Contention Over What Constitutes An Evangelical

[Paloma]

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.

I like your bottom line, mfbukowski!

In my experience, far fewer Evangelicals are even aware of anything resembling a countercult ministry these days, much less interested in bashing different faith approaches!

While I think it's important to know one's own faith as well as the differing faiths of others, I do like the more gracious climate we're in. Some people may think it's only due to postmodern relativism or pluralism, and think that believers have lost their own clear convictions. But I see it more as a willingness to respect and try to understand the real context and beliefs of others.

You mention being trained in debate, and how that can affect one's approach to others. I'm a terrible debater! I've had no training, but I did enter into a debate once. One of the bits of advice I got in advance was to listen carefully to the other side in order to counter their position. My problem was that in listening carefully, I couldn't help but think, "hey, that's a really good point". Even though I had my list of points and counter arguments, I found it hard to shed my natural tendency to look for agreement rather than polarities and for opportunities to use what "they" said for my own advantage.

You mention the need to drop the defensiveness. I agree with you so strongly here! I recognize how easy it is to become defensive. (And yes, it's really hard for evangelicals to hear they're apostate and have no authority under Christ.) And I can imagine how hard it is for LDS believers to hear that they're not Christian when their own experience is one of honouring and following Christ.

A long time ago I learned to understand that when one is secure in one's belief and in one's relationship with Christ, there's no need and no place for defensiveness. Often we think we're waging battle "for the Lord" (or perhaps "for the Church"). But I think God is more than able to carry His own weight and wage His own battles! Yes, He calls us to faithfulness and to faithful proclamation and defense of our own faith. But I don't think He calls us to attack others. I do think we tend to attack when we're on the defensive.

Sometimes we excuse and couch our attacks as the need to expose false teaching and warn others, but there's a line of fear, anger, harshness and judgment that we so easily cross as humans. Only God can judge with perfect knowledge and complete absence of the kind of defensiveness that's born out of fear and anger that's part of our human prejudice.

So I see your bottom line stated above as very crucial and wise and pleasing to God.

[Mudcat]

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.

I agree. My two bits, is that if people can figure out how to make friends and openly discuss their beliefs, it's a victory for all concerned.

[Paloma]

I agree. My two bits, is that if people can figure out how to make friends and openly discuss their beliefs, it's a victory for all concerned.

Mudcat, I'm glad you mentioned making friends. That's a big part of having the right kind of approach and attitude! And I agree that it's a big "win" for all concerned!

[coolrok7]

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?

As an individual, an elder in the Church I attend who’s responsible for what I believe and what I in that capacity teach others, I don’t mind at all. This is the basis for my comment:

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Romans 10:8-9)

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. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:17-24)

You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:1-2)

I’m responding to these comments and speaking as an individual of faith in Jesus Christ (Luther was a catholic priest whom was declared a heretic in a Papal Bull):

The most recent essay describes the controversy among factions of conservative Protestants over what constitutes evangelicalism. Someone has tried to describe some of the issues upon which evangelicals differ one from another. I know something about this brand new essay because I am its author. . . .(post #1)

Midgley

But the fact is that conservative Protestants, much like Latter-day Saints, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, each in their own unique way, all claim to be in some sense the true church of Jesus Christ, just as all competing versions of the fundamentalist/evangelical movement claim to be the authentic, apostolic, biblical, orthodox Christianity, against which all other claims must be measured and graded, as the essays in Spectrum demonstrate.

3DOP

I think it could be demonstrated that LDS, Catholics, and Orthodox claim in the same sense to be "the true church of Jesus Christ." We believe in a visible organization with officers and a hierarchy that matches what is believed to have been established by Christ. The Evangelical idea of one true church is a different sense and unique to them alone.

One reason Evangelicals aren't partial to any particular visible is church because they don't believe in efficacious sacraments. When everything is a symbol, there is no need for a valid priestly order. That is why a visible church of some kind for them is a necessary expedient of Sunday gathering, but I have never heard of an Evangelical offering reasons why Christians ought to submit themselves to the authority of any particular true visible church. For them, the true church is invisible, it is not something you attend or affiliate with on earth. The true church (invisible) for them is conveniently unidentifiable and irrelevant to how anyone decides where to go to church on Sunday.

