms, then?" The problem is that the Protestant Reformation did not yield a single church with anything like a magisterium (or an official teaching office). So what one finds are denominations, and then also factions within denominations and movements that cut through denominations, as well as parachurch organizations, and so forth. It is, I believe, important for Latter-day Saints to be aware of this, and not be bullied by those who claim to speak for historic, biblical, orthodox, Trinitarian, creedal Christianity when they really only speak for a small and very recent faction of a movement within conservative Protestantism. And even that movement entertains a host of different opinions on a very wide variety of questions. This is not, as some are inclined to say merely an empty dispute. All differences of opinion involve language and the way we use language to set out and try to resolve disputes. .

2. You then said that you "really don't care what you call me, just as long as you understand who I strive to follow." But what if those who call you by some label you do not recognize as your own, refuse to believe you when you tell them who you follow? Keep in mind that beginning with the malevolent "Dr." Walter Martin, thousands of conservative Protestant churches each year had people claiming to be experts on the faith of Latter-day Saints who insisted that they worship a different Jesus, and hence are not followers of Jesus Christ. So the Saints have had to defend themselves from that kind of rubbish.

[Ahab]

Ahab:

You pose two questions I wish to address:

1. You ask:"If the terms don't really help to distinguish one attitude or philosophy from another do you think it would be best to just drop the terms, then?" The problem is that the Protestant Reformation did not yield a single church with anything like a magisterium (or an official teaching office). So what one finds are denominations, and then also factions within denominations and movements that cut through denominations, as well as parachurch organizations, and so forth. It is, I believe, important for Latter-day Saints to be aware of this, and not be bullied by those who claim to speak for historic, biblical, orthodox, Trinitarian, creedal Christianity when they really only speak for a small and very recent faction of a movement within conservative Protestantism. And even that movement entertains a host of different opinions on a very wide variety of questions. This is not, as some are inclined to say merely an empty dispute. All differences of opinion involve language and the way we use language to set out and try to resolve disputes.

I understand that. I was just thinking that maybe instead of trying to use terms to classify different belief systems... which wouldn't work well if the terms didn't imply a distinction, like in this case of the term "evangelical"... we could just focus instead on what people understand, on the issues.

... kinda like not worrying or even thinking about whether someone is a Democrat or Republican, but instead just finding out what they believe is a good thing or want to do on an issue.

2. You then said that you "really don't care what you call me, just as long as you understand who I strive to follow." But what if those who call you by some label you do not recognize as your own, refuse to believe you when you tell them who you follow? Keep in mind that beginning with the malevolent "Dr." Walter Martin, thousands of conservative Protestant churches each year had people claiming to be experts on the faith of Latter-day Saints who insisted that they worship a different Jesus, and hence are not followers of Jesus Christ. So the Saints have had to defend themselves from that kind of rubbish.

Well, maybe that is a bit hard for people to see, sometimes, but they could at least understand what I'm saying when I'm telling them who I am following. If I say I'm following Jesus Christ they can at least understand what I'm saying when I tell them that I'm following Jesus, rather than their "version" or their understanding of Jesus. That's one of the things about following Jesus. We can follow him even if other people do not see or believe we are. Edited January 15, 2013 by Ahab

[Paloma]

If the terms don't really help to distinguish one attitude or philosophy from another do you think it would be best to just drop the terms, then?" The problem is that the Protestant Reformation did not yield a single church with anything like a magisterium (or an official teaching office). So what one finds are denominations, and then also factions within denominations and movements that cut through denominations, as well as parachurch organizations, and so forth. It is, I believe, important for Latter-day Saints to be aware of this, and not be bullied by those who claim to speak for historic, biblical, orthodox, Trinitarian, creedal Christianity when they really only speak for a small and very recent faction of a movement within conservative Protestantism. And even that movement entertains a host of different opinions on a very wide variety of questions. This is not, as some are inclined to say merely an empty dispute. All differences of opinion involve language and the way we use language to set out and try to resolve disputes. .

Louis, you wrote the above in response to Ahab.

I can see that it would be very confusing for someone outside of what I might call historic or orthodox Christianity to understand all the varying denominations, factions, movements etc. that you allude to above. I commend both your own research and study as well as your desire to make your fellow LDS aware of the vast complex and diverse landscape of non-LDS Christianity.

