a deep, philosophical question

========================================

Russell:


What a coincidence! It happens that I and my wife and our sons and our dogs were planning a November getaway to, guess where, *Burlington* in the old '78 RV. And now we have this gracious invitation to visit you. We were just wondering, too, where we would stay. How confirming this is of predestination (Rom 8;28-30).

Just think Russell throughout the daylight hours for those two weeks ,while you polish your statues, I will read to you from Calvin's Institutes. And then on Sundays I can guest in your pulpit and try to uproot through expositing Eph 1:1-11 those tangled vines your aberrations have planted . How cool!!!

Thanks for the invitation!!!!

==========================================

==========================================

 

Re: Can you say Faux Paus

Steven,

No offense taken. It is an edifying experience for me to observe the interaction among those of differing faiths and to see how different orientations look at philosophical/theological issues. Since none of my degrees are in religious studies (although I have about 40 units of college coursework in the subject), it is fascinating to hear the insights of those trained in the fields of ministry, systematic theology, etc.

I do realize that there are specific groups within the protestant orientation that believe that the term "Christian" is rightfully applied only to them. I also realize that these groups decree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints be classified as, somehow, non-Christian.

I, of course, respectfully disagree.

Tony

B.A., M.Ed. Brigham Young U. (Surprise!)
Post Grad Study Arizona State U.
Ed.D. Candidate La Sierra U.

 

The original thesis of this thread was God's judgement of those who don't "join".

But more generally, this discussion group contains a growing number of posts about theological topics. How can the rest of us participate in these discussions unless we "join" in some sense? If not by literally believing the doctrines, at least by treating them as axiomatic for the purpose of discussion?

It seems to me that there are three alternatives:

1. God doesn't speak through any. Perhaps God is something entirely "other" and the word 'speak' is inappropriate. Perhaps he simply hasn't spoken yet. Perhaps he has spoken but nobody has heard him correctly. Or perhaps he doesn't even exist in the first place.

2. He speaks through one, or through a small set of traditiions that are consistent in relevant ways.

3. He speaks through all of man's religions, perhaps through their being symbolic systems that embody man's highest hopes, values and intuitions. This would need some theory that can make sense of the apparent contradictions: metaphorical truth or multiple truth, pragmatic theologies, non-cognitive revelations, "negative" theologies etc.

My issue revolves around this: If we are going to use option number two as a basis of religion discussion, both in this thread and generally, what is it that trims all the possible alternatives down to just one, in which religious truth is embodied in a particular set of scriptures?

How can man be judged deficient for not accepting what he wasn't given? If man's belief is dependent on God's grace, then God picks who will believe in Christian revelation when he dispenses his grace. I seem to have been relieved of all responsibility in these matters.

I agree that is probably right. (Although I suspect that we have very different reasons.) But if man is too fallible, then how does revelation help? How can man even recognize what is and isn't revelation in the first place?

Either God makes that choice for us, or we make it. On one hand, we have problems with responsibility and with final judgement. On the other hand we have problems with how the choice can be made at all.

Either way, I think that this suggests that the good atheist is probably not going to hell.

I think that it also suggests that to discuss religion entirely in terms of one tradition's scriptures is to narrow the subject unnecessarily.

 

Re: Re: Can you say Faux Paus

=======================================

"Decree it", oh I like your words Tony. We may have much in common!

Perhaps you know that the word "Christian(s)" occurs only three times in the Bible. By way of comparison, "saints" is found nearly a hundred times. Consequently, it would seem that by the name "Latter-Day Saints" your group is to envied by virtue of the many Scriptural usages of a portion of that name, whereas my group (the Christian Church- actually I'm a little eclectic theologically) might have chosen better. Perhaps it is up to us to show ourselves as saints rather than up to "the Saints" to verify themselves as "Christian." It wouldn't surprise me at all to find you and I closer in theology than I am with, say, John Cobb. We know our theological differences, Tony, yet can agree to disagree and like you I am happy that at least on degree info we all can get along quite well. Perhaps the "spirit" here demonstrated could have prevented ,were it then applied, the slaughter of "God's people" by "God's people" which too frequently has stained red the pages of Church history

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If this again is addressed at me, I have no idea why you accuse me of this. But even if that is a true remark about me, again, no one must respond.

 

Can you say Faux Paus

Tony,
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue in this forum. The general feeling about Mormon's being "non-Christian" goes this way...

