ErikJohnson

Hey a-train—Appreciate your post. I have to say I’ve never heard anyone use “Church” in such a context before. If I've understood you correctly, you’re saying that everyone on earth is a “consenting member” of God’s Church on the basis of their choice in a pre-existence. They can be Muslim, Hindu, atheist—it doesn’t matter. They can confess Jesus is God, deny Jesus is God—again it doesn’t matter. Everyone is a consenting member (whether they like it or not). Kindly permit me a follow-up question: In your opinion, is there any significant distinction in the “Church of the Firstborn” between a Christian who worships Jesus as the Eternal God and a pagan who worships created things? And do you have a reference for this all-encompassing definition of God’s Church? I’d be interested in knowing who first articulated such a view. Thanks again, a-train --Erik

Hey AnthonyB-- I appreciate your tenacity and recognize this is a core issue for you. Perhaps I would have done better to characterize spiritual baptism as regeneration (whether Zwingli would concur with this—I have no idea). I look to my own experience when I became a Christian on the evening of June 1, 2005. At that moment in time, God gave me a new heart and a radically new direction. Had I died later that evening, I have no doubt I would have gone to be with Jesus. Yet I wasn't physically baptized until ~ 2 months later. They were separate, though certainly related events. (Obviously I'm ignoring my LDS baptism at age 8. My motivation back then was to please my parents and the other adults in the old Renton 4th Ward. I had no idea who Jesus really was or what He had accomplished for me.) And when I look to Scripture, I see a distinction been the physical act of washing and regeneration by the Holy Spirit. (1 Peter 3:21, Mark 1:8; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12). That is what I meant by spirtual baptism. Rather than continue to discuss it here--my suggestion is that you open a thread on the subject of Baptism, and what it means to LDS and Christians alike (this is an LDS hosted forum, after all). Regards, --Erik

My apology for the ambiguity. By "believers" I mean all those who believe as Thomas witnessed of Jesus: "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). I do not think it necessary for someone to understand the nuances and implications of the early Christian creeds to be believers in the Lord. And frankly I don't understand them all myself (as AnthonyB made pretty clear on the previous thread). As for United Pentecostals, what I've heard of their views is disconcerting--but I'm not prepared to say they aren't part of the Body of Christ. But I fully agree a believer is obligated to obey Christ's commands. Perhaps we can discuss what is meant by God's Church without turning the thread into another debate over the Trinity. Perhaps, or perhaps not… ;0) --Erik

Spin-off of a spin-off (“The Protestant Reformation…”)— On that thread, an idea was put forward that “the true Church” was the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12, 18-20, 27-28, Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:25). And that God’s Church is made up of all believers, regardless of denomination (or non-denomination). An LDS poster dismissed the idea as a “contrived philosophy” and “quaint.” I’m interested in exploring the idea further, in part motivated by the following article that seeks to define “the Church”— Seattle Pastor Offers Clarity to 'Church'| Christianpost.com Is there anything wrong with Pastor Mark Driscoll's definition? How would LDS prefer to see it defined? --Erik

Hey Godless—For what it’s worth, yours is my favorite post on the subject (thus far). And what’s striking to me is how compatible your worldview is with LDS teaching. They teach “free agency.” You assert your own sovereignty, your own control. From my experience and perspective, your worldview and Mormonism aren’t so far apart. When I was active LDS—the concept of “free agency” was my biggest philosophical sticking point. At the time, I didn’t know who God was—but it was pretty evident to me my choices were a function of my genetic heredity and my experience. And at root—I controlled neither. So how could I have a free will or be a free agent in any meaningful sense? Yes, I was free, free to follow my inclinations (and being rational—I always did). But I didn’t choose my inclinations. Something else was in control of them—something that always had its way. The beer's on me if you ever find yourself in Seattle... Regards, --Erik

Hey AnthonyB-- I don’t mind “pedantic” as long as there’s some insight with it—and I have not found your posts wanting in that regard. I didn’t know the Greek word rendered “Lord” in our English New Testaments was the same word for God in the Septuagint. But knowing that adds to the argument (if further evidence were needed). However, it appears there must have been some ambiguity in the word because Jesus is referred to as Lord a number of times in the Gospels—and it doesn’t seem like the context is God each time. And when Thomas beholds the risen Christ and proclaims “my Lord and my God”—it doesn’t seem like his intent was to be redundant. Based on this, I wouldn't think it necessary to revise my revious post. Regrettably, I know nothing of the ancient languages. But if I were going to make such a study—Greek would be it. Regarding Zwingli’s observation that there was such a thing in the New Testament as “spiritual baptism” apart from “physical water baptism”—I think he’s right. I hadn’t thought of it in the context of the Nicene Creed—but I agree it could be seen as problematic. Regards, --Erik

