Jim Stiles Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: John 30 says, "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." So according to John 30:31 the Gospel of John has everything we need to believe, which makes the Old Testament, the epistles, the other gospels, and the Book of Revelation unnecessary. Do we need the rest of the Bible? Explain that smart guy. The Gospel of John is all one needs in order to become a Christian. Some of the early Christian congregations just had one or two books from the New Testament and the Old Testament to read and study. However, the other books in the Bible contain information that are useful in faith (things we should believe) and life (things we should do and not do). The gospel is present throughout the Bible, both the New Testament and the Old Testament.
cdowis Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Some of the early Christian congregations just had one or two books from the New Testament and the Old Testament to read and study. They also had living apostles and prophets to keep them from blowing with every wind of doctrine.. See Eph 4:11-14 Edited March 7, 2016 by cdowis
Jim Stiles Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I find this very convoluted and we need not get into it unless you want to. There are at least 4 reasons I think it is wrong. Four separate topics. 1- BOM people were not "Jews" in a religious sense, they were hybrid Jews as well as Christians at the same time. They were operating under the Melchizadek priesthood, not the Levitical, though they kept many Jewish customs. I am not an expert on these matters, but you notice throughout the BOM that they believed in Christ in a very specific manner, not at all like the Old Testament, so much so that critics see these views as anachronisms. 2- Geography has nothing to do with religious truth, and is clearly not a necessary condition for believing it. Belief in the 10 commandments has nothing to do with where they were written- the idea is absurd. They are true because they are requirements for human civilization to exist- anywhere. Biblical practices are not based on geography. The practice of animal sacrifice is virtually universal among primitive people and has nothing to do with geography. Creation stories similar to the biblical story are found everywhere. Stories of floods are found everywhere. The religious meaning of these stories is what is important- not where they happened. 3- Again and again you refer to "your understanding" as your intellectual justification for belief in the bible. I have no problem with that- good for you. But I hate to tell you that makes you a postmodernist just like me, just perhaps unwilling to admit it. Postmodernism is inescapable for us living in this time. It is in the air we breathe. The very American idea of freedom of choice and freedom to decide what is best for us makes us "postmoderns". Truth cannot be based on the bible if truth IN the bible is based on feelings- that makes the chain of truth ultimately based on feelings. I know it is your job to tell us what we believe, but let's put the show on the other foot. Evangelicals do not believe that belief in the bible should be based on personal feelings. 4- And if you do not know where the BOM took place, how can you know it's zoology is "incorrect"? Should it have kangaroos and platypuses? Seals and polar bears? 1. I do not know what to say in response. From the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament, the only person to hold the Melchizedek priesthood was Jesus. 2. Religious truth is not separate from other truth. Religious truth that contradicts other truths cannot be truth. Religious truth is not above or separate from the law of non-contradiction. 3. Postmodernism is a rejection of logic. Logic is of God and is not part of creation. Postmodernism is a rejection of God. 4. The group that presented the BOM to the world said that it primarily took place in the Americas. Therefore, the geography and zoology needs to reflect the Americas.
Jim Stiles Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, cdowis said: They also had living apostles and prophets to keep them from blowing with every wind of doctrine.. See Eph 4:11-14 1. Adam-God theory. 2. Polygamy. 3. Black Africans and the priesthood. 4. The United Order. 5. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. 6. Blood Atonement.