Evangelicals seldom tell us where to go to church. They don't care as long as we don't go to one that claims to have a true priesthood with valid ordinances, and historically verified continuity reaching into the apostolic times. (Or as the case with the Restored Church, bridging the chasm) They know what visible churches they oppose, but they don't have one to recommend.

So I would have to say that the comment about how all four groups mentioned have their own peculiarities as to the one true church is a little misleading and unnecessarily generous in light of the distinctively different view held by Evangelicals as compared to those of us who believe in a priesthood. When I was looking for the one true church, the easiest way to eliminate all the confusion that comes with thousands of churches was to take them at their word. If they said they weren't the one true visible church, I figured they were right and I looked at the ones who did say they were one, true, and visible.

3DOP (post #4)

With all the discussion that has gone on I decided to offer an expression of the background I’m coming from as a Christian, Evangelical/Protestant/Lutheran/Missouri Synod tribe. This is why I offered the snippet on “The Original Evangelicals”.

In the context of Evangelicals and their differences the important thing is to believe Biblical truth, bottom line. This is what I believe I have in the sense of an individual seeking to live a life pleasing to God based on His standard which is Jesus Christ.

I do advocate that the church I’ve attended most of my life is part of the larger body of Christ. We do not hold to any one church body as the sole organization that can offer Biblical salvation although we do hold that we are preaching correctly Biblical doctrine.

It is the Jesus of Biblical Revelation that declares the truth one needs to believe that the church I attend proclaims (that is my belief, open to correction as necessary if I can be persuaded otherwise which of course depends ultimately on Biblical teaching in context). When someone comes along and pronounces what I believe is false/of the devil, I naturally will make the attempt to defend what I believe is Biblical truth.

In regards to Roman Catholicism they have the message of the cross as an emphasis as well but sort of adds to it in a way (meriting with good works) that bothers me. There are of course certain Biblical doctrines (dogma so to speak) that one has to accept to be saved.

The history of Christianity beginning in Genesis and ending in the Book of revelation is the story of one of the Godhead (not the Father/Holy Spirit) becoming a man, known as Jesus Christ of Nazareth, to redeem a fallen and corrupted world brought about through the sin of Eve, then Adam. Not all will believe this.

Some are believing in the lies of Satan couched in Biblical terminology while not meaning the same thing the Bible actually teaches in context. These would be that false prophets/teachers that come in Jesus’ name that He warned about.

Jesus is going to return for Judgment Day where His Justice is meted out as He said He would and bring salvation (to those who believe, not to those who don’t believe) in the ultimate sense of Divine Justice. His dying on the cross (God’s divine justice) is what saves those who put their trust in Him to save them. All other human works fall short of being able to save. It has to be on His terms not ours.

In saying this it is His mercy and grace He applies to those of a repentant heart and willingness to lay down their lives for others in service to God.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

I disagree with the previous poster that you quoted. I have known a great deal many EVies that did not hate the mormons. In fact there was a great deal that simply didnt care about and knew very little about the LDS.

[Louis Midgley]

Mudcat somewhere above wrote as follows: “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.” Ok, we agree at least to this point. But now I must ask: what were the proofs for God intended to prove? Well, you have an answer: “These arguments are logically valid mechanisms.” And here we disagree. You continue...” for drawing the conclusion that life, the Universe and everything were created by a creator” out of nothing? And you add, “or at the very least were caused by some force.” So those famous proofs are intended to prove that there is some mysterious X that explains the world? That is, in fact, what they are intended to do.

Those proofs that are not simply tautological–that is, true by definition, like “all bald me are hairless”–think of the ontological argument that “Being is” are deeply flawed. Why? Those that work by analogy–the most obvious being the watchmaker analogy–fail to make the explanation isomorphic (meaning the parts of the analogy do not fit) with what is being explained. The “force” (or First Thing) that explains the world (in the analogy) cannot be the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob or the incarnate Holy One of Israel. Why, the X that is “proved” cannot be simply be good, loving, merciful, suffering, weeping, but it is merely powerful. Why?

