Contention Over What Constitutes An Evangelical

[mathonihah]

I am curious how much time you've put into studying Protestant theology, considering you appear to be relying on wiki for your explanations.

Firstly, that is not anybody's business. I don't need to show my "credentials" to anyone in order to debate (anonymously) on the Internet. My "credentials" are in the arguments I present. I suggest you address the arguments, rather than worry about my credentials. Secondly, you have jumped to the wrong conclusion from on the available evidence. The fact that I find the Wikipedia quote to be the more accurate expression of penal substitution does justify you in concluding that that is the only thing I know.

Edited January 8, 2013 by mathonihah

[Darren10]

I am curious how much time you've put into studying Protestant theology, considering you appear to be relying on wiki for your explanations.

The answer is probably somewhere on wikikpedia.

[Darren10]

Firstly, that is not anybody's business. I don't need to show my "credentials" to anyone in order to debate (anonymously) on the Internet. My "credentials" are in the argents I present. I suggest you address the arguments, rather than worry about my credentials. Secondly, you have jumped to the wrong conclusion from on the available evidence. The fact that I find the Wikipedia quote to be the more accurate expression of penal substitution does justify you in concluding that that is the only thing I know.

You find wikipedia's answer "more accurate" than her links from Protestant theological sites? That's weird.

[mathonihah]

Do you mind my asking if you've actually read my post before you began responding to it?

Yes, I do. I went back and reread your post carefully, just in case there had been nuances which I had missed; and I come to the conclusion that this is a stupid question to ask.

[Darren10]

Yes, I do. I went back and reread your post carefully, just in case there had been nuances which I had missed; and I come to the conclusion that this is a stupid question to ask.

Hmmmm. hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. Stupid question, it was not.

[mathonihah]

Hmmmm. hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. Stupid question, it was not.

X 2

[Darren10]

"Surfing the web for Protestant answers I am"

[mathonihah]

"Surfing the web for Protestant answers I am"

I like giving Mormon answers best.

[mathonihah]

This is also in Midgley's reply to Ellen Maksoud. Mr. Midgley does advocate responding to critics. Even here one must do so firmly but charitably. I find D&C Section 4 a remarkable standard to follow:

I try to constantly remind myself of these virtues when sharing or defending the Church.

I'll keep my eye open for this. I really can't comment on specific times this has happened here but I thin kin general there is nothing wrong with raising concerns about other religions, in fact I very much care to hear other's concerns about mny own faith. But regarldess, I think it's important to follow the virtues as outlined in D&C 4.

Speak as a Mormon Jedi, you do. Hmmmm?

The words of Isaiah 53, quoted in Mosiah 14, suggest penal substitution (note the highlighted passages):

“Yea, even doth not Isaiah say: Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

“For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire him.

“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

“Surely he has

borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows;

yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

“All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath

laid on him the iniquities of us all

.

“He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a blamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb so he opened not his mouth.

“He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgressions of my people was he stricken.

“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no evil, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

“He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall

bear their iniquities

.

“Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he

bore the sins of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors." (Mosiah 14:1–12)

Our sins were “imputed” to him. He was “made a sinner in place of us”. This does not mean that he literally made a sinner, or that he became unholy or sinful as a result. It means that he was dealt with as though he had committed those sins himself. He was made a “scape goat” for us or our sins (Leviticus 16). That is the correct doctrine of imputation or penal substitution. In other words, you basically don't know what you are talking about!

[Calm]

Yes, very much so. The Wikipedia articles are usually written by accredited and authoritative sources. They are not something for ignorant folks to turn their nose against.

Wiki is not a bad place to start, but I don't see them as all that great at time on nuances or details. For example, in the Joseph Smith entry there is a big gap in the description of the First Vision:

Smith later recalled having a vision from God around 1820 that resolved his sense of religious confusion and personal questions.[19] Praying in a wooded area near his home,[20] he said he saw a vision in which God told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."

There are some very significant details and nuances missing from the above brief summary.

