Popular Post mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2016 Popular Post Posted October 8, 2016 Robert F. Smith posted a link on another thread to an article I found most interesting, written by an Evangelical theologian with the title Quote Americans & Evangelicals Misunderstand Basic Christian Doctrines – Fail Theology 101 http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/americans-evangelicals-misunderstand-basic-christian-doctrines-fail-theology?ref=yfp I found it to be a most interesting article for a couple of reasons- number one is that it presumes there IS a "correct" Christian view, and the other is showing the conflicting beliefs "most Christians" have which are resolved in LDS beliefs. I am starting this thread so as not to derail the other thread, on the baptismal questions One could easily deduce that yes, there IS a "correct" Christian view- and it is found in LDS beliefs!! They only "fail" Evangelical theology but not true Christian theology, which they get perfectly right based on what is naturally inside them- the light of Christ! The first alleged confusion is around whether or not Christ is "created" and his dichotomy supposedly in his "dual nature". It appears that uninformed Evangelicals, people who are untutored in Evangelical theology, yet professing Christians, adopt something like the LDS view, that these alleged dichotomies are not real. They seem to know instinctively that these are incorrect doctrines which we hold to be apostate, even though they do not have the theology to be able to point them out as errors. These Evangelicals also, the article says, seem to instinctively know that the Bible is NOT inerrant, yet believe that God cannot err. This sounds quite like the LDS notion that the Bible is true insofar as it is translated (and transmitted) correctly.The same folks believe on one hand that one must "accept Jesus" and yet also claim that all will eventually be in "heaven". Those are essentially simple statements of our beliefs that all will eventually, if even after death, have a chance to understand the true gospel and that eventually "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" that Jesus is the Christ. Regarding the Holy Ghost Quote Fifty-six percent say the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, “is a divine force but not a personal being.” which we easily resolve with the understanding that He is a Spirit Being- personal, yet spiritually able to influence all, as a spirit. Quote Evangelicals, by definition, believe trusting in Jesus is the only way of salvation. Yet two-thirds of evangelicals—more than Americans as a whole—claim Heaven is a place where all people will ultimately be reunited with loved ones. Again, the uninformed Evangelical gets it right on the money- yes Jesus is the only way to salvation AND families can be together forever, because all will eventually hear the gospel we preach and accept it!! The dismayed author tells us Quote It’s not just the departures from these historic doctrines that should concern us, but the contradictory answers. It shows not only that Americans in general and evangelicals in particular have the wrong answers on basic Christian doctrines, but that they don’t really understand the concept of doctrine itself. Not at all!! The alleged conflicts can be seen conflicts in what we might see as apostate Evangelical doctrine which those untutored in theology know instinctively by the spirit, but simply lack the theological jargon to express or discuss what the conflicts are! I don't blame Evangelical doctrine for these confusions either- as I have said many times here, Christianity as a whole has inherited a history of conflicting propositions from trying to harmonized the Bible with pagan Greek philosophy, causing what LDS doctrine terms "the Apostasy" Uninformed Evangelicals just instinctively gravitate toward other truths, which I believe we have expressed in the LDS church, more clearly than Evangelical theology is capable of doing. One cannot rid oneself of the errors of Greek philosophy while still embracing them. In my opinion, the rest of Christianity is in an intellectually untenable position due to these central conflicts. Why aren't we doing a better job of reaching these people who instinctively WANT to believe what we express as doctrine?? 7
Five Solas Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: ... Why aren't we doing a better job of reaching these people who instinctively WANT to believe what we express as doctrine?? You just acknowledged you aren't. So if I were you--I'd check my premise... ;0) --Erik