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: 1. I do not know what to say in response. From the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament, the only person to hold the Melchizedek priesthood was Jesus. 2. Religious truth is not separate from other truth. Religious truth that contradicts other truths cannot be truth. Religious truth is not above or separate from the law of non-contradiction. 3. Postmodernism is a rejection of logic. Logic is of God and is not part of creation. Postmodernism is a rejection of God. 4. The group that presented the BOM to the world said that it primarily took place in the Americas. Therefore, the geography and zoology needs to reflect the Americas. You have closed yourself off from reason. You accept the bible based on emotion and take its unreasonable "science" literally? The truths of science contradict religion! (on your view!) I hope you never need medication or an operation. So why cannot God be proven by science? Why does science state the world is more than 6,000 years old? Clearly the Bible is wrong if there is only one truth Dawkins demolishes your position if you are right. I am so glad you are not. How do you possibly deal with atheists? Seriously? Where did dinosaurs come from? How did Jesus turn water into wine or heal people? I suppose I should just leave you alone- you have obviously not thought about any of these things. Postmodernism is not a rejection of logic. absurd. you know nothing about it.You have already said you base your belief in God based on emotion- that is not logic. Quote Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (/ˈvɪtɡənˌstaɪn/;[5] German: [ˈvɪtgənˌʃtaɪn]; 26 April 1889 – 29 April 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language.[6] From 1929 to 1947, Wittgenstein taught at the University of Cambridge.[7] During his lifetime he published just one slim book, the 75-page Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), one article, one book review and a children's dictionary.[8] His voluminous manuscripts were edited and published posthumously. Philosophical Investigations appeared as a book in 1953, and has since come to be recognised as one of the most important works of philosophy in the twentieth century.[9] His teacher Bertrand Russell described Wittgenstein as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating."[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein Wittgenstein was a postmodernist. Edited March 7, 2016 by mfbukowski
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: The Gospel of John is all one needs in order to become a Christian. Some of the early Christian congregations just had one or two books from the New Testament and the Old Testament to read and study. However, the other books in the Bible contain information that are useful in faith (things we should believe) and life (things we should do and not do). The gospel is present throughout the Bible, both the New Testament and the Old Testament. LOL your response was so predictable. Your argument just helps the Open Canon doctrine. Tell me again why you don't believe in Open Canon? What about the epistles of Paul? "The gospel is present throughout the Bible, both the New Testament and the Old Testament." and why are 66 books necessary? Edited March 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: 1. Adam-God theory. 2. Polygamy. 3. Black Africans and the priesthood. 4. The United Order. 5. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. 6. Blood Atonement. Oh cut the Horse $ would you? I can point to 100X more problems in the Bible, and bigger problems. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH120.html and what is wrong with Polygamy anyway? I think it is cool, I wish I had a lot of wives. Edited March 7, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
canard78 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) On 3/6/2016 at 0:41 AM, Jim Stiles said: Ultimately the Bible is true because it says that it is true. All proofs of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical autographs are circular in nature. I believe in the Bible because I know it in my heart. All sophisticated arguments for the Bible boil down to simple fideism. Even the recognition of the scriptural canon boils down to individual believers, through their duly ordained representatives, saying these books are scripture, those books are not scripture. The geography and zoology of the Bible appears, to my personal understanding, to be accurate, but that is not sufficient proof for the Bible's truthfulness. It is necessary, but not sufficient. I know that the Book of Mormon is not true because its geography cannot be determined. I know that the Book of Mormon is not true because its zoology is incorrect. I know that the Book of Mormon is not true because it has pious Jews acting in a manner that no pious Jew would act. Others have quoted Bart Ehrman here. I almost repp'd this for the sheer entertainment value. The Bible's true because it says it's true and because you feel it's true in your heart? Game over guys. Jim for this win. How can anyone possibly take that argument apart. What you have to remember Jim is that most of the people you're dialoguing with think the Bible is true too. You're not in a tug of war trying to prove that only one of the two is true because @mfbukowski, @Calm and others think the Bible is, just like you. You've demonstrated that there's no irrefutable way of proving the Bible true. You take it on faith. The book says it's true and you believe that. Guess what though: so do lots of other volumes of Scripture. How do you know that the books of scripture of the Baha'i faith or Sikhs or Hindus or Muslims are true or not? They have the same historical and geographical context and setting as the Bible. They have their miracles and spiritual witnesses. Their belief is equally strong. I assume that you don't accept their scripture as being the word of God?? So the basis of your faith is just that. Faith. Edited March 7, 2016 by canard78 grammar and punctuation 3
