Mars Hill Church In Phoenix

[jwhitlock]

It would be nice, if you can (which I doubt), if you would provide support for this claim. How exactly were his comments "misleading" and "belligerent"???

Yes, I'd like to have some details too.

[Calm]

The crickets are chirping...

It was short, he may have simply missed it...

[halconero]

One of the things I've been thinking about lately is having some sort of clear and concise list of comparable differences between LDS and Evangelical beliefs for example. The reason I've been thinking about this is because often someone will represent the other point of view incorrectly. Such as representing the LDS view incorrectly, then teaching others the same makes matters worse.

I mean, it's clear we have differences, but sometimes it's not so clear what those differences are. We often get distracted by wording differences, which often amount to a very minor difference. Or maybe not? But, having a clear and concise list of comparable differences would be helpful in situations like these.

I'm sure it's been done, but it would be a fun project. It would have to have both sides involved as to insure accuracy. Also, perhaps a thorough explanation of the differences. It's one thing to say "EVs are Trinitarian and Mormons are not," it's another to explain the nuances of personhood, oneness and substance that those two beliefs entail.

[danielwoods]

I'm sure it's been done, but it would be a fun project. It would have to have both sides involved as to insure accuracy. Also, perhaps a thorough explanation of the differences. It's one thing to say "EVs are Trinitarian and Mormons are not," it's another to explain the nuances of personhood, oneness and substance that those two beliefs entail.

Right. And like Vance said, probably a topic for a different thread. But, I agree with you.

[Damien the Leper]

Thank you, jwhitlock, for making an irrefutable demonstration that sensational & misleading characterizations of others' beliefs isn't a phenomenon unique to the non-LDS. In your most recent post, you've done the thread a real service--which should be clear to all but the most partisan. And please know that even after your butchery of the biblical doctrine of predestination--you're still not my enemy nor the enemy of my church. So if that was your hope & intent: FAIL

:0)

--Erik

EPIC FAIL, Erik. Foreknowledge is NOT predestination. Predestination is a heresy that robs humans of their ability to choose God. In our path to salvation we are declared righteous, not made righteous. This is where Total Depravity absolutely fails and fails absolutely. The following four points of the T.U.L.I.P. heresy are completely dependent upon the first.

If God has already elected those who are going to heaven, then why evangelize, seek to be saved, or even follow God's path? Your traditional Calvinist would proclaim, "Because God told us so!" But if God has already elected those who will be going to heaven, no amount of influence from Christians will change who is elected or not. Evangelism may be the means of how God saves the elect, but our conscience decision to not evangelize will not affect the elect. The interesting counter-argument would be when Calvinists say to non-Calvinists, "But why bother evangelizing... God already knows if a particular person will ever accept the message or not." However, foreknowledge does not imply predestination, and God transcends time.

If God predestined everything, then there is no use in praying for your friends or family. Basically, God has already predestined the events and no appealing to God will likely change his mind- it has already been predestined and cannot be changed.

If God predestined everything, then God created sin. This is where Calvinists disagree among themselves. There are several camps; some that believe every little detail has been predestined, those who believe that God predestined all major events (including salvation), and those who believe that God only predestines those who will be saved. I suppose this point would address the first camp; If indeed God did predestine every little thing, then God did create sin. He caused man to act a specific way knowing in advance what it would lead to.

If man is totally incapable of good, then man cannot truly be remorseful or repentant.

If man is totally incapable of good, then man cannot be faulted for his sins.

If God predestined everything, then there is no such thing as randomness. (Now that's an interesting research topic..)

If God predestined everything, then why eternally condemn the non-elect? After all, it is not their fault.. they were predestined to be damned! This concept is called double-predestination. The logic is rather simple: if God only allows the elect to be saved, and God predestined the elect, then by default, God predestined everyone else who is not elect to be eternally condemned. Most Calvinists believe it, but there are quite a few who don't. Thomas Aquinas' view was that God does not in fact damn those whose inherent sin would normally be condemning; God simply "passes over" those who he chose to not predestine. While this view is also somewhat arrogant, (how arrogant it is for us to believe we were predestined while our neighbor might not be), it simply doesn't make sense. The bible clearly states otherwise. (never mind that little verse that says "whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life")

Jesus died for everyone, not just the elect. Calvinists would point out verses such as John 10:11, Acts 20:28, and John 15:13-14, which states that Jesus died for his friends. However, Jesus promptly then states that we are his friends if we obey his commands. Clearly, though, Jesus died for everyone. Verses decribe Jesus as the savior of the world, the savior of all men, and etc. Specifically, 1 John 2:2, which states that "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."