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted October 8, 2016 Popular Post Posted October 8, 2016 From the other thread: 3 hours ago, cdowis said: .Apparently you think that Eric Metaxas is the gold standard for basic Christian doctrines. We have an inerrant Bible, and now we have an inerrant interpretation of the Bible, n the form of Eric Metaxas. Metaxas was merely reporting the results of research which he did not conduct. This was "a survey released late last month by LifeWay Research. The survey, commissioned by Ligonier Ministries." Do you always shoot the messenger for unwelcome news? And there is plenty more unwelcome news: Denver Nicks, “Read more: Godless Cities: Bible Lovers Debate Which City is Most Bible-Minded,” TIME.com, Jan 29, 2014, online at http://nation.time.com/2014/01/29/godless-cities-america-debate-bible/#ixzz2rzaji8eR . Among the comments on this article we find the following: Quote Daniel Dinnell, “Protestants, Catholics and Mormons Reflect Diverse Levels of Religious Activity” - - July 9, 2001 study released by the Barna Research Group of Ventura, California. The study found Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants. The Barna institute for religious studies identified that outside of Sunday church sermons (meaning in the home), Mormons were more likely to have read the bible (not the Book of Mormon, but the Bible) than any other religion polled. A national 2010 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey aimed to test a broad range of religious knowledge, including understanding of the Bible, core teachings of different faiths and major figures in religious history: on just the questions about Christianity and the Bible, Mormons scored the highest. They also scored second only to Jews in knowledge of Judaism. [Overall, Mormons understand their own doctrines and the Bible better than other Christian denominations.] http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/ . 5
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2016 Author Popular Post Posted October 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Five Solas said: You just acknowledged you aren't. So if I were you--I'd check my premise... ;0) --Erik My premise is that you are wrong, mi amigo! Of course I mean that in the best possible, most charitable, and gentle way. What's wrong with it? Does he mis-state Evangelical beliefs, or is his data wrong? So help me out and show me how the article is wrong- is that the problem? Are you ready to correct the author of the article or better yet, this little old gentle and dotty old man, me? 5
hagoth7 Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: From the other thread: Metaxas was merely reporting the results of research which he did not conduct. This was "a survey released late last month by LifeWay Research. The survey, commissioned by Ligonier Ministries." Do you always shoot the messenger for unwelcome news? And there is plenty more unwelcome news: Denver Nicks, “Read more: Godless Cities: Bible Lovers Debate Which City is Most Bible-Minded,” TIME.com, Jan 29, 2014, online at http://nation.time.com/2014/01/29/godless-cities-america-debate-bible/#ixzz2rzaji8eR . Among the comments on this article we find the following: Quote Daniel Dinnell,“Protestants, Catholics and Mormons Reflect Diverse Levels of Religious Activity” - - July 9, 2001 study released by the Barna Research Group of Ventura, California. The study found Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants. The Barna institute for religious studies identified that outside of Sunday church sermons (meaning in the home), Mormons were more likely to have read the bible (not the Book of Mormon, but the Bible) than any other religion polled. A national 2010 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey aimed to test a broad range of religious knowledge, including understanding of the Bible, core teachings of different faiths and major figures in religious history: on just the questions about Christianity and the Bible, Mormons scored the highest. They also scored second only to Jews in knowledge of Judaism. [Overall, Mormons understand their own doctrines and the Bible better than other Christian denominations.] http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/ . !!! Thank you very much for sharing that!
Five Solas Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: My premise is that you are wrong, mi amigo! Of course I mean that in the best possible, most charitable, and gentle way. What's wrong with it? Does he mis-state Evangelical beliefs, or is his data wrong? So help me out and show me how the article is wrong- is that the problem? Are you ready to correct the author of the article or better yet, this little old gentle and dotty old man, me? Didn't like mine? Okay, how about you answer the question-- Why aren't we doing a better job of reaching these people who instinctively WANT to believe what we express as doctrine?? In light of the facts as they've been presented, there appears to be a problem. You've identified it yourself. So give it your dottiest! ;0) --Erik PS. I still say you oughta check your premise. Leaking oil all over the garage floor...