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, canard78 said: I almost repp'd this for the sheer entertainment value. The Bible's true because it says it's true and because you feel it's true in your heart? Game over guys. Jim for this win. How can anyone possibly take that argument apart. What you have to remember Jim is that most of the people you're dialoguing with think the Bible is true to. You're not in a tug of war trying to prove that only one of the two is true because @mfbukowski, @Calm and others think the Bible is, just like you. You've demonstrated that there's no irrefutable way of proving the Bible true. You take it on faith. The book says it's true and you believe that. Guess what though. So do lots of other volumes of Scripture. How do you know that the books of scripture of the Baha'i faith or Sikhs or Hindus or Muslims are true or not? They have the same historical and geographical context and setting as the Bible. They have their miracles and spiritual witnesses. Their belief is equally strong. I assume that you don't accept their scripture as being the word of God?? So the basis of your faith is just that. Faith. What's really odd is that he is here as a critic, criticizing people who agree with him. And I guess he doesn't see that. I am flabbergasted. "Logic is of God" but he cannot give us a logical reason to believe in Himself? Go figure Edited March 7, 2016 by mfbukowski
RevTestament Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: 1. I do not know what to say in response. From the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament, the only person to hold the Melchizedek priesthood was Jesus. Nope. Melchizedek did. Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; unless you are saying he held the Aaronic priesthood before Aaron? Hebrews 8: 1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. Hebrews also says Aaron held this priesthood: Hebrews 5:4 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Quote 4. The group that presented the BOM to the world said that it primarily took place in the Americas. Therefore, the geography and zoology needs to reflect the Americas. And if you were to be shown it is consistent, would you then believe the BoM? or continue to look for other reasons not to believe it? In other words would it make difference to you in reality or are you just arguing this? 1
cdowis Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: From the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament, the only person to hold the Melchizedek priesthood was Jesus. It does not say that.
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On 3/6/2016 at 4:41 PM, Jim Stiles said: Ultimately the Bible is true because it says that it is true. All proofs of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical autographs are circular in nature. I believe in the Bible because I know it in my heart. All sophisticated arguments for the Bible boil down to simple fideism. Quote Fideism (/ˈfideɪˌɪzəm, ˈfaɪdi-/) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes fromfides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism."[1] Theologians and philosophers have responded in various ways to the place of faith and reason in determining the truth ofmetaphysical ideas, morality, and religious beliefs. A fideist is one who argues for fideism. Historically, fideism is most commonly ascribed to four philosophers: Pascal, Kierkegaard, William James, and Wittgenstein; with fideism being a label applied in a negative sense by their opponents, but which is not always supported by their own ideas and works or followers.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism So Jim Stiles is a fideist along with other existentialists and postmoderns. Welcome to the fold brother!
cdowis Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: 2. Polygamy. Why don't you start a thread on this. Hopefully you have read the Old Testament but we will be happy to educate you on what it says. You might also check out what Luther had to say.
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 18 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Nope. Melchizedek did. Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; unless you are saying he held the Aaronic priesthood before Aaron? Hebrews 8: 1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. Hebrews also says Aaron held this priesthood: Hebrews 5:4 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. And if you were to be shown it is consistent, would you then believe the BoM? or continue to look for other reasons not to believe it? In other words would it make difference to you in reality or are you just arguing this? Let's see, Levi held the Levitical priesthood. Aaron held the Aaronic priesthood. Melchizadek held the...... no priesthood??? And it got it's name from...... ? Enough of all this. No credibility left whatsoever in his positions. 1
RevTestament Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Let's see, Levi held the Levitical priesthood. Aaron held the Aaronic priesthood. Melchizadek held the...... no priesthood??? And it got it's name from...... ? Enough of all this. No credibility left whatsoever in his positions. It is a very evangelical position to gloss over the fact that they no longer hold any priesthood except the mythological "priesthood of believers." I have had them try to tell me that every Christian is a bishop despite the record that the Roman Empire had some 1200 bishops at the time of the Nicene Council. So was that wrong, or should Constantine have invited every member of the church to his council in order to make up the Nicene Creed? History also reveals that priests came with the bishops to assist them. History reveals many flaws in evangelical theology....
