Changing the World Now... Calvinism

[AnthonyB]

Here is an Arminian answer to post 25

Sovereignty and Free Will - Jack Cottrell

God's will is sovereign but man still has free will because man's free will only exists through the sovereign grant of God. So man is responsible for his choices but it is God who allowed those choices to be.

Do LDS actually believe in a sovereign God?

Edited March 24, 2009 by AnthonyB

[Islander]

The term "sovereign" has been hijacked by the modern Christian "theologians" but the translations relates something else entirely.

It means "without owner, keeper or ruler." In the ancient world, pagan cultures could carry with you, bury, break, bribe, cajole, entice and manipulate their "gods" into doing ____________ "stuff" in exchange for a sacrifice, a gift, an offering or what have you. The GOD of the Hebrews was a sovereign GOD in the sense that those things could not be applied to HIM.

The doctrine of free will and the "sovereignty" of God is a fairly new abstraction. I think the debate is kind of obscure and unprofitable. There must be darkness as for the light to shine. We can darken the skies for days now by detonating high yield explosive and creating a dust cloud several miles wide. Is it the will of God that we do such things? Of course not. One sibling can be a life saving physician and the other a mass murderer.

God created the universe and what we call discoveries are nothing but our feeble stride and insight into the vastness of the mind of God.

[AnthonyB]

Hopefully this isn’t too contentious, just some BoM quotes on the sovereignty of God. I got from reading that book on my way to work this morning….

Mosiah 4:9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

Mosiah 5:2 …because the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent…

Mosiah 5:15 …that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent,….of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all.

[ErikJohnson]

Here is an Arminian answer to post 25

Sovereignty and Free Will - Jack Cottrell

God's will is sovereign but man still has free will because man's free will only exists through the sovereign grant of God. So man is responsible for his choices but it is God who allowed those choices to be.

Do LDS actually believe in a sovereign God?

Appreciate the link, AnthonyB. And I realize you probably put it out there as an illustration, and not necessarily to defend and discuss. Nonetheless, I think it's worthy of some comment. If I were to offer a criticism of Cottrell’s approach, it would be that he makes no effort to substantiate his positions with Scripture. And if I were on the other side of the discussion, I would probably not have picked this particular essay. Cottrell’s apparent lack of need for Scripture in support of his theological conclusions may serve to give readers new to the subject the wrong impression about Arminians and the basis of their position on God's Sovereignty and human will. (He does make a reference to Ephesians 1:11—but only to say the verse may be taken as something other than face value.)

Many of the Arminian persuasion do take their Bible seriously, of course, and make full use of it in their theological writings. (Elsewhere Cottrell might too—I’m just not familiar.) And far be it from me to suggest that those of us who lean Reformed have nothing to learn from our Christian brothers and sisters who follow in the Wesley/Methodist tradition, for example.

But in my opinion, Cottrell’s idea of a self-imposed limitation by God (in order to preserve human free will) comes undone when you consider the hardening work of God in the case of the Pharaoh, as found in Exodus (and Romans 9), as well as other examples (Deuteronomy 2:30, Joshua 11:19-20, Romans 11:7-9). As a side-note, God’s hardening work as revealed in Scripture wreaks havoc on LDS teaching. Recognizing the text presented an intractable problem, Joseph Smith went so far as to re-write portions of Exodus to preserve Pharaoh’s “free agency” in his so-called translation.

By contrast, when you read Piper’s writing on God’s Sovereignty, you see he takes real pains to align his thinking with the testimony of Scripture. References abound. The reader isn’t left in any doubt that the Bible is the basis for his theology (even though some will contest his understanding of particular passages and reasonably challenge his conclusions). And for that reason, I find Piper’s work compelling (though I have no affiliation with Bethlehem Baptist).

I’ll note here that one of the hallmarks of Reformed Protestantism is its high view of Scripture (and it’s one of the things I find hugely appealing, personally). No one ever had to wonder whose side the Calvinists were going to take in the SBC’s biblical inerrancy battles. As a side-note, the outcome of that struggle (and the role played by those who were Reformed) was covered in Christianity Today. It’s quite interesting, and relevant to our broader topic—Young, Restless, Reformed - Christianity Today magazine - ChristianityTodayLibrary.com

All that said, I hope LDS will give them both (Piper and Cottrell) a read and due consideration (starting with Piper, of course).