theplains Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 20 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Regarding the Holy Ghost which we easily resolve with the understanding that He is a Spirit Being- It took some time for the LDS Church to consider the Holy Spirit as a member of the Godhood. See attached. Regards, Jim lds-lectures-on-faith-fifth.pdf
thesometimesaint Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 1 hour ago, theplains said: It took some time for the LDS Church to consider the Holy Spirit as a member of the Godhood. See attached. Regards, Jim lds-lectures-on-faith-fifth.pdf You better reread the first two paragraphs of your link. Plus the Articles of Faith # 1. 3
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2016 Author Posted October 9, 2016 16 hours ago, Five Solas said: Didn't like mine? Okay, how about you answer the question-- Why aren't we doing a better job of reaching these people who instinctively WANT to believe what we express as doctrine?? In light of the facts as they've been presented, there appears to be a problem. You've identified it yourself. So give it your dottiest! ;0) --Erik PS. I still say you oughta check your premise. Leaking oil all over the garage floor... It seems obvious that we are not saying the right words to reach them We should publish those questions with answers on every website we have. This kind of thing: Quote "Does Christ created or eternal, and does he have two natures? HE IS ETERNAL AND HAS ONE NATURE! Two natures makes no sense! The nature of something is to be what it is! How can one person be two things at once? Can a dog be a dog and a whale at the same time? Christ is a Divine Man and has ONE nature- that of a Divine Human- THAT is his "nature"! Is Christ created? NO! (John 1) He has existed forever as a spirit and is co-eternal with God! He was born in Nazareth of the Virgin Mary, died and was resurrected and retains his bodily form now in heaven! Will most good people be saved in Heaven? Yes! - If we do not hear the gospel message in this life will will have a chance in heaven to accept Jesus as the Christ! Belief in Jesus is the only way to be saved, but we will all have a fair chance to hear his message and decide for ourselves! Eventually, nearly all will see the truth! Can I be with my family forever in heaven? Yes! Most people covenant that their marriage is only good til "death do us part"! Why? Only one Christian church has the authority to seal you and your family together so you will be with your family forever! Is the Holy Ghost a vague spirit permeating all space or is He a person? BOTH! The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit- a real person who has a spirit body but who's influence can be felt throughout the universe, somewhat like the sun is in one location, but it's warmth and heat can be felt all over the earth. Is the Bible the perfect inerrant word of God or was it written by inspired men? A BIT OF BOTH! The bible is the word of God as revealed through human prophets who are inspired by God, but is not inerrant. It contains many symbols and parables and translation errors. James 1 teaches us that if we want to know the truth we can pray to God and receive our own revelations too! Where did most of these wrong ideas come from? PAGAN GREEK PHILOSOPHY! Soon after Christ was resurrected and ascended to heaven, because of poor communications and false teachings, ideas from the Greek philosophy of the day were incorporated into early Christianity. It took 300 years to fully develop the idea of the Trinity which finally happened in a Council of the Catholic Church at Nicea! This is what we are NOT saying for fear of "bashing". I still don't have a clue what you are talking about regarding the "premise" 2
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2016 Author Posted October 9, 2016 4 hours ago, theplains said: It took some time for the LDS Church to consider the Holy Spirit as a member of the Godhood. See attached. Regards, Jim lds-lectures-on-faith-fifth.pdf It took some time to dream up the idea of the Trinity- 300 years! Yes truth is revealed line upon line. I fail to see how that is relevant. Genesis was revealed first theoretically according to most EV's I imagine. Pick the first book revealed- I don't care which one it was- Is the rest of the Bible therefore wrong because it took time to reveal? 4
Robert F. Smith Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 On 10/8/2016 at 2:57 PM, mfbukowski said: ..................................................................... The alleged conflicts can be seen conflicts in what we might see as apostate Evangelical doctrine which those untutored in theology know instinctively by the spirit, but simply lack the theological jargon to express or discuss what the conflicts are! I don't blame Evangelical doctrine for these confusions either- as I have said many times here, Christianity as a whole has inherited a history of conflicting propositions from trying to harmonized the Bible with pagan Greek philosophy, causing what LDS doctrine terms "the Apostasy" Uninformed Evangelicals just instinctively gravitate toward other truths, which I believe we have expressed in the LDS