tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post7929033015577526581..comments2024-02-10T00:21:03.699-08:00Comments on Embracing the Risk: What do you believe?MarkChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14783588922999884233noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-69805571200480343202008-02-19T11:02:00.000-08:002008-02-19T11:02:00.000-08:00Thanks, MB, that helps me understand your thoughts...Thanks, MB, that helps me understand your thoughts better.purple_kangaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02543172194041505144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-37094951621460456652008-02-18T13:44:00.000-08:002008-02-18T13:44:00.000-08:00PK asked, "are you saying that all Catholics have ...PK asked, "are you saying that all Catholics have exactly the same full and complete understanding and interpretation of what the church thinks? Or would you say that a Catholic who has a different perspective on something that the church teaches isn't a "true" Catholic?"<BR/><BR/>No, I am not suggesting that all Catholics have the same "full" and "complete" understanding and interpretation of what the Church thinks. What I'm saying is that for Catholics there are actual standards of interpretation that they all have at some point in their life at least said verbally that they agree with, like the Catechism. You can read a book having never met them and (assuming you understand the book) know what they believe. Also, unlike the Bible, the catechism has been written with the modern person in mind to clarify controversies that have arisen regarding Scriptural interpretation over the last 2000 years. If you read the catechism, you know what the Catholic Church teaches and what her people profess to believe. There is nothing like this in the Protestant world. There is a unity of belief among Catholics that the Protestant world can hardly fathom, because the real doctrinal unity in the midst of diversity is so outside their experience. This was something that I thought I understood when was still Protestant but had decided to become Catholic, and have found over the years that the doctrinal unity of the Catholic Church contained a richness and nuance that had gone right over my head. In fact, I'm still learning about it today.<BR/><BR/>If a Catholic disagrees with the magisterium, then they are either A) ignorant and uncatechized (quite common, actually) or B) living a life of contradiction. For B, their's is a precarious situation. I wouldn't presume to judge whether they are Catholic or not. It can certainly be questioned, though. For A, there is much hope because they can be taught. If they were to read the catechism and find it disagrees with their previous thinking, they would likely undertake study to understand the situation and then make a decision as to whether to go into the B camp or review/modify what they previously thought.<BR/><BR/>For instance, if your relatives whom you claim hold the Protestant sounding belief on faith and works were to read the sections of the Catechism that I suggested, then I would expect one of two reactions from them. Either they would say that they didn't fully agree with the way you interpreted their beliefs, or they would explain why what you wrote is fully consistent with the catechism and why I'm wrong in saying it appears to be contradictory. I've never met them, but from previous descriptions of them that I have heard, I doubt that B would be an option. Do you really think they would choose what you wrote over the catechism as a good description of their beliefs?<BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-74984094066339299262008-02-15T21:53:00.000-08:002008-02-15T21:53:00.000-08:00MB, are you saying that all Catholics have exactly...MB, are you saying that all Catholics have exactly the same full and complete understanding and interpretation of what the church thinks? Or would you say that a Catholic who has a different perspective on something that the church teaches isn't a "true" Catholic? Because I've sure seen a wide range of views on various issues (not all of which line up perfectly with official church teachings) from people who at least consider themselves to be Catholic.purple_kangaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02543172194041505144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-49735589735599275832008-02-08T11:52:00.000-08:002008-02-08T11:52:00.000-08:00PK,When I read your description of your relatives ...PK,<BR/><BR/>When I read your description of your relatives who converted to Catholicism, I had to ask myself if you really understood them. Your phraseology is distinctly Protestant, and I can't imagine an informed Catholic using the same wording, nor for that matter a way to reconcile your view of what your relatives believe with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.<BR/>http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm#1987<BR/>Note especially paragraphs 2006-2011 on merit. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that our works have a role in getting us to heaven. It teaches that we are not saved by faith or by works, but by grace through both faith and works. <BR/><BR/>"So there's the whole range of perspectives within the Catholic church, as within any church."<BR/>I most respectfully disagree. <BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-38851389482084567862008-01-31T10:08:00.000-08:002008-01-31T10:08:00.000-08:00MB, the Catholic people I am closest to (family me...MB, the Catholic people I am closest to (family members who converted) do not believe they are saved by faith AND works. They see the works as an outworking of their faith--making their faith active, if you will. They don't think their works save them, but they do think that the works are a necessary expression of their faith.