On June 27, 1844, an armed mob with blackened faces stormed Carthage Jail where Joseph and Hyrum were being held.[265] Hyrum, who was trying to secure the door, was killed instantly with a shot to the face.[266] Smith fired a pepper-boxpistol that had been smuggled into the prison, then sprang for the window.[267] He was shot multiple times before falling out the window, crying "Oh Lord my God!"[265] He died shortly after hitting the ground.[265] Smith was buried in Nauvoo.[268]Five men were later tried for his murder, but all were acquitted.[269]

There is no mention of the presence of two other men in the cell, Richards and Taylor, one whom was shot.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Joseph_Smith

Another:

According to Bruce McConkie, a general authority of the LDS Church, "Mormonism is indistinguishable from Christianity."[44] In many ways, however, the religion differs from Christian orthodoxy as held by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity. To those for whom Christianity is defined by that orthodoxy, Mormonism's differences place it outside the umbrella of Christianity altogether.[45][46]

They completely missed the point of BRM's quote and make it appear as if he was trying to make the LDS Church just like all the rest when the reality was he was claiming that the Mormon faith is the true Christianity and other faiths are less than true copies.

http://en.wikipedia....monism#Theology

I see their addressing of doctrine the same...it tends to be superficial, thus leading to potentially missing important details on how theology or doctrine is understood by a particular group. And because of the amount of errors because of missing information or misinterpretation, I prefer to go to sites that are considered authoritative for their beliefs, the Vatican site for Catholics for example. Why get the predigested versions when you can get the fresh fruit?

Edited January 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[mathonihah]

Wiki is not a bad place to start, but I don't see them as all that great at time on nuances or details. For example, in the Joseph Smith entry there is a big gap in the description of the First Vision:

There are some very significant details and nuances missing from the above brief summary.

There is no mention of the presence of two other men in the cell, Richards and Taylor, one whom was shot.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Joseph_Smith

Another:

They completely missed the point of BRM's quote and make it appear as if he was trying to make the LDS Church just like all the rest when the reality was he was claiming that the Mormon faith is the true Christianity and other faiths are less than true copies.

http://en.wikipedia....monism#Theology

I see their addressing of doctrine the same...it tends to be superficial, thus leading to potentially missing important details on how theology or doctrine is understood by a particular group. And because of the amount of errors because of missing information or misinterpretation, I prefer to go to sites that are considered authoritative for their beliefs, the Vatican site for Catholics for example. Why get the predigested versions when you can get the fresh fruit?

That was a general observation I made. Joseph Smith and Mormonism are very controversial subjects, and there are vested interests in wanting to misrepresent them. But I believe there are ways of remedying that. The Wikipedia site itself I believe is not biased. If Mormonism is being misrepresented on the site, it is the job of credible LDS scholars to make representations to the site operators with appropriate evidence to have the information corrected.

[Calm]

There is often controversy associated with religious subjects, why would it be different for PST? Why would it not be wise to simply use wiki as a beginning but with caution and try and find out sites that back up a particular claim about a position.

I chose the LDS sites as religious sites that I am familiar with, but from what I hear of members of other faiths, there is often just as much controversy going on for them as there is on our sites so extra care should be taken for any site that touches on religion topics.

There is a long history of certain editors attempted to 'claim' certain wiki pages as their own. Haven't heard if there have been any fundamental change or if John Foxe (one of the editors IIRC) has been properly retired, If he is the one I am thinking of, he apparently made it his full life's work to ensure that certain wiki articles said what he wanted them to say, and as far as I am aware, I would not have called him "accredited or authoritative".

Last I heard, Wikipedia was not allowed to be used as citations in research papers in many universities because they don't meet their standard of a good source, OTOH standard encyclopedia texts are allowed.

Edited January 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

From Wiki itself...which leads me to respect its owners greatly:

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.

http://en.wikipedia....ia:Academic_use

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

On October 24, 2005, British newspaper The Guardian published a story titled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in which a panel of experts was asked to review seven entries related to their fields, giving each article reviewed a number designation out of ten points.[23] Scores ranged from 0 to 8, but most received marks between 5 and 8. The most common criticisms were:

1. Poor prose, or ease-of-reading issues (3 mentions)
   
2. Omissions or inaccuracies, often small but including key omissions in some articles (3 mentions)
   
3. Poor balance, with less important areas being given more attention and vice versa (1 mention)
   

The most common praises were:

1. Factually sound and correct, no glaring inaccuracies (4 mentions)
   
2. Much useful information, including well selected links, making it possible to "access much information quickly" (3 mentions)
   

http://en.wikipedia....eral_disclaimer

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

No formal peer review

Not professional advice

If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

Why would anyone informed make a greater case of authoritativeness, etc. than it does for itself?

Edited January 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

The answer to that in English I believe is, "Up yours!"

You forgot to add a visual to that. But in this case I thank you for your neglect.