;0)

And I’m interested in how LDS will respond to your question—it’s a good one. God willing, we’ll get something more than special definitions and an assertion that the subject isn't "profitable." God willing, of course…

--Erik

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

Did you read the last paragraph...

"The final answer must come from the revealed Scriptures. Only there may we learn whether man actually does have free will, and whether God actually is the Sovereign Lord."

I'll attempt to find an article that is choc-a-block full of scriptures for you.

But I am interested in the LDS answers.

[Faded]

Erik,

Did you read the last paragraph...

"The final answer must come from the revealed Scriptures. Only there may we learn whether man actually does have free will, and whether God actually is the Sovereign Lord."

I'll attempt to find an article that is choc-a-block full of scriptures for you.

But I am interested in the LDS answers.

The LDS answers are very simple.

1.) Yes we believe that God is a Sovereign Lord.

2.) No we are not going to take another viewpoint on the word "Sovereign" and completely rework our definition of the word to satisfy someone else's sense of theological correctness. As such, our conclusions may differ from other religions.

3.) We believe that God granted all mankind free will and that God does not forcibly impose his will on His children. We choose to come unto Him or not to come unto Him. We choose to stay in the covenant with God or we choose not to. God does not force us to do anything against our will. Could He force us to do things against our will if he wanted to? Yes, I suppose He certainly could. But it's a moot point because He doesn't.

4.) While I can see where John Calvin came up with the idea of predestination, we do not believe that it is a true doctrine. From my LDS point of view, the doctrine seems to mean, "A free pass to heaven" handed out to some people at birth. Everyone else gets a "Go straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200" card at birth. We believe that everyone has a choice in the matter.

5.) The critical importance that Latter Day Saints place in free-agency is the main reason that this particular Calvinist doctrine will seem very strange to Latter Day Saints.

6.) We do not go out of our way to attack this or any other doctrine. If you want an LDS opinion on Predestination and Free Will ... well, you asked for it, so you got it.

Beyond those points, I don't honestly know what other LDS answers you want and what part of the LDS perspective need any further clarification. I'm game as long as the conversation remains respectful. I think I'm not alone among LDS forum members who have a lot of reason to believe that this is just a setup to open up an attack on our beliefs. But what the heck, we'll give it another try and see if this time is any different. Erik has already made his contempt for the LDS point of view on these matters fairly clear, and that before anyone has gone to any effort to actually explain our side in any detail at all, so that's not exactly a good sign.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Faded

[bytor2112]

"They're not going to embrace your theology unless it makes their hearts sing," Piper said.

Who's theology......beware of those who desire to set up their own kingdom.

"If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, 'It's unbelievable. Why would God choose any of us?'" Harris said. "You are so amazed by grace, you're not picking a fight with anyone, you're just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn't have to save anybody."

If they really new anything about God, they would never ask these questions. Is it any wonder that Joseph was answered, "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight." How sad must our Father be when his children have no real understanding of our true relationship with him.

Edited March 25, 2009 by bytor2112

[AnthonyB]

Faded,

Thanks for the answer.

I'm was not looking for a contention on Calvinism, since I will probably agree with many of the LDS criticism of it! From my posting on internet forums such discussion rarely actually change people views and quite often lead to fruitless squabbles.

My question was trying to understand how soveriengty of God exists (if it did) alongside eternal progression and the differing creation ideas that LDS have.

[Maxel]

I was wondering where you had gone, ErikJohnson. I hope you're doing well. I will ignore what has been hitherto discussed and address only your OP- kudos to everyone posting before me who raised good points and discussions.

There’s a recently published top 10 list of “Ideas Changing the World Now” from Time Magazine. Curious what LDS think of idea number 3, “The New Calvinism.” Read it here—

3. The New Calvinism - 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now - TIME

I don’t want this thread to turn into a debate about the “Five Points” and whether these doctrines have a strong Biblical foundation (although in my opinion—they do). Instead, I simply want to know what folks here think about this increasingly influential trend in Evangelical Christianity and in the world at large. Are you indifferent? Are you concerned? Do you think this is the kind of “change” the world needs now?

I'm mostly indifferent about this trend- I don't think the major change that will separate truly converted Christians from social Christians has happened yet (and when it does, I don't think it will happen through general theological reform). Personally, I don't think it's the 'change' the world needs now. The real 'change' that needs to happen is within the hearts of the people, not merely in their theological expressions of faith. Unfortunately, the world is getting much more wicked and changes wrought from 'the outside in' (Matthew 23:26) will serve only to retard the insidious spread of immorality for a short time- then, sin will rush forward all the more quickly after that barrier is pulled down.