<BR/><BR/>I have met a number of other Catholics or ex-catholics who believed that they were saved by works (keeping the sacraments, obeying and staying in favor with the priest, praying to Mary and the saints, etc) and had little or no concept of salvation through grace at all, and no idea that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ was either possible or necessary. In their minds, their works saved them.<BR/><BR/>So there's the whole range of perspectives within the Catholic church, as within any church.<BR/><BR/>If a person truly believes that they are saved by faith AND works, then they most likely aren't really trusting in Christ's work on the cross to save them. A person who doesn't believe Christ's work on the cross is sufficient to save them isn't really having a saving faith--they don't believe Christ can save them, really. It's like the person who says they have faith it won't rain, but brings along an umbrella anyway--they don't REALLY believe it's not going to rain.<BR/><BR/>If a person believes that specific works are the way they show their faith, then I can't judge--maybe they do have a saving faith. As I said before, only the person and God know for sure.<BR/><BR/>This is a poor comparison, but I see it sort of like trying to use two keys at once to open a door that only has one lock. One is faith and one is works. <BR/><BR/>Using both the keys at the same time is ineffective, because both can't go into the lock at the same time. So in reality one will win out--either you're ultimately trusting in Christ's work on the cross apart from anything you can do to save yourself, or you're ultimately trusting in your own works to save you. <BR/><BR/>The faith key will open the door and the works key won't. <BR/><BR/>It's simple in theory, but not necessarily simple in practice.<BR/><BR/>I believe that Christ's work alone is sufficient for salvation. He paid the price in full, and there was nothing I could do to contribute to that. <BR/><BR/>All He asks is that I turn my heart toward Him in faith and accept what He did for me, and basically stop trying to make myself God (save myself, be in charge of myself, live as though I'm in charge of the world, etc.). If I'm trying to save myself (or even contribute to my salvation) by my own works, then I'm basically still trying to make myself God.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, I do believe that true faith will result in visible actions. If one truly loves and trusts God and has faith in Christ, this will show in their lives. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.answers.org/theology/faith_or_works.html" REL="nofollow">Here's a fairly representative article</A> laying out the Protestant view of works as a necessarily-present expression of faith as opposed to works to earn grace.<BR/><BR/>Belief alone (believing intellectually that God exists, Jesus died on the cross, etc.) is not enough to save a person. “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” –James 2:19 <BR/><BR/>A person must have an active faith--the kind of faith that doesn't just say they trust the tightrope walker to make it across without falling, but the kind that trusts so fully they'd be willing to let the tightrope walker carry them across. That's a whole different level of belief.<BR/><BR/>Again, it's like the umbrella and rain thing. Saying I believe in God but not having any life change is like saying I believe it's not going to rain but bringing along the umbrella just in case. The action (or lack of action) shows that my faith isn't real or complete. If a person truly loves and believes in God and trusts Christ for salvation, their life will show it.<BR/><BR/>I know that's a bit long-winded (as my posts usually are), but I hope it helps to clarify the answers to your questions.purple_kangaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02543172194041505144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-20319085382670091442008-01-30T18:44:00.000-08:002008-01-30T18:44:00.000-08:00PK:Thanks for the explanation. Let me repeat back...PK:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the explanation. Let me repeat back what I hear you saying and make sure I got it right. Essentially, the only thing necessary for salvation is faith in Christ. You can believe that Christ died for your sins, and also believe that He requires works to get to heaven, and you will still get there. It is only if you think you can get to heaven by works <I>alone</I>, and not by faith and works that you will be excluded from heaven.<BR/><BR/>If it is put that way, then the saved "in spite of" the Catholic Church's teaching comment is even more puzzling to me, since the Catholic Church has never taught that one could be saved by works alone apart from faith in Christ. Nor has she ever taught that one can earn grace by works: merit yes, grace no. The only exception to the faith in Jesus requirement would be the ignorant native example: someone who has never heard of Jesus or who has what has been termed invincible ignorance. Even then, the Catholic Church teaches that such a path is a very unreliable one to heaven and it is still entirely dependent on the grace of God and Jesus' merit.<BR/><BR/>There is one question that I have for you. You said, "Essentially, as soon as she turned her heart toward God in faith and determined to accept, love and follow Him, she was saved. Nothing else was necessary."