If it can be established that Mormons inherently follow a different Jesus, than let's say the understanding of Jesus established in the evangelical, Protestant orientation, then they are not considered Christian. Where "Christian" is defined simply as those who follow Christ. (Aside from the fact that Christian was originally meant as a term of derision, aimed at those who were in "The Way". As a former pastor, I can assure you that many are still in the way :].) Most in my camp theologically would say a presentation of Jesus as going to the America's after his Resurrection for the purpose of proselytizing is not consistent with our Bible, and consequently not consistent with who we view as the Christ. Hence, Mormons can not be Christian.

I do realize, however, we are starting from two distinct viewpoints and the purpose of this post is not an attempt to "sway" you to my theological bent. Incidently, for my Comparative Religions course during undergraduate studies, I interviewed a Mormon friend and composed a small dity which I titled, Mormonism From a Mormon Perspective. While I do not expect Baker, Zondervan, or Lifeway to be calling any time soon for my paper - I enjoyed the opportunity to look into my presumptions about Mormonism. When I interviewed this person, we clearly established up front that conversion, or cross-conversion :] , was not the intention - just dialogue.
It was peaceful and refreshing - but I'm sure she left more committed to Mormonism and I left, well, more committed to being non-Mormon. :]

I would never disenfranchise someone for a differenet viewpoint theologically. That is what makes our country so great - you are free to believe as you choose, as I am. To insure my religious freedom, I have to militantly vie for yours - else eventually both could ultimately be called into question.

In the spirit of dialogue,
Steven King

 

Re: Re: Re: Can you say Faux Paus

Bill,

Let me just give a hearty "amen" to your words--I do not believe that I could have expressed this sentiment better. I am certainly not qualified to expound on Cobb or process theology, but his is certainly a different system of belief than mine.

Although the LDS concept of an open canon and of modern-day prophets and apostles does tend to make us a lightning rod, I am confident that I would not be at all surprised to find much in common with you as well. Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary and Stephen Robinson of BYU found themselves in this same situation when they co-authored the book "How Wide the Divide?"

It was my interest in distance learning that brought me to Degreeinfo (and that interest has been rewarded abundantly); however, it is a treat to be able to engage in these exchanges as well.

Tony

 

Re: Can you say Faux Paus

To me at least, the world seems to contain a great many different kinds of Christians. If you look back in history, there are still more variants.

Jewish Christians, gnostic Christians, Montanists, Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, monks, emperors, Christian neoplatonists, Orthodox venerating icons, Franciscans, inquisitors, crusaders, quietists, mystics, evangelists, conquistadors, friars, Hussites, Anglicans, unitarians, charismatics, a multitude of syncretistic groups, Christian existentialists, stigmatics, puritans, martyrs, liberal Biblical critics, medieval scholastic philosophers, radical reformers, liberation theologians, Christian Marxists, death-of-God theologians, Christian scientists (in both the laboratory and Mary Baker Eddy senses), Swedenborgians, spiritualists, nominal secular Christians...

Christianity seems to me to be a rope of many strands. It has apparently been like that since very soon after its inception. What makes all the indvidual threads 'Christian' in some minimal sense is not so much their adherence to a body of orthodox doctrine (almost any tenet of which is denied by someone), but their family resemblance to each other, their historical origins and their self-identification as one of those whose inspiration comes from Christ.

But along with this broad view of the tradition is a narrow view that seeks to restrict the word to those who are properly born-again, who proclaim an orthodox doctrine and so on.

The point of this little essay is that Latter Day Saints obviously (to me at least) qualify as Christian by the broad definition, even if they may fall short of somebody's narrow definition.

This once again raises the vexed issue of how revelation can be recognized as legitimate.

Evangelicals have their Bible which to them is the ultimate and infallible basis of Christian faith. The Mormons have further revealed scriptures in addition to those the evangelicals recognize.

That kind of reminds me of Christianity's relation to Judaism. Of course, Christianity and Judaism are seen today as being separate religions. But Christ preached a Jewish message within Judaism, and the earliest Christians seem to have expected Christ's message to transform Judaism itself into a new last-days shape. It was only as the decades passed and the Jews were slow to get on board the bus, that Christianity gradually started to see itself as a separate new Judaism.

So perhaps Christian opposition might break the bond of shared tradition and make the LDS church into a new religion someday, one that bears a similar relationship to Christianity that Christianity bears to its parent. Instead of the LDS being merely one of the strands in the Christian rope, the rope would have a Y-branch in it, dividing into two distinct cords going their own separate ways.

 

Bill D.

