Contention Over What Constitutes An Evangelical

[Louis Midgley]

I must now complain just a bit. That the life, death and resurrection of God himself is a substitution for us, is not in any way, shape and form a challenge to the idea that what the one who substitutes for us did, that is, win a vinal victory over death for all and over sin and hence the death of the sour for some on certain conditions. The two idea are welded together in our scriptures. And it is simply not a question of whether one or another is stressed more.

[Louis Midgley]

I find Gustav Aulen confused and confusing. I study the efforts of folks to work out a theory of atonement. But none of that sort of things seems to be fully consonant with the light, light and Way. So I do not subscribe to someone’s Christus Victor model or theory. One reason is that I hate theology. When we start trying to work out our new “model” or theory, we simply cease living in the story, which is a story of redemption from death and also our sins by God. The focus becomes finding a tight explanation rather than see how metaphors and figures of speech are used in our scriptures to tell a dramatic story. Instead of fashioning theories or “models” of divine things, I believe that Latter-day Saints should live in the story of redemption; it should be our own story of who and what we are and how we live as slaves to or servants of our God. Now to a somewhat different explanation.

In the KJV translation of the New Testament the strictly English word “atonement” only appears once, where it is used for the Greek katallage (see Romans 5:11.) This Greek word, I am told, signifies “reconciliation.” But the Hebrew verb kapar means something like “to cover over” or “hide” and hence kapporet I think provides the name of what is called variously the thrown of mercy, or the cover, or lid, or mercy seat, depending on the translation. The strictly English word atonement was used at least a hundred times by those who first began to fashion vernacular translations of the Bible to take the place of the Hebrew verb kapar. So our English word “atonement” clearly takes its meaning from what is described in chapter 4 of Leviticus. There one finds, I hope I have the correct chapter, a description of the priest on the known as Yom Kippur going into the Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant was located and sprinkling or smearing the blood of a young bull on the altar in specified ways, and begging YHWH (Yahweh) to forgive the sins of Israel. If I remember correctly, this was the only time the sacred name YHWH was vocalized; all other times it was replaced by a Hebrew word translated into Greek with a word that we turn into the seemingly harmless word Lord, even as in “my lords and ladies.” If Jesus called himself King or Lord, or allowed himself to be addressed by his friends and enemies by those titles, he was claiming to be the one called YHWH in the OT, and hence a very special kind of Messiah (the Hebrew word) or Christ (the Greek word).

Now I apologize for boring everyone with these details. But I want to make several points.

Jesus went to his death because he shocked the Jewish officials by violating the Sabbath, by trashing the Temple, and enraging Pilot by claiming to be King of the Jews, and so forth. If he was not what he claimed to be, he was, as C. S. Lewis like to say, like someone who thinks he is a poached egg.

Who else could Jesus offend? He made it clear in his proclaiming the Kingdom of God in what was called in Greek a kairos or right or fullness of time. The moment had come for God to vindicate his people. The old order was about to be trashed by God himself but not with force and fire power but with weakness and love. His disciples thought that he would do this with an army and firepower. They even brought a couple of swords to the garden and he rebuked them. He would, unlike the many other messiahs who had gotten themselves killed, defeat the demonic powers that had brought Israel into captivity to a wicked and corrupt regime, and also by whatever or whoever was behind the scene, by going like a lamb to the slaughter. His disciples deserted him when they saw what he did, even though he had told them what he would do and what would happen to him. Did they not understand? Or did they not believe? Or were they merely frightened. I am not sure.

It was the momentous news that he had risen from the dead that turned things around for his disciples. He had, after all, defeated death, and, as God, he could forgive sin, on certain conditions. I call this a victory both over mortal death and death of the sour. The subsequent fascination with the stories told in the New Testament and elsewhere about this Jesus of Nazareth–perhaps a mere stone mason’s “son,” who is seen by the faithful as the son of God, has molded subsequent hopes for many, many millions. I am, of couse, as a stuffy academic, interested in what theologians have to say about these things. But what really counts are the unseen and unheralded deed of devotion to the Lord.

In the Book of Mormon this stunning series of events is described in a formula as a victory over death. (See Mosiah 15:8; 16:8.) But we are also told that he had “taken upon himself their iniquity and thereby satisfied the demands of justice by redeeming those faithful to the new covenant (that is what our word “testament” means as in New Testament). So God incarnate has come among us and has done for us something we cannot possibly do for ourselves. He deeds are in this sense must be described as substitutionary and also redemptive. Other metaphors are use, such as propitiation (borrowed from the Septuigent), and so forth. They are not the words of Jesus about himself, however. They are, instead, the efforts of others to capture what had been experienced by his immediate and subsequent followers.

What is for me important is that in the Book of Mormon we find the word “atone” 5 times, “atonement” 28 times (but only twice in the D&C), “atoneth” 3 times, and “atoning” 3 times. Please turn to Mosiah 3 and read carefully what a heavenly messenger told King Benjamin to tell his people. What we have is a kind of miniture God’s Spell–I am trying to milk what I think is the primitive source for the English “gospel,” which we read as a limp “good news.” God’s spell is a tale or story of God, as in something spelled out, but this story has also functioned as a spell in the other sense. King Benjamin tells us that his people may now rejoice and have joy. Why? In the near future the Lord God Amnipotent–the Almighty himself or YHWH–will come down from the heavens and life among mere humans. And he will be a miracle worker, an excorcist, he will raise the dead, and also suffer temptation, and then suffer so that he bleeds for the angish he feels for the wickedness of his people. Then he will be killed but the third day he will rise from the dead. He will judge the world righteously. Now the zinger. His blood will atone for sins. This harks back to the ritual system of ancient Israel and the Jews, does it not. His blood, unlike that provided by a young bull, will really cover sins of those who repent and keep his commandments. So here we have his entire life and death pictured as leading up to this bloody death and resurrection, which opens the door to life for all and for a fullness of life for the faithful.

You will notice that I have not tried to fashion a new theory or model, or find a theory of Anselm or Calvin and Luther in the Book of Mormon. My desire is to allow the message in that book to speak to my soul without all the efforts, clever, pious or absurd, of churchmen or theologians or even students of philosophy to figure out a mechanism or fashion a solid theory. The atonement for me is not what the Greeks called theoria (where the question is what is the nature of things), but praxis (given what we know about the mighty deeds of God on our behalf, how ought we to behave.

One more point. I am very impressed with the enormous effort by a host of people from the beginning of Christianity to see in the story of Jesus Christ the meaning of their own and a hope in the face of a disconsolate world in which whatever we do, we end up dead. My wife and I attended the Passion Play in Oberamergau in 2010. It was simply wonderful–all 7 hours of it. Everything about it was beautiful and impressive, except the ending. There Jesus was with blood spurting dying on the cross. That was essentially the end. But the story of his life is what N. T. Wright calls life after life after death. If that story is true, then what? My wife and I spent two years in New Zealand at what was called the Lorne Street Institute (we directed that thing). I made a promise to myself that I would only preach atonement for those two years. Doing so was a blessing and hence a wonderful, beautiful experience in a land I have loved virtually all my life and with a people I love deeply. All I did for two years was teach the gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it (see 3 Nephi 27), and his doctrine as he set it worth in 3 Nephi 11. We visited one afternoon a week with fellows in a prison. A simply beautiful experience. Virtually every time we went there we found ourselves saying that just those few hours were worth going to that land. The light of Christ, which is the Gospel, can and will shine into our own darkness, if we will open ourselves to it. And it will also do this for those to whom we genuinely testify if and only if we open ourselves to all of the ways in which it is set out in our scriptures. We need not worry about rules forbidding this or a checklist of things we ought to do. Instead, we must remember the mighty acts of God on our behalf. If we focus on that, all the other little things fall into place.

