ErikJohnson

Hi Bytor-- Sounds like you've perused a few sound-bites. I'm glad you did. But out of curiosity--what is Pastor Mark's, "Ideal of manliness?" And if he has such a thing, what is it that you find so objectionable and wouldn't wish your own sons to emulate? --Erik

Hi MorningStar--Good to hear from you, too. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not making any threats. I'll be going to my own church this Sunday, not showing up at the N. Seattle stake to cause disruption. It was all hypothetical--if the missionary got his wish. He won't. By God's grace, I've a little self control... ;0) --Erik

Yeah, I would have enjoyed hearing him elaborate. Sadly, I wasn't there and it's all second hand. Potentially "character" was meant in a positive, friendly manner—but that's not how my wife heard the tone. Honestly, I'm amazed he'd heard of Mars Hill. In my experience, those guys were pretty insular--couldn't even read local papers. Guess it's kind of cool LDS missionaries in Seattle are aware of MHC. Really cool, now that I think about it. Regarding MAD, the moderators told me I was no longer welcome to post in their venue. This was after my Good Friday post. You can go back and take a look at it and judge for yourself. Juliann effectively called me a liar—and when I defended myself, the moderators told me I was no longer welcome to post on their forum. And I've respected that. I've never even checked to see if they actually terminated my account. Good to hear from you, Moksha --Erik

Earlier this week my wife was walking across “Red Square” at the University of Washington campus, and she was approached by an LDS missionary (there were a group of them in the Square attempting to proselytize to students). Now don’t get me wrong—I’m totally in favor of free speech—it’s the content she shared with me that kind of rubs me wrong way. Wanted to see if anyone thinks I’m justified in feeling exasperated about what this young man had to say to my wife. The young man approached and introduced himself as a missionary for the LDS church. Nothing wrong with that. He then asked my wife if she attends a church. Again, nothing wrong, it’s a fair question. She told him that she and I go to Mars Hill Church (a non-denominational church here in Seattle that is theologically Reformed Baptist). Somewhat surprising to me, the young missionary had heard of our church and had also heard of our preaching pastor, Mark Driscoll. He replied, in a condescending manner, that Mark Driscoll is “quite a character.” Now that gets me a bit, because Mark Driscoll is a preacher of the Word of God, and while by no means infallible—he deserves respect as such, not this young man’s dismissal as merely being “a character.” God has used Pastor Mark and Mars Hill Church to bring the Gospel to a lot of people in Seattle. And while the LDS Church has been closing and consolidating wards within the city over the past decade (eliminating the International Ward and the University 4th)—Mars Hill Church has been growing steadily. My wife then explained that I used to be LDS and that I became a Christian about three years ago. The young missionary replied—“did your husband serve an LDS mission?” She told him I did not, and he answered, “That was the problem.” He followed up his condescension and all-knowingness by inviting her to attend an LDS Church meeting, which he added, “Would be good for your family” (my wife is visibly pregnant). This last bit made my wife laugh, thinking this would be a long way from good for our family. Anyway, no real harm done. I do find it exasperating, but a little funny too. The last thing this young man’s superiors would want is for me to show up, Bible in hand, to critique the next Gospel Doctrine lesson in the local LDS ward. What do you think, is any sense of exasperation on my part justified by the encounter? --Erik

Appreciate your response, AnthonyB, and I apologize for the slowness of my own (work has been insane the past week). Regarding your question, the answer is yes. The language "one baptism" is from Ephesians 4:5. That baptism is "for" the forgiveness of sins (together with repentance) is supported by Acts 2:38...--Erik

Old school--but you're quite correct (And I'm always happy to take Biblical correction). Thanks Traveler, --Erik

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into Ephesians 4, Traveler. But I don't think the word "ordain" or "ordained" even appears in the New Testament. That said, I fully agree that God bestows the gift of prophecy and gives some to be prophets--and does so for the benefit of His Church. Are the LDS Articles of Faith "Scripture" (and not a creed)? THIRDpersonviewer said they were merely part of a letter intended to be incorporated into a history of New Hampshire. Seems like a curious origin for Scripture. Are you sure about this? --Erik