Hey AnthonyB— We’re on the same page here: “I affirm that it is faith from first to last that obtains for us justification through the blood of Christ.” Have to admit I thought it was curious we were discussing baptismal regeneration on an LDS message board. In my experience, it’s not something LDS commonly consider or discuss (although it did produce several search results on lds.org). But then I looked it up on Wikipedia, and it said the doctrine’s adherents include Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic factions of the Anglican Church, and—“Mormons.” The nuances of Lutheranism and other denominations were briefly discussed as was the doctrine’s repudiation by the Reformed Churches. It’s not Wikipedia’s best effort—but I’m just happy our little rabbit trail has come full circle and is now back to my opening post. Because here again we seem to have an LDS doctrine that, generally speaking, aligns better with Catholicism than with the alternatives stemming from the “inspired” (as LDS claim) Protestant Reformation. The irony of that claim (vis-a-vis LDS doctrines) continues... Regarding the historical meaning/implication of creeds—I’m sure you’re right that they were considered infallible by many. If memory serves, Luther took some serious heat for arguing Councils could err. But abuse in the past, disturbing and distressing as it is, doesn’t mean creeds and confessions aren’t useful and necessary to summarize and defend the Bible. Even the simplest confession, “Jesus is God” constitutes such a summation of Scripture (the sentence itself is found nowhere in the Bible) and a defense against those who would tell us Jesus was a created being or an organized intelligence or a spirit brother, or a—well, you get the picture. Regards, --Erik

I think I see your point, AnthonyB. It’s the “for” in “one baptism for the remission of sins” that you’re suggesting would be problematic—because it could be understood to imply an independent efficacy to the physical washing itself. Is that the gist of it? If so, then fair enough. If the authors of the Nicene Creed meant to establish a doctrine of baptismal regeneration—then I wouldn’t hesitate to say they were wrong. But I’m far from being persuaded that this was the case. Regarding the authority of creeds, I’ll cite John H. Leith’s Creeds of the Churches (sorry, it’s a book and I have no link)— It remains to be noticed again that creeds do not receive their authority merely through the fiat of ecclesiastical authority. H. E. W. Turner has pointed out the importance of the common-sense wisdom of the Christian community, which in the long run is sounder than the action of church councils or the judgment of scholars. Creeds become authoritative when they become the common-sense wisdom, the consensus of the Christian community. My original point was to clarify for Faded that Sola Scriptura never meant the Bible was the sole authority for Protestants. The Bible is the highest authority and the only infallible authority--but there are certainly other authorities informing and governing Christian life. Does that make sense? Regards, --Erik

Ephesians 4:5 comes to mind—“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” As does Acts 2:38—“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”Though I’m no expert, I think the subject matter expertise of the church fathers who wrote the Nicene Creed is evident. It’s certainly authoritative—although that doesn't mean it's infallible. What do you make of it, AnthonyB? I’m guessing you might argue Baptists who do not recognize infant baptism are in violation of the Creed (and Ephesians 4:5 for that matter). Is that where this is headed? ;0) --Erik

Our preaching pastor made an interesting point last Sunday, and I thought I’d throw it out here for discussion. He noted many critics have accused Christianity of being an “easy” faith because it doesn’t require people to do anything for their salvation. Christianity only requires that people believe to attain Eternal Life with God in Heaven. But instead of making it the easiest faith, he said this makes Christianity the hardest—because it requires the most difficult of virtues: Humility. Only a humbled heart can accept grace. Of course, the opposite of humility is the sin of pride. And pride is rampant. It’s the cause for which Lucifer was cast down from Heaven. Pride would reject God’s unmerited favor (grace). Pride demands merited favor so it can be recognized for merit. It’s offensive to our pride if we have absolutely nothing to contribute to our Salvation, if we are wholly and utterly dependant in the matter. Pride wants to thump its chest and say, “I did my part and so God has rewarded me.” (We are in the middle of a sermon series covering 1 & 2 Peter and our pastor made this point while covering 1 Peter 5:5— "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”) His point that Christianity is the hardest faith really stood out to me (no doubt because of my LDS background and being familiar with the “cheap grace” arguments sometimes leveled at Evangelicals). What do LDS here say? Does Salvation by grace through faith make Christianity the hardest faith—or the easiest? --Erik PS. I make no claim that pastors at my church are infallible, so I will take no offense if anyone thinks he's missed the mark completely.