Please note: someone should explain to me if it is possible to edit something I post if I see some glitch in it, it such a thing is possible.

[Mudcat]

Interesting article, the vehemence towards "contercultists" was quite apparent.. a bit emotive IMO, but it was a piece for LDS written by an LDS so it wasn't too unexpected. I think the emotive edge may discount some of the credibility of the piece for most evangelicals. But that wasn't likely the intended audience, so I don't know that it matters much in that respect.

On the controversy amongst EV's about what EV's are. No denomination owns the word and it's more of a self descriptive than anything else, as I see it. I haven't seen much in the way of a controversy on a personal level.

I do think there are lots of denominational Christians who have enjoyed the usage of the term, but it's no secret that denominational Christianity is getting a bit severed as many embrace liberalism. Lot's of denominational splits have occurred... homosexuality and women in the ministry have been the hot buttons.. course it spans the board from universalism to hypercalvinism I suppose. As each split occurs they keep the self description of EV. Can't say as I blame them, but the term is being spread thin IMO.

I think there will come a point where the conservative Christians within such will just quit using the word to avoid the association. It isn't so much about what word you use to express belief, it's really about what it is you believe in the first place.

That said, I will trip out a bit on my next point, though it's completely irrelevant to your OP.... just needing a vent.

You cite Mohler quite a bit in the article. As a member of the SBC, I don't care for the fellow one whit. 10% of the SBC are Calvanists, as is Mohler.. though in regards to those in the ministry that are emerging from seminary, this number is much larger.. about 30%. Why this fellow was appointed the President of an SBC theological seminary is beyond me. But the evidence that the SBC has Calvinists in authoritative positions is more than evident, given the resulting growth. The SBC board has sold themselves out for whatever stupid reason, in my opinion, to accommodate such.

His own beliefs fall into distinct conflict with the 3rd article of the SBC statement of faith. http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

In the long run, all this is heading to a schism in the SBC, Won't be the first, but it will be the biggest.

(edited out a bit of snark here)

Grrrrrr.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Mudcat

[mathonihah]

I must now complain just a bit. That the life, death and resurrection of God himself is a substitution for us, is not in any way, shape and form a challenge to the idea that what the one who substitutes for us did, that is, win a vinal victory over death for all and over sin and hence the death of the sour for some on certain conditions. The two idea are welded together in our scriptures. And it is simply not a question of whether one or another is stressed more.

I agree that the two doctrines are interlinked. They are like different facets of the same gem, one or more of which can be more prominently displayed. It seems to me that the substitutionary facet is more prominently displayed in the Book of Mormon. In reality, the substitutionary model is quite a broad concept that in a sense includes the Christus Victor model. Here is another interesting quote:

“Substitutionary Atonement

“Technically speaking,

substitutionary atonement

is the name given to a number of Christian models of the atonement that all regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, "instead of" them. It is thought to be expressed in the Bible in passages such as "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness,"[1 Pet. 2:24] and "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God."[1 Pet. 3:18] (although other ways of reading passages like this are also offered).

“There is also a less technical use of the term 'substitution' in discussion about atonement when it is used in 'the sense that [Jesus, through his death,] did for us that which we can never do for ourselves'.

“There are a number of differing theories that come under the umbrella term 'substitutionary atonement'. The four best known are the Early Church Fathers' ransom theory; Gustaf Aulen's demystified version of the ransom theory, called Christus Victor; Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory; and the Reformed period's penal substitution theory. Care should be taken when one reads the language of substitution in, for example, Patristic literature, not to assume any particular substitution model is being used but should, rather, check the context to see how the author was using the language.”

Source

The Christus Victor theory is actually a polished version of the ransom theory of an earlier age, which comes under the “substitutionary” model. The above source expands on the four main theories of the Atonement that collectively come under the umbrella of the substitutionary atonement as follows:

“

Four best known models

“

Ransom and Christus Victor theory

Main article:

Ransom theory of atonement

Main article:

Christus Victor

“The ransom and Christus Victor theories present Jesus as dying to overcome (supernatural) powers of sin and evil. In this model, the devil has ownership over humanity (because they have sinned) so Jesus dies in their place to free them. The doctrine is that Jesus gave himself as a ransom sacrifice in behalf of the people. (Matthew 20:28) This is known as the oldest of the theories of the atonement, and is, in some form, still, along with the doctrine of theosis, the Eastern Orthodox Church's main theory of the atonement.

“

Satisfaction and penal substitution

Main article:

Satisfaction theory of atonement

Main article:

Penal substitution

“The widest held substitutionary theory in the West is the penal substitution model. Both the penal theory and Anselm's satisfaction theory hold that only human beings can rightfully repay the debt (to God's honour [Anselm], or to God's justice [penal substitution]) which was incurred through their wilful disobedience to God. Since only God can make the satisfaction necessary to repay it, therefore God sent the God-man, Jesus Christ, to fulfil both these conditions. Christ is a sacrifice by God on behalf of humanity, taking humanity’s debt for sin upon himself, and propitiating God’s wrath.”

Source

Other, less prominent substitutionary theories of the atonement are listed in the same article. The penal substitution theory was a development from the 11th century Anselm’s satisfaction theory, which was long before the Reformation. Anselm’s satisfaction theory was later developed by the Catholic theologian St Thomas Aquinas into the current Catholic model, and by John Calvin into the penal substitution theory which is part of the Reformed theology. Penal substitution in fact comes closest to book of Mormon theory of the Atonement—with one important difference. The problem with penal substitution form the LDS point of view is not that it makes Jesus a “sinner,” as you had stated in your article. That is not really an integral part of the penal substitution theory of the atonement. Your quotes from Martin Luther’s commentary on the Bible does not really speak to the subject. He is not formulating the penal substitution theory in those commentaries; and even if he was, it is questionable that what he means is that Jesus actually became a sinner (i.e. sinful, unholy) thereby. The real problem with Calvin’s penal substitution theory is that it teaches a limited atonement theory, which is peculiar to Calvin’s (hence Reformed) theology. Here is another interesting quote (bold mine):

“Calvin was one of the first systematic theologians of the Reformation. As such, he wanted to solve the problem of Christ's atonement in a way that he saw as just to the Scriptures and Church Fathers,

rejecting the need for condign merit

. His solution was that Christ's death on the cross paid

not a general penalty for humanity's sins, but a specific penalty for the sins of individual people. That is, when Jesus died on the cross, his death paid the penalty at that time for the sins of all those who are saved. One obviously necessary feature of this idea is that Christ's atonement is limited in its effect only to those whom God has chosen to be saved,

since the debt for sins was paid at a particular point in time (at the crucifixion).