What I tend to find both amazing and reassuring is that there's for the most part, (not counting extreme positions!), a real sense of togetherness and of belonging to a common wider tradition amongst all these disparate denominations and movements. I think that wider sense of unity can be missed when outsiders look at the diversity within orthodox Christianity. I can see that it must seem chaotic (and sometimes contentious perhaps - and sometimes it is!) to those who are looking in from the outside, and especially from a tradition such as the LDS faith which is monolithic and hierarchical. Yet it does not appear so at the grassroots level of those of us living out our faith in daily life and constantly rubbing shoulders with fellow Christians from different churches, including across the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox traditions. Many of us study at Christian theological schools together, attend weekly Bible studies together, etc. And we read, study and value each others' thinkers and writers. In the last twenty years or so, some of my favourite authors have been Henri Nouwen and Brennan Manning among other Catholic writers. And I'm sure Roman Catholics have been reading C.S. Lewis, John Stott, and more recently Philip Yancy and N.T. Wright, among others. Protestants have increasingly been valuing and engaging in contemplative practices that used to be more traditionally associated with Catholicism. Ignatian spirituality is becoming more familiar to Protestants and many Protestant writers (Richard Foster, for one) have written books about "Celebrating the Disciplines".

Some of my Mormon friends also seem to be exploring wider Christianity in their thinking and reading. That's not to say they're moving away from the LDS faith, but I think they must inevitably be integrating (or perhaps synthesizing and seeing how their own faith meshes/differs from) non-LDS Christian ideas.

I've been interested to see that even within a faith with a strong "magisterium" (a term I was interested to see you use), that the LDS folk I know have quite different ideas about some things. And yet, I see a lot of unity in what they believe. In fact, it reminds me of a phrase that we non-LDS Christians often use to describe our own differences: "agreeing on the essentials (in brief, the Trinity and the Atonement, but these two theological concepts are full of deep and quite specific meaning) and differing on the peripherals, or non-essentials".

[Paloma]

That's one of the things about following Jesus. We can follow him even if other people do not see or believe we are.

Amen!

I really like the idea of taking people at face value and simply sharing our faith stories!

But I recognize there is value in recognizing and discussing theological differences. It's important!

I'm glad God made us with unique strengths, temperaments and inclinations. While I have sensed sometimes that God has called me to delve into differences and focus on theological distinctives, I generally (and increasingly!) feel that God is calling me into simply listening, sharing, loving and journeying with people, trusting that He knows and will sort out our different paths and ways of understanding through His far greater knowledge and love.

There are others "contending for the faith" ... and I hope and trust they do so in love, fairness and grace. (I know it's not always so, and I grieve - with God, I think! - when the argument becomes more important than humility and than the person!) I've also had to confess my own lack of love, and know I will do so again and again!

[Mudcat]

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.

<snip demonstration>

Has this demonstration led you or yours from unfaith to faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Lord God and hence to devout piety?

Louis,

Snipped a bit of your post for brevity. I think you have the right of it, in the sense that existential arguments for God don't by any means point towards a fellow who was executed quite a ways back and rose from the dead. But neither do I think was such argumentation on the existence of God was intended to be utilized in such a fashion. These arguments are logically valid mechanisms for drawing the conclusion that life, the Universe and everything were created by a creator.. or at the very least were caused by some force. I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to come to the conclusion that if all this was created, that it was created by an intelligent being with the capability to do so.

I think this is what Paul was getting at in Romans.

This argumentation establishes the precedent for a creator and that is about it. It's just a starting point for a cumulative case.

I think it should be understood that such argumentation seems more designed for apologetic defense of belief rather than a persuasive argument for unbelievers. Though I do think it at least has the merit of the potentiality of opening the mind of an unbeliever to such a possibility.

Let me ask you a hypothetical. You have served in missions. Say you ran in to an atheist type on your sojourn. Somewhere in the conversation it comes up about reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it.

Say the atheist says, "I don't believe there is anyone to pray to. What grounds can you offer that there is anyone to pray to in the first place?"

I'd be curious as to your response.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

I do not recollect any conversations where you have been involved that feature observations from the Book of Mormon. With you, it has usually been a situation where the Traditionalist is on the defensive, trying to explain what the churchmen meant who once explained our faith with words like substance, essence, nature, being, and person. I see little value in a repetition of that either. At least not until we can agree to the possibility that the words have distinct meanings that can be communicable to all and even perhaps translated into a more accessible explanation.

I'd love to have a discussion where we totally leave out theology!

Frankly, like you, I think we would be in total agreement on all the issues of importance. I think such a discussion however would have to be about our own subjective experience of God and not about Catholicism vs Mormonism.