Far be it from me to leave you with unanswered points, Faded. However far from my OP it takes us… ;0) Regarding your first one, keep in mind Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the highest authority—but it does not mean the Bible is the sole authority (that would be Solo Scriptura). Big difference! Protestants do consider the creeds that establish the Trinity (e.g., the Nicene and Athanasian creeds) to be authoritative. Not on par with Scripture—but authoritative none-the-less. If you find it troubling that Christians use non-Biblical language (e.g., Trinity) to summarize and defend Biblical truths, the following short article may give you some perspective— Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library Regarding your second point, you seem to have forgotten the intent of the Reformers was to reform the Catholic Church, not destroy it. They didn’t think all of its teachings and practices were wrong—just some of them. Your charge that Protestants are “fence-sitting” by failing to take an all-or-nothing view of Catholicism makes little sense in the context of reformation. If I were to venture a guess—your premise here is the LDS notion that “God’s True Church” implies a specific religious organization. But this premise is flawed. I suggest you take a broader, Biblical view of the Church as being the Body of Christ. The “True Church” is really all who believe—regardless of their Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox affiliation. Christians are the Church. Christians are the Body of Christ. I think this understanding will serve you much better than imagining there must be one true church organization, and the rest are false to varying degrees. Regarding your interest in reading and discussing Mere Christianity—I’m pleased to hear it and definitely think it will be helpful for you (and useful for me to re-read as well). When you get your hands on a copy and make it through the intro, launch a thread and share your thoughts. I’ll keep up and add my own, and perhaps others will join in. --Erik

Seriously, Faded—how do you expect me to respond and defend things I neither wrote nor implied? After making real progress—we’re right back at post #15. I didn’t say, essentially or otherwise, "I'm not really disagreeing with you on the Trinity, just on how you define God and Jesus Christ." You and I obviously do disagree over the Trinity. I didn’t say the various denominations within the Christian Church—“all live happily together with only slight differences of opinion.” I don’t agree their differences are slight. And I didn’t characterize them as “good buddies and long-time friends.” I agree such a characterization would be a distortion. Sometimes I get the impression you don’t really want to engage me, Faded. Instead, you’d prefer to engage a caricature of me that you’ve created in your head. And the funny thing is—I dislike the caricature at least as much as you. He makes spectacularly bad arguments and is evidently thick as a brick. The most we can say is he sometimes provides unintended comic relief. So perhaps you could just let him go for once and for all... Lewis’s Mere Christianity would be a really, really good book for you to read and think about, Faded. It does a much better job of explaining the common elements and themes that unite the Christian Faith than I can possibly hope to accomplish here. The subject is tangential to the topic of this thread—although I can plainly see it’s a keenly interesting subject for you. So I’ll make you a deal. You read the book, and then we’ll open a dedicated thread to it and discuss it. Perhaps others would find it interesting as well and join in. What do you say? --Erik

Is it just me, or are we getting better at our dialogue, Faded? Regardless, I thank you for that small concession. I’m pleased you were at least able to see my point. You got a lot further than anyone else ever did in Priesthood/Gospel Doctrine, back in the day. ;0) And that’s what I like about these message boards. We can take as much time as we need and go as deep as necessary until we at least have understanding, if not agreement. If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re asking why Protestants rejected some aspects of Catholicism (e.g., authority via sacred tradition/apostolic succession, Purgatory, the canonical status of certain books labeled “Apocrypha”) but not all of them (e.g., the Trinity, the Incarnation/hypostatic union, ex nihilo creation, the canonical status of the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible and the 27 books of the New Testament). The short answer, in my opinion, is that the things we share in common are the core elements of the Christian Faith. Not to say the things we dispute are inconsequential, but they’re not as essential as the doctrines on which we do agree. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book about the common elements of the Christian Faith—Mere Christianity, and I highly recommend it to LDS (especially the ones who routinely overlook the Christian forest and get hung-up on the imperfections and differences among the trees). Interesting observation, and though I did use that word a couple of times on this thread, I don’t think it’s accurate overall—unless you read Trinity every time I write Jesus. Not that that would be an unfair inference, as I am Trinitarian. But I actually try to steer around Trinity debates with LDS. If I were to state my “primary” reason, it would be more elemental than the beliefs expressed in the ancient creeds and illustrated in the “Trinity Shield.” My primary reason for rejecting LDS doctrine is that I cannot accept that Jesus is, or ever was, anything less than God. Period. He is not a created being. He is not an “organized intelligence.” He is not your “spirit brother.” He is not “a God.” He is God. The only God. The eternal God. The man who took upon himself the sins of the world and died an excruciating and shameful death on a cross—was God. Christianity makes a staggering claim when you think about it—that God died. God died, in my place, for my sin. I find that amazing—and I find it compelling. And every alternative explanation of Jesus, from Mormon to Muslim, is interesting and worthy of debate and discussion, but utimately the alternatives ring hollow for me. It comes down to Jesus. And I think if you do the math, you’ll find Jesus is the most common theme across my posts. There's nothing that interests me more. Regards, --Erik