church, more clearly than Evangelical theology is capable of doing. One cannot rid oneself of the errors of Greek philosophy while still embracing them. In my opinion, the rest of Christianity is in an intellectually untenable position due to these central conflicts. Why aren't we doing a better job of reaching these people who instinctively WANT to believe what we express as doctrine?? The late Stephen H. Webb (a non-Mormon scholar) did a couple of things to ameliorate all that before he died. On the one hand, he showed "that Mormonism provides the most challenging, urgent, and potentially rewarding source for metaphysical renewal today" within mainstream Christianity -- in his book Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford, 2011). However, he also provided some excellent practical pointers in his Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn From the Latter-day Saints (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013). Which is to say that Methodists, Presbyterians, and other denominations could learn a lot from examining the practical ways in which Mormons create a more successful, missionary-oriented community which continues to grow and prosper. Those old-line denominations once performed at a much higher level, with robust missionary-work, Sunday School, etc., but are now diminishing in every area. Billy Graham is 97 and not yet in his grave, while the Christian world he knew so well is quickly disappearing. Instead of attacking Mormons, the evangelicals should be taking a lesson from them, not only in dogmatics, but particularly in pragmatics. 4
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2016 Author Posted October 9, 2016 28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The late Stephen H. Webb (a non-Mormon scholar) did a couple of things to ameliorate all that before he died. On the one hand, he showed "that Mormonism provides the most challenging, urgent, and potentially rewarding source for metaphysical renewal today" within mainstream Christianity -- in his book Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford, 2011). However, he also provided some excellent practical pointers in his Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn From the Latter-day Saints (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013). Which is to say that Methodists, Presbyterians, and other denominations could learn a lot from examining the practical ways in which Mormons create a more successful, missionary-oriented community which continues to grow and prosper. Those old-line denominations once performed at a much higher level, with robust missionary-work, Sunday School, etc., but are now diminishing in every area. Billy Graham is 97 and not yet in his grave, while the Christian world he knew so well is quickly disappearing. Instead of attacking Mormons, the evangelicals should be taking a lesson from them, not only in dogmatics, but particularly in pragmatics. I met Steve at the last Fairmormon conference he attended and did a little correspondence with him. He was truly an amazing person, and his death for me was a personal tragedy. He could not believe that there could be such a thing as a Kantian Mormon and we had some discussions about DCP's essay on secularism presented at that 2015 conference. And now he is gone. What a sad thing! 3
Five Solas Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It seems obvious that we are not saying the right words to reach them We should publish those questions with answers on every website we have. This kind of thing: This is what we are NOT saying for fear of "bashing". I still don't have a clue what you are talking about regarding the "premise" Okay, let me unpack it a little. No doubt there are plenty of self-identifying Christians who would be well served to pick up & read a copy of Lewis's Mere Christianity, to say nothing of spending more time in Scripture. I'd be happy for the LDS Church to dedicate its internet assets in the manner you suggest, because for all the time & cost that will incur--there won't be much to show come the end of the campaign. Why? Let me give you my hypothesis: Ignorance is a symptom of apathy. The people getting it wrong, the very people you see as candidates for Mormonism, they are the people who, for the most part, don't really care. They don't care about Christian theology, much less Lewis's apologetic work. They aren't involved in local churches that have a high view of God's revealed word in Scripture. And they certainly aren't spending their internet time searching out religious topics--which means they won't ever see all the fresh publishing you just proposed. Go ahead, prove my hypothesis wrong. I recommend you use Kickstarter to fund your, "Ancient Greeks Bad & Corrupting -- Contemporary LDS Good & Restorative" campaign. Let's find out whether your LDS leaders are cowards (living in "fear" someone might call their work "bashing"--your words) or whether they are just better stewards of church assets than you would be in their shoes. Heck, I'll throw in $50 just to have an answer to that one, mfbukowski. Post that Kickstarter link to this very thread! ;0) --Erik PS. I'm probably enjoying this more than I should...