<BR/><BR/>This strikes me as one description of faith AND works, not faith alone. One must not only believe, but determine to accept, love and follow Him. Is the difference that one can have faith in Jesus and determine to do those things one day and wake up the next saying, "What was I smoking? Give up my whores?!? Bad decision!" and move on with their life and still be saved? In other words, must determination be followed by action or can a person change their mind, abandoning the work of following Jesus and still be saved?<BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-45631707501932194442008-01-30T14:53:00.000-08:002008-01-30T14:53:00.000-08:00MB said: Are you saying that one can disregard the...MB said: <I>Are you saying that one can disregard the idea of salvation by faith alone (believing in salvation by grace alone, through both faith and works), and yet still be saved by faith alone?</I><BR/><BR/>Let me see if I can explain this clearly. <BR/><BR/>“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” –Ephesians 2:8-9<BR/><BR/>Imagine that my 6-year-old comes to me and tells me that she knows she is a sinner and needs to be saved. <BR/><BR/>She understands that Jesus died for her sins and that the only way to Heaven is through the work He did on the cross. But she wants to know how she goes about accepting that work and following Him--essentially the age-old question, "What must I do to be saved?"<BR/><BR/>Now, I could tell her that she needs to pray a prayer, or be baptized, or confess to a priest, or jump up and down three times. But none of that would save her. <BR/><BR/>Essentially, as soon as she turned her heart toward God in faith and determined to accept, love and follow Him, she was saved. Nothing else was necessary. <BR/><BR/>Saying a prayer or being baptized might be a good outward expression of that heart attitude and might help cement it in her mind. But it's the heart turning toward God in faith that brings about salvation, not the action. So by the time she actually prays the prayer or whatever, she's already been saved.<BR/><BR/>If someone told her that she needed to jump up and down as part of the process, and she did so <I>as an expression of her faith in Christ</I>, I don't think jumping up and down would "un-save" her. <BR/><BR/>But if she jumped up and down <I>instead of</I> looking toward Christ for her salvation, or depended on the jumping up and down to save her, then she wouldn't have a saving faith in Christ. She'd have faith in jumping, and that wouldn't be enough to save her.<BR/><BR/>Whether she was saved or not would depend on whether she was depending on the jumping up and down to save her, or depending on Christ to save her. And only she and God would know that for sure.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it's impossible for a person to be saved if they think they need to jump up and down in the process.<BR/><BR/>I do, however, think that for any spiritual leader to teach that jumping up and down was necessary for salvation would be heresy.<BR/><BR/>Does that help you to understand the Protestant view that some Catholics can be saved "in spite of" the church's teachings on works AND faith being necessary for salvation? <BR/><BR/>If they're depending on the work of Christ to save them, then they are probably saved. But if they're depending on their own works to earn grace in order to be saved by Christ, then they're probably not. But that is something that really only they and God can know for sure.purple_kangaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02543172194041505144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-24814043524848691432008-01-29T22:47:00.000-08:002008-01-29T22:47:00.000-08:00PK,You wrote, "they don't feel that the Catholic C...PK,<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "they don't feel that the Catholic Church's teachings are clear enough on this point to bring most hearers to the conviction that they must be saved by faith alone, solely by the work of Jesus Christ."<BR/><BR/>While I understand that many Protestants would hold up sola fide as the rule of faith, I certainly don't hold to the faith alone idea myself, and have only very, very rarely had my own salvation questioned by people who say that Catholics can be saved "in spite of" the what their Church teaches. <BR/><BR/>Are you saying that one can disregard the idea of salvation by faith alone (believing in salvation by grace alone, through both faith and works), and yet still be saved by faith alone? What must this faith entail? How then is Catholic teaching an impediment to this necessary and sufficient salvific faith in the minds of those who believe in faith alone? My own understanding of the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone historically was that a person must believe that he/she is saved solely by faith in Jesus apart from anything they do.<BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-66584430351761254132008-01-28T20:23:00.000-08:002008-01-28T20:23:00.000-08:00Well, I was finally able to find this thread again...Well, I was finally able to find this thread again and finish reading it. Let's see if I can resurrect it. :)<BR/><BR/>Katia, if you are still around, I'm curious about this: You said that you think the spirits (or was it souls) of people have always existed, and that we can become like God. So, I'm trying to understand--basically, in essence, you do not believe that humans (at least the non-physical part of us) are created beings? God did not create us, because we have always existed?