prisonchaplain

I cannot speak too much about Roman Catholicism (other than understanding that the doctrine of purgatory leads to an openness), however the resistance of Pentecostals makes sense to me. We are cautious about doctrinal error for several reasons. First, we have a short history, but always seem to be fighting off heresies within our midst. Within 5-years of my denomination's founding (1914) we faced "The New Issue" (Modalism--Jesus as Father, Son and Holy Spirit). In the late 1940s we joined the National Association of Evangelicals, but not with out enduring skepticism and condescension from several within the group (we were hicks, given to emotion, weak on education and doctrine, in their view). More recently, it's been the prosperity gospel and rapture-date-setters. Then there's the anti-intellectualism that was so strong in our early years (education = liberal sell out). Now we have a seminary, many of our pastors are well-educated, and we are the largest group in the NAE. So, I imagine that talk of near-death-experiences as validation of doctrine reminds too many of our years as theological deplorables. Then there is the over-comfort (in our view) that some Charismatics have with doctrinal and experiential innovations. None of this means you are wrong. Rather, it may give you added perspective on Pentecostal discomfort with some of what you describe.

This makes sense. What is your take on the response--are the Catholics, Messianic Jews, and LDS you interact with receptive, intrigued, or somewhat resistant?

I suspect that most of those non-LDS who might cooperate with LDS, due to revelations that the church's doctrines (such as on pre/post mortal existence) are true would consider themselves Charismatics, rather than Pentecostals. It's s subtle nuance, but probably important. Both speak in tongues, but most Pentecostals belong to denominations (like my Assemblies of God one) and trace their roots to the revivals of the early 1900s. They tend to be more conservative theologically and in how they live out holiness standards. They are more cautious with dreams, visions, and prophetic words. These are accepted, but only after being vetted by scripture. Further, most Pentecostals treat gifts of the Spirit as primarily intended for a local congregation or community, not for national or international application. Charismatics, on the other hand, are much more open to broadly applying and embracing prophetic words, dreams and visions. Additionally, they are quicker to embrace doctrinal innovation. Most tie their roots to the Holy Spirit renewal movements of the 1960s, and many are either non-denominational, or belong to mainline (Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) churches.

To be upfront, I did not read the book. However, I read the controversial paragraph, as well as some writings about Welch's private letter-edition, that included stronger implications about President Eisenhower. Then, further reading that President Benson was a supporter. To me, this suggests that the JBS discussion is probably one that is difficult and sensitive within the church. So, from an outsider's perspective, what I have come away with is that JBS seems to have been to conservatism what Bill Gothard was to Evangelical parenting. Gothard promoted a family structure that focused on spiritual authority and "spiritual covering." The gist of it was likely biblical, but graduates of his program (the parents, that is) sometimes became very insistent on particular interpretations of scripture--so much so that some congregations experienced turmoil (i.e. pastoral leadership did not always agree). Frankly, there was a season during which many pastors became quite gun-shy when they found out one or more of their church members were 'Gothardites.' Bill Gothard was not a cult leader, nor even necessarily a heretic. He was just incredibly sure of some matters that not really settled doctrine. Politician-A wants to raise taxes on the highest earners. This is income-redistribution. Communists redistribute wealth. Politician-A might not be a Communist, but if s/he walks like a duck and sounds like a duck--well, maybe s/he's just a 'useful idiot.' It's the aggressive, take-no-prisoners, moderates-are-collaborators approach that concerns me. I'm more conservative than moderate, but the middle ground is not always of collusion and sellout. Sometimes it is the place where "The Art of the Deal" can take place.

In my college years was part of the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter at my college. We wanted to establish a conservative group based upon principles, not party. One of the founding fathers of the group was William F. Buckley Jr. It turns out that he and Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, had a falling out. The main controversy seems to have been whether President Eisenhower was guilty of treason. The episode is recounted here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/william-f-buckley-john-birch-society-history-conflict-robert-welch/

Any mention of the John Birch Society gets immediate eye-rolls from many. The accusation is that they are quick to condemn as Communist those they disagree with. Perhaps they would be accused of being a right-wing version of cancel culture. I hunger for civility, a return to intelligent public debate, and an embrace on both sides of the aisle to the concept of "loyal opposition." We're Americans. We love our country. We disagree on how best to improve society.

