Christian/Mormon Debate On What Authority We Should Believe

[Anakin7]

I apologize in advance if this is not allowed on this board/thread and is against the rules here. Recently there was a debate [March 4, 2020] between 2 evangelical calvinistic chrisitians - Daniel Constantine, Oscar Dunlap of Apologia Church in Utah which has recently been planted to help LDS find and accept the real Jesus and Gospel and the other side - LDS -  Defended by Jason Hansen and Hayden Carroll. The subject - On What Authority Should We Believe. The Moderator was James White of Alpha and Omega ministries and no friend of LDS Doctrine/Teaching/Thought/Practice.   Please share your thoughts. Thank you. 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

Sorry for the triple post.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Anakin7

[Navidad]

I looked at their website. They do seem to follow the old Reformed Baptist Statement of Faith from the 17th century. That probably makes them at least partial Calvinists, although I doubt they accept Calvinism in its entirety. The Whitmers probably also accepted this Reformed Baptist Statement of Faith prior to becoming members of the new LDS Church. What that means is that they may be against Arminian expressions of the Christian faith as much as they are against the LDS faith. I am an Evangelical and am much more Arminian than Calvinistic. As are Methodists and many others. From their website only I would respectfully suggest they are probably more Fundamentalist than Evangelical. There is a significant difference. They seem to also be non-denominational, meaning they are accountable to no human authority outside of their own. They may be an offshoot of a similarly named church in the Mesa area that has been there for many years. I haven't watched the video yet. I look forward to that. I would, simply as always, counsel against a broad sweeping use of the term Evangelical (capital E) and not differentiating between Fundamentalist and Evangelical non-LDS Christians. Plus I don't understand the portion of the title of the thread that states this is a Christian/Mormon debate. That, to me (as an Evangelical) is a distinction without a difference.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Navidad

[Anakin7]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I haven't watched the debate yet, but have two questions about the title of your thread . . . . How can there be a "Christian/Mormon" debate? Are the members of the COJCOLDS debating among themselves? I don't know the origination of your position, but are you suggesting that members of the LDS Church are not Christians? I have never heard a member of the LDS Church directly imply to me that he or she thought that he or she was not a Christian? In fact, most seem offended by that very suggestion. I am certainly not in agreement that members of the LDS church are not Christians.

Secondly, what does it mean to you to describe someone as "evangelical calvinistic christians?" That is a mouthful. What are the specifics of their beliefs that you deem them as such? Thanks. I look forward to listening to the video later.

This debate was between 2 worlds of Christian worldviews, The world of reformed Christian [Jean Calvin] and that of the world of mainstream Latter Day Saint Christian beliefs.

[Navidad]

The seminary connected with the group/moderator apparently is not accredited. The church belongs to no denomination. The moderator starts out the debate by identifying the two opposing groups as "LDS" and "Protestant." That makes much more sense to me than indicating it is a debate between Christians and Mormons. We just need to keep in mind that there are many non-LDS, non-Catholic Christian groups who do not identify as "Protestant." The debate seems to be in the moderator's church so obviously he/they identify as "Protestant." Oh, and you replied to a response that I had already edited. There certainly are many varieties of Calvinism and Reformed Theology within the non-LDS Christian world.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Navidad

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

...................... On What Authority Should We Believe.........................

The answer is simple:  Whichever authority you feel comfortable with.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

This debate was between 2 worlds of Christian worldviews, The world of reformed Christian [Jean Calvin] and that of the world of mainstream Latter Day Saint Christian beliefs.

I like that designation. I would simply suggest that many of those in the Reformed Christian tradition are Fundamentalists, not Evangelicals. There is no way to know for sure without talking to them personally - even then it is hard because many Fundamentalists prefer to be known as Evangelicals. It isn't simple. I can also take a two hour drive from my house and be within at least four different "Mormon" communities. Each of which identify a bit differently from the other - so Mormonism is certainly no monolithic whole. Hence President Nelson's dislike of the use of the word Mormon. I am glad the moderator used the term LDS instead of Mormon to identify the one side. To cover all the possibilities,  I latched on to our own RevTestament's designation of LDS and non-LDS Christians. That covers a lot of territory!

[mfbukowski]

And yet again we see a good reason to totally drop the "Mormon" moniker. I wish it had never been acceptable 

Just another anti-mormon group you can find on every street corner; all the sub-categories are pretty indistinguishable in practice, at least to me, there are so many nuances.