“For Calvin, this also required drawing on

Augustine's earlier theory of predestination.

Additionally, in rejecting the idea of penance, Calvin shifted from Aquinas' idea that satisfaction was penance (which focused on satisfaction as a change in humanity), to the idea of satisfying God's wrath. This ideological shift places the focus on a change in God, who is propitiated through Christ's death. The Calvinist understanding of the atonement and satisfaction is penal substitution: Christ is a substitute taking our punishment and thus satisfying the demands of justice and appeasing God's wrath so that God can justly show grace.”

Source

He has got the “penal substitutionary” aspect of the doctrine right. Jesus pays the “penalty” of our sins as a substitute for us. The part that he gets wrong is that he limits it only to those who are predestined to be saved. That is the real flaw in Calvin’s penal substitutionary model. Now I am not certain if much of current evangelical theology of the penal substitution theory of the atonement is actually identical to the original Calvinistic model or not. If it is, then it does not agree with the LDS theology or the Book of Mormon, for the reason just described. But if it eliminates that particular flaw from it, then it would be in perfect harmony with what the Book of Mormon teaches.

Main Wiki sources used:

http://en.wikipedia....Christus_Victor

http://en.wikipedia....al_substitution

http://en.wikipedia....onary_atonement

http://en.wikipedia....ry_of_atonement

http://en.wikipedia....ry_of_atonement

Edited January 11, 2013 by mathonihah

[Calm]

Please note: someone should explain to me if it is possible to edit something I post if I see some glitch in it, it such a thing is possible.

Look at the lower right hand corner of your post. There is a row of buttons that say "Report Edit Multiquote and Quote". (For others it lacks the "Edit" option. The first allows you to report a post to a moderator, someone else's if you think they are misbehaving or need help in some fashion, your own if you need the mods' help for some reason. The second allows you to edit your post. The third, "Multiquote", you click on as you read through the thread and it collects all the posts you want to respond to, then you hit the reply button that is located at the very bottom right hand of your window (that appears only after you have hit "Multiquote" at least once) and all the quotes appear in a reply box at once for you to respond to. The last is "Quote" which of course is to respond to a particular post, it copies the whole post plus the name of the poster into a reply box and then you can edit it down to just what you want, break it into multiple quotes to respond to.

Here is a link to all of the Help topics, but they look like they may be generic because when I looked at the edit explanation, they also had a delete button that might be available...which we don't have for ourselves though the mods do, so there may be somethings they say we can do that we really can't:

http://www.mormondia...ore&module=help

Please ask for clarification if you need it.

Edited January 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

Okay, I have now tried several Hebrew and yiddish translators and perhaps it is because I am on an iPad, but all they would translate was the first (without) and last (not) words...please have mercy on the poor and ignorant soul.

Roughly translated, it says, "When it blows cold, then don't." The story appears in Ephraim Kishon's "The Fox in the Chicken Coop," and is the favourite story of the protagonist, who repeats it over and over. Whenever I hear a story with a Yiddish line, I think of this bit. Of course, there is a deeper meaning here, too, but I enjoy being parabolic.

Edited January 11, 2013 by volgadon

[volgadon]

My wife and I attended the Passion Play in Oberamergau in 2010. It was simply wonderful–all 7 hours of it. Everything about it was beautiful and impressive, except the ending. There Jesus was with blood spurting dying on the cross. That was essentially the end.

In all fairness to the Catholics, this impression only holds true if passion plays are divorced from their liturgical context, which, of course, culminates in the celebration of Easter. One of the strengths of passion plays is that they drive home that Christ's death was indeed a horrible, depressing event, made none the more bearable because of the resurrection. Elder Haight spoke of the despondency of the three day wait, and Nephi spoke of it, too.

[Louis Midgley]

Mudcat:

Being a disgruntled Southern Baptist might make you just a tiny bit edgy about the countercult proclivities of the Internet Witness people at the North American Mission Board. Do you really want to frown on my “vehemence” about that sorry side of the underbelly of conservative Protestantism. And I think I am aware of at least some learned scholarly type evangelicals who might enjoy what you see as my “emotive edge” on this matter, since hold the same opinion, and some of these are even Calvinists of the TULIP type. I suspect that you could even come up with at least one name, which should be evidence that there are a lot more in hiding since they do not want to get into the rhetorical gutter with those folks.

But I am pleased that you agree with Colin Hansen’s opinion that the label “evangelical” simply does not identify anything like a single ideology and hence is essentially meaningless, given the enormous differences of opinion and latent and not so latent hostilities smoldering in the movement. I was addressing theological factions and not denominations. These factions, as you point out cut right through denominations, including the SBC. I suspect that you are one who has a kind of nostalgia for soul competency and hence TULIP irritates you. Please correct me if I am wrong.

With regard to the place of Calvinism in the SBC, those who claim to know assert that the younger preachers coming into the ministry tend more and more to be staunchly Calvinist and even militantly so. How many seminaries, in addition to the flagship school run by Al Mohler, have leadership pushing Calvinism. Since Protestant denominational politics is of no real interest to me, I have no way of knowing. But the answer, if known, might provide the grounds for predicting where the SBC is headed, would it not?

I have looked at the SBC statement of faith, which seems odd to me simply because Since I had previously assumed that Baptists looked down on creeds and confessions, I have had a look at the SBC statement of faith. It reads like something done by a committee of good old boys–one fashioned so that most anything can be squeezed into it. But I am not at all sure. Would, I ask myself, Al Mohler be able to read into that article on Man predestination and limited atonement? Is your sense that this is what he does what really irritates you about Mohler? If so, then you should have enjoyed my cautiously worded remarks about him. If my essay has a hero, it has to be Roger Olson.

Now I just don’t pay much attention to denominational matters, since one can find just about every theological stance being taken by fellows from this or that denominational background. And the scholar types, it turns out, have often switched denominations several times often depending on what appear to me to be matters of style or professional convenience. I see I have avoided using the word mercenary, which came to mind.

Are you, as we say, trained for the ministry, or an academic of some sort or just what? I am actually curious about what drives your opining. And why you opine on this board.

[Louis Midgley]

Valgadon:

I appreciate your help on a technical matter about which I know nothing. And fully agree with your comment on fitting the passion into the the liturgical setting. But there is a bit more to my complaint. Think of the stations of the cross and much else that decorates certain settings. For example, the remarkable Hill of Crosses in Lithuania. In a very small space there have to be a quarter of a million crosses piled up, and also a thriving industry manufacturing and selling them to those who are now minor pilgrims, as it turns out I was. The business end of that makes me sorry, which is a less intense emotion than what I feel entering a Deseret Book store.

[volgadon]

Valgadon:

I appreciate your help on a technical matter about which I know nothing. And fully agree with your comment on fitting the passion into the the liturgical setting. But there is a bit more to my complaint. Think of the stations of the cross and much else that decorates certain settings. For example, the remarkable Hill of Crosses in Lithuania. In a very small space there have to be a quarter of a million crosses piled up, and also a thriving industry manufacturing and selling them to those who are now minor pilgrims, as it turns out I was. The business end of that makes me sorry, which is a less intense emotion than what I feel entering a Deseret Book store.