Because what has to be included in the “force” (or First Thing) must explain, in addition to the precise order in the world (think of the watch and watchmaker analogy) also the evil that floods the world and the death that awaits all of us and so forth because the “force” or (First Thing) must explain all of the world and not just some tine part of it. Why should one pray to or obey a “force” (or First Thing) that is not only indifferent to us and to our deepest longings, but must be seen as the cause of our death?

Those who have been this thread and hearing of such a thing as natural theology should, I believe, have a look at the kinds of flaws that the great skeptic David Hume, in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion was able to set out. He used both both the expressions “natural religion” and “natural theology” to cover the so-called proofs for God. The explanation offered by theologians (dabbling in something called ontology or metaphysics), according to Hume, must look more like the work of a madman or a committee in which a war was taking place than a kind, loving Jesus of Nazareth.

I once wrote about these proofs, and I will quoting some of what I wrote. “Hume ends his Dialogues by having Philo, his mitigated skeptic, insist that ‘the most natural sentiment which a well-disposed mind will feel on this occasion”—that is, when the limits of natural reason and hence the misfortunes that attend the rational proofs for God have been confronted—“is a longing desire and expectation that Heaven would be pleased to dissipate, at least alleviate, this profound ignorance, by affording some more particular revelation to mankind, and making discoveries of the nature, attributes, and operations of the divine object of our Faith. A person, seasoned with a just sense of the imperfections of natural reason, will fly to revealed truth with the greatest avidity: while the haughty dogmatist, persuaded that he can erect a complete system of theology by the mere help of philosophy, disdains any farther aid, and rejects this adventitious instructor.” Hume argues correctly that "to be a philosophical sceptic is, in a man of letters, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian." By “philosophical sceptic he meant one skeptical of what philosophers, even or especially of some Christian variety, can tell us about divine things.

I also wrote that “In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume also argues that a proper appreciation of the limits of natural reason ‘may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure.’ Hume closed his Enquiry with the observation that the theology one finds in what he called "divinity or school metaphysics" ought to be tossed into ‘the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.’ He insisted instead that for those inclined to the Christian religion, the ‘best and most solid foundation is faith and divine revelation.’"

And why were those proofs necessary especially since they are essentially logically unsound, not even formally valid and end up “proving” a First Thing that no one turns to and then puts their trust in and then obeys with hope and love.

I have not, of course, addressed the really crucial part of Mudcat’s query. How would I approach someone who does not believe in God. Or, why would such a one pray about the Book of Mormon? These questions I will address, God willing, in a separate posting.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Maybe you should re-read both posts and think a little about what I said. It seems you did not understand the point.

[mfbukowski]

I like your bottom line, mfbukowski!

In my experience, far fewer Evangelicals are even aware of anything resembling a countercult ministry these days, much less interested in bashing different faith approaches!

While I think it's important to know one's own faith as well as the differing faiths of others, I do like the more gracious climate we're in. Some people may think it's only due to postmodern relativism or pluralism, and think that believers have lost their own clear convictions. But I see it more as a willingness to respect and try to understand the real context and beliefs of others.

You mention being trained in debate, and how that can affect one's approach to others. I'm a terrible debater! I've had no training, but I did enter into a debate once. One of the bits of advice I got in advance was to listen carefully to the other side in order to counter their position. My problem was that in listening carefully, I couldn't help but think, "hey, that's a really good point". Even though I had my list of points and counter arguments, I found it hard to shed my natural tendency to look for agreement rather than polarities and for opportunities to use what "they" said for my own advantage.

You mention the need to drop the defensiveness. I agree with you so strongly here! I recognize how easy it is to become defensive. (And yes, it's really hard for evangelicals to hear they're apostate and have no authority under Christ.) And I can imagine how hard it is for LDS believers to hear that they're not Christian when their own experience is one of honouring and following Christ.