cdowis Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Five Solas said: Go ahead, prove my hypothesis wrong. I hate to tell you.... no, I am lying, I am delighted to tell you that YOU have the burden to prove your own hypothesis. This is the logical flaw ==>> "Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true." https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html May I suggest that you brush up on logical fallacies when you participate in this forum. Otherwise you will be handed your head. Edited October 10, 2016 by cdowis 2
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 2 hours ago, cdowis said: I hate to tell you.... no, I am lying, I am delighted to tell you that YOU have the burden to prove your own hypothesis. This is the logical flaw ==>> "Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true." https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html May I suggest that you brush up on logical fallacies when you participate in this forum. Otherwise you will be handed your head. Yep. I like 5 Solas personally but that was a pretty poor argument
Five Solas Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 3 hours ago, cdowis said: I hate to tell you.... no, I am lying, I am delighted to tell you that YOU have the burden to prove your own hypothesis. This is the logical flaw ==>> "Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true." https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html May I suggest that you brush up on logical fallacies when you participate in this forum. Otherwise you will be handed your head. Oh, cdowis. I've been participating on this forum as Five Solas since 2013. And my head--it's still comfortably where it's always been. :0) Your hyperbole notwithstanding, time will tell whether my hypothesis is correct. There's a mass of self-identifying Christians waiting to jump ship to Mormonism, or there's not. Mfbukowski is about to give them the theological assist they need, or he's not. But there's one thing we can all be sure of--there's absolutely no need for you to get excited & try to rush things. I've clearly labeled my opinion as such and there's no further burden upon me. Have a good evening, --Erik ______________________________________________________ A groan of tedium escapes me, Startling the fearful. Is this a test? It has to be, Otherwise I can't go on. Draining patience, drained vitality. This paranoid, paralyzed vampire act's a little old. But I'm still right here Giving blood, keeping faith, And I'm still right here. --Tool "The Patient"
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 10 hours ago, Five Solas said: Oh, cdowis. I've been participating on this forum as Five Solas since 2013. And my head--it's still comfortably where it's always been. :0) Your hyperbole notwithstanding, time will tell whether my hypothesis is correct. There's a mass of self-identifying Christians waiting to jump ship to Mormonism, or there's not. Mfbukowski is about to give them the theological assist they need, or he's not. But there's one thing we can all be sure of--there's absolutely no need for you to get excited & try to rush things. I've clearly labeled my opinion as such and there's no further burden upon me. Have a good evening, --Erik ______________________________________________________ A groan of tedium escapes me, Startling the fearful. Is this a test? It has to be, Otherwise I can't go on. Draining patience, drained vitality. This paranoid, paralyzed vampire act's a little old. But I'm still right here Giving blood, keeping faith, And I'm still right here. --Tool "The Patient" Well unfortunately the first presidency has not yet seen fit to come begging at my door for advice, fallible beings that they are. I have tried to get them to give up the "lds dot org" website for my experiment or just sign the whole site over to me so that I could improve it, but alas I cannot make them see the wisdom in that, and barring being able to have that level of authority for my brilliant idea, I think the trial balloon will have to wait. But heck we could still have a discussion on why uninformed Evangelicals believe Mormon ideas or is it already too late to save this thread and turn it into a useful discussion?
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 16 hours ago, Five Solas said: Okay, let me unpack it a little. No doubt there are plenty of self-identifying Christians who would be well served to pick up & read a copy of Lewis's Mere Christianity, to say nothing of spending more time in Scripture. In an attempt to turn this into an actual discussion- is that the best source now for real Evangelical Theology? Are they advised to do that in church? I think the ambiguity of scripture is what got them into this mess in the first place. They seem to be reading scripture the way Mormons do! Imagine that!! I don't think that will help much.
stemelbow Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 Quote Why aren't we doing a better job of reaching these people who instinctively WANT to believe what we express as doctrine?? I'd agree with Five Solas in that people typically aren't interested enough to get all technical about the whys and hows of belief and religious affiliation. Plus, it's not as if this course of answering simple questions in an LDS way has made a huge impact on Evangelical-types who aren't into the details (it used to be said all we have to do is answer the three questions of where we come from? why we're here? and where we're going? and people will be jumping in the waters of baptism left and right). As soon as they hear something as simple as LDS practiced polygamy, and/or held dear racist doctrine for most of their existence, and/or Jesus and Satan are brothers...they'll run for the hills. Most of them anyway. But it doesn't hurt to try. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 On 10/8/2016 at 2:57 PM, mfbukowski said: I found it to be a most interesting article for a couple of reasons- number one is that it presumes there IS a "correct" Christian view, and the other is showing the conflicting beliefs "most Christians" have which are resolved in LDS beliefs. Whenever someone claims that particular teachings aren't Christian enough, or that specific theological views aren't orthodox, I think to myself that they are just ignorant of the history of Christianity. Its all a matter of perspective and timing. Many orthodoxies have had their day in the sun, and later generations have proclaimed them heretical. You just have to look at the history to see the scattered and ever changing theology of Christianity. There is no one true Christianity, people aren't a monolith, and there will always be different opinions and perspectives. Thats why I'm ok with just about any group, self identifying as Christian. Whatever the beliefs, they have a right to call themselves Christian. And other Christian groups have a right to call them not Christian. No worries, everyone can think what they want about these teachings.