I made it as far as Estonia, haven't been to Lithuania yet, though I would love to do so one day. Something that might help in appreciating what crosses mean to Lithuanians is to consider the traditional designs. Typically, a Lithuanian cross will have elements symbolising the sun and its life-giving rays. The cross symbolises the life giving through Jesus Christ's sacrifice. Crosses were used in roadside shrines to commemorate all important events, even marriage, birth, and soldiers' homecomings. This sign of faith became even more important to Lithuanians in the years of persecution under Soviet rule, becoming identified with their national spirit.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat:

Being a disgruntled Southern Baptist might make you just a tiny bit edgy about the countercult proclivities of the Internet Witness people at the North American Mission Board. Do you really want to frown on my “vehemence” about that sorry side of the underbelly of conservative Protestantism.

<snip>

Are you, as we say, trained for the ministry, or an academic of some sort or just what? I am actually curious about what drives your opining. And why you opine on this board.

Hi Louis,

Thanks for the reply. I apologize for the rant about the issues in the SBC with Calvinism. It's a sore spot for me and my tirade was likely ill placed in your thread. As to my noting what I perceived as "vehemence". I wasn't trying to be abrasive on the point. It was something I had to read past though.

As to me being a scholarly sort. No Sir. Just a two bit hack actually. My impetus for engagement on this forum finds it's roots in my personal relationships. My wife and her family are LDS and this forum has been a good place to discuss doctrinal issues. I actually think, I have a grip on most it now and am appreciative to those who have taken time to engage me. I suppose if I had a purpose here now, it would be to keep in touch with my friends and represent a broader picture of evangelical Christians than what at times here can be portrayed as a somewhat distorted image.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited January 11, 2013 by Mudcat

[Paloma]

Amen to that, what a delight to read Paloma's post especially, there are certain comments one hears over the years that make one intent on putting the gospel front and centre in one's life. Paloma's do that for me, reminds of the love that draws us to our Lord, something I think quite hard to do over the Internet with all the clutter and distraction. She (I am pretty sure I remember that she is a she plus her avatar of Kanga is decidedly female, Kanga being the epitome of motherhood even if she is a stuffed animal) has a gift.

Thanks for your kind words, Calmoriah. You're right that I'm female ... and I am a nurturing type! Years ago, a circle of friends identified each other as Winnie the Pooh types, and I was described as Kanga, hence the avatar. Now with a life filled with kids and grandkids and caring for elderly parents and an older sibling, the description fits rather well!

I became especially interested in engaging Mormon people and thought, after getting close to LDS folk who entered the extended family through marriage, and also befriending both missionaries and an ex-LDS couple who joined my present church... all beautiful people!

My approach is always to find common ground and see what we can identify with and appreciate in each other ... and there's lots!

Coming from a theological and ministry background, I like to occasionally engage in discussions surrounding Christianity. In my relationships with my LDS family and friends, we tend to talk not so much about church history and statements of various leaders on both sides of our respective faiths, but about our own thoughts, beliefs, stories and reality. So that's what I tend to do here too. It helps to preserve friendship and graciousness when we listen to each other rather than trying to attack ideas. And it greatly increases understanding and mutual respect and appreciation.

That's something I always see you doing, Calmoriah, and I really like that about you! I also really like your bent toward study and scholarship!

Edited January 11, 2013 by Paloma

[Louis Midgley]

Mudcat:

I am pleased that you posted on this thread. I have enjoyed our little exchange. I think we agree on our evaluation of Al Mohler. I find his Calvinism (and his drift back toward fundamentalism) strange. This rise of Calvinist divines in the SBC runs against the traditional grain, does it not? Was this shift in SBC seminary ministerial instruction, which seems to me as an outsider to have been facilitated by choices of the leadership of those seminaries, what also fueled the efforts of Paige Paterson and others involved in the hostile takeover of the SBC that Nancy Ammerman and others have described in considerable detail? There is much that I simply do not know about the internal politics of the SBC. Now I ramble. I have enjoyed meeting you. God bless.

[3DOP]

Valgadon:

I appreciate your help on a technical matter about which I know nothing. And fully agree with your comment on fitting the passion into the the liturgical setting. But there is a bit more to my complaint. Think of the stations of the cross and much else that decorates certain settings. For example, the remarkable Hill of Crosses in Lithuania. In a very small space there have to be a quarter of a million crosses piled up, and also a thriving industry manufacturing and selling them to those who are now minor pilgrims, as it turns out I was. The business end of that makes me sorry, which is a less intense emotion than what I feel entering a Deseret Book store.

The Cross is an everpresent theme in the Catholic faith. If we were correctly understood, I think all Christians might agree about this. From the joys of Christmas to the glories of the Resurrection we behold the Lamb of God slain. This is the sixth day in the Octave of Epiphany when we are still recalling the visit of the Wise Men. The three gifts that they carried are not such as would be found at the local Mall. There is no worry about whether the Star would lead them by Toys R Us. As they had been inspired to follow a sign in the heavens, so they had been inspired to bring gifts appropriate for the occasion and not for just any newborn baby.

'O admirable Faith, which leads to Knowledge and perfect Knowledge, and which was not taught in the school of earthly wisdom, but was enlightened by the Holy Ghost himself! For whence had they learnt the supernatural beauty of their three gifts? they that had come straight from their own country, and had not as yet seen Jesus, nor beheld in his infant Face the Light which directed them in the choice of their offerings? Whilst the star met the gaze of the bodily eye, their hearts were instructed by a stronger light-the ray of Truth. Before setting out on the fatiguing journey they knew him to whom were due, by Gold, the honours of a King; by Incense, the worship of God; by Myrrh, the faith in His Mortal Nature.'

---St. Leo the Great, Fourth Sermon for the Feast of Epiphany, taken from The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guranges, Vol. III, Christmas Book Two, p.198, republished by St. Bonaventure Publications, 2000

If this does not fit the theology of other Christians, Catholics believe that our Lord Jesus Christ, in His Divine Nature was fully conscious and aware of His mission from the moment He left the bosom of His Father to enter into the Virgin's Womb. Without denying He was fully human, we hold that He knew the Three Wise Men better than they knew themselves, and though He was unable to express it with His sweet infant lips, He well knew the purpose of their visit and of each of their gifts. To us, this adds a poignancy to the Infancy narratives, knowing that even as He was being borne from place to place by Joseph and His Virgin Mother, to whom these truths were being only gradually revealed, He knew completely the end for which He had been born, and that end was Calvary. This is what we believe the myrrh represents.

A few weeks from now, on Candlemas, or the Feast of the Purification, yet another joyful wonder will occur to the delight of Joseph and Mary, showing that God had revealed to other select souls the secret of Mary's Child, that will nevertheless reveal its hint of myrrh, or Calvary. After faithful Simeon had praised God for allowing him to behold the Saviour, Mary and Joseph were in great wonder when Simeon prophecies:

Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradiction, And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.

---Luke 2:34, 35

Ahhh. The joy that this Saviour brings cannot but be mingled with pain, and not for Jesus alone, but for all who would love Him. Thy own soul a sword shall pierce. It says of Mary and Joseph that they wondered at the words of Simeon. After the shepherds came and explained of the appearance of the Angels to them, Mary "kept all these words, pondering them in her heart". After Mary and Joseph had sought for their Son for three days, sorrowing, even though they were assured that He was only "about His Father's business", and though it is revealed that she did not fully understand, Mary again, "kept all these words in her heart."