Good ideas showing depth.

 

Interesting point. "Jews were slow to get on the bus." Very true. I'd love to be able to say that Jews knew better, but I suspect it has more to do with the brutality visited upon Jews by their allegedly Christian neighbors over the years.

Not just my opinion; Martin Luther said so too.

Nosborne, JD

 

Re: Re: Can you say Faux Paus

Yes, admittedly narrow...I guess. How can one ascribe to a particular faith and not of necessity be selective? Pluralism seems to me the antithesis of commitment.

Without belaboring the point, I believe this begs the definition of faith, once again. Christians will vehemently defend the notion that faith is substantive due to the fact that faith is placed in God...taking God at his Word...and accepting God on his terms. Is it a fallible approach? Of course it is. How can a faith-based relationship ever be described as infallible?

While I understand your point, I fundamentally disagree. Christianity is a sect which sprang from Judaism. We serve a Jewish Messiah, who claims to be the only Son of a God who selected the Jewish people as his chosen people. Jesus did not walk the role that proper Judaism expected of the Messiah--- swooping in and ending Roman oppression with a battlecry to establish the Jews in their desired state of authority. Since he walked the pathway of the "suffering servant," he was deemed weak - and since he blatantly reacted against the religious norms of his day he was branded a blaspheming heretic. When he alienated the ruling parties of the day his death was assured.

I have come to appreciate the utter "Jewishness" of Christianity. For instance, I have seriously contemplated enrolling in Spertus'[http://www.spertus.edu] MA in Jewish Studies program for this very reason - I have a compelling interest to understand better the Jewish implications upon Christianity. Far too much bad interpretation of the New Testament is developed because its ideology is incorrectly divorced from its Jewish heritage. Brad Young's Jesus the Jewish Theologian, Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Jesus, and Marvin Wilson's Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith have been extremely instrumental in my desire to dig deeper into this reality.

Unlike Judaism, I believe the inherent theology of Mormonism is very different from Christianty, hence its incompatability. [The differences between Judaism and Christianity, at least theologically come more in performance, than in form. That is to say I believe Jews will one day see their Messiah...but he'll have nailprints in his hands.] For instance, Mormonism and Christianity can not both be right about the final state of man. That is probably where I'd have the greatest difficulty accepting Mormonism as a Y-branch within Christianity.

With that said, I am very tolerant of other religions. I could easily sit with a Mormon, Muslim, or a Mystic and enjoy a hot bagel and cup of coffee. We could discuss politics or religion, and while I might ardently disagree...I would always have a smile on my face.

Kindly,
Steven King

 

I beg (politely) to differ concerning the Jewish Massiah. He doesn't actually look anything like the Christian Jesus in that he is decidedly NOT divine.

If Christians are right, then Jews really are flat wrong. I am not merely an incomplete Christian.

Nosborne, JD

 

============================

Nosborne

Sorry that this thread has been offensive to your faith. I don't like that! While I joke with Russell about our differences, these are just that-friendly joking. I have privately contacted Russell to make sure he's not offended and that he knew I was not sincere in my jests. I don't really think this forum is the place for a serious discussion of religion, but perhaps I'm wrong!

=================================

 

Oh, NO NO NO! PLEASE don't think I have ever been offended by ANYTHING posted on this site.

All contributers have been at LEAST as sensitive to me as I have been to you all, often MORE so.

I read these posts and make my comments because your conversations are interesting and well thought out; there are no fools among you.

I am really quite concerned about this. It is most important to me that you do not think that I am ever offended.

Nosborne, JD
(Who promises to be more careful in the future)

 

=====================================

Hmmm.......since you are so generous, there are a few legal matters I need advice on (hee, hee)!

========================================

 

Re: Re: Re: Can you say Faux Paus

I'm not sure how to respond to this, since it is a problem that I'm currently struggling with.

Personally, I am very much a religious pluralist. I see no reason at all to think that *any* of the religious traditions have any special privileged pipeline to the divine. But all of them do contain great beauty and profundity. I can't honestly dismiss any of them. But equally, I can't accept any of them in their entirety either.

That would be fine if it weren't for the problem of commitment. In order to follow a path, one must commit to it in some sense. I'm still trying to understand what that means.

In order to be committed, must one believe in the utter infallible truth of all of a religion's doctrines? Or, given that each broader tradition contains a number of contradictory interpretations, must one believe in one of the narrower sectarian strands within it? Some Christians, particularly evangelicals/fundamentalists, seem to suggest that.