/phew

[Anakin7]

If only our EV critics [who bang on our Front door to criticize us] would only answer there own front/back/side door/window to only listen to there critics - Roman Catholisicm, The 7 Families of Orthodoxy, Other Ev Christians, Jews, Moslems, Athiests/Humanists. Casting stones/Motes/Beams/ shutting up the kingdom of Heaven to others as referenced by Jesus Christ comes to mind when I hear/read there polemics. But I Luv them anyway and forgive them for what they do.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Darren10]

Our sins were “imputed” to him. He was “made a sinner in place of us”. This does not mean that he literally made a sinner, or that he became unholy or sinful as a result. It means that he was dealt with as though he had committed those sins himself. He was made a “scape goat” for us or our sins (Leviticus 16). That is the correct doctrine of imputation or penal substitution. In other words, you basically don't know what you are talking about!

Here's what I wrote in my #73, bold mine;

Exactly what calmoriah and Dr. Midgley are arguing when they say that penal substitution places actually or affective guilt upon Jesus Christ when He paid for our sins. No one here is arguing against that Jesus Christ took upon Himself our sins so that we the sinner may be made free from them but as LDS, as Midgley pointed out, we believe that Jesus' sacrifice is an innocent sacrifice. There was no guilt placed upon Him by the Father.

The point of argument here is not whether or not Jesus Christ took upon Him the sins of the world nor against the notion that He was used as a scapegoat and slaughtered for our sins. The point of argument here is whether or not by taking upon Himself our sins He also was declared, by proxy, guilty for those sins. Penal substitution says, yes, He was; the LDS tend to say, no, He wasn't.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Yes, very much so. The Wikipedia articles are usually written by accredited and authoritative sources. They are not something for ignorant folks to turn their nose against.

Wikipedia is good for a starting point but it almost always requires secondary or even tertiary backup to its claims. What has happened here is a prime example. You and Five Sola both cited wikipedia as an authoratative source regarding penal substitution. According to what you two found you denunced Dr. Midgley's descrition of penal substitution since wiki did not mention inputed guilt. However, calmoriah found to external sources to show that penal substitution very much believes in imputed guilt upon the Savior (not inputed sin but imputed guilt for those sins). Whenever this happens it is very safe to conclude that whomever typed the definition in wiki did so incompletely.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Darren10

[Vance]

And elsewhere you’ve characterized Calvinism as “demonic.”

An accurate description of some of the features of Calvinism.

So I have to ask you—what do you think it means for an organization that says to the Christian world—bring all the goodness of their belief in Jesus Christ and “let us add to it.”?

Sounds good to me. Leave all of that "demonic" stuff behind, keep "all the goodness" of it, bring that part of it, and "let us add to it".

Surely you don’t think it means the LDS Church desires to add to the work of demons.

Surely indeed.

So how should this be understood in the context of Protestant Christians whose reading of Scripture aligns with teachings of men like John Calvin (or John Owen, or Charles Spurgeon, or Albert Mohler Jr)?

Their error is their problem, not ours.

4) Footnote 10 is wrong. The “P” in TULIP doesn’t stand for “Predestination.” It alternatively stands for “Perseverance” or “Preservation of the Saints.” Critics of Calvinism sometimes characterize Point 5 as “once saved, always saved”—but that’s a thread unto itself. Wikipedia, again, is helpful.

Wikipedia, is not a reliable source.

From http://www.reformedreader.org/t.u.l.i.p.htm

We get this,

P stands for perseverance of the saints. A better name might be "the perseverance of God with the saints," but both ideas are actually involved. God perseveres with us, keeping us from falling away, as we would certainly do if He were not with us. But because He perseveres we also persevere. In fact, perseverance is the ultimate proof of election. We persevere because God preserves us from full and final falling away from Him.

And from here, http://www.spreadinglight.com/theology/dictionary/definitions/eternalsecurity.html

We get this,

Eternal Security

The belief that once a person is saved there is nothing that can be done to cause them to lose their salvation. As a point of

Calvinism, this is known as perseverance of the saints.

1. You are sealed with the Holy Spirit upon salvation and absolutely nothing can be done to break that seal. Therefore you cannot lose your salvation.

2. As a Christian God will supernaturally give you the ability to maintain your salvation. Passages speaking of those who overcome are in reference to all believers because God will allow them to persevere. This is sometimes also called the preservation of the saints.