Crucifixes around the neck, signs of the Cross, Stations of the Cross, a Crucifix in the home, a Crucifix over every altar, a Crucifix on the nightstand. Are not those Catholics morbid? Are not those Catholics obsessed with the death of Christ? We do this as Catholics because even though we do it, we still fail to truly ponder them aright! We do this and we still forget the frightful ordeal that our dear Jesus underwent, living thirty long years fully knowing the agonizing death that was ever growing nearer. Oh to be like Mary who "kept all these words in her heart."

The Saturday before Christmas I was stricken down by a couple of kidney stones. On New Year's Eve they were removed. I wanted to find meaning in the pain, and then if possible, I wanted the pain to be useful. It was far from a perfect exercise I am sure, just as every time I go to Mass or say the Stations of the Cross, it is with distraction and imperfections. But our merciful God helps us. We can't leave this world without pain, and the Cross makes sense of it all. They left what they call a stent inside of me after the surgery. It is some rather elaborate tubing, the size of which would have astounded me could I have seen it before its extraction. I made the mistake of going on the internet to see what others had experienced when it is removed. I saw the expression "kneebuckling pain", and I got off, but the damage was done. I was a basket case during some of those ten days, anticipating about twenty seconds of excruciating pain. Hmmm...excruciating...as in the crucifix. I finally went to our dear Lord and He reminded me that He had come into this world with full knowledge of His cross always looming closer and closer. What a hero. What a Beautiful Saviour. The Cross was my comfort and solace. No not just the Cross. My Lord and Saviour upon the Cross.

Okay, I can do this, I thought. By the time I had said four Hail Marys it was over and it merely stung a little bit. Oh the joy. It was over! I am kind of ashamed but I had tears of joy. I was so happy that it was done. Our Saviour's work is complete. He never needs to have the nails pierce His sacred flesh again. But His work in us and through us Christians, isn't quite finished. Yes, we have many crucifixes. If we were more like the Mother of God? Did the Mother of God have images? No. But she had the living Saviour and many sacred memories to draw upon to keep her mind firmly fixed. Yes, there is the rather inconvenient fact that someone has to manufacture crucifixes and needs to be paid for them. We may hope that it is done more in the way of ministry than to be enriched, but that is a question that will be answered at the Judgment. Would we better off with fewer crucifixes? I don't think so. Before me, behind me, on my right and on my left, I want to be reminded of the Cross and how my Lord endured it.

Catholics see the Cross as our bittersweet joy. It is the joy of the Feast of Epiphany, of the third wise man, and the myrrh. If we will be like Him, even if we will emulate the baby Jesus, we will embrace our Crosses too. It is the only way to make sense out of suffering, which is to say it is the only way to make sense out of this life without deliberate distractions like alcohol, drugs or frivolous entertainments. Through suffering, accepted and offered back to Christ, united with His sufferings, we can understand the almost preposterous words of St. Paul when he claims of himself to actually rejoice in suffering!

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

---Col. 1:24

Properly understood, passion plays and crucifixes aren't merely morbid reminders of a meaningful death. They are reminders of what we must do, of what we can do by God's grace, if we would advance so far as to "rejoice in my sufferings". I am sure that the practise of Catholics is unique. I think other Christians beliefs might be compatible with the practise. It is with that hope that I offer the reasons for why we might seem "obsessed with Christ Crucified".

3DOP

Edited January 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[mathonihah]

<snip>

He has got the “penal substitutionary” aspect of the doctrine right. Jesus pays the “penalty” of our sins as a substitute for us. The part that he gets wrong is that he limits it only to those who are predestined to be saved. That is the real flaw in Calvin’s penal substitutionary model. Now I am not certain if much of current evangelical theology of the penal substitution theory of the atonement is actually identical to the original Calvinistic model or not. If it is, then it does not agree with the LDS theology or the Book of Mormon, for the reason just described. But if it eliminates that particular flaw from it, then it would be in perfect harmony with what the Book of Mormon teaches.

I have been doing further research on the Internet to find out exactly what the current evangelical position is with regard to penal substitution—do they still adhere to the Calvinist model of restricting it to a limited atonement, or have they modified it to exclude a limited atonement? I have not been able to find anything that gives me a definitive information; but I found this interesting blog post by someone who is obviously a strict Calvinist, and appears to be critical of the evangelical movement because he sees them as having abandoned the original Calvinist model (emphasis in the original):

“

PST Demands either a Limited Atonement or Universalism

“

Since John Calvin is seen as the one who first systematized a Penal Substitutionary View of the Atonement, its not surprising that its great defenders through the years have been strict Calvinists who also believe in a limited atonement or as they prefer to call it, a particular atonement (i.e., Christ died just for the elect).

“

John Owen

(1616-1683, Puritan and Chancellor of Oxford University),

R. L. Dabney

(1820-1898, chaplain to General Stonewall Jackson and founder Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary),

James Denney

(1856-1917, Professor of Systematic Theology Free Church College Glasgow),

J. I. Packer

(1926-present, Professor of Theology at Regent College, Vancouver) and the authors of the recent book:

Pierced for Our Transgressions

,

Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey

, and

Andrew Sach

(all affiliated with Oak Hill Theological College in London) have all written at length defending and explaining the PST. (See at the bottom for books and links).

“

Now its true that there are some who, while rejecting a limited view of the atonement, have also defended PST. Men such as

I. Howard Marshall

(1934- present, Professor of New Testament at the University of Aberdeen) and

Robert Lightner,

(1933-present, Professor of Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary) to name a couple. Most of the defenders of PST, however, believe that PST demands one hold to either a limited atonement or universalism (i.e., everyone ultimately will be saved). They typically do not believe that one could, with consistency, hold to PST and an unlimited atonement (i.e., all could be saved but all won’t be saved).

“

Packer writes:

That Christ’s penal substitution for us under divine judgment is the sole meritorious ground on which our relationship with God is restored, and is in this sense decisive for our salvation, is a Reformation point against Rome to which all conservative Protestants hold. But in ordinary everyday contexts substitution is a definite and precise relationship whereby the specific obligations of one or more persons are taken over and discharged by someone else (as on the memorable occasion when I had to cry off a meeting at two days’ notice due to an air strike and found afterwards that Billy Graham had consented to speak as my substitute). Should we not then think of Christ’s substitution for us on the cross as a definite, one-to-one relationship between him and each individual sinner? This seems scriptural, for Paul says, ‘He loved me and gave himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20). But if Christ specifically took and discharged my penal obligation as a sinner, does it not follow that the cross was decisive for my salvation not only as its sole meritorious ground, but also as guaranteeing that I should be brought to faith, and through faith to eternal life?