Once-saved-always-saved is a farce. One only has to read the very last two verses of James (James 5:19-20) to see why. "My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. " Calvinists typically don't have a response to verses like these other than to falsely argue that "well, the sinner must not have ever really been born from above to begin with." It is not unfeasible for someone to be whole-heartedly devoted to God for a majority of their lifetime and then suddenly snap and turn totally against God in his heart. For example, suppose Billy Graham were to all of a sudden denounce God and start worshiping Satan. Calvinists would suggest that Billy Graham must not have ever have been saved whereas any other rational person would say that he once was a great man of faith whose heart was totally devoted to God but then suddenly snapped.

[Damien the Leper]

Have to reject your premise that if someone holds an idea or an object as "sacred" it shouldn't be made fun of by anyone else. If you stopped and thought about what you asked, I think you'd reject it too.

But here's what I would apologize for. I have said things to LDS (family, friends) on occasion that were motivated by pride and not love. And likewise my pride has manifested itself on this very board and I have written things that did not reflect the Grace my God has shown to me. And for those things, I ask forgiveness in all sincerity.

Now let's try the shoe on the other foot, halconero. In response to a prominent LDS apologist, Dr. Louis Midgley, labeling Calvinism as "demonic" a few months back, do you think LDS should make use of your "apology template" (before you copyright it, of course)?

Not to suggest a double-standard, but I would like to know--if not, why not?

--Erik

As Noam Chomsky would say, there is no such thing as a double standard. There is only the bigoted self serving single standard that intends to advance and promote an agenda.

[Five Solas]

It was short, he may have simply missed it...

Nope, didn't miss it. Lot's of responsibilities these days. I try to make time for this when I'm on the treadmill (like now) ~ 3 times per week.

Regarding the repeated question whether I consider Mormonism to be a "false religion"--I would say Mormonism is a religion of man in the same category as Islam, for example. Mormons don't worship the Triune God of Christianity, Who creates ex nihilo. Yes, they both say the name, "Jesus," but if you look any further, they have as much in common as they do with your Hispanic neighbor down the street.

I say that not because I hate LDS, (I don't) I'm your enemy (I'm not), or because my purpose here is to deceive (it isn't). And I think it's safe to say ditto for the sentiment of Mars Hill membership and its leadership in Seattle, Phoenix and elsewhere. And you may think I'm wrong, that Who Jesus Is doesn't really matter, and that my analogy is scandalous. Okay.

But let's skip the labels and freely discuss our differences, including how we see each others' beliefs. And let's not try to ban humor, even if it means we get a joke we don't enjoy now and then. All this as time permits, of course. And do check out Mars Hill Phoenix when it opens next year, if you happen to be in the area. Excerpts and sound-bites, however inflammatory and exciting (as this thread has amply demonstrated), paint a limited picture. I'll resurrect this thread in a few months & hopefully we'll get a first-hand experience or two.

:0)

--Erik

Edited August 8, 2013 by Five Solas

[BlueDreams]

But let's skip the labels and freely discuss our differences, including how we see each others' beliefs. And let's not try to ban humor, even if it means we get a joke we don't enjoy now and then. All this as time permits, of course. And do check out Mars Hill Phoenix when it opens next year, if you happen to be in the area. Excerpts and sound-bites, however inflammatory and exciting (as this thread has amply demonstrated), paint a limited picture. I'll resurrect this thread in a few months & hopefully we'll get a first-hand experience or two.

Humor doesn't need to be banned. No one is suggesting that....but it should actually be funny. And in a church setting it shouldn't disrespect entire groups of people to make the punch line. Reading another sermon not related to anything LDS (to get a better feel for the general flavor for Mars Hill. I do not live near pheonix, so the website will have to do) this is funny:

And he walked in that Sunday, he looked at the baptisms, he had no church history or frame of reference. He said to me, “Well, that’s cool. I didn’t know you guys did hot tub parties,” and he was serious. And I said, “It’s not a hot tub party.” He said, “But that’s a hot tub.” I was like, “That’s a great point.” And he then said, “And with these screens and this sound system, you could do a pretty epic hot tub party.” I thought, “This guy’s a genius.”

What has been found about mormons is not. It's bigoted. Plain and simple. As for the church. If the sermons that I've read/scanned through are any indication, I'd most likely not have much a problem with it. If there were side jokes similar to what was mentioned about mormons previously, I would have an extremely uncomfortable moment....and it would ruin whatever message spoken. If it was more congenial humor like the above I'd probably get a chuckle, enjoy the service, but I would be lying if I said I find the sermons particularly mind-provoking or deep. Mostly as I've read it's come to either disagreeing with certain statements or presentations (ex. one sermon talked about be in adam or in jesus and God's worldview as being of two camps, etc. I disagreed with the presentation of "in Adam" per se and how God sees the world....I prefer more nuance and from the perspective of us all being first God's children that He wants back) or being underwhelmed.....kinda a sense of "yes, I agree....but there's more to it than that" On certain topics, such as baptism. I doubt it would change much by actually visiting.