A long time ago I learned to understand that when one is secure in one's belief and in one's relationship with Christ, there's no need and no place for defensiveness. Often we think we're waging battle "for the Lord" (or perhaps "for the Church"). But I think God is more than able to carry His own weight and wage His own battles! Yes, He calls us to faithfulness and to faithful proclamation and defense of our own faith. But I don't think He calls us to attack others. I do think we tend to attack when we're on the defensive.

Sometimes we excuse and couch our attacks as the need to expose false teaching and warn others, but there's a line of fear, anger, harshness and judgment that we so easily cross as humans. Only God can judge with perfect knowledge and complete absence of the kind of defensiveness that's born out of fear and anger that's part of our human prejudice.

So I see your bottom line stated above as very crucial and wise and pleasing to God.

Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

I agree. My two bits, is that if people can figure out how to make friends and openly discuss their beliefs, it's a victory for all concerned.

I've always valued your friendship, Senor Mud!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

It seems clear you did not read MF post. Just saying.

[mfbukowski]

Mudcat somewhere above wrote as follows: “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.” Ok, we agree at least to this point. But now I must ask: what were the proofs for God intended to prove? Well, you have an answer: “These arguments are logically valid mechanisms.” And here we disagree. You continue...” for drawing the conclusion that life, the Universe and everything were created by a creator” out of nothing? And you add, “or at the very least were caused by some force.” So those famous proofs are intended to prove that there is some mysterious X that explains the world? That is, in fact, what they are intended to do.

Those proofs that are not simply tautological–that is, true by definition, like “all bald me are hairless”–think of the ontological argument that “Being is” are deeply flawed. Why? Those that work by analogy–the most obvious being the watchmaker analogy–fail to make the explanation isomorphic (meaning the parts of the analogy do not fit) with what is being explained. The “force” (or First Thing) that explains the world (in the analogy) cannot be the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob or the incarnate Holy One of Israel. Why, the X that is “proved” cannot be simply be good, loving, merciful, suffering, weeping, but it is merely powerful. Why?

Because what has to be included in the “force” (or First Thing) must explain, in addition to the precise order in the world (think of the watch and watchmaker analogy) also the evil that floods the world and the death that awaits all of us and so forth because the “force” or (First Thing) must explain all of the world and not just some tine part of it. Why should one pray to or obey a “force” (or First Thing) that is not only indifferent to us and to our deepest longings, but must be seen as the cause of our death?

Those who have been this thread and hearing of such a thing as natural theology should, I believe, have a look at the kinds of flaws that the great skeptic David Hume, in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion was able to set out. He used both both the expressions “natural religion” and “natural theology” to cover the so-called proofs for God. The explanation offered by theologians (dabbling in something called ontology or metaphysics), according to Hume, must look more like the work of a madman or a committee in which a war was taking place than a kind, loving Jesus of Nazareth.

I once wrote about these proofs, and I will quoting some of what I wrote. “Hume ends his Dialogues by having Philo, his mitigated skeptic, insist that ‘the most natural sentiment which a well-disposed mind will feel on this occasion”—that is, when the limits of natural reason and hence the misfortunes that attend the rational proofs for God have been confronted—“is a longing desire and expectation that Heaven would be pleased to dissipate, at least alleviate, this profound ignorance, by affording some more particular revelation to mankind, and making discoveries of the nature, attributes, and operations of the divine object of our Faith. A person, seasoned with a just sense of the imperfections of natural reason, will fly to revealed truth with the greatest avidity: while the haughty dogmatist, persuaded that he can erect a complete system of theology by the mere help of philosophy, disdains any farther aid, and rejects this adventitious instructor.” Hume argues correctly that "to be a philosophical sceptic is, in a man of letters, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian." By “philosophical sceptic he meant one skeptical of what philosophers, even or especially of some Christian variety, can tell us about divine things.