Hey Faded— Regarding your previous post concerning Sola Scriptura—there’s definitely some agreement here. I don’t dispute your point that the LDS position vis-à-vis doctrines that divide Protestants and Catholics are really “option C.” You’re certainly right that there are important distinctions in the details. And to a large extent, I think that once Joseph Smith denied the Triune God of the Christian Faith—all other points of comparison became superficial. But despite known and fundamental differences—I still think it’s reasonable to make a comparison of doctrines like “Spirit Prison” and Purgatory and of the Five Solas and to ask whether the LDS teaching is “better aligned” with the Catholic or Protestant view. (Although judging from the relative lack of interest in the thread—not many LDS here agree or find it worthwhile to make such comparisons.) But I’m not sure you’re appreciating the distinction I made between Reformation doctrines and the outcomes of the Reformation, or its “achievements.” My analogy to Brigham Young’s achievement of founding SLC, which so deeply offended bytor2112, apparently didn’t resonate with you either. You keep reiterating what the Reformation accomplished (e.g., expansion of literacy and broad dissemination of the Bible), rather than the doctrines the Reformers actually taught. And somewhat off-topic, you’re adamant that Protestants don’t agree on the Five Solas and that some teach Faith = Belief + Works. For that claim, I would encourage you to do some research and see if you can provide links to substantiate it. Start with the largest of the mainline Protestant organizations (the SBC) and work your way down the list. You’ll discover there’s much more unity here than you think. Near the bottom of your last post, you make the following statement that seems to agree with the point of my OP— Protestantism all too often tended to throw the baby out with the bath water doctrinally. Often, there was a general concept that was right, but severely distorted. Protestantism threw the distorted version out and called it false doctrine. In so doing, they lost some things. From an LDS point of view—what you say makes complete sense to me. The doctrines themselves were not inspired (tossing the baby out with the bathwater). Rather, they should be seen as providing a means to an end, setting the stage for the LDS “restoration.” To call the Reformation itself inspired is misleading. It merely substituted one error for another, and as you say, “lost some things” along its way. The Reformation itself was inspired only in the sense that it served as a catalyst for certain outcomes, or as you say, achievements. Now to put the shoe on the other foot—imagine I told an LDS audience I thought Joseph Smith was inspired of God. That would please the room, right? But supposing I followed up by saying his core doctrines, his claims to authority, etc. were false, or at least flawed. LDS would see this as a contradiction, would they not?. They’d argue that since he was inspired, it follows that the doctrines he taught were inspired. And they’d rightfully wonder what I meant by saying he was inspired to begin with. And if I went on to say that despite his false teachings, I believed Joseph Smith was inspired because of Mormonism’s achievements (e.g., investing in educational institutions, encouraging/enabling European emigration to the US, settling the Utah Territory, making it impossible to get a decent mixed drink at a bar in that state)—they’d think I’d missed the point or was being disingenuous. And they’d be right. That’s pretty much how it seemed to me when I’d hear LDS say that the Reformation was inspired. To say the Reformation was inspired while saying it promoted false and flawed doctrines is contradictory. (Unless, as LDS poster Maxel suggested on the other thread, there was a brief historical window where Sola Scriptura and the other doctrines were in fact, true doctrine. To his credit, Maxel’s approach does implicitly acknowledge and resolve the contradiction—although it is highly problematic in other ways.) Can you see my point? --Erik

I wouldn’t dispute your overall point, AnthonyB, but I feel obliged to nitpick just a little (because I’m a huge fan of John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress). Strictly speaking, it isn’t accurate to say, as you wrote— with the exception of perhaps Bunyan but his stints in prison show how even mild evangelical types were treated by magisterial reformed Christians First, Bunyan lived a full century after the “Magisterial” Reformers you mentioned. Second, he was persecuted, not by Reformed Christians (he actually was one, and you’ll find Pilgrim’s Progress very much affirms Reformed theology)—but by the largely Arminian leadership of the Church of England in concert with the government of Charles II. So in this particular example—you really have it backwards. The Arminian faction became ascendant in the Church of England during the reign of Charles 1, and by many accounts was a contributing factor to the English Civil War, leading to the temporary overthrow of the monarchy by Oliver Cromwell (who was Reformed). Bunyan supported Cromwell, and after Cromwell died and the monarchy was reestablished under Charles’s son, Charles II, Parliament passed the “Clarendon Code” and other laws reestablishing the Church of England’s authority. It was under those laws that Bunyan was prosecuted and imprisoned—the environment in which he wrote Pilgrim’s Progress and other works. But again, I think your overall point is a fair one. Had Joseph Smith lived in the 16th Century and traveled about denying the Trinity and recruiting followers—as he was able to do with relative freedom in 19th century America—he would have gone the way of Servetus, per your post on the previous thread. But 19th century America had new values that were sacrosanct, worth killing and dying for—enshrined in a “Bill of Rights.” You could deny the Trinity in 19th Century America and live to tell the tale—but use your position to destroy a privately owned printing press… --Erik