I definitely agree there's such a thing as the gift of prophecy and the Lord gave some to be prophets (as Ephesians 4:8-11 makes clear: "gave gifts to men... gave... some to be prophets"). But I think this serves a different use and intent than "Prophets" referred to in Luke 16:16 and elsewhere. None-the-less, I'll concede your point for the time being and not argue over Prophets vs. prophets. This would seem to qualify it as a creed, if Dictionary.com is to be believed...--Erik

Hey Traveler, perhaps I missed it, but where does Paul say that Jesus appointed Prophets? Certainly Paul writes that some have the gift of prophecy, but I can't recall what you are saying. Jesus called John the Baptist the "greatest" (Luke 7:28) but also indicated John was the end of the era of the Prophets ("The Law and the Prophets were until John"--Luke 16:16). Out of curiosity, aren't the LDS "Articles of Faith" a creed? --Erik

I posted this on another thread in response to a query from a poster. But as we were a bit off-topic over there—I thought I would give it a thread of its own. The poster was challenging the legitimacy of the ancient Christian Creeds. Indeed, his signature reads: “No creed but the Bible”—as though banishment of the Creeds would somehow improve the Christian Faith. Pastor John Piper has written a short defense of the Creeds and their use of non-Biblical language. You can find the whole article here: Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library I’ll call out what I think are the most relevant parts and offer them up for comment— My biographical message at the pastors’ conference this year was on Athanasius who was born in A. D. 298. So I spent a good bit of time studying the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century. The main dispute was over the deity of Christ. Arius (and the Arians) said that the Son of God was a creature and did not always exist. Athanasius defended the eternal deity of the Son and helped win that battle with the wording of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in . . . the Son of God . . . of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning. ... There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself” I think Piper makes a lot of sense here, and defends the Creeds as well as anyone I've read. And I've come to agree with him. What do others think? I’d particularly like to hear from any Latter-Day Saints (LDS) out there…. ;0) --Erik

Hey AnthonyB-- Sorry, I'm new here and haven't figured out how to do a profile (I'm sure I will if/when time permits). Regarding your questions, I would certainly advocate belief in the God of the Bible (the only God there is). I would not be comfortable asserting, "God exists as both spirit and exalted human." Yes, Jesus was fully man. Yes, Jesus possesses a resurrected body. Yes, God has exalted Him. But this does not make Him a mere "exalted human"--for He was fully God at all times when He walked the earth (Colossians 2:9). I could not reasonably infer that fact from your statement--so it seems like a half-truth to me. Regarding the need to defend the ancient Christian creeds--let me answer you by borrowing a bit from John Piper (Thoughts on the Sufficiency of Scripture :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library) My biographical message at the pastors’ conference this year was on Athanasius who was born in A. D. 298. So I spent a good bit of time studying the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century. The main dispute was over the deity of Christ. Arius (and the Arians) said that the Son of God was a creature and did not always exist. Athanasius defended the eternal deity of the Son and helped win that battle with the wording of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in . . . the Son of God . . . of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning. ... There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself” I think Piper makes a lot of sense here, and defends the creeds as well as anyone I've read. And I've come to agree with him. Does that help? --Erik

Good to hear. And while I'm not particularly charismatic--you'll get no arguments from me. Thanks prisonchaplain. --Erik

Appreciate the response, prisonchaplian. And let me be clear as well. I don't hate Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims, etc., either. Question, prisonchaplain, just so I know where you're coming from. Do you affirm the Trinity? I understand some Pentecostals (i.e., Oneness Pentecostals) don't... --Erik

"Therefore I consider all your precepts to be right; I hate every false way." (Psalm 119:128)Is this the God you have in mind, Dale, the one who advocates hatred of "every false way?" Seems like this is not merely the God of some "evangelical" religion--but rather the God proclaimed in the Bible... But perhaps I've misinterpreted "hate" to mean hate... ;0) --Erik

I was 36 when I came to a knowledge of Jesus Christ. Does that qualify as "religion?" And if so, do I get bonus points for being the late-bloomer in the poll? ;0) --Erik