LDS Apologist and BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson is on record using some remarkably blunt language against Calvinism. Sparing his readers any diplomatic pretense, Peterson wrote, "Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." (If you like, you can dig up his views on Calvinism, among many other subjects, on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.)

You provided a direct quote, it's your responsibility to cite the web page that you gleaned that quote from. Offering such a damming quote and not citing its exact source when that exact source is available is bad form. Until I see his quote in context, I can't say whether I (dis)agree with his statement. I know Dr. Peterson can get acrimonious, but this seems a bit much even for him.

Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?

I think Reformed theology is incorrect and I abhor the initial apostasy of the Church (immediately following Christ's apostles' deaths) that lead to the emergence of Reformation theology in response to corrupt Catholic practice. I believe it is wrong, but that says nothing about the people that originally created it (Calvin, Luther, etc.)- in fact, I believe those men were inspired by God. However, the time when Protestantism or Catholicism had the most theological truth on the earth is past; the fullness of the Gospel can be found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That doesn't make Protestantism bad, but it's not as correct as LDS theology.

Lastly, if you as a Latter-Day Saint were intending to proselytize to a committed, Bible-believing Christian—how might you modify your approach if you knew that person was Reformed?

Same way I would proselytize to a non-Christian: bear testimony about Christ's divinity and the fact the Book of Mormon is scripture, and invite them to read the Book of Mormon or learn more about the Church. A testimony of Christ and the Book of Mormon is the foundation of our religion, and the most effective tool for proselytizing. Minor theological differences (e.g., Protestant vs. Catholic; Methodist vs. Baptist) are as important as major theological differences (e.g., Christian vs. Hindu)- that is, they are not important at all. The Holy Ghost will bear witness to anyone who is ready to receive truth, no matter their background. My approach always has been, and always will be, to stick to the basics of the faith.

In the interest of full disclosure, Mark Driscoll (mentioned in the Time article) is the preaching pastor at my Church, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Also, I’m sending a link of this thread to my Mom, and a few others. So please be nice.

;0)

Will do. Please offer us the same courtesy. Edited March 25, 2009 by Maxel

[Faded]

Faded,

Thanks for the answer.

I'm was not looking for a contention on Calvinism, since I will probably agree with many of the LDS criticism of it! From my posting on internet forums such discussion rarely actually change people views and quite often lead to fruitless squabbles.

My question was trying to understand how soveriengty of God exists (if it did) alongside eternal progression and the differing creation ideas that LDS have.

What is your definitions of the word Sovereignty as it relates to God? It would be a good starting point if we can get on the same page in terms of vocabulary.

From my point of view, I see absolutely no conflict between Eternal Progression and the Sovereignty of God.

[ErikJohnson]

Who's theology......beware of those who desire to set up their own kingdom.

If they really new anything about God, they would never ask these questions. Is it any wonder that Joseph was answered, "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight." How sad must our Father be when his children have no real understanding of our true relationship with him.

Hi bytor2112—

Your opening words suggest you aren’t clear on what the word “theology” means. Per Dictionary.com, it means: “The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.”

So when you ask: “Whose theology?”—the only possible answer in this context is Piper’s. It’s his study, his analysis of God’s Word, and his observations and conclusions. If you intended this to be a rhetorical question, I’m afraid I don’t see your point. But feel free to explain. You might also explain what setting up a kingdom has to do with Piper's theology, because I'm not making the connection here either.

Regarding the people interviewed in the Christianity Today article you cited—why do you tell us they don’t know “anything about God?” What specifically was it about their questions that lead you to your conclusion? And what does any of this have to do with Joseph Smith’s claim that a Personage (I forget which one) said all church creeds were an abomination? Are we to understand you think the beliefs of Reformed Christians are an abomination? Just say it if that is what you mean. No need to be coy.

--Erik

[AnthonyB]

Hmm what does sovereignty mean for me it is being the ultimate source of all-legitimate power, authority and law within a given sphere.

Part of the current question being discussed is does God choosing to limit his ability to control events mean that he is ceasing to be sovereign. (Form the question made by Snow about God being the ultimate cause of all suffering because he willed it so.)

My understanding is that to a Calvinist, God alone has free agency/will. His sovereignty is maintained by not allocating man any free will/agency. Therefore man cannot do anything except what God has planned for him. God retains sovereignty by not handing over free will to man.