You’re being awfully sensitive, bytor2112. Protestants and Catholics do worship the same Triune God, and LDS have a different idea—especially when it comes to the 2nd Person of the Trinity: Jesus. If I’ve misstated the facts, please correct me. Regarding Brigham Young, I’m not sure what you mean by “Brighamites”—but I’m pretty sure from my 7th grade Utah History class that he’s the one who lead the LDS to Utah. So I think what I wrote regarding he and his followers founding Salt Lake City should make complete sense. And he did espouse a number of doctrines, many of which originated with his predecessor and some that were unique to his tenure as LDS prophet. Not sure how this constitutes a slight in any way. Again, I’m always happy to take correction if I misstate something. I do err from time to time… ;0) --Erik

Hey Faded— Your introduction of Luther’s “Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” on the thread as an alternative to discussing the Five Solas is interesting, but probably not that useful for our purpose. The 95 Theses weren’t intended as stand-alone points of doctrine (which becomes clear as you read through them). And while they address a number of related topics along the way—Luther’s unquestionable intent was to refute the practice selling “indulgences” to mitigate punishment in Purgatory. That, and to let the Pope know he needed to fix the problem posthaste! What’s interesting is that at the time he composed the “Theses”—Luther believed in Purgatory (which also becomes clear when you read through them). But Luther later repudiated that doctrine, and today almost no Protestants hold such a belief. Accordingly, the 95 Theses are not the best representation of Protestant doctrine, because the very premise on which they are based—the existence of Purgatory—has been eliminated. But since this thread is about doctrines that distinguish Protestantism from Catholicism and whether the LDS position better aligns with the Catholic in such cases—you have, perhaps inadvertently, given us a very relevant example: How does the Catholic conception of Purgatory compare with the LDS conception of a Spirit Prison? On the surface, it appears once again that the LDS view is closer to the Catholic than it is to the Protestant. And certainly both seek to make intercession on behalf of the dead—Catholics through prayer, and LDS by conducting proxy “ordinances.” Protestants, of course, deny any effort to make intercession for the dead. Your thoughts on this? Is this another example where LDS teachings are closer to Catholic doctrines than Protestant? Do you think the Protestant repudiation of Purgatory and intercession for the dead was inspired by God—or was this just a further drift into “apostasy” (vis-à-vis LDS doctrines)? --Erik

Hey Faded— If you must restate my positions to get your points across, at least make an effort to do it fairly. Half the time it bears no resemblance to anything I wrote, and I end up agreeing with you! Normally I just let it go. But today I’m calling you out. A couple of examples so you’ll understand what I’m talking about: Faded: “So to call the LDS faith similar to Catholic is really quite a stretch in my opinion, but you are welcome to think what you will.” Me: I totally agree with you. But what I wrote was this: “The LDS position [vis-à-vis the doctrines that distinguish Protestantism from Catholicism] was almost always better aligned with the Roman Catholic position that the Reformers were repudiating.” And I stand by that statement. I think we began to substantiate it when we unpacked the first of these (Sola Scriptura) earlier on the thread. Is anyone going to argue the LDS view is really closer to the Protestant? If someone has such an argument—I’d love to hear it and discuss. And if anyone cares to do so—we can go through the other four Solas. I have never said the LDS faith is similar to Catholicism. Protestantism and Catholicism are infinitely closer to one another than either is to Mormonism. They debate many things, but at the end of the day—Catholics and Protestants recognize the same God. All doctrines are not of equal weight, in my opinion. Who God is—is paramount. Faded: “When tossing out the "you're too Catholic" a word of caution seems appropriate.” Me: No doubt it would be! But I’ve never suggested Mormons (or anyone else for that matter) are “too Catholic.” I have nothing but respect for believing Catholics who know their faith. And while I think they’ve added elements to Christian faith and practice that aren’t helpful or necessary, they nonetheless worship the same God I do. And that’s what matters most. I might seek a conversation with a Catholic who believes his Bible and loves Jesus—but I wouldn’t seek his conversion, the way I would with someone who believes in a different God (or “Gods”). Regarding your following post, it’s the doctrines I’m asking you to discuss, not the “achievements” or the “results.” The founding of Salt Lake City might have been a wonderful achievement by Brigham Young and his followers—but that achievement wouldn’t be germane to the question of whether Young’s doctrines were inspired of God, would it? See the disconnect? This thread is about doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, and whether they were inspired of God. So please get on topic and tell us whether you think any or all of the Five Solas were inspired. Start with the first one, if you wish. If you don’t have an opinion on whether the specific Protestant doctrines were inspired or you think it’s a dumb question—feel free to say so. I promise I won’t be offended. --Erik