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, RevTestament said: It is a very evangelical position to gloss over the fact that they no longer hold any priesthood except the mythological "priesthood of believers." I have had them try to tell me that every Christian is a bishop despite the record that the Roman Empire had some 1200 bishops at the time of the Nicene Council. So was that wrong, or should Constantine have invited every member of the church to his council in order to make up the Nicene Creed? History also reveals that priests came with the bishops to assist them. History reveals many flaws in evangelical theology.... And yet they have trained ministers who are "ordained". Go figure.
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism So Jim Stiles is a fideist along with other existentialists and postmoderns. Welcome to the fold brother! This wikipedia article is actually pretty interesting (above) It speaks of two different conflicting EV schools, which it seems Jim is trying to straddle, unsuccessfully in my opinion. Quote On the other hand, Calvinist scholasticism, possibly encouraged by the prestige of science, developed an ever-more elaborate systematic theology that sought to make a rational, and thus, invulnerable, account of all God's dealings with humanity. These constructions would provide the intellectual foundation for the eventual fundamentalist movement in the US, and have remained influential to the present time within those circles. One might sum up those theologians' attitudes by the concise observation of a modern-day Calvinist thinker, Robert L. Reymond, when he claims: "Biblical faith is not a leap in the dark; it is not fideism."[16] The 19th-century Princeton theologian Benjamin B. Warfield says, "We cannot be said to believe or to trust in a thing or person of which we have no knowledge; 'implicit faith' in this sense is an absurdity." Reformed Protestants hold that Biblical faith is based upon the revelation of divine knowledge. Faith devoid of knowledge is "believing the lie" that "leads to condemnation" (2 Thessalonians 2:11–12). To him, Biblical faith wants nothing to do with a mindless Christianity. Compared to other religions, Christianity is "preeminently the reasoning religion"—the Bible commands people to know what they must believe in.[17] However, other schools within Protestantism are more inclined to base their theology upon fideist premises, especially those descending from thinkers such as Kierkegaard andKarl Barth. Both men confronted the increasing crisis within Western Civilization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and concluded that the various kinds of philosophical theology, whether liberal or conservative, were handmaidens in the cultural captivity of the faith, and that the faith had to be liberated from such shackles. Kierkegaard's espousal of non-rational methods of communicating the Gospel such as indirect communication and irony and Barth's complete repudiation of natural theology signaled a return to Luther's concept of the faith as fiducia (trust) in God's grace through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, instead of primarily assentia to human ideas about the ontologically prior acts of God. Understandings of God and truth were increasingly defined in dialectical terms, as opposed to strict logic and metaphysical speculation. Neo-orthodoxy became the main school oriented around this new fideist perspective, although several movements descending from it such as liberation theology and postliberalism continue to bear the fideist stamp, in that they have little or no interest in seeking philosophical or scientific prestige for their claims. They are content to retain Christianity's sense of mystery and paradox and regard attempts to relate those qualities to unaided human reason as inherently compromising. So on one hand he wants to be a fideist, along with Barth et al. On the other hand it seems he wants to be a biblical literalist- which is the strain called "Calvinist scholasticism" above. The two strains do not mix. They are incompatible. We see Barth quoted often in LDS circles often. That's the fideist strain with which we have a natural affinity. We have no systematic theology and the existence of our doctrine is debatable. Orthopraxis is not systematic theology. I am glad I participated in this thread. I understand EV's better now. But it seems that Jim is straddling two incompatible positions