I also wrote that “In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume also argues that a proper appreciation of the limits of natural reason ‘may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means, fitted to endure.’ Hume closed his Enquiry with the observation that the theology one finds in what he called "divinity or school metaphysics" ought to be tossed into ‘the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.’ He insisted instead that for those inclined to the Christian religion, the ‘best and most solid foundation is faith and divine revelation.’"

And why were those proofs necessary especially since they are essentially logically unsound, not even formally valid and end up “proving” a First Thing that no one turns to and then puts their trust in and then obeys with hope and love.

Bravo!

I am so glad you brought up Hume! I usually do so myself the first time someone mentions the "Uncaused Cause", but I am glad you mentioned his implied defense of faith as well, not to mention that the "school metaphysics" he argued against was indeed what we now call Scholasticism.

I think we got off on the wrong foot somehow, but I think we agree in many many respects.

[coolrok7]

I simply offered the observation by the author of the book (my perspective) as part of my entrance into the discussion. You responded:

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. . . .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:

. . .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. . . . 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

As you Louis, I also was in Oberammergau, Germany, in 2010 for the passion play (in June; it’s performed only every ten years as you probably know but for those who don’t). Afterward my wife and I traveled by train north from there to Wittenberg.

It was in part, a culmination (which ended in Paris France) after a trip to Athens/Patmos/western Turkey on a trip organized by my Pastor back then of the Church I attend. The trip was centered on the Book of Revelation.

I wasn’t insisting as you stated, “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”. I see that it explains a view I can agree with:

. . .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. . . .

Mormonism has its splinter groups/those who have differing opinions from within the Mormon fold as well. Every group regardless has the right to express things as they see them whether one agrees with them or not.

Nothing new under the sun so to speak which doesn’t change what I believe based on Biblical teaching that I’ve verified for myself. I’ve spent years going to othyer churches of all types to see what they have to say. I’m not closed minded as I’ve been accused of often. I just don’t see any justification to change my beliefs as they are modeled on Biblical teaching.

From the sign out side of St. Mary’s Church (just down from where Luther along with Melanchthon is buried in the Castle Church) in Wittenberg, Germany in part:

THE PARISH CHURCH OF ST. MARY’S

Martin Luther’s Pulpit

St. Mary’s Church is first mentioned in 1180. At the end of the thirteenth century a new building in the early Gothic style was begun, and the present Late Gothic building was completed between 1412 and 1493. The present interior, designed by Carlo Ignazio Pozzi, was finished in 1815. Wittenberg’s town church is where Martin luther himself preached and where the Reformation began. The first Protestant service in German was held on December 25th, 1521, and it was here that Lutheran pastors were ordained and commissioned.

St. Mary’s was also the home of Johannes Bugenhagen, who is known as the “third Reformer, and who gave his blessing to Martin Luther and his wife, Katharina von Bora, on the occasion of their first public appearance together. . . .(St. Mary’s sign in front of the building)

Wittenberg or Lutherstadt-Wittenberg is forever famous as the place where on October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church. A simple call for debate became the spark that ignited the Reformation. Although both Luther and the door are long gone, you can stand before the replica door, with all 95 Theses inscribed in bronze and think about how one man, standing up for truth, could change the world forever. . . .

Castle Church The Castle and All Saints Church were built by Frederick the Wise between 1490 and 1511. During the Seven Years' War, in 1760, the Church was sadly destroyed by fire but was rebuilt in 1892 as a Monument to the Reformation.

The original door was unfortunately lost in the fire of 1760. King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia had the door replaced with a bronze door with all 95 theses are inscribed. The painting above the door depicts Luther with the German Bible on the right and Melanchthon with the Augsburg Confession on the left. You can see the city of Wittenberg in the background.