No worries, Connie. I’m really not “frustrated.” And I apologize to anyone I may have given that impression. I am disappointed we don’t seem to have any LDS on the board who have made some study of Protestant doctrine and are prepared to discuss it vis-à-vis my question. The whole point of this board, for me, is to address subjects and lingering questions that could not be answered back in the day, and which still interest me. My hope is that via the internet, I could cast a wider net and get perspectives that were unattainable previously. That said, your link to Richard O. Cowan’s article, “Reformed Protestantism” was quite interesting. He gives a very good overview of John Calvin and draws a number of useful distinctions between Calvin’s theology and the doctrines of the LDS Church. Methinks Daniel Peterson, along with some of his defenders on that other thread, could learn a thing or two from Cowan. What struck me most about Cowan’s article was how he effectively ceded the Bible to Calvin. With one solitary exception, every time he drew a distinction between LDS beliefs and Reformed Protestant beliefs—he cited the books of Joseph Smith (i.e., The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price). And the one exception was his own misunderstanding. John 3:3-5 does not mention baptism, nor would it make any sense in the context therein. Cowan made an erroneous inference. I wonder if this article was a career limiting move for Cowan. Certainly his name is not know by the average LDS. I suspect he’s the sort of guy I’d enjoy having a drink with. --Erik

Hi Connie— The quotes you’ve supplied do not directly address the question. I’m not asking whether LDS think the men behind the Reformation were inspired, or whether the movement itself was inspired in a general sense. I’m asking about the doctrines—and the Five Solas specifically. Obviously a logical response to Sola Scriptura is to make the Bible widely accessible (as Tyndale did). But does this mean Sola Scriptura itself is inspired, or was it merely a means to that end? Am I failing to make myself clear, or is my question really that difficult? --Erik

Hey Vort—Appreciate your patience and clarification. It seems to me (and I did read your posts carefully) that you’ve offered such a broad interpretation of Sola Scriptura and its “core idea” that it would be palatable to anyone whose worldview included a supreme being. And at the same time, it’s hard to imagine many Catholics lining up to defend the authority of sacred tradition, if all it meant was—as you wrote—“that's how we have done things for a thousand years.” Afraid you've missed the point completely. By sacred tradition, Catholics mean apostolic succession. Regrettably, we don’t seem to have any Catholics on the thread who might offer an opinion on the subject. By asserting the supremacy of the Bible’s authority over sacred tradition and the authority of church leadership (e.g., the Pope, or in an LDS context—the Prophet), the Reformers distinguished their views from Catholicism. I submit they also distinguished them (albeit unknowingly) from the subsequent teachings of the LDS Church. Unless we change definitions, dismiss plain meanings as “philosophical extensions” and substitute “core ideas” that render the doctrines innocuous—we’re faced with doctrines that bluntly contradict LDS teachings. And so the question remains: Do LDS think the actual doctrines of the Reformation were inspired, or were they merely a means to an end (i.e., a catalyst for societal and political change setting the stage for the LDS restoration)? --Erik PS. I’m setting aside your examples (Noah and Paul), as they are not directly related to the topic at hand. But they certainly merit threads of their own, if you wished to start them…

Hi Vort— Appreciate your response to my query. Regarding your experience with Wikipedia, I agree it had a pretty rough beginning. But I think it has gotten quite good on many subjects of late. Did you have any issues with the link I posted? I liked it, so I’d be interested if you have any specific criticisms. And feel free to cite a better source, if you know of one. I will admit I didn’t expect to see an LDS poster argue the Five Solas are compatible with LDS doctrine. But in making such an argument, it seems to me you’ve presented an incomplete/inaccurate view of the issues. Regarding Sola Scriptura (from Wikipedia)— Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. By contrast, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that the Scriptures are not the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. For them Scripture is but one of three equal authorities; the other two being Sacred Tradition and the episcopacy. These bodies also believe that the Church has authority to establish or restrict interpretation of Scriptures because, in part, it implicitly selected which books were to be in the biblical canon through its traditions, whereas Protestants believe the Church passively recognized and received the books that were already widely considered canonical. Now you tell us, “This core idea is obviously compatible with LDS theology.” But in making such a claim, you’ve misstated what that core idea really is. The Catholic tradition of discouraging actual reading of Scripture is tangential to the issue. The core idea of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith. Period. And this is clearly incompatible with Mormon teaching. Mormons (at least all the ones I’ve ever met) most emphatically do not believe the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority. You can find a number of statements to this effect by LDS in this very forum. Like the Catholics, Mormon’s believe the “episcopacy,” or top leadership, has equal (or greater) authority over Scripture. This is a rejection and a denial of the “core idea” of Sola Scriptura. In the interested of time, I’m going to pause with Sola Scriptura and give you an opportunity to respond. Again, if you have a better source, one that you think is more balanced and more accurate than Wikipedia, please post it. I’ll get back to your other comments soon. Thanks again, Vort. I always appreciate a thoughtful post, even when I disagree with it. --Erik