It's a shame that Christianity is so fragmented, when it's supposed to be one.

To me, that alone is evidence of apostasy.

The biggest question to me, is why accept the bible alone, at all.

"Because the bible say we should" is the typical answer.

Clearly circular.

That is an argument no one should accept!

"Listen to Bukowski! He is the only true prophet!"

"How do you know?"

"Because he says so!"

That's Ridiculous! God must have a way to communicate what is scripture or not.

And that is testimony.

Either you have the ears to hear or not.

Debatable? 

Of course!  But this is a "hearing test"!

How else can you have your hearing tested?

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I like that designation. I would simply suggest that many of those in the Reformed Christian tradition are Fundamentalists, not Evangelicals. There is no way to know for sure without talking to them personally - even then it is hard because many Fundamentalists prefer to be known as Evangelicals. It isn't simple. I can also take a two hour drive from my house and be within at least four different "Mormon" communities. Each of which identify a bit differently from the other - so Mormonism is certainly no monolithic whole. Hence President Nelson's dislike of the use of the word Mormon. I am glad the moderator used the term LDS instead of Mormon to identify the one side. To cover all the possibilities,  I latched on to our own RevTestament's designation of LDS and non-LDS Christians. That covers a lot of territory!

It's a quirk of where you live, I think.

When facing freedom from persecution they all went south, but not too far!

[MiserereNobis]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet again we see a good reason to totally drop the "Mormon" moniker. I wish it had never been acceptable 

Just another anti-mormon group you can find on every street corner; all the sub-categories are pretty indistinguishable to me. It's a shame that Christianity is so fragmented, when it's supposed to be one.

To me, that alone is evidence of apostasy.

 

Yep, Martin Luther really screwed things up  

Actually, I thank him for being the impetus for counter-reformation and the Council of Trent, which did fix some issues and left the Catholic Church stronger. 

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet again we see a good reason to totally drop the "Mormon" moniker. I wish it had never been acceptable 

Just another anti-mormon group you can find on every street corner; all the sub-categories are pretty indistinguishable to me. It's a shame that Christianity is so fragmented, when it's supposed to be one.

To me, that alone is evidence of apostasy.

 

Sort of like LDS splinter groups right? Evidence of apostasy......😉

 

 

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sort of like LDS splinter groups right? Evidence of apostasy......😉

 

 

It's not nice to call them apostates...but yeah. 

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

It's not nice to call them apostates...but yeah. 

Apostate is in the eye of the beholder.

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sort of like LDS splinter groups right? Evidence of apostasy......😉

 

 

We don't deny there were apostates, most Christians deny there ever WAS an apostasy 

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Apostate is in the eye of the beholder.

Of course, unless you argue there never was one.

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Apostate is in the eye of the beholder.

All the splinter groups can't exist without apostacy somewhere.

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yep, Martin Luther really screwed things up  

Actually, I thank him for being the impetus for counter-reformation and the Council of Trent, which did fix some issues and left the Catholic Church stronger. 

Well, good. Yes there were "issues" before dear Martin as well.

We can leave it at that.  🙄😉

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We don't deny there were apostates, most Christians deny there ever WAS an apostasy 

Better said-you pointed out that since there are so many Christian sects it is a sign of apostasy.  I pointed out the LDS tradition has the same problem.  Who knows if any of them are right?  Or which one really is?  Might not be the Brighamites.  🤔

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

All the splinter groups can't exist without apostacy somewhere.

Yes and your might be in apostasy as well.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Better said-you pointed out that since there are so many Christian sects it is a sign of apostasy.  I pointed out the LDS tradition has the same problem.  Who knows if any of them are right?  Or which one really is?  Might not be the Brighamites.  🤔

I guarantee none are exactly right, of course not

How could God possibly explain how it all works to little pea brain maggot humans ?

All this hassling about "truth" is like trying to teach Quantum mechanics to your dog.  How much can he comprehend?

When we get it right, all he has to train us with is a sweet feeling in our hearts, and we know. And yes as I said, even that is debatable.

All I can tell you is that I KNOW there is an Intelligence out there who knows and loves me.

The rest is human logic confirmed the same way.  Works fine for me- those feelings are strong enough to be undeniable.

So make your religion.  I did.

Then I found this.

Perfect correspondence.