To an Arminian, God has allocated man free will but this is not at the expense of God’s sovereignty. It is a grant of free will to man from God over which God maintains total power and rights. God having created man in his image endowed free will as part of that image. (For me without the grant of free will, God appears to have done little more than created a talking animal not a being truly in his own image.)

(Please fell free to correct my understanding of your views taken from reading on this forum, this is my take on it. This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to have to understand the LDS POV)

Can you please confirm what LDS believe?

Free agency occured at the fall but people had free will (the ability to make choices) before the fall?

Edited March 26, 2009 by AnthonyB

[bytor2112]

Regarding the people interviewed in the Christianity Today article you cited—why do you tell us they don’t know “anything about God?” What specifically was it about their questions that lead you to your conclusion? And what does any of this have to do with Joseph Smith’s claim that a Personage (I forget which one) said all church creeds were an abomination? Are we to understand you think the beliefs of Reformed Christians are an abomination? Just say it if that is what you mean. No need to be coy.

"If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, 'It's unbelievable. Why would God choose any of us?'" Harris said. "You are so amazed by grace, you're not picking a fight with anyone, you're just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn't have to save anybody."

Doesn't really matter if I think the creeds are an abomination or not......but it's very clear that Heavenly Father does.....and why shouldn't he? The creeds that attempt to define God have confused honest seekers of truth for centuries. God is literally our Heavenly Father and we are just as literally his children. It is his work and his glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.....he wants us to be happy and return home, to live in his presence, and sit with him on his throne and reign with him forever in everlasting glory.

So, when I read the comments, I am led to believe exactly what I said. To answer your question directly about reformed theology........We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

My comments really add nothing to your OP and for that I must apologize, I read the magazine article and the other links that you posted and was thinking out loud when I posted my comments and they are purposely vague.

Edited March 26, 2009 by bytor2112

[Faded]

Hmm what does sovereignty mean for me it is being the ultimate source of all-legitimate power, authority and law within a given sphere.

In that case I believe God is Sovereign.

Part of the current question being discussed is does God choosing to limit his ability to control events mean that he is ceasing to be sovereign. (Form the question made by Snow about God being the ultimate cause of all suffering because he willed it so.)

If God is the being that I know personally, then He ultimate source of good and wants good, peace, happiness and joy to abound in this world. If the God I worship does not limit himself, then we would not see sin, sickness, poverty and misfortune in this world. The fact that such things exist makes it quite evident that He is limiting Himself.

So for the matter of sovereignty, the fact that God limits His influence on human events does not make Him any less sovereign. Everything works together to fulfill His plan and establish His eternal kingdom, it's our choice whether or not we will be part of it. And because of the concept of Eternal Progression (and not in spite of it) there is a logical reason for the state of this lost, fallen and sinful world we live in. This is our time to grow while God our Father keeps at enough distance to let his children grow, and pick them and mend their wounds when the fall and hurt themselves and come to him crying. We are mended, then we head back into the lost and fallen world to learn and grow some more. So if we consider that all of this is according to His plan and not contrary to it, then discussing His lack of sovereignty wouldn't make any sense, right?

[Faded]

My understanding is that to a Calvinist, God alone has free agency/will. His sovereignty is maintained by not allocating man any free will/agency. Therefore man cannot do anything except what God has planned for him. God retains sovereignty by not handing over free will to man.

For this part, I seriously wish we had a Calvinist to both defend and explain their beliefs. You will never gain a true appreciation of a denomination's beliefs if they are not part of the discussion.

Nobody can do true justice to any belief set unless it is their own.

This part falls straight into what I myself, and many other Christians disagree with. But to answer the question, from the LDS perspective, you do not have to be robbed of your will for God to remain All-Powerful.

To an Arminian, God has allocated man free will but this is not at the expense of God’s sovereignty. God having created man in his image endowed free will as part of that image. (For me without the grant of free will, God appears to have done little more than created a talking animal not a being truly in his own image.)

I'm not familiar enough with Arminianism to truly comment. Close cousin of Calvinism. It sounds to me like the Arminian view is the more logical conclusion. I think most human beings realize that they do indeed have free will.

Can you please confirm what LDS believe?

Free agency occured at the fall but people had free will (the ability to make choices) before the fall?

Yes free agency existed before and after the fall. Adam and Eve could not have made the choice to partake of the forbidden fruit without it, now could they?