Luther and the 95 Theses: It was here that Martin Luther posted his 95 theses which called for a dispute on the state of the Church. Why did he put a long, detailed document on a church door? In those days, the wooden door served as the University's bulletin board. He was opposing the additions and conditions that had been placed on indulgences. They were written in Latin, but were translated (without his permission) into German and circulated very widely. The spark of Reformation had been lit. (Reformation Tours website)

A very faith promoting/inspirational trip I might add. One of the many highlights was standing on Mars Hill in view of the Acropolis where Paul was preaching to the pagan culture of his day in declaring the God whom he worshipped (as a Jewish believer) in the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (Paul had read the stone monument near the marketplace which said: “to the unknown God” in Acts 17):

Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: (Acts 17:16-27)

I’ve also been to the birthplace of Mormonism as well and attended at the “Hill Cumorah” pageant in Palmyra, New York several years before the trip mentioned above.

[Gervin]

Maybe you should re-read both posts and think a little about what I said. It seems you did not understand the point.

My apology. Guess I was a little too defensive ...

[mfbukowski]

My apology. Guess I was a little too defensive ...

No problem! As I said that is the whole problem on both sides here!

Edited January 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Louis Midgley]

There are all kinds of side conversations going on and, since I started this thread with the naive idea that some might like to comment on an essay I recently published, I am hopeful that those who have commented will not feel slighted because it has become impossible for me to respond to all sides in every side conversation. I have, I hope I have made clear, that I have actually enjoyed even and sometimes especially the side conversations. For reasons that I have at least hinted at, I appreciate the expressions of piety and devotion that have turned up on this thread. I must also confess that I still have a difficult time keeping the players sorted out. I am a novice at gabbing on this kind of venue.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat somewhere above wrote as follows: “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.” Ok, we agree at least to this point. But now I must ask: what were the proofs for God intended to prove? Well, you have an answer: “These arguments are logically valid mechanisms.” And here we disagree. You continue...” for drawing the conclusion that life, the Universe and everything were created by a creator” out of nothing? And you add, “or at the very least were caused by some force.” So those famous proofs are intended to prove that there is some mysterious X that explains the world? That is, in fact, what they are intended to do.

Hi Louis,

Thanks for the response. Bold mine. I actually think we are in agreement on this part, it's just a starting point for establishing what sort of X could have created and in my opinion there is a cumulative case that points to God rather than mysterious X. When you get of into tautology, I get a bit lost on the concept. I certainly don't mean such arguments are axiomatic or something. Axioms don't seem to need arguments.

I do mean "logically valid" in the sense that the conclusions follow the premises. Certainly false arguments can be presented in a logically valid sense.

I think our disagreement, underline mine, is specifically on an ex materia vs ex nihilo sort of creation. I haven't really gotten on this topic here, it's a sticky wicket either way you go. One trail leads to an uncaused cause, the other to an infinite regress. Of the two, an infinite regress seems logically untenable to me. Though many embrace such notions.

Those proofs that are not simply tautological–that is, true by definition, like “all bald me are hairless”–think of the ontological argument that “Being is” are deeply flawed. Why? Those that work by analogy–the most obvious being the watchmaker analogy–fail to make the explanation isomorphic (meaning the parts of the analogy do not fit) with what is being explained. The “force” (or First Thing) that explains the world (in the analogy) cannot be the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob or the incarnate Holy One of Israel. Why, the X that is “proved” cannot be simply be good, loving, merciful, suffering, weeping, but it is merely powerful. Why?

The force that implies general creation doesn't by necessity have to be anything but a force. The argument establishes a maximal/omni sense of potence and possibly some maximal/omin sense of intelligence... but I don't think it goes much beyond that. I don't really understand why you feel they are flawed arguments because they don't point to the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and so forth. No such references are made in their premises, so I think it's a false dichotomy to suggest they are flawed because the don't imply such.

I have always seen this sort of logical argumentation as a way of arguing backwards. It's a way of saying, "Hey my belief is rationally possible." In such a stream of argumentation, it seems to me like you are criticizing the caboose for not being the engine. Well it's the caboose, it isn't supposed to be the engine in the first place.

I have not, of course, addressed the really crucial part of Mudcat’s query. How would I approach someone who does not believe in God. Or, why would such a one pray about the Book of Mormon? These questions I will address, God willing, in a separate posting.