For is not the faith which receives salvation part of God’s gift of salvation, according to what is affirmed in Philippians 1:29 and John 6:44f. and implied in what Paul says of God calling and John of new birth?38 And if Christ by his death on my behalf secured, reconciliation and righteousness as gifts for me to receive (Rom. 5:11, 17), did not this make it certain that the faith which receives these gifts would also be given me, as a direct consequence of Christ’s dying for me? Once this is granted, however, we are shut up to a choice between universalism and some form of the view that Christ died to save only a part of the human race. But if we reject these options, what have we left? The only coherent alternative is to suppose that though God purposed to save every man through the cross, some thwart his purpose by persistent unbelief; which can only be said if one is ready to maintain that God, after all, does no more than make faith possible, and then in some sense that is decisive for him as well as us leaves it to us to make faith actual. Moreover,

any who take this position must redefine substitution in imprecise terms, if indeed they do not drop the term altogether, for they are committing themselves to deny that Christ’s vicarious sacrifice ensures anyone’s salvation. Also, they have to give up Toplady’s position. ‘Payment God cannot twice demand, First from my bleeding surety’s hand, And then again from mine’ — for it is of the essence of their view that some whose sins Christ bore, with saving intent, will ultimately pay the penalty for those same sins in their own persons. So it seems that if we are going to affirm penal substitution for all without exception we must either infer universal salvation or else, to evade this inference, deny the saving efficacy of the substitution for anyone; and if we are going to affirm penal substitution as an effective saving act of God we must either infer universal salvation or else, to evade this inference, restrict the scope of the substitution, making it a substitution for some, not all.

(

The Logic of Penal Substitution

)

“

Now why does Packer maintain that PST demands either a limited atonement or universalism? Because according to PST, Christ bore precisely the amount of suffering that was due to sinners (either the elect or everyone). If he bore precisely the amount of suffering that was due to everyone, then it stands to reason that everyone should be saved because God has been propitiated through the death of Christ for everyone and everyone’s sin has been expiated. This is precisely what 1 John 2:2 teaches.

“He himself is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.”

Packer and other Calvinists take “world” here to mean “the world of the elect” but if it doesn’t mean that, then it must mean the entire human population. If Christ paid the price for sin for everyone and then some do not receive the benefits, the result is that some people will have their sins paid for twice. Once by Christ on the cross and once by themselves in hell. This is a double payment which to all seems unjust.

“

Why do I include this point in a discussion of why I reject Evangelical Christianity? It is because the vast majority of evangelicals today do NOT accept a limited atonement and yet they hold to PST. This is a logical and theological problem for them. It demonstrates in yet another way, the internal inconsistencies prevalent within evangelical theology. If Evangelical Theology is internally contradictory, then it is my opinion that it cannot be true.

”

Source

As can be seen, this particular author firstly believes in the Calvinist model of a limited atonement. Secondly, he believes (along with Packer, a well known and influential conservative Protestant theologian), that belief in a limited atonement is logical necessity for the penal substitution theory of the atonement. You can't have a penal substitution theory without it! And thirdly, he is disillusioned with the evangelical movement because (as he believes) they have abandoned that essential Calvinistic model of penal substitution without which (in his opinion) a true penal substitution cannot exist. However, the reasoning he (and Packer) presents to support that view is not a logically viable one. In reality there is no reason why one should not hold to a penal substitution theory of the atonement without restricting it to a limited atonement theory. Both the Bible as well as modern LDS scripture teach an unlimited atonement—i.e. that Jesus suffered the pains of all men, not just of those who were predestined to be saved. Who gets to be saved by it and who doesn't is a matter of individual choice, not of God's choice. It is the hallmark of Calvinism that it denies that individual choice.

Edited January 11, 2013 by mathonihah

[Louis Midgley]

I very much appreciate 3DOP's remarks above. Why? I insist that everyone should strive as much as possible to understand the Other from their own perspective, and from the very best sources and expressions of piety. Put another way, to understand the faith of genuine Roman Catholics one must not turn to those jaded ones on the margins of the Roman Catholic community with a hostile agenda and especially not one driven by smirking secular concerns. And one must strive to understand how Roman Catholic faith can survive the current and yet unresolved epidemic of randy priests buggering each other and, even worse, the kids with whom they come in contact and to whom they should be ministering. 3DOP has given an indication of how this can be the case. And this is yet another indication of why Martin Marty’s argument that when one really grasps the ground and content of Christian faith, one can then begin to see how it can and does persist despite whatever human failings and sinful behaviors mare its expressions. And how most of the things that critics like to emphasize are merely public relations problems from the perspective of the faithful.

Let me illustrate. In 2010, on the way to Oberamergau to enjoy the wonderful Passion Play, the Midgleys visited Vienna, a city we love. It is not now the city of the young Hitler. Instead, it is glorious in the old aristocratic way and also in the modern commercial way. But a bit of news very much disturbed us. The venerable Bishop of Vienna, a friend of the one previously known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and hence the current Pope (and one of my favorite people for reasons I will not go into) had just be exposed as a moral failure of enormous proportions. It had been revealed that he had been buggering a huge number of boys. This just sickened me for a number of different reasons. All the stations of the cross, the long history of Catholic piety, the gorgeous monumental church architecture, all those crosses everywhere, and yet this terrible moral failure. That one bit of new spoiled for me seeing Prague for the first time and the Passion Play for the one and only time. This is not to be understood as a condemnation of Catholic piety, since I see similar moral failure in my own faith community. It is not that one can see the corruption and evil that built the stunning and gorgeous monumental buildings in St. Petersburg that flowed from the links between Empire and regal/aristocratic privilege that bothers me. That is just an obvious part of what Constantine did the Christian faith. But faith in little now obscure people survived all of that.

I want Latter-day Saints to both know and appreciate the faith very often hidden behind the outward show of the pomp of this world, but also to see the corruption and failures of faith or of failure to have faith to be a warning and a lessor for themselves. This is why I have argued that I believe the Saints (1) ought to see all of Christian history as their own and not just as the history of the Other, and (2) that we ought to celebrate and envy the very best exemplars of faith in the past without brushing them aside merely because they do not conform to our own way of having faith. And, in addition, we ought to learn from the corruption of faith when idolatry takes hold of the souls of humans.

When I was dressing to be sealed in the Zollikofen Temple by Elder Kimball on the final day of its dedication, he lectured me on sex. This was a profound shock to me, since in my home the word was never mentioned. He warned me about worshiping an idol he called orgasm, which he told me he knew to be one of the many false gods that come to take the place of Jesus Christ. But mentioning this matter brings me back to what was in front of, in and behind some of the remarks I made in “Defending the King and His Kingdom.” Well there are many other false Gods, of course. We live in a world simply packed with them. And some or many of these are secular (entirely worldly) and these are also very fashionable and user friendly and pleasurable, and so forth. They seem to make few or no demands, except your life.

I have enjoyed the little conversations I have had with people whose names I don’t even know. Why do people want to hide behind handles? This habit really troubles me. And it makes my participation on lists, blogs and boards a painful experience, which must soon come to an end.