Any ways, nice start to my morning. Now for pancakes!

With luv,

BD

Edited August 8, 2013 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

Nope, didn't miss it. Lot's of responsibilities these days. I try to make time for this when I'm on the treadmill (like now) ~ 3 times per week.

Regarding the repeated question whether I consider Mormonism to be a "false religion"--I would say Mormonism is a religion of man in the same category as Islam, for example. Mormons don't worship the Triune God of Christianity, Who creates ex nihilo. Yes, they both say the name, "Jesus," but if you look any further, they have as much in common as they do with your Hispanic neighbor down the street.

I say that not because I hate LDS, (I don't) I'm your enemy (I'm not), or because my purpose here is to deceive (it isn't). And I think it's safe to say ditto for the sentiment of Mars Hill membership and its leadership in Seattle, Phoenix and elsewhere. And you may think I'm wrong, that Who Jesus Is doesn't really matter, and that my analogy is scandalous. Okay.

But let's skip the labels and freely discuss our differences, including how we see each others' beliefs. And let's not try to ban humor, even if it means we get a joke we don't enjoy now and then. All this as time permits, of course. And do check out Mars Hill Phoenix when it opens next year, if you happen to be in the area. Excerpts and sound-bites, however inflammatory and exciting (as this thread has amply demonstrated), paint a limited picture. I'll resurrect this thread in a few months & hopefully we'll get a first-hand experience or two.

:0)

--Erik

I think this post is very reasonable, and it doesn't bother me a bit that you think my religion is man-made. After all, I think the same thing about yours.

But if your time is limited in posting, could you try to specifically answer the questions that you are asked. Maybe I misunderstood her question, but I don't think Cal was asking whether or not you agreed with Mormonism (the answer seems pretty obvious).

[Calm]

I think this post is very reasonable, and it doesn't bother me a bit that you think my religion is man-made. After all, I think the same thing about yours.

But if your time is limited in posting, could you try to specifically answer the questions that you are asked. Maybe I misunderstood her question, but I don't think Cal was asking whether or not you agreed with Mormonism (the answer seems pretty obvious).

Yes, I would like just a simple answer if that is possible....it seems like it should be. If it isn't, I don't mind an explanation why it isn't simple instead.

I assume you believe there are false religions out there. I am asking if you see the LDS faith as one.

And if you believe that the faith itself, regardless of the intent of its believers, deceives people.

[Five Solas]

Yes, I would like just a simple answer if that is possible....it seems like it should be. If it isn't, I don't mind an explanation why it isn't simple instead.

I assume you believe there are false religions out there. I am asking if you see the LDS faith as one.

And if you believe that the faith itself, regardless of the intent of its believers, deceives people.

Asked and answered, calmoriah. I already told you I think Mormonism is a religion of man (as opposed to God). Why are you so determined to get me to label it a "false religion?" Is it so you can then apply a label to me? Feel free to explain the purpose behind your insistence--I doubt I'm the only one wondering...

You labeled me

I'll label you

So I dub thee unforgiven

--Metallica, 1991

[Calm]

Asked and answered, calmoriah. I already told you I think Mormonism is a religion of man (as opposed to God). Why are you so determined to get me to label it a "false religion?" Is it so you can then apply a label to me?

No.

I do not equate "religion of man" with "false religion". All religions have something of men in them after all..and sometimes that is just cultural and has nothing to due with truth claims. That is why I preferred a more precise description.

I was just wondering if you agreed with Pastor Mari Driscoll who states, IIRC, that false religion and deception were the enemy.

If I understand both of you correctly, you appear to hold a different point of view. Thank you for clarifying.

[ZelphtheGreat]

Will probably be a good thing as the challenge will help wake up slumbering members and get those 'one the fence' to commit one way or the other. Just another way of sifting the believers from the unbelievers in the flock.

[Five Solas]

As promised (post #30), an update for any in the area who might want a first hand view.  Next Sunday is the launch!  10:00 AM local time, 215 East Grant Street, Phoenix AZ  85004

 

More info here:  http://marshill.com/phoenix

 

And as a side note, LDS talk show host Glenn Beck recently did an interview with Pastor Mark Driscoll.  http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mark+driscoll+glenn+beck&sm=3

 

I offer it, not because I endorse any of the political content, but for the consideration of some on this thread who want nothing to do with Mars Hill on account of some ill chosen words & humor. 