Institution corruption? Institutional racism? Hmmm. Yes, it happened--at least in the view of non-Catholic Christians. And, it happens. The Salvation Army started because the uptown Methodists struggled too much with accepting the redeemed/recovering alcoholics that were being brought into their churches. Pentecostal churches and denominations formed because the churches of the early 20th century weren't having that kind of religion. Many young ministers that grew up in denominations choose to plant non-denominational churches so they can make changes more quickly, without the impediments that church governance can bring. Still--I'm conservative, and so slow to cry corruption. Jesus was the last religious revolutionary I want to celebrate. Even Martin Luther was an unfortunate necessity. And, though my Pentecostal forefathers were loathe to form denominations (since they had booted them all out), it is amazing how quickly we formed our own "cooperative fellowships." 🙂

This could turn into a discussion about history and interpretation. However, given the church doctrine of the Great Apostasy, suffice to say that the question of how much the Holy Spirit guided a broken, sin-filled humanity (yes, including church leadership) is something we would answer based on whether we accept that teaching or not. No Protestant, and very few Catholics, would argue that the post-apostolic bishops and cardinals were without sin. Very few deny that some terrible actions were carried out in the name of God. Yet, just as we oppose those who want to define our nation (USA) based primarily on slavery and racial/gender oppression, so we traditionalists would reject church history interpretations that focused primarily on the sins of leadership.

Our chapel library has volumes of New Testament-era writings that were rejected. Some of them contain recognized heresies, like the Gospel of Thomas (Gnosticism). I remember the term psuedepigrapha, which referred to false writings. Indeed, none of these have made it into the church's approved writings either. So, while there may be no prooftext, "The LORD declareth that my church leadership shall produced a fixed list of approved writings," it does seem that believers have always accepted that some works were of the Spirit and others were not. Also, while the second argument is humorous, it's a little different when a decade or two pass vs. 1,800 years.

I had not heard this POV before. Thank you. You take the general idea of "God's time is not our time," and offer some historic referencing and interpretation. This does help me understand better.

Perhaps a little slack for us traditionalists is in order? I'll be the first to admit that the "anyone who adds to this book" attack that Antis use against LDS is weak. The verse, from the Book of Revelation, refers specifically to that book. Still, given that nothing new was added for close to 1,800 years, it is not so unreasonable for us to believe that the canon of written scripture was closed. Further, it does not seem that the gift of discerning spirits was employed to verify whether writings would be included in scripture or not, historically. Then there is James admonition to pray for wisdom, when one is uncertain. Again, this does not appear to have been the historic Christian method for sustaining scripture itself. None of this is meant to debate the LDS position, but rather to show that the more traditional approach is no unreasoned--is not a mere choice not to receive more. FWIW, the LDS inclination to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit is most matters--especially weighty spiritual ones--is something we traditionalists can learn from.

It seems reasonable to believe that if the former VP is strongly opposed to SCOTUS-packing he would say so, and relieve fears. Instead, he is leaving his options open. Further, in the debate, he responded to the question by saying we should let him know how we feel by our votes. Thus, a vote for Biden-Harris will be interpreted as a vote for packing the court.

I have learned a good deal from this string. Hopefully, my thoughts, based mostly on the limitations of the Genesis account, shed some light on the traditional Christian understanding of the Fall. FWIW, most Protestants do not hold as rigid an understanding of "original sin" as Catholics do. We either trust in Jesus to atone for our own sins, or we will stand before God on our own merits. Still, Romans 3:10 and 3:23 make it clear that no one in humanity is righteous.

Unity can be problematic. Two sides "water down" to an anemic common denominator. Now they are together, but are weaker than they were apart. Open-minded/heartedness, on the other hand, can be so powerful. Seventh Day Adventists used to be rejected and opposed by most Evangelicals. Today, they are mostly accepted, even though the remain committed to Sabbath-keeping on Saturdays. The Worldwide Church of God, on the other hand, went through horrific internal strife, once its founding leader died. Ultimately, it broke into many sects. However, with God's anointing, and with the loving friendship of Evangelicals with many leaders of that movement, the largest sect (probably over 80% of the movement as a whole) renounced its separatists distinctives and became a fully-orthodox Evangelical church. I'm not sure the Adventists were seeking the level of acceptance they ultimately achieved. Neither do I suspect that Evangelicals were plotting to co-opt the WWCOG. These theological transformations happened because of God's move and some strong, open-minded/hearted relationships. I do not have anyone here on a spiritual target list. Further, while I am sure many would love to see me convert, none here have openly targeted me (no PMs or sustained and targeted posts of that nature). God's truth will always draw his lovers. We simply bless each other as best we can and let God take care of the rest. If big changes take place, He gets all the glory.