CV75 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 On 10/8/2016 at 4:57 PM, mfbukowski said: Why aren't we doing a better job of reaching these people who instinctively WANT to believe what we express as doctrine?? The plan of salvation may be taken for granted. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/10/o-how-great-the-plan-of-our-god?lang=eng Regarding the plan of salvation, "Some of my friends would say that this message felt familiar, even though such things were never taught in their religious upbringing. It was as if they had always known these things to be true, as if I was simply casting light on something that was always and deeply rooted in their hearts." 1
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 1 hour ago, CV75 said: The plan of salvation may be taken for granted. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/10/o-how-great-the-plan-of-our-god?lang=eng Regarding the plan of salvation, "Some of my friends would say that this message felt familiar, even though such things were never taught in their religious upbringing. It was as if they had always known these things to be true, as if I was simply casting light on something that was always and deeply rooted in their hearts." Before I joined the church, even as a child I felt a certainty that I lived before I came to earth and that I would be with my family "in heaven" I think these views are pretty basic to humanity and may even be considered "properly basic" philosophically as the term is used by Alvin Plantinga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology Quote Although I don’t wish to exhaust those views here, I want to pay special attention to a given theory of knowledge fresh within circles found in the philosophy of religion known as Reformed Epistemology. This view (to offer a brief definition), simply says “that belief in God. . . does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational” [1]. According to Kelly James Clark, “Reformed Epistemology. . . is eminently defensible” [2]. This view has been held by philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, William P. Alston, Kelly James Clark, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and many others. http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/10/21/belief-in-god-as-properly-basic-an-explanation/
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: I'd agree with Five Solas in that people typically aren't interested enough to get all technical about the whys and hows of belief and religious affiliation. Plus, it's not as if this course of answering simple questions in an LDS way has made a huge impact on Evangelical-types who aren't into the details (it used to be said all we have to do is answer the three questions of where we come from? why we're here? and where we're going? and people will be jumping in the waters of baptism left and right). As soon as they hear something as simple as LDS practiced polygamy, and/or held dear racist doctrine for most of their existence, and/or Jesus and Satan are brothers...they'll run for the hills. Most of them anyway. But it doesn't hurt to try. We definitely have a PR problem with those beliefs, I agree.