Sure, looking forward to it. But don't stress out on getting it done. I think there are only two good ways to go in such a situation, that I see. Either trying to establish/affirm the Biblical proof that Paul set forth.. being that creation is evidence for God, or appealing to personal experience.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

I've always valued your friendship, Senor Mud!

Me to Bukowski. In a pragmatic way of course

Edited January 16, 2013 by Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Me to Bukowski. In a pragmatic way of course

But of course!

[mfbukowski]

Hi Louis,

Thanks for the response. Bold mine. I actually think we are in agreement on this part, it's just a starting point for establishing what sort of X could have created and in my opinion there is a cumulative case that points to God rather than mysterious X. When you get of into tautology, I get a bit lost on the concept. I certainly don't mean such arguments are axiomatic or something. Axioms don't seem to need arguments.

I do mean "logically valid" in the sense that the conclusions follow the premises. Certainly false arguments can be presented in a logically valid sense.

I think our disagreement, underline mine, is specifically on an ex materia vs ex nihilo sort of creation. I haven't really gotten on this topic here, it's a sticky wicket either way you go. One trail leads to an uncaused cause, the other to an infinite regress. Of the two, an infinite regress seems logically untenable to me. Though many embrace such notions.

The force that implies general creation doesn't by necessity have to be anything but a force. The argument establishes a maximal/omni sense of potence and possibly some maximal/omin sense of intelligence... but I don't think it goes much beyond that. I don't really understand why you feel they are flawed arguments because they don't point to the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and so forth. No such references are made in their premises, so I think it's a false dichotomy to suggest they are flawed because the don't imply such.

I have always seen this sort of logical argumentation as a way of arguing backwards. It's a way of saying, "Hey my belief is rationally possible." In such a stream of argumentation, it seems to me like you are criticizing the caboose for not being the engine. Well it's the caboose, it isn't supposed to be the engine in the first place.

Sure, looking forward to it. But don't stress out on getting it done. I think there are only two good ways to go in such a situation, that I see. Either trying to establish/affirm the Biblical proof that Paul set forth.. being that creation is evidence for God, or appealing to personal experience.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

As we have discussed before, I think a good philosophy of language goes miles to solve some of these "problems" and being a strictly dogmatic Wittgensteinian as perhaps you have heard before thankfully I don't think there is much here to argue about.

I just think we need to be wary of words painting us into corners that are only in our imaginations.

[Five Solas]

I was feeling ignored--but I see you've now fixed footnote 10, Dr. Midgley. I'll take comfort that my little post so many pages ago had some influence...

:0)

--Erik

[Louis Midgley]

Erik:

We actually fixed 8 or 10 tiny glitches in my essay. I have spent hundreds of hours on essays, with very expert technical editors and proof-readers and still found glitches when it was published. The nice thing about Interpreter is that it is online and can be corrected at any time until a volume is assembled. And I suppose it could even be corrected after a volume was made available for ordering it in printed form. There are, we are aware, those who think that a typo somehow proves that there is no God. I am not making this up. There are a batch of such folks who cluster around a Malevolent One who hides behind a ridiculous handle. I wonder if you have ever thought of witnessing to her and to her groupies. And while you are doing this you could also explain to him that the name of the journal is not MI.

[Vance]

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.

See what I mean. Even the way he responded here shows that he doesn't fully grasp the concept. Notice that he says, "I do understand the term messenger can be applied to humans as well", instead of "I do understand the term ANGEL can be applied to humans as well".

[coolrok7]

coolrok7, on 15 January 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

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.

See what I mean. Even the way he responded here shows that he doesn't fully grasp the concept. Notice that he says, "I do understand the term messenger can be applied to humans as well", instead of "I do understand the term ANGEL can be applied to humans as well".

Vance, I don't have a problem with that. If that is what your point was then it wasn't clear to me.

[3DOP]

deleted.

See new thread on Transubstantiation.

Edited January 16, 2013 by 3DOP

[Louis Midgley]

I was actually trying to paste something and got the wrong item. I will try doing what I intended later, I hope.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Louis Midgley