So what we have left is this: What part of LDS belief is still unclear? What could be better explained?

Edited March 26, 2009 by Faded

[AnthonyB]

I was under the impression that in LDS thinking free agency didn't exist until the Fall. I think I presumed that moral agency meant the same as free agency.

[Faded]

I was under the impression that in LDS thinking free agency didn't exist until the Fall. I think I presumed that moral agency meant the same as free agency.

Interesting. I'm not sure where you got that impression, but it's interesting. Freedom to choice doesn't really have any set beginning. The fall of Adam and Eve didn't create free agency, but it did create a world in which a full spectrum of opposites could exist. So mankind's range of choices certainly broadened as a result.

Another reason we know that free agency existed prior to Adam and Eve was the counsel and subsequent war in heaven that occurred before the earth was created. Lucifer and all those who followed after him made a choice. They did not have to rebel against God their Father, but they made the choice to do so anyways. Lucifer and company made their own decisions and brought about their own fate. So even Satan had a choice. Lucifer used his free agency, and ultimately made the choice to become Satan. Same individual, different name.

For the purposes of LDS theology, free agency does not have a beginning point.

[Snow]

I was under the impression that in LDS thinking free agency didn't exist until the Fall. I think I presumed that moral agency meant the same as free agency.

If that were true, Adam and Eve couldn't have made the choice that resulted in the Fall.

If you read 2 Nephi 2 (esp verses 11 -30) you will see that opposition in all things and the independent ability of man to choose and act for himself is so foundational that without it, not only would there be no creation, there would be no God. Very powerful stuff.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Snow

[ErikJohnson]

I was wondering where you had gone, ErikJohnson. I hope you're doing well.

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?

I'm mostly indifferent about this trend- I don't think the major change that will separate truly converted Christians from social Christians has happened yet (and when it does, I don't think it will happen through general theological reform). Personally, I don't think it's the 'change' the world needs now. The real 'change' that needs to happen is within the hearts of the people, not merely in their theological expressions of faith.

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?

You provided a direct quote, it's your responsibility to cite the web page that you gleaned that quote from. Offering such a damming quote and not citing its exact source when that exact source is available is bad form. Until I see his quote in context, I can't say whether I (dis)agree with his statement. I know Dr. Peterson can get acrimonious, but this seems a bit much even for him.

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 think Reformed theology is incorrect and I abhor the initial apostasy of the Church (immediately following Christ's apostles' deaths) that lead to the emergence of Reformation theology in response to corrupt Catholic practice. I believe it is wrong, but that says nothing about the people that originally created it (Calvin, Luther, etc.)- in fact, I believe those men were inspired by God. However, the time when Protestantism or Catholicism had the most theological truth on the earth is past; the fullness of the Gospel can be found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That doesn't make Protestantism bad, but it's not as correct as LDS theology.

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?

Same way I would proselytize to a non-Christian: bear testimony about Christ's divinity and the fact the Book of Mormon is scripture, and invite them to read the Book of Mormon or learn more about the Church. A testimony of Christ and the Book of Mormon is the foundation of our religion, and the most effective tool for proselytizing. Minor theological differences (e.g., Protestant vs. Catholic; Methodist vs. Baptist) are as important as major theological differences (e.g., Christian vs. Hindu)- that is, they are not important at all. The Holy Ghost will bear witness to anyone who is ready to receive truth, no matter their background. My approach always has been, and always will be, to stick to the basics of the faith.

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

[Giant_Son]

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?

Through the work of the reformationist, the religious environment was made open and non-oppressive. In this environment, the Church could be restored. That would be difficult under a heavier church-state hand such as Catholicism. The reformists were inspired and stirred in their hearts to an understanding that what was being taught did not ring true to them (via The Light of Christ). This disunity among Christianity is a stumbling block for many people, but it is a blessing in some aspects as well.

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?

Even many traditional christians don't understand the role of the Atonement in their salvation and our responsibilities because of it. As members of His church and His disciples, we have the responsibility to testify of Christ and what He means to us.

Again, pleased to see you engaged on another of my poor threads, Maxel. All the best to you,

--Erik

Edited March 30, 2009 by Giant_Son

[Giant_Son]

Sorry, I'm still learning the formatting. I learned the correct "quote" format! :)

Edited March 30, 2009 by Giant_Son
fixed the formatting - sort of! ;)

[Faded]

Contrary to Faded’s claim—I didn’t do it to show LDS “hate” Calvinists.