<BR/><BR/>I would be very curious to know how you view God, Jesus, and humans as different from each other. <BR/><BR/>Do you see the only real difference as that people have sinned and God and Jesus have not? Am I understanding correctly that you believe that basically people can recover their first state and become essentially the same as God again, as we once were?<BR/><BR/>MB, I think many people would say that the Catholic church does not teach salvation through faith alone, solely by the work of Jesus Christ and not by anything we can do. Therefore many protestants do not consider Catholics to be "Christians" although they do believe that we worship the same God and believe many of the same things.<BR/><BR/>I'm guessing that this is probably what our mutual friends meant when they said you were saved "in spite of" the Catholic Church--they don't feel that the Catholic Church's teachings are clear enough on this point to bring most hearers to the conviction that they must be saved by faith alone, solely by the work of Jesus Christ. I understand that you disagree with this, but that is the view of many protestants.<BR/><BR/>Kevin, you asked about how I reconcile belief in the Bible with the harshness of the Old Testament law (i.e. capital crimes, etc.). I think that the Bible was written (as well as to all people) to a certain time and place and a certain culture, and that to some extent God chose to interact with and stay within the constraints of that culture. Basically he was speaking to the people of the day in terms and pictures that would be familiar to them, and that they could understand. <BR/><BR/>Jesus fulfilled the law and brought us a fuller understanding of God's character and grace. The law existed to show us that we could not measure up to God's standards or save ourselves, and Jesus provided a way for salvation that was based on Grace, not law-following.<BR/><BR/>I do not think we are today required to follow the Old Testament Law, and I don't think the culture of Bible times was itself inspired.<BR/><BR/>As for the Scripture, I do not think the translations we have today are infallible in the DETAILS. But in ESSENCE they are infallible. There is no error in any of the major translations that changes the basic message being conveyed, or changes any important doctrine of the Bible. <BR/><BR/>Just as a misspelled word is indeed a mistake, but generally doesn't change or obscure the meaning of the sentence, I think the basic meaning and character of God and the message He wanted to convey to us is unspoilt by any of the tiny errors (like words in a different tense and that sort of thing) that are considered translation errors.purple_kangaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02543172194041505144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-25815452354431951022007-05-30T14:08:00.000-07:002007-05-30T14:08:00.000-07:00Mark,That's a much better way of putting it. Than...Mark,<BR/><BR/>That's a much better way of putting it. Thanks for being patient with me.<BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-52503705258362777402007-05-30T12:25:00.000-07:002007-05-30T12:25:00.000-07:00MB,Thanks for your clarifications. I think it was...MB,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your clarifications. I think it was the use of the word "arbitrary" that was primarily confusing me. If we replace that with, say, "non-deterministic", then I'm in full agreement.<BR/><BR/>As an example, a jury decision in a complicated trial is never certain or deterministic. But I certainly wouldn't call it "arbitrary" either. I'm not sure what word to use in that situation, but that's roughly how I view interpretation of a book such as the Bible.<BR/><BR/>MarkMarkChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14783588922999884233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-1907673701013607832007-05-29T20:36:00.000-07:002007-05-29T20:36:00.000-07:00Mark,You said, "It's in the fact that your propose...Mark,<BR/><BR/>You said, "It's in the fact that your proposed statement is a lowest-common-denominator statement that most people would find grossly insufficient to explain their beliefs--even just their beliefs about written revelation, not to mention all the other differing aspects of our comparative religions."<BR/><BR/>That was my point. I thought the CARM website did a poor job describing mormon beliefs and offering distinctions from orthodox Christianity. Whether you want to say that it is a grossly insufficient statement or say that the devil is in the details, the end conclusion is the same, they didn't have enough detail in the description of differences between mormonism and orthodox Christianity to do the subject justice. I originally commented on it because I didn't think it was a good reference point for describing usch differences. I have obviously done a poor job communicating that.<BR/><BR/>"Can we at least agree that the quantitative difference is large enough that the two comparisons are not similar?"<BR/><BR/>Without reading everything posted in the past in detail, I can't recall saying that Mormonism is not uniquely different from Protestantism and Catholicism. On very foundational issues, Mormonism is very different from Christianity. However, I do think that in even in agreement over foundational issues (e.g., continuing canonical revelation and the Trinity), Protestants and Catholics still approach the topics using substatively different interpretive/philosophical lenses and cannot be describes as being in in unity regarding approach, though the end result is almost identical relative to Mormonism.