Gray Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 On 10/8/2016 at 3:57 PM, mfbukowski said: Robert F. Smith posted a link on another thread to an article I found most interesting, written by an Evangelical theologian with the title http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/americans-evangelicals-misunderstand-basic-christian-doctrines-fail-theology?ref=yfp I found it to be a most interesting article for a couple of reasons- number one is that it presumes there IS a "correct" Christian view, and the other is showing the conflicting beliefs "most Christians" have which are resolved in LDS beliefs. I am starting this thread so as not to derail the other thread, on the baptismal questions One could easily deduce that yes, there IS a "correct" Christian view- and it is found in LDS beliefs!! They only "fail" Evangelical theology but not true Christian theology, which they get perfectly right based on what is naturally inside them- the light of Christ! The first alleged confusion is around whether or not Christ is "created" and his dichotomy supposedly in his "dual nature". It appears that uninformed Evangelicals, people who are untutored in Evangelical theology, yet professing Christians, adopt something like the LDS view, that these alleged dichotomies are not real. They seem to know instinctively that these are incorrect doctrines which we hold to be apostate, even though they do not have the theology to be able to point them out as errors. These Evangelicals also, the article says, seem to instinctively know that the Bible is NOT inerrant, yet believe that God cannot err. This sounds quite like the LDS notion that the Bible is true insofar as it is translated (and transmitted) correctly.The same folks believe on one hand that one must "accept Jesus" and yet also claim that all will eventually be in "heaven". Those are essentially simple statements of our beliefs that all will eventually, if even after death, have a chance to understand the true gospel and that eventually "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" that Jesus is the Christ. Regarding the Holy Ghost which we easily resolve with the understanding that He is a Spirit Being- personal, yet spiritually able to influence all, as a spirit. Again, the uninformed Evangelical gets it right on the money- yes Jesus is the only way to salvation AND families can be together forever, because all will eventually hear the gospel we preach and accept it!! The dismayed author tells us Not at all!! The alleged conflicts can be seen conflicts in what we might see as apostate Evangelical doctrine which those untutored in theology know instinctively by the spirit, but simply lack the theological jargon to express or discuss what the conflicts are! I don't blame Evangelical doctrine for these confusions either- as I have said many times here, Christianity as a whole has inherited a history of conflicting propositions from trying to harmonized the Bible with pagan Greek philosophy, causing what LDS doctrine terms "the Apostasy" Uninformed Evangelicals just instinctively gravitate toward other truths, which I believe we have expressed in the LDS church, more clearly than Evangelical theology is capable of doing. One cannot rid oneself of the errors of Greek philosophy while still embracing them. In my opinion, the rest of Christianity is in an intellectually untenable position due to these central conflicts. Why aren't we doing a better job of reaching these people who instinctively WANT to believe what we express as doctrine?? The trinity is not a concept that I think feels natural to anyone. I think people kind of naturally drift to other somewhat similar but easier to grasp ideas like Arianism and modalism that were popular before the trinity became the standard. If you read the synoptic gospels, you won't come away with anything resembling a trinitarian view. I do think the early Christian adoptionist view of how Christ became God at the point of resurrection, baptism or virgin birth are at least closer to what Mormonism teaches. But it's not identical either. Our view of Christ is kind of a halfway point between an adoption and incarnation view of Jesus' divinity - like an attempt to harmonize Mark with John, with some echoes of early Hebrew polytheism as well. The trinity, though, is way out in left field, from a scriptural perspective. But then again, to contradict myself, on a certain level there isn't a lot of difference between the Mormon Godhead and the Christian Trinity. The differences are more about the origins of God and Jesus.
TOmNossor Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) Mfbukowski and Five Solas and ALL, Hello! I want to respond to a simplistic summary: MFB: Numerous Christians believe LDS theology in the main and only need it presented clearly to recognize where and how they could grow towards Christ. FS: No, the problem with Evangelical Christians who do not hold to the “orthodox” Christian view is that they are not committed Christians seeking truth. Thus, the presentation of LDS views is not likely to move them. As a BIASED LDS, I lean towards defending MFB’s position, but before I start let me acknowledge that there is GREAT deal of apathetic believers in the ranks of both our churches. LDS typically call them “inactive” and sometimes they are more than just inactive, but intentionally separated from our church. LDS also have many folks who attend, are passionately involved with Christ and His church, and yet have little use for theological definitions. Non-LDS Christians have these groups too. That being said, there are passionate Christians that when presented with the philosophical underpinnings or the Trinity baulk. I will offer three things: #1 Nobody prays to the immaterial being of orthodox Christianity. Many who had loving