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism So Jim Stiles is a fideist along with other existentialists and postmoderns. Welcome to the fold brother! This wikipedia article is actually pretty interesting (above) It speaks of two different conflicting EV schools, which it seems Jim is trying to straddle, unsuccessfully in my opinion. Quote On the other hand, Calvinist scholasticism, possibly encouraged by the prestige of science, developed an ever-more elaborate systematic theology that sought to make a rational, and thus, invulnerable, account of all God's dealings with humanity. These constructions would provide the intellectual foundation for the eventual fundamentalist movement in the US, and have remained influential to the present time within those circles. One might sum up those theologians' attitudes by the concise observation of a modern-day Calvinist thinker, Robert L. Reymond, when he claims: "Biblical faith is not a leap in the dark; it is not fideism."[16] The 19th-century Princeton theologian Benjamin B. Warfield says, "We cannot be said to believe or to trust in a thing or person of which we have no knowledge; 'implicit faith' in this sense is an absurdity." Reformed Protestants hold that Biblical faith is based upon the revelation of divine knowledge. Faith devoid of knowledge is "believing the lie" that "leads to condemnation" (2 Thessalonians 2:11–12). To him, Biblical faith wants nothing to do with a mindless Christianity. Compared to other religions, Christianity is "preeminently the reasoning religion"—the Bible commands people to know what they must believe in.[17] However, other schools within Protestantism are more inclined to base their theology upon fideist premises, especially those descending from thinkers such as Kierkegaard andKarl Barth. Both men confronted the increasing crisis within Western Civilization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and concluded that the various kinds of philosophical theology, whether liberal or conservative, were handmaidens in the cultural captivity of the faith, and that the faith had to be liberated from such shackles. Kierkegaard's espousal of non-rational methods of communicating the Gospel such as indirect communication and irony and Barth's complete repudiation of natural theology signaled a return to Luther's concept of the faith as fiducia (trust) in God's grace through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, instead of primarily assentia to human ideas about the ontologically prior acts of God. Understandings of God and truth were increasingly defined in dialectical terms, as opposed to strict logic and metaphysical speculation. Neo-orthodoxy became the main school oriented around this new fideist perspective, although several movements descending from it such as liberation theology and postliberalism continue to bear the fideist stamp, in that they have little or no interest in seeking philosophical or scientific prestige for their claims. They are content to retain Christianity's sense of mystery and paradox and regard attempts to relate those qualities to unaided human reason as inherently compromising. So on one hand he wants to be a fideist, along with Barth et al. On the other hand it seems he wants to be a biblical literalist- which is the strain called "Calvinist scholasticism" above. The two strains do not mix. They are incompatible. We see Barth quoted often in LDS circles often. That's the fideist strain with which we have a natural affinity. We have no systematic theology and the existence of our doctrine is debatable. Orthopraxis is not systematic theology. I am glad I participated in this thread. I understand EV's better now. But it seems that Jim is straddling two incompatible positions 1
mfbukowski Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism So Jim Stiles is a fideist along with other existentialists and postmoderns. Welcome to the fold brother! This wikipedia article is actually pretty interesting (above) It speaks of two different conflicting EV schools, which it seems Jim is trying to straddle, unsuccessfully in my opinion. Quote On the other hand, Calvinist scholasticism, possibly encouraged by the prestige of science, developed an ever-more elaborate systematic theology that sought to make a rational, and thus, invulnerable, account of all God's dealings with humanity. These constructions would provide the intellectual foundation for the eventual fundamentalist movement in the US, and have remained influential to the present time within those circles. One might sum up those theologians' attitudes by the concise observation of a modern-day Calvinist thinker, Robert L. Reymond, when he claims: "Biblical faith is not a leap in the dark; it is not fideism."