3. Because God

elected the believer, He would not elect someone who would later lose their salvation. While loss of salvation is theoretically possible, God would not elect those who would later lose their salvation.

The alternative is that man can indeed lose his salvation and he must be faithful until the end. This is known as

conditional perseverance.

That gives a totally different impression than what you did.

[Darren10]

Here's a good read on Mormonism and Wikipedia.

Mormonism and Wikipedia: The Church History That “Anyone Can Edit”

[Darren10]

As Vance blockquoted regarding Calvinism:

1. You are sealed with the Holy Spirit upon salvation and absolutely nothing can be done to break that seal. Therefore you cannot lose your salvation.

And that is *deeply* ingrained into Protestant theology. Both Catholics and LDS disagree as per their official doctrines. I believe the Greek Orthodox disagrees as well but I really do not know for sure.

[Calm]

SIN IS IMPUTED TO CHRIST

Moreover, in a similar way, the sin of man is imputed to the sinless Savior, Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). Jehovah, the LORD God, laid on His Son, the Lamb of God, the iniquities of us all (Isa. 53:5; John. 1:29; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18). There was a judicial transfer of the sins of man to Jesus Christ, God’s Sin-Bearer.

The sin and guilt of the human race was imputed to the spotless and pure Lamb of God, Jesus Christ when He became the sin offering for the whole world (2 Cor. 5:14-21; Heb. 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:2). He bore the penalty for sin. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Jesus Christ.

Let it be emphatically clear that Jesus Christ did not die for any personal sin that He had committed because He knew no personal sin in His entire life on this earth. He was the only person who ever lived on the earth who was sinless and pure. That qualified Him to die as a substitute for sinners.

The imputation of sin to Jesus Christ was typified in the Old Testament sacrificial system, where the sins of the offerer were symbolically transferred to the animal victim. The scapegoat of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:20-22) graphically symbolized the transfer of human sin and guilt to the divine substitute. When the high priest laid his hands on the head of the goat and confessed the sins of the people he in effect transferred the sins of the people on to the animal (Lev. 16:22). The vicarious punishment implies the idea of the imputation of the guilt of our sins to Jesus Christ. He bore the punishment of our sin vicariously, its guilt having been imputed to Him.

Christ “was pierced through” for my transgressions. He was crushed for my iniquities. The chastening for my well-being fell upon Jesus Christ. By His scourging I am healed. “All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way, but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” (Isa. 53:4-6, 12; cf. 1 Pet. 2:24-25). Isaiah used the strongest words possible to describe a violent and agonizing death in v. 5. It was the divine stroke of judgment when Christ “was pierced through for our transgressions.”

Our sins were imputed to Jesus Christ, and He went to the cross and died as our substitute (Rom. 5:6-8). Christ on the cross bore the punishment due to the believer's sins. God made Him to be sin who knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21;Heb

http://www.abideinchrist.com/keys/imputed.html

[Calm]

In Adam, God judged the entire human race guilty, but only in Jesus is this fact fully understood (Isa. 53:4-6). But not only has humanity been declared guilty; it has acted out its personal guilt.

Jesus said charge it to My account. The apostle Paul wrote, “He [God] made Him [Jesus Christ] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

"God made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." God took all of our sins and "imputed" them to His Son, put them on Him, i.e., put them to His account. He charged them to Jesus' account. That is the meaning of "imputation."

When you charge to someone's account you take something that belongs to one person and you put it to the account of another. If someone owes you a debt you take it out of his page in your ledger and put it to the page belonging to another person in the ledger. Therefore, you have "imputed" the debt to another. That is what God has done with our sins. He has imputed our sins to His Son, and He has punished them in His substitutionary death on the cross (Rom. 5:6, .

http://www.abideinch...elah/apr14.html

Our need for justification can only be met if the righteousness of God is credited to us.

The divine exchange took place when “the Son of God though spotlessly pure took our sin and in return clothes us with His purity,” notes John Calvin.

http://www.abideinchrist.com/selah/dec8.html Edited January 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

My "credentials" are in the arguments I present.

That bad, huh?

[volgadon]

"Surfing the web for Protestant answers I am"

You are on a roll!

[volgadon]

Yes, I do. I went back and reread your post carefully, just in case there had been nuances which I had missed; and I come to the conclusion that this is a stupid question to ask.

Considering that I said right in that post that I did not see the article as an attack, for you to accuse me of the exact opposite views leads me to the conclusion that you hadn't read my post.