[mathonihah]

To return to Midgley's original article, the following paragraphs I believe contain significant errors, and need to be amended:

“Mohler also defends penal substitution—the dominant Protestant understanding of the Atonement—which is the theory that Jesus of Nazareth somehow became objectively guilty of every sin, past, present, and future—or his death would not have redeemed totally depraved humans by the imposition of an alien righteousness on sinners. Most of the ways of understanding the Atonement, of course, involve the idea that Jesus did for humans what they could not possibly do for themselves. But in the penal substitution theory Jesus is not seen as an innocent, sinless substitute for sinful humanity. He is, instead, pictured as somehow being guilty in a real way of all past, present and future sins of totally depraved humans—he became in our place the focused object of the wrath of God. Martin Luther (in a commentary on

Galatians 3:13

) insisted that

all the prophets say this, that Christ was to become the greatest thief, murderer, adulterer, robber, desecrator, blasphemer, etc., there has ever been anywhere in the world. He is not acting in his own Person now. Now he is not the Son of God, born of the Virgin. But he is a sinner, who has and bears the sin of Paul, the former blasphemer, persecutor, and assaulter: of Peter, who denied Christ; of David, who was an adulterer and a murderer, and who caused the Gentiles to blaspheme the name of the Lord (

Rom. 2:24

). In short, he has and bears all the sins of all men in his body—not in the sense that he has committed them but in the sense that he took those sins, committed by us, upon his own body, in order to make satisfaction for them with his own blood. Therefore this general Law of Moses included him, although he was innocent so far as his own Person was concerned; for it found him among sinners and thieves. Thus a magistrate regards someone as a criminal and punishes him if he catches him among thieves, even though the man has never committed anything evil or worthy of death. Christ was not only found among sinners, having assumed the flesh and blood of those who were sinners and thieves and who were immersed in all sorts of sin. Therefore when the Law found him among thieves, it condemned and executed him as a thief.

“In the typical Protestant theory of the Atonement, Jesus Christ was both sinless and also the ultimate sinner. If his bloody death was to be efficacious either (1) for those pictured in Calvinist theology as predestined at the moment of creation out of nothing to salvation, or (2) potentially for all of mankind who may decide to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior (in other competing Protestant dogmas), Jesus had to be fully guilty of all human sins. This, of course, flies in the face of what is taught in the Book of Mormon, where Jesus is pictured as having made a wholly sinless sacrifice for all of humanity, which is something they could not possibly have done for themselves. He managed this with a glorious victory over all the demonic powers that beset human beings during their mortal probation by (1) defeating mortal death and thereby opening the door for an eventual universal resurrection, and (2) by also making available merciful forgiveness of sin for all those who choose to follow him, seek and accept sanctification as genuine Saints, and endure faithfully to the end.

“Mohler sees the penal substitution theory as essential to evangelical identity and hence to his understanding of what constitutes the authentic Christian faith. Those who reject the penal substitution theory of the Atonement, Mohler explains, do so mainly on moral grounds. They see no good reason to insist that God imputed all human sin to a sinless Jesus of Nazareth and then demanded, in Mohler words, “the blood sacrifice of his son to satisfy his divine wrath and display his righteousness” (p. 94). Mohler, however, also admits that critics of the penal substitution theory of the Atonement see this theory, as I do, as “a slander against God’s own character” (p. 94). In addition, he indicates that those who reject the Protestant penal substitution theory of the Atonement do so because “such a rendering of God is immoral. Some have gone so far as to claim that such a [penal] rendering of the atonement amounts to a form of divine child abuse” (p. 94). Mohler argues “that denying penal substitution as the central biblical concept for our [evangelical] understanding of the atonement is, in the end, fatal to our witness to the gospel” (p. 198).

“Mohler insists that Jesus of Nazareth somehow actually became guilty of all human sin, thus drawing the justified wrath of God on him. This explains his brutal torture, extreme suffering, and bloody death. Put another way, God the Father had God the Son slaughtered to satisfy His wrath and thereby in some way reveal His righteousness, as well as make it possible for His righteousness to be imputed to totally depraved sinners, if they either confess His name or were predestined to salvation at the moment of creation out of nothing.

“Stackhouse also insists that penal substitution is “a vital and nonnegotiable part of

Christian

theology in general, without which any understanding of salvation is seriously deficient” (p. 133). And he ends his treatment of the controversy over penal substitution by proclaiming that “evangelical theologians, therefore, must not jettison substitutionary atonement” (p. 135).

“The Book of Mormon, I believe, sets out an account of the story of that Atonement that differs in crucial ways from the sophisticated Protestant speculation on this all-important matter. Latter-day Saints, I believe, may find the penal substitution theory of the Atonement especially odd, since the Book of Mormon makes it clear that the Holy One of Israel—the one known before His incarnation as Yahweh (YHWH)—was sinless and hence also an innocent victim of demonic powers over which He gained a final victory over both the death of our bodies and, on condition of our faithfulness, of our souls–the two deaths that all humans face. All of this is set out clearly in the Book of Mormon.

“Roger Olson, who describes the central place of penal substitution in the Reformation (see pp. 93–94), cautiously mentions some negative reactions by unnamed evangelicals to it “primarily on moral grounds” (p. 93). He may even come close to agreeing with me in objecting to penal substitution, since he indicates, in an enigmatic remark, that “fundamentalists confuse their own interpretation of the Bible (e.g., penal substitution Atonement) with the Bible itself” (p. 65). It would please me if, for Olson, it is not just petulant fundamentalists who insist that penal substitution is proclaimed in the Bible.”

He has not understood the doctrine of penal substitution correctly, and he has also failed to grasp the doctrine of the Atonement taught in the Book of Mormon in all its aspects correctly. The truth is that the Book of Mormon does indeed teach a doctrine of penal substitution, though not identical to the strict Calvinist model. But with a small modification the Calvinist model can be made to harmonize perfectly with the Book of Mormon. It is not clear at this point to what extent the evangelical community accepts a modified version of penal substitution. If it does, then no valid criticism can be made of the evangelical model from the point of view of the LDS theology of the Atonement.

Edited January 11, 2013 by mathonihah

[Calm]

I have enjoyed the little conversations I have had with people whose names I don’t even know. Why do people want to hide behind handles? This habit really troubles me. And it makes my participation on lists, blogs and boards a painful experience, which must soon come to an end.

My current choice of using an alias is based on security. As a moderator on the Zion's Lighthouse Message Board, I got a few threats and on occasion had to deal with some unstable individuals...threats unlikely to be carried through and if it was just me I would be using my real name but because my daughter who suffers from anxiety and panic attacks asked me not to, I remain cloaked in mystery. I have managed to sit next to you (and your lovely wife once) at a few FAIR gatherings as well as having the chance to enjoy your musings on the FAIR elist but I cannot think of anything that stands out about me to help you place me and it has been several years since I've been able to manage to attend any FAIR event due to health. I am hoping with the moving of the yearly event to Provo this year that I will once more be able to renew all my friendships in person in August for some face to face conversation which does not replace the wonderful extended conversations here and elsewhere online, but add depth to them as these interchanges add insight that can sometimes be hard to achieve within the time limits imposed by reality on our get togethers.

My alias is by now me when I am online and often offline when I meet my friends I've picked up since when I joined the Internet community not only was I a nobody, but I was stashed away up in Canada where my only contact with the 'apologetic' community was through friends of friends. By the time I managed to make it down to my first FAIR conference the moniker "Cal" (my maiden name initials) was firmly attached to me and it is now as real a name for me as the one I was born with or am called by my husband. The latter part I have changed from time to time when I feel the need for a makeover, "Moriah" I chose as the perfect title for my calling in life, interpreted in various ways but ultimately all leading to "God is My Teacher" and "seen by YAHWEH" signifying my eternal desire to sit at the feet of the truly wise. In many ways this name tells others as much at first sight as does my given and married name which are about who I belong with, first my God as a Christian and second as one of the extended tribe of my husband's fathers. (Those who know me well know my obsession with names and I have to admit that I love the opportunity the Internet provides of assigning myself new names with which to look at life through.)