Our churches have rival claims about which represents the true authority of Jesus Christ to administer to God's children on earth, and the minute we leave the discussion about our personal beliefs, I think we we be on another road which will immediately re-introduce the "problem" of theology.

As I see things there are first, our personal experiences of God and then there are the vocabularies we learn to describe them. I think as long as we stick to personal experiences, there will be little if any differences. But we will soon find that our vocabularies and explanations for what we each feel will differ the minute we begin using loaded theological terminology.

[mfbukowski]

I think it should be understood that such argumentation seems more designed for apologetic defense of belief rather than a persuasive argument for unbelievers. Though I do think it at least has the merit of the potentially opening the mind of an unbeliever to such a possibility.

This is a crucial, crucial point in the apologetics business; the best defense can be a good offense and that is where we go astray. I am probably among the worst around here for that unfortunately perhaps due to my early experience on very hostile boards, and training in debate in college where the goal was to win, not make friends.

But the excuse for that (and it is nothing more than an excuse) is that in dealing with Evangelicals I think it is more common for Mormons to be on the defense than anything else. Yet of course Evangelicals see our declaration of them being "apostates" as perhaps equally offensive.

As I see it the bottom line is a need to drop the defensiveness, but that is easier said than done once a defensive attitude is formed.

[mathonihah]

I understand that. I was just thinking that maybe instead of trying to use terms to classify different belief systems... which wouldn't work well if the terms didn't imply a distinction, like in this case of the term "evangelical"... we could just focus instead on what people understand, on the issues.

kinda like not worrying or even thinking about whether someone is a Democrat or Republican, but instead just finding out what they believe is a good thing or want to do on an issue.

It seems to me that what distinguishes or unites evangelicals is not so much what they are for, but what they are against. They all seem to be united in their opposition to, or even hatred of Mormonism; other than that they may disagree on pretty much everything else! It is kinda like what Joseph Smith experienced with the "sectarian" ministers of his day. They bitterly fought and jostled for position among themselves; but they were all united in persecuting him! That pattern seems to be repeating itself among the so called evangelical movement.

[mfbukowski]

It seems to me that what distinguishes or unites evangelicals is not so much what they are for, but what they are against. They all seem to be united in their opposition to, or even hatred of Mormonism; other than that they may disagree on pretty much everything else! It is kinda like what Joseph Smith experienced with the "sectarian" ministers of his day. They bitterly fought and jostled for position among themselves; but they were all united in persecuting him! That pattern seems to be repeating itself among the so called evangelical movement.

You have just made my case.

This is a crucial, crucial point in the apologetics business; the best defense can be a good offense and that is where we go astray. I am probably among the worst around here for that unfortunately perhaps due to my early experience on very hostile boards, and training in debate in college where the goal was to win, not make friends.

But the excuse for that (and it is nothing more than an excuse) is that in dealing with Evangelicals I think it is more common for Mormons to be on the defense than anything else. Yet of course Evangelicals see our declaration of them being "apostates" as perhaps equally offensive.

As I see it the bottom line is a need to drop the defensiveness, but that is easier said than done once a defensive attitude is formed.

[Gervin]

It seems to me that what distinguishes or unites evangelicals is not so much what they are for, but what they are against. They all seem to be united in their opposition to, or even hatred of Mormonism; other than that they may disagree on pretty much everything else! It is kinda like what Joseph Smith experienced with the "sectarian" ministers of his day. They bitterly fought and jostled for position among themselves; but they were all united in persecuting him! That pattern seems to be repeating itself among the so called evangelical movement.

I hope you're right - otherwise your statement might be seen as an incredibly narrow-minded broad-brushed judgement against the 700 Evangelical denominations and the 300 million or so persons who self-identify as Evangelical [Lausanne Global Analysis, 2011]. As only one who self-identifies as evangelical my experience tells me your statement is false.

[Gervin]

You have just made my case.

The poster didn't make a case at all but merely gave a biased statement. Your endorsement, likely, makes a case of a different kind.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Gervin

[Vance]

You have just made my case.

I have seen something several times that I think supports your supposition. It goes something like this.

Evangelical, "I don't know what _________(usually a verse of scripture)_____ really means, BUT, Mormons have it wrong!!!!!

I always get a laugh out of it.

[coolrok7]

Coolrok7:

Please tell me right now that you have learned something.

I always learn things but don't always agree with what I learn. The issue Vance raised in my view is that I do understand the term messenger can be applied to humans as well. Context would determine this. He at times reads into the situation things that don't apply to me.