Firstly, I'm happy to see that I'm not being completely ignored. Just mostly ignored.

You opened a thread with a comment by a Latter Day Saint that was anti-Calvinist. I think it was silly to do so, since it's obvious you didn't want to have a discussion on, "Why do Mormons hate Reformists?" It's a distraction from what you wanted to discuss. It opens your whole discussion on a negative assumption of universal prejudice on the part of Latter Day Saints. Most LDS do not know enough about Calvinism to have opinion on the matter. Most Calvinists are likewise ignorant of LDS beliefs.

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.

The entire point you're trying to make is WAY TOO BROAD. One LDS member's dislike of one doctrinal concept by one reformer does not equate to "The entire membership of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints hates Reformed Theology." There is a lot of reformed theology that was extremely insightful. Greater focus on the grace of God and an idividual's personal relationship with Him was a wonderful step in the right direction. The Restorationist movement was an important result of the Reformation, and that played a major role in the history of our religion.

More than anything else, Reformed Theology got people to actually start thinking about religious things. Questioning things. Seeking better answers. From our perspective, that is invaluable and wonderful.

There are many conclusions we agree with. There are many conclusions we disagree with. In that, we would be no different than any Protestant faith -- all of them disagree on some things. I can tell you this much though -- Protestant (which includes Reformist) religions have a long history of hostility toward the LDS faith. Above all else, the hateful attitudes of Protestant religions towards us has alienated us and given the general feeling that we want nothing to do with other Christian faiths. But that is reactionary to violence, murder and bigotry, not a broad rejection of all other Christian theologies. It doesn't help matters that most of those religions are entirely apathetic and uncaring about the many crimes they're denominations' bigotry perpetuated against the "Mormons." I don't think they're sorry in the least for any of it. So if there is a negavite attitude on the part of many LDS membmers, there's good reasons for it. Most of what we hear from Protestant faiths is spiteful and filled with ill-will. That continues to this day.

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.

The average member of the congregation in ANY religion knows very little about anything about religion at all. In my experience, Latter Day Saints are among the most knowledgable on the average. The way our Church functions, it is difficult to be an active member in good standing without learning a lot about religion. That does not mean that all Latter Day Saints are scholars, but I would wager there is a significantly higher percentage of scholar-level knowledge amongst our membership, compared to any other religion.

Many people of all religions prefer to stay where they are and not venture into comparative religion. They do not share my fascination with the subject.

As I don't expect to be responded to, I will leave my comments at that and not waste anymore time on it.

[Maxel]

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?

My headache has for now subsided, but it might come back depending on your behavior in this thread. I'm not afraid to pull out cats if this becomes a Mormon-bashing thread, although right now it's about Calvinism and agency.

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?

The crux of your argument lies on the idea that Calvinism is biblical- and any theology being 'biblical' relies largely on one's own interpretation of the Bible (unless you're willing to think that by reason alone you have come to the correct conclusion). Sola scriptura is not true doctrine, and is contrary to the actual methods and purposes of God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is sufficient to interpret itself- sola scriptura is circular reasoning based in falsehood, although the intention that bred its origin- an attempt to break away from the unrighteous dominion caused by men in power misinterpreting the Bible through pretended prophetic authority- wasn't bad. However, the time for belief in sola scriptura and other like doctrines is past- it is no longer the most true doctrine to be found on the earth (if it ever was).

Personally, I think Calvinism has some true doctrine but it does not have other crucial doctrine- thus it offers an unbalanced view of God and His nature. Is it good that Calvinism is emerging more? In my opinion, yes and no. Some of Calvinist doctrine is utterly distasteful; other doctrine is good.

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?

More than this. I need examples of charitable work (of any kind) being sparked by Calvinism. In the article, the only result listed of Calvinism's reemergence has been "kirmishes among the Southern Baptists... and online flame wars". Judging solely from the article and my own (very scant) knowledge of Calvinist theology, its comeback seems to breed more ill than good.

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.

Perhaps you missed Peterson's words explaining his stance and why he said what he said? Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with him: if the idea that 'God just doesn't like certain groups of people' is a natural fruit of Calvinist belief, then the system is false and repugnant. The question then becomes 'is the idea that God doesn't like certain people a natural fruit of Calvinism'?

Furthermore, you should have told us why you couldn't link a direct quotation when you used Dr. Peterson's exact words. The fact that you've been banned from another LDS forum speaks volumes- although it is a legitimate reason for not being able to link the source.