fathers think of God as a more perfect, more glorified father figure better than our own father. Many who had abusive or absent fathers think of God as the divine answer to what we didn’t get. As a youth and young adult I envisioned God as a kind man dressed like a kind Catholic priest of whom I have no specific memories. I would suggest it is almost impossible to pray to the immaterial force that rules the universe. #2 Almost nobody believes in the Trinity. Here is what Dr. Bryan Cross says (bolding mine): Quote I agree completely. Three human persons are united by unity of type and/or by functional unity (e.g. team), or organic unity (e.g. a lineage), or by hierarchical unity (e.g. a family), or in an even greater way in the Mystical Body (which includes all the unities I just mentioned). But the three divine persons are numerically the same being and essence. This is a unity that we cannot even comprehend. It is not only a unity than which none greater can be conceived; this unity itself cannot even be conceived. We grasp things intellectually by dividing them (into genus and species). So a Being that cannot be divided even formally is unintelligible to us. Before we seek to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, we first have to recognize the incomprehensible unity within which the Son and Spirit process. . It is impossible to actively embrace something that is “unintelligible to us,” and most Christians RUN from the idea that the Trinity is an “incomprehensible unity,” specifically because they know they do not believe in such. #3 Nobody prays and few believe in an impassible God. Here is what Catholic Father Thomas Weinandy says: Quote From the dawn of the Patristic period Christian theology has held as axiomatic that God is impassible—that is, He does not undergo emotional changes of state, and so cannot suffer. Toward the end of the nineteenth century a sea change began to occur within Christian theology such that at present many, if not most, Christian theologians hold as axiomatic that God is passible, that He does undergo emotional changes of states, and so can suffer. … What has brought about such a radical reconception of God? How, in only one hundred years, has the Christian theological tradition of almost two thousand years, so readily and so assuredly, seemingly been overturned? … How can God be an immutable, impassible, idle, and indifferent bystander in the midst of such unspeakable suffering? If God is a loving and compassionate God, as He surely is, He must not only be aware of human suffering, but He must also Himself be an “active” victim of such suffering. He, too, must suffer. … This contemporary experience of human suffering, which seemed to demand a passible God, found a ready ally and firm warrant, it appeared, within the biblical revelation of God. The Old Testament seems to give ample proof that He not only is passible but that He also indeed suffers. … Why, then, did what now seems so obviously true only become evident after nearly two thousand years of Christian theology? According to many contemporary theologians, Greek philosophical thought, especially Platonism, had hijacked biblical revelation. The static, inert, self-sufficient, immutable, and impassible God of Platonic thought usurped, via Philo and the early Church Fathers, the living, personal, active, loving, and so passible God of the Bible. This philosophical and theological deformity, having entered into the very genetic make-up of the Christian gospel, bred its mature distorted offspring within Scholasticism, especially in the writings of Aquinas. … This quote is from Weinandy’s Does God Suffer. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/11/does-god-suffer Weinandy will go on to defend the scholastic God of Aquinas and his points are not without merit. I bought his book of the same name to see if I could be remotely persuaded, but BIASED as I am I was not. To me his strongest point was that the first 4-7 councils utilized this impassible understanding of God to define the Trinity and if you embrace the Trinity then …, of course I do not embrace the philosophical Trinity. Weinandy, Dr. Paul L. Gavrilyuk and others believe God is impassible. Many scholars do not. And virtually all the folks who pray to God do not pray as if God is so unchangeable that we cannot freely choose to pray and CHANGE Him through our reaching out in love and hope and pain and fear and …. The two natures of Christ was defined as it was because clearly the human Christ hungered and … and such is not possible for the impassible God. So, often when I dialogue with intelligent folks on the Internet, they CLAIM to not believe the above three things. They seldom deny #1, but often deny parts of #2 and almost always deny #3. That being said, when I meet folks in real life who love God so much we talk about it, they speak of God as a loving Father who is relationship with Son and Holy Spirit and with them. This is not the God defined in the first 7 councils. In real life I try to lift them up in their beliefs and seldom if ever invite them to reject the foundations of their beliefs. Anyway, apathy is a big problem. We worship sex, power, intellect, … Just 200-300 years ago if you did not believe in God you were considered crazy. Today, you are celebrated as “bright” or “liberated” or “recovered.” If you believe AND let your belief inform virtually every aspect of your life, you are viewed as a little crazy. The forces for apathy and non-belief are strong. Many folks who understand that God is an impassible, impersonal, incomprehensible, immaterial being do not hold tightly enough to God to weather this force. Thus, many of the “informed” are apathetic, and many of the passionate are uninformed. Charity, TOm Edited October 11, 2016 by TOmNossor 4
Recommended Posts