A spin-off from the Calvinism thread— The subject of Christian history and of the Reformation in particular was a fairly rare occurrence in Priesthood and Gospel Doctrine classes, back when I was LDS. But when it did arise, the instructor would invariably make a statement that the Reformation was “inspired.” Presumably this is what it said in the lesson manual, because no one ever bothered to justify the claim by explaining what men like Martin Luther and John Calvin actually stood for. For a long time, I was guilty of apathy towards the subject. But a few years ago, that began to change and I started looking into the question. What I learned surprised me in two ways. First, I found the doctrines that the Reformers espoused were quite persuasive and consistent with my own reading of the Bible. And second, the LDS position was almost always better aligned with the Roman Catholic position that the Reformers were repudiating. From an LDS doctrinal point of view—it was hard to see the Reformation as anything but a further regression into “apostasy,” a further falling away from the “truth.” It seemed a complete contradiction to me that LDS would call the Reformation and the Reformers “inspired”—when they would dispute their every assertion. I’m curious if any LDS out there would agree with my assessment. And yes, I understand that there were social and political consequences with the Reformation and that these were largely positive developments, setting the stage for greater individual liberty and even economic freedom. But the ends don’t justify the means. God can use bad for good (see Genesis 50:20)—but we would never say this makes bad things “inspired” (whether doctrines or deeds). So what do LDS say about the specific doctrines of the Protestant Reformation? Were the doctrines themselves inspired, or were they merely the vehicle God chose to bring about societal change and political reforms and to set the stage for a “restoration” via Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery? For those needing some background to answer the question, a summary of the Reformers basic theological beliefs can be found in the “Five Solas” (and once again Wikipedia comes through with a succinct and balanced entry). Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")Sola fide ("by faith alone")Sola gratia ("by grace alone")Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")--Erik