I imagine that many other choose names to highlight an aspect of their life they wish to share with others, a quick peek into one's psyche perhaps or just a quality of themselves they wish to treasure in a new way. A number of others put little thought into their alias, it is simply a label to attach their words to or worse a mask to hide behind that allows them freedom from accountability for their communications so that any sordidness is not carried off when they get up from the keyboard and walk away.

So while I understand the troubling nature of communicating with faceless names, for some of us if the connections can be made, the new names can be enlightening rather than obscuring...

Somewhere out there a study must exist of why people choose the aliases they do....I must make an effort to find it some day because I am fascinated by the subject of names and how they affect us as well as how we identify ourselves through them.

Rather off topic post though it somewhat ties into the aspect of self identification on the one hand and the concept of renewal when we take on a new name in more sacred settings that is part of the process of Atonement.

Edited January 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

I would enjoy, I think, seeing if those on this august board find some light and knowledge in my essay. So let the complaints begin.

Contention, ye say? From evangelicals? Against evangelicals?

I can verify your report that all 4 types are still contending against LDS, and I don't suppose that will ever change.

[3DOP]

Mr. Midgley,

I have enjoyed your participation here too.

I do not use my real name in many threads because even though I am in no sense a spokesman, my name can be linked to a movement within the Catholic Church which is considered schismatic by some and controversial by all. Not that anyone here would abuse my words because of this. Most participants here would scarcely be able to comprehend the issues which would lead me to support such a movement. Sometimes I say things here that might be perceived as being favorable to Restoration theology and I could perceive very easily how they might be removed from their context and used by the very real enemies of God who would malign this movement to the faithful by showing how "they" even though it was only me, are soft on Mormons in spite of how much we supposedly oppose that which the Catholic Church supposedly teaches. I have even dared to go so far as to express that I tend to think that among many other mistakes, the Church of the modern popes has erred in its decision to baptize converts from Mormonism unconditionally.

That said, it wouldn't be the end of the world. And I really doubt if anybody is looking for me in here. So we get misrepresented again on the internet? What is new? But that is the reason why I would prefer that anyone googling Rory McKenzie might find an Irish soccer player instead of a lot of my posts in this venue. A few old timers here know me by name anyway and I am glad. I like my name a lot better than 3DOP! So, pleased as I am to make your acquaintance Mr. Louis Midgley, I salute you with my real name.

Regards,

Rory McKenzie, aka 3DOP

Edited January 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[Ahab]

I have even dared to go so far as to express that I tend to think that among many other mistakes, the Church of the modern popes has erred in its decision to baptize converts from Mormonism unconditionally.

Because the popes don't realize they have already been baptized correctly, and just need to have their faith renewed?

Well, yeah, that's a mistake, but they're making it due to their ignorance and with good intentions. I think that's a point in their favor.

[Paloma]

The Cross is an everpresent theme in the Catholic faith. If we were correctly understood, I think all Christians might agree about this. ...

...

Catholics see the Cross as our bittersweet joy. It is the joy of the Feast of Epiphany, of the third wise man, and the myrrh. If we will be like Him, even if we will emulate the baby Jesus, we will embrace our Crosses too. It is the only way to make sense out of suffering, which is to say it is the only way to make sense out of this life without deliberate distractions like alcohol, drugs or frivolous entertainments. Through suffering, accepted and offered back to Christ, united with His sufferings, we can understand the almost preposterous words of St. Paul when he claims of himself to actually rejoice in suffering!

---Col. 1:24

Properly understood, passion plays and crucifixes aren't merely morbid reminders of a meaningful death. They are reminders of what we must do, of what we can do by God's grace, if we would advance so far as to "rejoice in my sufferings". I am sure that the practise of Catholics is unique. I think other Christians beliefs might be compatible with the practise. It is with that hope that I offer the reasons for why we might seem "obsessed with Christ Crucified".

3DOP

3DOP, I am happy to join you in the "fellowship of the Cross".

And I really appreciated all that you wrote above.

I think of how heavy an emphasis there is in the New Testament of our identification with Christ, and with His sufferings. (And He with us!)

At times of extreme pain and stress in my life, I've drawn inspiration, comfort and endurance from focusing on our Lord's suffering on the cross.

Even as I write here, so many verses flood my mind ... Paul's determination to focus only on Christ and His crucifixion. And the words in Hebrews 12 about Jesus who "endured the cross, despising the shame, for the joy set before Him." What rich and deeply moving thoughts we're given!

[3DOP]

Because the popes don't realize they have already been baptized correctly, and just need to have their faith renewed?

Well, yeah, that's a mistake, but they're making it due to their ignorance and with good intentions. I think that's a point in their favor.

Easy for you to say Ahab.

When I question the propositions of the modern church, with just a few minor exceptions, it never occurs to me to think of malicious intent. When you're Catholic and you suggest that a pope, or the church with papal approval, made a mistake albeit with good intention, you are instantly accused of being Protestant. So you know better than the pope, they ask? But the Church has never, ever in her formulations taught such a rigorous conformity to every policy and proclamation of popes, that there might not be respectful discussion about it--until now. We are supposed to muzzle any misgivings we might have, even in the face of the disastrous fruits the modern church and her hierarchy are producing (see Vienna above). As much as some might think that the modern papacy has happily liberalized in some respects, it is more reactionary than ever in its policy toward those of her children who are compelled by facts to dissent from some of those same new liberalisms.

3DOP

Edited January 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

3DOP, I am happy to join you in the "fellowship of the Cross".

And I really appreciated all that you wrote above.

I think of how heavy an emphasis there is in the New Testament of our identification with Christ, and with His sufferings. (And He with us!)

At times of extreme pain and stress in my life, I've drawn inspiration, comfort and endurance from focusing on our Lord's suffering on the cross.

Even as I write here, so many verses flood my mind ... Paul's determination to focus only on Christ and His crucifixion. And the words in Hebrews 12 about Jesus who "endured the cross, despising the shame, for the joy set before Him." What rich and deeply moving thoughts we're given!

Thanks Paloma.

That Hebrews passage is wonderful isn't it? I should have squeezed it in there somewhere! Heh. We aren't asked to endure, except with the joy that is set before us. Especially in suffering, the joy of the Lord is our strength.

Edited January 11, 2013 by 3DOP

[Louis Midgley]

I really like what has recently been posted on this list, except for one pest, who I may or may not address. And I appreciate the fact that some have, given my concerns, been willing to more clearly identify themselves. I actually want to know who is behind the mask because I like what I have seen being posted. Some already know me from having met me and/or read something I have published, or from exchanges on the FAIR list. For those who might like to know a bit more I recommend having a look at my entry to what is called Mormon Scholars Testify. This can be accessed at the the following: http://mormonscholarstestify.org/432/louis-midgley.