<BR/><BR/>I recently read an article (can't remember where) about how Mormonism is an amazing blend of Catholic ideas like apostolic succession with Protestant ideas about the corruption of the Christianity and the need for dramatic reform. It is this blend of beliefs that makes it attractive, effective and difficult to distinguish from orthodox Christianity in several areas (though not all).<BR/><BR/>-----------<BR/>trying to keep things clear, this series of quotes is long.<BR/><BR/>I wrote: "I agree that the Bible can propose questions and even answers in a non-arbitrary sense, the selection of which questions are *most important* is not something that I believe can be answered based on Scripture alone."<BR/><BR/>Mark wrote: "I guess at some point I'd be interested to hear what you feel the Bible can say in a non-arbitrary sense, if it can't tell us what issues are central. I'm befuddled."<BR/><BR/>Like I said, the Bible can answer questions in a non-arbitrary sense. The Bible can answer questions like whether mankind needs redemption and that Jesus died and rose for our redemption. Picking out which questions are *most* important, though, is a task that people disagree on, since the Bible itself doesn't explicitly say, "these ideas are the most important." Basically, that is what creeds and statements of faith do. Very few Christian groups have exactly the same creeds/statements of faith. Even if they are exactly the same in their content for individual ideas, most add or subtract ideas from the creeds of others. In other words, some will say in their statements of faith that "Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. This church recognizes that it cannot bind the conscience of individual members in areas where Scripture is silent. Rather, each believer is to be led in those areas by the Lord, to whom he or she alone is ultimately responsible." and others will leave such a statement out or explicitly disagree. <BR/>BTW: that was taken from this church, whose statement of faith is fairly representative of the Protestantism I grew up in. <BR/>http://www.gccwired.com/attachments/Mission_Vision_Values_Statement_updated.pdf<BR/><BR/>So, I guess I approach the what is important question by looking at creeds and seeing all the differences in creeds/statements of faith across denominational lines from people who are using the same Bible, I conclude that the Bible alone isn't what people use in coming up with those statements. They also fundamentally rely on philosophical/theological frameworks to rank ideas. That is partly why there are numerous Protestant groups that think Catholics can't be saved or that they can only be saved "in spite of" what their Church leadership teaches. <BR/><BR/>I suppose one could say that the same is true of Biblical interpretation in general, so perhaps I don't think that the Bible answers those questions in a completely non-arbitrary sense. However, I think that people's philosophical/theological frameworks are working overtime when ranking ideas and coming up with creeds/statements of faith.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, perhaps arbitrary was too nebulous a word, since its definition ranges from "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" to "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will" to "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law" www.m-w.com That's quite a range of definitions and some of them are not what I meant. When I say the Bible doesn't answer that question in a non-arbitrary sense, I mean that it doesn't answer the question outright, but leaves it to people to put the pieces together and depending on how one puts the pieces of theology together, one comes up with different answers (e.g., differences in creeds).<BR/><BR/>I hope that is more clear. I haven't been doing a good job expressing my ideas recently and apologize for that. This was especially true in the back and forth over the carm website where it seems to me we were basically in agreement.<BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-35909285662549422732007-05-14T00:28:00.000-07:002007-05-14T00:28:00.000-07:00Stevieyou asked about my beliefs of evalution and ...Stevie<BR/><BR/>you asked about my beliefs of evalution and the origin of man. Well I did say something about that in a previous post but I will try to summerize hear. <BR/><BR/>Together with my religion and my only personal soul searching this is what I believe and know for myself.<BR/><BR/>I lived before I came to earth as a spirit child born in Heaven to Heavenly parents. Before I was born as a spirit I existed as an intellegence that was never created nor can ever be destroyed. This intellegence is the essence of who I am and the spirit and body which I gained when I was born on earth are helping my intellegence grow and develope to be like my Father in Heaven. <BR/><BR/>This life is a probationary state a time to prepare to meet God. Man originated on earth when in Heaven there was a war between those who wanted to follow God's plan to help us become like him through earth life and agency and Santan's who wanted to make all of us be good so all will be saved and there was no choice for us in the matter. Satan had followers and he was cast out with them and these dwell on earth to tempt and try those who did choose God's plan. When the war was over Jesus through God's instruction created the earth and placed Adam and Eve there to begin the decent of man into their probationary state. From the begining man sined and each will be judged for their own sins not