[16] The 19th-century Princeton theologian Benjamin B. Warfield says, "We cannot be said to believe or to trust in a thing or person of which we have no knowledge; 'implicit faith' in this sense is an absurdity." Reformed Protestants hold that Biblical faith is based upon the revelation of divine knowledge. Faith devoid of knowledge is "believing the lie" that "leads to condemnation" (2 Thessalonians 2:11–12). To him, Biblical faith wants nothing to do with a mindless Christianity. Compared to other religions, Christianity is "preeminently the reasoning religion"—the Bible commands people to know what they must believe in.[17] However, other schools within Protestantism are more inclined to base their theology upon fideist premises, especially those descending from thinkers such as Kierkegaard andKarl Barth. Both men confronted the increasing crisis within Western Civilization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and concluded that the various kinds of philosophical theology, whether liberal or conservative, were handmaidens in the cultural captivity of the faith, and that the faith had to be liberated from such shackles. Kierkegaard's espousal of non-rational methods of communicating the Gospel such as indirect communication and irony and Barth's complete repudiation of natural theology signaled a return to Luther's concept of the faith as fiducia (trust) in God's grace through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, instead of primarily assentia to human ideas about the ontologically prior acts of God. Understandings of God and truth were increasingly defined in dialectical terms, as opposed to strict logic and metaphysical speculation. Neo-orthodoxy became the main school oriented around this new fideist perspective, although several movements descending from it such as liberation theology and postliberalism continue to bear the fideist stamp, in that they have little or no interest in seeking philosophical or scientific prestige for their claims. They are content to retain Christianity's sense of mystery and paradox and regard attempts to relate those qualities to unaided human reason as inherently compromising. So on one hand he wants to be a fideist, along with Barth et al. On the other hand it seems he wants to be a biblical literalist- which is the strain called "Calvinist scholasticism" above. The two strains do not mix. They are incompatible. We see Barth quoted often in LDS circles often. That's the fideist strain with which we have a natural affinity. We have no systematic theology and the existence of our doctrine is debatable. Orthopraxis is not systematic theology. I am glad I participated in this thread. I understand EV's better now. But it seems that Jim is straddling two incompatible positions He is against neo-orthodoxy and yet is a fideist. The two positions do not mix. Edited March 7, 2016 by mfbukowski
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: This wikipedia article is actually pretty interesting (above) It speaks of two different conflicting EV schools, which it seems Jim is trying to straddle, unsuccessfully in my opinion. So on one hand he wants to be a fideist, along with Barth et al. On the other hand it seems he wants to be a biblical literalist- which is the strain called "Calvinist scholasticism" above. The two strains do not mix. They are incompatible. We see Barth quoted often in LDS circles often. That's the fideist strain with which we have a natural affinity. We have no systematic theology and the existence of our doctrine is debatable. Orthopraxis is not systematic theology. I am glad I participated in this thread. I understand EV's better now. But it seems that Jim is straddling two incompatible positions Robert L. Reymond passed away in 2013. He has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Reymond Actually, the technical name for my position is presuppositionalism (more Clark and less Van Til), which is critical of Neo-orthodox thinkers like Barth and classical reformed scholastics like R.C. Sproul. It has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics An existential or fideistic claim is something more like "Howard Stern is God" or "Donald J. Trump is my Co-Pilot."
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: And yet they have trained ministers who are "ordained". Go figure. All Ordination means in Protestantism is that a congregation or a supracongregational body like a synod or a denomination agrees with your theology and allows you to teach. A degree (most likely postgraduate) in theology (like a Masters in Divinity) is common but not really required.