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.

You could have done it less disingenuously. We are all well aware some Mormons find Reformed theology appalling. You don't have to wave the most acrimonious example you can find like a martyr's banner. After rereading Dr. Peterson's quote and hearing his own explanation, I don't think he was out of line. What is out of line is ripping his quote from its context and explanation without at least a worthy suggestion of where we could find it (no, your comment about finding more about his views on Calvinism at the MADB boards doesn't count, as someone without an account has no idea how to find the right post).

Are we to believe that you just copy/paste damming quotes into your personal Word files without copying the URL too? If so, that's dishonest on your part, as the only point of saving them is times like these- to use them as ammunition (or to mull over them and contemplate how evil the Mormons are for hating their Christian brothers). If you did copy the URL, then not posting it here is dishonest on your part.

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.

Good; those teachers were echoing the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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.

First of all, Calvinism was only one system of Christian doctrine that was born from the Reformation. Secondly, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism had the whole truth. Yes, the Reformers were inspired, but that doesn't mean they were inspired to bring about the correct doctrine of Christ in their time. No one will deny that the impact of the Reformation reached far beyond the theological world: it helped to shake the Catholic Church's vice grip on the governments of the day and was the first step towards real religious liberty. Only men inspired of God could have spearheaded that reform.

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.

You are wrong. Protestantism was a step forward in many ways, including politically- however, it wasn't the final destination.

But they always insisted it was. Never made a lick of sense to me. Does it make any sense to you?

Perfectly. You've concealed yourself in a circular room and are content to run along the walls, laughing at those outside. Of course I don't expect you to see the bigger picture.

In my mind, a little awkward you would treat a Reformed Christian no different than a non-Christian. But out of curiousity[sic]—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.

You overlook the fact that there are many cultural Christians who aren't converted in their hearts. Someone saying 'I'm a Christian!' doesn't mean much. They may or they may not actually believe.

However, that's not the main reason I would bear my testimony of Christ (which means, by the way, to testify that Christ is the Savior of mankind and God- you should know that if you were truly ever "formidable in Gospel Doctrine" classes). When a person bears testimony through the power of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost affirms the truth of it in the listeners if they are susceptible to the message (that is, if they are prepared and their hearts are softened enough). The power of testimony is that it transcends the normal process of symbolic communication and speaks directly from one soul to another. Bearing testimony of Christ's divinity and the Book of Mormon is bearing my own testimony of some of my most precious spiritual feelings and the sharing of God's truth in the way that He has prescribed.

Do you do this in an effort to persuade them that you also are Christian?

ErikJohnson, you are one of the most underhanded people I know. This is undoubtedly an attack on my own belief system (and me) that found full fruition in this post of yours (which I never had the chance to respond to). I do not do this to persuade others I am a Christian- I am a Christian, despite what naysayers such as yourself may attempt to label me as.

Again, pleased to see you engaged on another of my poor threads, Maxel.

I must admit, I had forgotten exactly how good you are at deceitful interaction. Unless you fix the problem, you're a prime candidate for a professional anti-Mormon.

Feel free to use my words as you feel fit ErikJohnson (as you have with Dr. Peterson's); I have spoken what I feel to be the truth and am not ashamed. No doubt this will go into your Word file alongside Dr. Peterson's words, but I do not care: I can no longer stomach your hypocrisy.

For those that ErikJohnson will direct to this thread: I pray you look over his other attempts on this site (1, 2, 3) to discredit Mormons and set himself up as an authority, and judge for yourself what the underlying agenda is.

Ephesians 4:14:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive

[Islander]

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?

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

I know I sound like a broken record. But every time I suggest moving the exchange in a different direction some, invariably, accuse me of being short-fused and not willing to "engage." Here we have it; 5 threads later and who knows how many hours of painful acid reflux due to this disingenuous exercise but the truth revealed about your real and long standing agenda.

Some forget I can smell devious intentions 10,000 miles away. Deceit was my craft and I was quite good at it.

I am sure you could use your time in a more profitable way. If not, I would be worried.

[StallionMcBeastly]

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

I wasn't going to reply to this thread buuuut....

Come on man, where do you expect this thread to go?

I am 100%, no doubt, no question a Christian; and I go to the LDS church.

You don't have to be so obvious about your underlying intentions.

FANTASTIC post, Maxel.

Edited April 4, 2009 by StallionMcBeastly