Adams mistake. Adam was the first to transgress but each of us also transgress and like Adam need someone to atone for our sins so Christ came down and paid that price so we could overcome the consequences of sin (which is separation from the devine) and then learn how to stop sinning and eventually become like God with no desire for sin. This is the devine understanding I have of Man and his origin and his destiny. <BR/><BR/>As far as evalution I do believe natural selection and survival of the fitest might have some influence in how animals change with time but I do not believe they changed from one species to another. And I do not believe natural selection relates to man like it does to animals. I believe mans origin is sacred and special and animals were created from spirits as well to be part of an earth that man is to take care of and love and cherish and use for the betterment of man. Some animals are for eating some for controling the overpopulation of other animals and some for the beauty of the earth. They are special and their purpose is also devine in it's own way. <BR/><BR/>Well so much for brief. I could go on but I hope this answers your question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-89121148645909333502007-05-11T11:02:00.000-07:002007-05-11T11:02:00.000-07:00MB,You wrote: "I agree that the Bible can propose ...MB,<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "<I>I agree that the Bible can propose questions and even answers in a non-arbitrary sense, the selection of which questions are *most important* is not something that I believe can be answered based on Scripture alone.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I guess at some point I'd be interested to hear what you feel the Bible can say in a non-arbitrary sense, if it can't tell us what issues are central. I'm befuddled.<BR/><BR/><I>Perhaps someone would like to prove me wrong by producing a sola scriptura argument for why the Mormon view of textual corruption is wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>We're not trying to prove any view right or wrong in this discussion. I'm simply trying to point out that the differences between Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox are all vastly less significant than the differences between any of those groups and Mormons.<BR/><BR/>It's possible, as you say, that the difference is quantitative and not qualitative. I don't care to debate that point. Can we at least agree that the quantitative difference is large enough that the two comparisons are not similar?<BR/><BR/><I>Does anybody know of a Protestant, Catholic, Mormon or Orthodox that would not hold to the above statement?</I><BR/><BR/>Of course not. Does anybody know of a Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, or Orthodox who would say that that statement was a full and sufficient description of how God has revealed His truth to us? I doubt it.<BR/><BR/>The devil isn't just "in the details". It's in the fact that your proposed statement is a lowest-common-denominator statement that most people would find grossly insufficient to explain their beliefs--even just their beliefs about written revelation, not to mention all the other differing aspects of our comparative religions.<BR/><BR/>MarkMarkChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14783588922999884233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-62263811262318947232007-05-11T08:13:00.000-07:002007-05-11T08:13:00.000-07:00MBYou have some excellent observations. We do not ...MB<BR/><BR/>You have some excellent observations. We do not believe all the essential books were kept and even in the bible there is reference to other books that have been taken out. This is sad but we work with what we have. There is the Scrolls of papyrus that Joseph Smith translated when they were found, you can prabably look up the history of this for more detail. Anyways we have added that to our cannon and it is called the book of Abraham about Abrahams converstions with God in more detail. So This is a book that was lost but recovered in purity because it was not tampered with. <BR/><BR/>So to answer your question no we do not believe those who put the books together were that inspired infact it was done by a vote if I recall the history correct. Joseph Smith was also inspired with the lost words of Moses of his more detailed conversations with God and this was so detailed that it wasn't put in the bible as a appendage but sits along side the translated book of Abraham in what we Mormons call the pearl of Great Price. This is separate from the Bible and Book of Mormon as a set of Cannon for us. I don't know if you've heard of the Mormon Quad. It includes all our books of scripture. Bible, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenates(which is the revelations that were given to Joseph Smith while he was restoring the Church) and the Book of Mormon. We even still have continued revelations from time to time like the recent one called the "Proclamation on the Family." So It's a little more that just sticking with the cannon we already have. One of our articles of Faith says We believe in all that God has revealed all that he does now reveal and all we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. I hope I quoted that right=). <BR/><BR/>Anyways we do not believe that what is in the bible now was inspired to be added persay. We believe many books were lost and a lot that was meant to be plain was corrupted to cause confusion. We believe that the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great price and JST and continuing