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: This wikipedia article is actually pretty interesting (above) It speaks of two different conflicting EV schools, which it seems Jim is trying to straddle, unsuccessfully in my opinion. So on one hand he wants to be a fideist, along with Barth et al. On the other hand it seems he wants to be a biblical literalist- which is the strain called "Calvinist scholasticism" above. The two strains do not mix. They are incompatible. We see Barth quoted often in LDS circles often. That's the fideist strain with which we have a natural affinity. We have no systematic theology and the existence of our doctrine is debatable. Orthopraxis is not systematic theology. I am glad I participated in this thread. I understand EV's better now. But it seems that Jim is straddling two incompatible positions Barth did not write a systematic theology, but he did write his Church Dogmatics magnum opus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Dogmatics
mfbukowski Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 39 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Robert L. Reymond passed away in 2013. He has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Reymond Actually, the technical name for my position is presuppositionalism (more Clark and less Van Til), which is critical of Neo-orthodox thinkers like Barth and classical reformed scholastics like R.C. Sproul. It has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics An existential or fideistic claim is something more like "Howard Stern is God" or "Donald J. Trump is my Co-Pilot." Well as the article says, you are begging the question- circular argument. You assume your position and make it not able to be discussed. The question for me becomes how one could possibly make that assumption. I also don' know why you are here discussing what is undiscussable in your own view. It is an irrational waste of time. I am flabbergasted. But of course as a non-presuppositionalist, according to you, my confused state is explained by the fact that I do not make the presupposition of presuppositionalism. Quote Gordon Clark and his followers treat the truth of the Scriptures as the axiom of their system. Like all axioms, this axiom is considered to be self-evident truth, not to be proven, but used for proof. However, the worldview that results from the axiom may be tested for consistency and comprehensiveness.[28] Testing for internal contradiction exemplifies Clark's strict reliance on the laws of logic (he famously translates the first verse of the Gospel of John as "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.")[29] Thus, in order to invalidate non-Christian worldviews, one must simply show how a different presupposition results in necessary logical contradictions, while showing that presupposing the Bible leads to no logical contradiction. By contrast, some Van Tillians have suggested that God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture reveals apparent paradoxes.[30] You have shown no paradoxes, nor can you, because of course we will not understand them as paradoxes because we do not start from your presuppositions. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Literally unbelievable.
cdowis Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: All Ordination means in Protestantism is that a congregation or a supracongregational body like a synod or a denomination agrees with your theology and allows you to teach. A degree (most likely postgraduate) in theology (like a Masters in Divinity) is common but not really required. True story An evangelist church in a small town in Georgia offered the pastor's position to one of our missionaries. He turned them down.
Jim Stiles Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 22 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Oh cut the Horse $ would you? I can point to 100X more problems in the Bible, and bigger problems. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH120.html and what is wrong with Polygamy anyway? I think it is cool, I wish I had a lot of wives. I posted that list because it is some items where the LDS has changed throughout the years. Most of the issues in the cited Talk Origins page have been argued and reargued since the middle of the 19th century. In that sense, the evangelical church has not changed with some adopting a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis and others a Old Earth Creationist or a Theological Evolution interpretation. Nobody disagrees as to the location of much of the action of the New Testament and some of the action of the Old Testament (Jerusalem). This cannot be said about the Book of Mormon. From the cited Talk Origins page: Quote Archaeology contradicts significant parts of the Bible: The Bible contains anachronisms. Details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E. (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001). The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002). There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002). We do not know when the exact date that domesticated camels were introduced to the Levant. The story about the camel in Genesis 24:10 may have been a late addition to the text. The Egyptians records were not sober history. Egyptian defeats were rarely mentioned, but Egyptian victories were played up for all of their worth. A lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Recent evidence for David and Solomon have been discovered. If I see a reference, then I will post it. In a real sense, archaeology does not support one belief or another, but archaeologists do. Just as history does not say that the system worked with respect to the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, historians do say that the system worked with the case of Richard M. Nixon. Some archaeologists say that the Bible's story of the invasion of Canaan was accurate, others do not. A particular archaeologist's personal view on the historicity of the Bible's story of the invasion is probably more a function of their personal presuppositions, then the evidence itself. More than one scholar has rejected the Bible out of hand because the Bible says certain sexual relationships are not good.
Recommended Posts