Or can one commit not to a religion's absolute truth, but merely to the possibility of that tradition being true in some undefined sense? This seems to me to be more realistic, since it deals better with man's inherent fallibility and finiteness.

Some religions are matters of practice more than of belief anyway. So in these cases, commitment may be more a matter of taking practical precepts, or put another way, of following a sort of lay rule.

That in turn may lead to a change of perspective that allows one to modify his or her beliefs in some subtle way. I'm imaging a path of continual self-modification, including both behavioral practice and intellectual/spiritual tuning.

This could lead to the reinterpretation of many theological truths from ontological to pragmatic form.

I'm doing my damndest to try to figure out what faith is.

'Faith' comes from the Latin 'fidere' (to trust). It seems like it can be interpreted as 'commitment'. But if it means actual cognitive belief without sufficient evidence, I have serious reservations. The danger of self-deception is simply too great.

This is why the idea of commitment to a practice appeals to me.

For those of us that don't accept that the Bible is the word of God, that raises obvious questions. That's why I pursued DCross' question about how one could possibly know this.

 

I thought President Reagan called it that?




Tom Nixon

 

Nosborne,
I would like to echo Bill's sentiment that I hope I am not being offensive. I understand that the inherent Jewish belief is that the Messiah will be of the line of David (a man - not a god), and will be an instrument of God to restore God's Kingdom on planet earth. I simply meant that one day, I believe that Jews will understand that Jesus fulfilled this role - although God and man.

I did not mean to imply that I believed Jews were incomplete Christians. I guess I just question where Jews are looking for their Messiah, :] .

In the spirit of brotherly love,
Steven King

 

Faith vs. Reason

Originally posted by BillDayson

It seems to me that the first step navigated is whether or not one believes in God, at all. Once working through the common issues surrounding the existence of God - then an interested party must determine how they can "know" God in any sense. No admittedly, this is where things get blurry from a purely academic standard.
Christians believe that God reveals himself to us through his acts in history, the creation of the universe, the certainty of man's conscious ability---but primarily reveals himself through his Word. [General vs. Special Revelation]
If I deduce that God exists - is it feasible he could produce a special revelation to communicate to me? Yes, I believe it's feasible - and belief plays an enormous role here. I must place faith in God and choose to believe, exclusive from other religions, that the Bible is the method he chose. That's where the necessary divergence comes - and while discussion about other religions is profitable from an apologetic standpoint - the Christian must return to this necessary initial tenet.
Skeptics will reason how can you know? It is a good question and I believe that Christians can not supply a sufficient answer apart from the faith component. Christians believe that it is God alone that begins this process and beckons the seeker to seek God in this way.

History proves and the plethora of Christian denominations today suggests that there will always be debate over the nuances of Christian doctrine. Essentially the narrow strand that must be believed is that 1) All mankind have sinned, or has missed God's standard, 2) God provided a remedy for that reality in his son, Jesus the Christ, and 3) To appropriate that remedy one must believe that a life devoted to Jesus is the answer. Where the strands of Christianity differ concerning other doctrinal issues has little bearing on these, forgive me, fundamentals of the Christian faith. Appropriation of these fundamentals will lead to a commitment - a lifestyle change that gives credence to the faith that one espouses.

If I allow for a type of actualized religion - how could I ever place faith in its outcome? If I believe that I am in a continual spiritual fine-tuning process - that would allow for God to be also in a constant state of fine-tuning. How could I be assured of his benevolence and goodness directed at mankind? Might I be the catalyst one day that would cause the annihilation of the universe? :] I say that tongue-in-cheek but with the hope that my point is understood. Consequently, I am looking at interest with the discussions of Process Theology, which paints just this picture that God does not know the future and changes to accomodate events. This takes me back to the general vs. special reveltation of God which I believe suggests that God is immutable. With that understanding, I believe He does not change - then I can accept that his standards do not change. Hence, my commitment, as a devoted Christian, should only change to more closely imitate his standard.

Without attempting a huge discussion of the word "faith" in Greek, or Hebrew, it seems that the consistent use of the word in the New Testament derives from pistos. This word suggests that faith is not a personal belief - rather a determined understanding of the consistency and reliability of the object in which it is placed. That seems to suggest that if I believe in God then of necessity I believe that he is reliable. How can I do that apart from his revelation of himself to me? Maybe I'm thinking over simplistically - but that takes me back to: did he produce a revelation of himself for me? I have to accept that he did - in faith.