What a relief! I thought Antifa was doxing me or something! (Seattlelites, you gotta love us)

Your concern is the one expressed by those who suggest the rapture will happen at the end of the 7-year tribulation. Those in my doctrinal camp are equally concerned that those who are not expecting a sudden, imminent return will not be in a state of readiness for the return. They may be ready to "prep," and endure hardships--but not for the unannounced "like a thief" return of the LORD. This doctrine, in itself, will not deter one from salvation. Those who believe as I should indeed be ready to be wrong, and endure what sufferings may come. Our brothers/sisters in persecuted lands have much to show us in that realm. Likewise, those expecting to endure should also be on constant watch--soul ready--for Jesus' return.

An example of holy envy might be how successfully LDS observe our most conservative holiness codes. Modest dress, no drinking, smoking or sex before marriage, tithing, still dressing up for services, etc. Also, the system of volunteerism as a calling means active church members are almost always engaged in more than one or two-hours of church activity per week. I could go on, but you get the idea. We don't have to agree on doctrine to recognize some awesome traits in the other. Scripture is pretty clear that no one will know the day or hour of Jesus' return. He will come "as a thief in the night." Still, there will be signs--and they are plentiful today. So, most rapture-believing Christians also suspect that the time is very near. As for identifying the anti-Christ, the main problems are that the exercise is speculative, can lead to disappointments (when the guessing is wrong). and there is a history of those guesses being theologically or politically convenient. During WWII Hitler was the anti-Christ. Some thought it was Reagan. Adventists have said it was the pope who instituted Sunday-worship. Others have said the 666 is the barcode, the credit card, GPS, etc. etc. It's all interesting at the time, but really amounts to nothing more than semi-educated guessing that is baptized in Christian-sounding words. As for your friend, sure, ask why he believes it's the pope. At least you will find out what his real trigger issue is. He may be anti-Catholic, or it may be because the current pope is perceived as liberal. If you are not prepared to take his answers too seriously, I would be cautious about asking too many follow-up questions, though. He may believe you are interested in converting, and will be sorely disappointed when he finds out otherwise.

It's this mutual thing...I show respect, occasional 'holy envy,' and then I get to ask questions and explain my faith and traditions. This is a special place--one that is far too rare in American conversations today. As for the rapture and conspiracy theories, yes I believe Jesus will return without notice and "catch away" his people prior to a 7-year period of tribulation and judgment. That said, date-setting is heresy, and guesses at who the anti-Christ is are wrong-headed. When the anti-Christ is revealed the identification will be obvious, and most with ally with him intentionally--out of defiance against the one true God. Already we see a good number of people saying, "Even if your God is true, I don't like Him, and I refuse to worship Him." They prefer the altar of self-gratification--especially in relation to sex.

Hmmmm . . . I'm pretty sure it was Elizabethan English, so I kinda figured you would have the answers . . .

So...if you could get my wife that interpretation she would be most grateful.

It's fair to say that the LDS Plan of Salvation and other latter-day prophesies/doctrines result in a very different understanding of Adam & Eve vs. the serpent. For traditional Christians the main discussion here might be between the doctrine of foreknowledge and predestination (God knew Adam & Eve would sin vs. God predetermined that they would do so). Ironically, if I understand Calvinism correctly, despite their teaching that all that takes place is preordered, they would still find us culpable for our sins. I believe that understanding struck Joseph Smith as terribly wrong. Since I am not Calvinist, I agree.

BUT...I am still here.

I suspect that the bolded sections (my doing) are what constitute "official church doctrine." I asked, because I don't want to be pushing hard against an official teaching of the church on this site. However, I can explain my take on larger Christianity's views of The Fall. Adam & Eve directly disobeyed God's commands. They knew God well, having walked with Him daily. He told Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Eve understood this as well. She recited the command to the serpent, even stating the penalty. So, yes, they are guilty. They began to die as a result. On the other hand, it appears that Adam and Eve were redeemed. They offered sacrifices to God, and taught their children to do likewise. Additionally, they received the first messianic promise in the midst of God punishing them. So, yes, God knew they would disobey. He was not thwarted. God can and does use our foibles for His glory. That does not mitigate the foibles, however. If we sin we must repent--even if God turns our lemons into lemonade.

I'm gaining the impression that Adam & Eve's innocence in taking the forbidden fruit is official church doctrine (or perhaps insight offered by a church prophet). Is this so?

Eve was tricked or deceived into eating the fruit. How do we take this claim of Eve's? God told her not to eat the fruit or she would die. Eve understood this. The serpent said that God lied, that she would not die. Who should she believe--the God she walked with daily, or this serpent? Who should our adolescents believe, the parents who raised them or their very cool peers? Ah, but they are young--they are not equipped to fully understand the follies of youthful excess. Still, we ground them, punish them, call them guilty. Is it necessary to remove all blame from Adam & Eve in order to accept the Plan of Salvation?