I would have invented Mormonism if it didn't already exist 

Edited March 14, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yep, Martin Luther really screwed things up  

Actually, I thank him for being the impetus for counter-reformation and the Council of Trent, which did fix some issues and left the Catholic Church stronger. 

Let's make it clear. Martin Luther wasn't the impetus for the counter-reformation and the Council of Trent. It was the Anabaptists, who Luther basically despised! Now that I've straightened that out . . . . . . ! Ha!

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We don't deny there were apostates, most Christians deny there ever WAS an apostasy 

I wouldn't agree with that! Surprised? Would you accept a friendly amendment? I would say that most Christians deny there ever WAS a total apostasy a la Talmage. Of course, many LDS folks have softened that to a great apostasy to a partial apostasy with plenty of opportunity for the Holy Spirit to have worked prior to the founding of the LDS church. Read the church's own current webpage on Wilford Woodruff's spiritual mentor, Robert Mason.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

Well I just spent 2.5 hours watching the whole video. Unfortunately it devolved into a debate about strict Calvinistic and LDS beliefs. As an Evangelical I found myself much more aligned with the conduct and responses of the two LDS guys, even though they went after the other guys' Calvinism and supposed creedalism more than anything else. The one young man on the Calvinist side really turned me off. Arrogance personified. I also did not appreciate the moderator's rolling of the eyes at some of the LDS responses. It was like both sides read a book on how to defeat the other, with very little true understanding of the weaknesses and strengths of the other's positions. If the LDS guys understood the differences and distinctions between many non-LDS Christians and non-LDS Calvinist Christians (especially non-reformed Evangelicals), they could have had a field day, as might an Arminian Christian with a Calvinist Christian. However, both sides stuck to a "playbook" without enough plays in it.

I didn't learn much from watching it except to be disappointed and frustrated with how many stereotypes, othering, generalizations, and normalizing goes on in conversations between LDS and non-LDS Christians. We talk past each other because of our mutual certainty. I am much more a believer in provisional certitude as postulated by Yale's theologian Miroslav Volf, Eastern University's theologian Peter Enns, and others. A two-hour debate with no knock out victories because both sides were attacking straw men who almost always bounce back!

Edited March 14, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's a quirk of where you live, I think.

When facing freedom from persecution they all went south, but not too far!

Yeh, some even went south of you to National City and Ensenada - two centers of differing Church of the Firstborn groups - of the Fullness of Times and of the Lamb of God!

[InCognitus]

30 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I didn't learn much from watching it except to be disappointed and frustrated with how many stereotypes, othering, generalizations, and normalizing goes on in conversations between LDS and non-LDS Christians. We talk past each other because of our mutual certainty. I am much more a believer in provisional certitude as postulated by Yale's Miroslav Volf, Eastern University's Peter Enns, and others. A two-hour debate with no knock out victories because both sides were attacking straw men who almost always bounce back!

I only had the time to listen to a little more than half of it while I was on a walk today so far (I was listening at 1.5 playback speed, which made it a lot easier to digest), and I hope to be able to listen to more of it later on.  I agree with you.  But now I need to go back and watch part of it so that I can see the eye rolling and body language.  That will make it more entertaining. 

I didn't care for the caricature of Calvinism that was used and attacked by the two LDS guys when they started out (they could have handled that differently), but as it progressed I could see they were using that to establish the circular reasoning built in to their opponents position, and that really needed to be pointed out.  But they could have done that without spending so much time on Calvinism.  And the sola-scriptura point of view was clearly inconsistent and filled with circular reasoning (i.e. they accepted that true knowledge of the scriptures comes from the Spirit [a non-scriptural source], and they attempted to utilize non-scriptural references from the early Christian Fathers to establish a sola-scriptura point of view, and even that the canon of scripture can only be known by tradition).  

There were some other glaring problems in some of the things said by the pro sola-scriptura people that I hope will be addressed by the LDS guys when I listen to the rest of it (i.e. they kept referring to Jesus quoting scripture to establish the authority of scripture, but in the context of some of the passages they reference, Satan also quoted the scriptures and so did the scribes..... the difference is that Jesus "taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes", which of course is not sola-scriptura).  

But in the end, public debates are always unsatisfying.  Nobody can address all of the questions and problems in that format.  I much prefer written debates.

Edited March 14, 2022 by InCognitus