“Deceitful interaction,” “hypocrisy,” “prime candidate for a professional anti-Mormon…” Did you ever read Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will, Maxel? It was Luther’s answer to Desiderius Erasmus's public attack against him. It’s a fiery read, and Luther pulls no punches. A sample— “…you are an advocate for these most barbarous soul-murderers, who fill the world with hypocrites, and with such as blaspheme God and hate Him in their hearts...” I’m flattering us both to even call their exchange to mind. And an irony perhaps, that while you may be closer to Luther’s style—I’m infinitely closer to his theology. The greater irony, of course, is that the guy you accuse of deception posts under his own name, with his own photo, makes full disclosure of his LDS background and current beliefs, and even discloses that his account was terminated on another board. That’s me. I abide by the board’s code of conduct, and I even treated one of the senior mods to breakfast a couple months back. I’m the sort of poster who would happily buy his fellow poster a beer (a non-alcohol variety, for LDS) if he was anywhere near Seattle. It’s an irony that only the most partisan could miss, I would think. All that said, I do enjoy our discussions overall and I would like to address the substance of your response. In order— I’m thinking the Five Solas merit their own thread. But I am interested that you (or any LDS) think there ever was a time for the first of these doctrines. Sola Scriptura posits the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith. Now if this was true 500 or a 1000 years ago—it could be no less true today, since neither God nor His Word have changed. Do you say otherwise? And consider— "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) If Scripture is the means to be thoroughly equipped for every good work—on what grounds can you say that it is insufficient? Is there something more thorough than “thoroughly?” Is there something more inclusive than “every?” And is the passage so difficult to understand that we cannot trust its meaning and must look outside of Scripture for an interpretation? I’m intrigued. Please tell us what good you (or any LDS) find in Calvinist teaching. That’s certainly fair. By their fruits you will know them. If you’re in the mood for a little history lesson via Wikipedia—look up the following names (all Reformed Christian missionaries) and see their works and legacy: William Carey, David Brainerd, William Chalmers Burns, John Eliot. As for Mars Hill Church in Seattle (where I am a member), the Church engages in outreach with the Union Gospel Mission (a large downtown homeless shelter), supports North Helpline (a local food bank), World Vision (international aid and child sponsorships), and Vision Nationals (church planting and relief work in India, Thailand, and Napal). And in addition, 10 percent of all tithe offerings are contributed to church planting via the Acts 29 Network. Google any of this if you want to know more. Regarding online flame wars (e.g., where some posters accuse other posters of being “deceitful” and guilty of “hypocrisy”)—you haven’t been hanging out on Southern Baptist message boards too, have you Maxel? Just kidding. I made a joke. And methinks you had it coming… ;0) But notice I gave you a nice balanced article to read, some cons to go with the pros. I’m not here to shill anyone’s propaganda. You’ll give me a point for that, right? How could I miss an explanation like that! To suggest, as Dr. Peterson did, that a logical outcome of Calvinism is that, “God doesn’t like Chinese” does the conversation no favors. It’s plainly outrageous, and I have difficulty imagining a BYU professor wouldn’t know better (though I’ll concede the possibility he really doesn’t). If you find some appeal in Peterson’s logic—you might pay special attention to William Chalmers Burns in the names I listed above. Or you might take a moment to educate yourself about what God is accomplishing there today. I trust the empirical evidence alone will dissuade you from making any further defense of Dr. Peterson in this matter. I disclosed it in my intro thread, and even furnished a link to the post that got me banned. I’ve nothing to hide. Not sure it “speaks volumes”—but please judge for yourself. I will open a dedicated thread to the Five Solas. I think it will be interesting to see if any LDS think the specific Protestant doctrines themselves were inspired of God or whether those doctrines were only inspired in the sense that God used them to bring about the religious shake-up and political outcomes associated with the Reformation. A means to an end. I’m guessing it’s going to be largely the latter, but perhaps we’ll get some insight into the doctrines themselves. Yes, and while this happens—it wasn’t the example I gave you. But I appreciate your instinctive skepticism. It’s something you and I have in common. And while we’re on the subject, have you considered the exact same observation can be made about LDS? Interesting. I’ve shared my testimony with other believers and have been strengthened by others as well. For me, it’s different when I’m engaging with a non-believer. How I engage depends upon what I first learn from them about their background and how they’ve come to the views they hold. I definitely don’t take a cookie-cutter approach. But you appear to treat any claim of Christian belief with skepticism, and hence you engage them all the same (if I understood you correctly). Out of curiosity, are you equally skeptical when someone professes LDS belief? Do you likewise witness to them, just in case they might be a “cultural” Mormon, going through the motions and mouthing the words for the sake of maintaining family relations or some other motivation? If not, why not? I do enjoy and appreciate your posts, Maxel. Crazy busy these days, so it may take me a week or two to respond, but I’ll get to it. --Erik

Hey Maxel—I’m doing good, thanks for asking. Sometimes the mods close threads before I get a chance to respond, but otherwise I really can’t complain. How’s your headache? Appreciate your willingness to engage on the subject. But I find your reaction curious. Might not a new interest in Biblically-based doctrine together with an expression of faith indicate a changed heart? Did Christ not say, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks”? Surely there is some cause to believe a change in heart as well as mind is occurring. What evidence would it take to convince you that hearts are being changed? Sadly, I can’t use the search feature on MA&DB because you have to have an account, and they terminated mine <sniff>. I had this from some old notes I had saved in Word. But not to worry, Loudmouth_Mormon did the heavy lifting for us and confirmed it in post #3. Seems you underestimated your man, Maxel. And for the record, I only quoted him for illustrative purposes to demonstrate that some LDS find Reformed theology appalling. Contrary to Faded’s claim—I didn’t do it to show LDS “hate” Calvinists. The great majority know little or nothing about the subject. If you don't believe me, find a way to raise the subject in Gospel Doctrine sometime, and then count all the blank stares. I used to hear this back in the day, on the rare occasion Christian history came up in a Gospel Doctrine or Priesthood class. The teacher/instructor would generally say that the men behind the Reformation were inspired. And yet when you look at the Five Solas, the Five Points, etc., Mormon Doctrine was always nearer the Catholic doctrines the Protestants were repudiating. It always seemed to me the Reformation was step backward vis-à-vis Mormonism. Therefore it couldn’t be “inspired” any more than a house divided could hope to stand. But they always insisted it was. Never made a lick of sense to me. Does it make any sense to you? In my mind, a little awkward you would treat a Reformed Christian no different than a non-Christian. But out of curiousity—why would you “bear testimony” about Christ’s divinity (whatever exactly that may mean to you) to someone who already believes Jesus is God. Obviously you don’t need to convince them of Christ’s divinity. Do you do this in an effort to persuade them that you also are Christian? Again, pleased to see you engaged on another of my poor threads, Maxel. All the best to you, --Erik