 

If anyone makes it (tyler90az), please share your perspective.  Next Sunday we're starting a sermon series on the Book of James--should be excellent. 

 

--Erik

[Avatar4321]

Hey Valentius, do you know what part of Phoenix they're setting up shop in?

Please don't say the northern half of Glendale, Peoria or Scottsdale. Those poor Elders have enough grief coming from CCV as it is.

 

What is the CCV?

All I can really say is it sounds like the the Lord is going to grow His Church in Arizona, even if a few people have to stir up trouble to do it.

[Avatar4321]

I'm assuming your kidding with this statement... since we've discussed previously how this refers to the Book of Revelation, not to the Bible... because the Bible was not compiled until well after Revelations was written... and, thre is a passage in Deuteronomy that says essentially the same thing...

Some of my non-member family have made this statement when speaking of the Book of Mormon.

I find such groups rather pitiful... it's one thing to disagree with another's theology, but to go to such extremes with such an un-Christianlike attitude is to me a real problem for them...

GG

 

I think his point is that they are probably one of the groups claiming we shouldn't add to the Bible, making their name ironic.

 

Also, how do you have Acts 29 when Acts is really Acts of the Apostles and according to them there are no Modern Apostles called?

[Avatar4321]

Someone makes an underwear joke & that makes them your “enemy?” Heavy words are so lightly thrown, bluebell...

 

 

No. Someone making an underwear joke makes them totally irrelevant to productive conversation. When they want to stop with the foolish jokes and talk about important things, then perhaps we should take them seriously. Until then, why should we waste our time when we have such a great work to do?

[Avatar4321]

Ah, but if they got the beliefs right, there would be a much smaller target to mock.

 

Please, if they got the beliefs right, the Spirit would testify to the people and they would end up increasing our baptism numbers.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The Seattle based Acts 29 Reformed MegaChurch is planting itself a disaster here in Phoenix.Mars Hill PhoenixFor those not familiar with the Acts 29 Reformed "Calvinists", see here.This is not good for the Valley.

IMHO, Calvinism is the most destructive cult that calls themselves Christian.

[Vance]

IMHO, Calvinism is the most destructive cult that calls themselves Christian.

????

They are found in the Book of Mormon!!!

(But they were called "Zoramites" back then).

 

. . . and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren . . .

Edited January 6, 2014 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

I'm not sure. I know of a few Acts 29 Reformed churches in the area who have made a few ripples in the water. And have made their presence known but nothing overly worth talking about. Although, I did give the Mesa Temple VC a heads up about Apologia Church going to the temple to witness on the the temple grounds. About a week later, I was at the temple with some family and encountered some Acts 29ers and I chose to engage them as they tried witnessing to other attendees. Needless to say,that group didn't like me running interference. I was proud to do it.

Gosh I feel like getting on a plane. 

[mfbukowski]

Good luck finding such a thing. While Mormonism has gotten a mention from the pulpit on occasion (along with other cultic offshoots of Christianity--Jehovah's Witness, Oneness Pentecostals), it's hardly anyone's focus to my knowledge. No doubt you can find somebody's blog saying something or post a link where something was said in a sermon. But if you were hoping for a real concerted emphasis with meetings and resources dedicated against your religion (latter-day persecution!), afraid you'll be let down by Acts 29.

--Erik

Oh I doubt that considering that you just called us a "cultic offshoot of Christianity."

 

You don't even know HOW to avoid "a real concerted emphasis with meetings and resources dedicated against your religion"

 

If you think you are "witnessing" here you are grossly mistaken.  I really don't know WHAT you think your posts will accomplish.

[mfbukowski]

Someone makes an underwear joke & that makes them your “enemy?” Heavy words are so lightly thrown, bluebell...

 

PLEASE please please go to a Jewish site and make fun of prayer shawls ok?

 

Preferably an Israeli one where there are lots of people in the army.  Or better yet how about one for the Anti-Defamation League?  I know a few very strong Chabad people I could refer you to.....  let's see..... one used to be a drug dealer before he reformed.....

[mfbukowski]

I am game, just remind me.

Yes, I think I really would fly in for that one!

[mfbukowski]

You can repeat the word "enemy" in as many posts as you like, jwhitlock. You may even believe it (and I'm guessing you very well might). But please know that your sentiment is neither shared nor reciprocated. Not by me and nor by anyone else I know at MHC.

For what it's worth,

--Erik

If someone tells you that they are offended by what you said, you apologize and tell them you won't do it again. 

 

But that is the Christian thing to do.