Still in process,
Steven King

 

Re: Can you say Faux Paus

TONY: Wow, It is amazing what one can miss when away from Degreeinfo for a few days! I just read your post and would like to discuss a few points. Steven, I am appreciative of the opennes and civility of those in this thread as well. I think that dialogue (rather than attacks) is productive and edifying. It is nice to dialogue with educated people.

STEVEN: If it can be established that Mormons inherently follow a different Jesus, than let's say the understanding of Jesus established in the evangelical, Protestant orientation, then they are not considered Christian.

TONY: If, of course, such a thing can be established. I had heard the "different Jesus" thing for over two decades and have a hard time taking it seriously. Nearly every major protestant denomination has its "conservative" and "liberal" members. Conservatives believe that Jesus is divine (the Son of God), born of a virgin, performed real miracles, atoned for the sins of humankind, was resurrected from the dead and will return in glory. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe all of these things as well, while "liberal" protestants reject all of these core beliefs. I see none of the major protestant denominations performing mass excommunications of these "liberals"--yet members of the LDS Church are labelled "non-Christian". To me, this seems to be a remarkable inconsistency.

STEVEN: Where "Christian" is defined simply as those who follow Christ. (Aside from the fact that Christian was originally meant as a term of derision, aimed at those who were in "The Way".

TONY: If this definition is true, then I am a Christian.

STEVEN: As a former pastor, I can assure you that many are still in the way :].)

TONY: This is comforting. I would hope that I would be one of the "many". The history of Christainity is replete with Chrsitians who hold different interpretations of doctrine (e.g. Calvinists vs. Arminiansand the extensive list provided by Bill Dayson), yet are included in the umbrella of "Christianity".

STEVEN: Most in my camp theologically would say a presentation of Jesus as going to the America's after his Resurrection for the purpose of proselytizing is not consistent with our Bible, and consequently not consistent with who we view as the Christ. Hence, Mormons can not be Christian.

TONY: Why is it inconsistent? Because it is not mentioned in the New Testament? If you take all four Gospels together, you can account for only a small portion of Jesus life and a smaller portion of the lives of his apostles (excepting Paul). Surely numerous things happened that are not recorded in the Bible. To be a Christian, is it really necessary for me to believe that the sum total of Jesus' activities since his resurrection was to appear to the Apostle Paul and give the apocalyptic revelation to John?

STEVEN: I do realize, however, we are starting from two distinct viewpoints and the purpose of this post is not an attempt to "sway" you to my theological bent.

TONY: I understand and respect you for this. My purpose on Degreeinfo, is certainly not to debate belief nor to proselytize for the LDS faith. I am most assuredly not an evangelical protestant, but I would never label the 20 million Southern Baptists as "non-Christian" because we disagree on which scriptures to interpret allegorically and which ones to interpret literally. I would only ask the same deference for the 12 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

STEVEN: Incidently, for my Comparative Religions course during undergraduate studies, I interviewed a Mormon friend and composed a small dity which I titled, Mormonism From a Mormon Perspective. While I do not expect Baker, Zondervan, or Lifeway to be calling any time soon for my paper - I enjoyed the opportunity to look into my presumptions about Mormonism. When I interviewed this person, we clearly established up front that conversion, or cross-conversion :] , was not the intention - just dialogue.

TONY: I am impressed that you would take the time to actually get the perspective from a believer, rather than relying upon the usually substandard literature of antagonists. For me, this is another evidence of your sincerity. I would love to read your paper, knowing that this lady represents the beliefs of one person in the faith (just like I do), rather than the entire membership. I am certain that it would be enlightening.

STEVEN: I would never disenfranchise someone for a differenet viewpoint theologically. That is what makes our country so great - you are free to believe as you choose, as I am. To insure my religious freedom, I have to militantly vie for yours - else eventually both could ultimately be called into question.

TONY: A hearty "amen".

Last night, I led a chorus of Latter-day Saint children, who were singing "I'm Trying to Be Like Jesus". I myself, have sung this song and have worshipped God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, since I was a child. I believe that your term "disenfranchise" is a precise description of what many are trying to do to me by labelling me a "non-Christian". I utterly reject that caricature.

STEVEN: In the spirit of dialogue,
Steven King

TONY: Recevied in the same spirit of dialogue and mutual respect.
Anthony Piña

NON-RELATED DL NOTE: the LDS Church has placed free online tutorials for conducting genealogy/family history at http://www.familysearch.org. Now, this should keep us from being deleted from Degreeinfo!