revelation both for the church and personal help clear up that confustion. So even though I believe King James might have been inspired to a certain extent I do not believe he was fully inspired and also I realize that by the time he got a hold of the bible a lot had already been removed. <BR/><BR/>I see the apostate thing as being the people as a whole but individually I do not say either way. That is not my place to judge. Some do seek God and he does help them so we don't believe that those who are not of the church recieve no help from God. We just believe that we have the whole truth of the Plan of salvation in completness and that this is the Church that God himself governs. So following his commandments and admonitions brings the most blessings and most growth in preparation to return to him. But we do not think we are the only ones who are blessed by God I believe those who seek him will find him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-70972588806428731472007-05-10T23:30:00.000-07:002007-05-10T23:30:00.000-07:00"Even if you don't believe the Bible, on its own a..."Even if you don't believe the Bible, on its own apart from an infallible interpretive authority, can give us reliable conclusions on those topics, can't we at least agree that it can define the questions in a non-"arbitrary" sense?"<BR/><BR/>Mark,<BR/><BR/>Though I agree that the Bible can propose questions and even answers in a non-arbitrary sense, the selection of which questions are *most important* is not something that I believe can be answered based on Scripture alone. Questions of importance are not just based on Scripture, but also on the theological and philosophical framework within which one reads the Bible. <BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-52178595349832526252007-05-10T23:14:00.000-07:002007-05-10T23:14:00.000-07:00Katia,Your examples all deal with potential mistra...Katia,<BR/><BR/>Your examples all deal with potential mistranslations. None of them deal with what books actually belong in the Bible. What I don't get is this. Why, if the people of the 3rd/15th centuries were truly apostate, did they so fortuitously pick the right books that belong in the Bible in the first place. I would have thought that Joseph Smith would have gone ahead and completely thrown some out or added some early writings like the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Protoevangelium of James, etc.<BR/><BR/>In other words, if the exact words of the translations are so far off, then why are the book selections so dead spot on? The Bible, after all, is more like a library than a single book. It is a compilation of literary works written in several countries over several centuries in several languages.<BR/><BR/>DougDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-50797486536907491912007-05-10T23:03:00.000-07:002007-05-10T23:03:00.000-07:00"I would say that there is no difference between P..."I would say that there is no difference between Protestant and Mormon views of Scripture."<BR/><BR/>I earlier apologized for a making an ambiguous statement, without going back and checking what I originally wrote. Actually, after looking at it again, it is clear that I was quoted out of context and I retract my apology. I had been referring to the CARM statement on the differences between mormonism and protestantism. The full sentence read "*IF* this was all I was going on, I would say that there is no difference between Protestant and Mormon views of Scripture." (emphasis on IF added).<BR/><BR/>I wasn't stating that there is no difference, but that the CARM statement doesn't make a case for one.<BR/><BR/>Combining the Mormon and "Christian" views of scripture from the CARM website, one can come up with a statement that both groups would affirm faith in.<BR/><BR/>Modified CARM statement on the Christian/Mormon view of the Bible.<BR/>- The Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God as far as it is translated correctly. When translated correctly, it is authoritative in all subjects it addresses.<BR/><BR/>Does anybody know of a Protestant, Catholic, Mormon or Orthodox that would not hold to the above statement?<BR/><BR/>Like most things, the devil is in the details. For one thing, who is going to make the case that their Bible translation is completely, 100% error free and stays true to the original text 100% of the time? Virtually no-one. Where PCOs and Mormons differ is in the amount of textual corruption and whether the Bible in its current P, C or O forms is always reliable for forming doctrine. To that end, Ps and OCs have their own sharp disagreements. It is not that we stand unified together and the Mormons stand apart, but that we stand apart in varying degrees.<BR/><BR/>These degrees of difference cannot be reconciled by solely appealing to Scripture because they deal with our foundational assumptions when reading Scripture. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps someone would like to prove me wrong by producing a sola scriptura argument for why the Mormon view of textual corruption is wrong. Personally, I don't think it can be done effectively, because at a fundamental level people rely on scholarship, history and/or tradition in forming their opinions about textual corruption.<BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-89323440716164201082007-05-10T00:12:00.000-07:002007-05-10T00:12:00.000-07:00MB,Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard o...MB,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't heard of that development. It's a shame, considering the doctrinal statement of the ETS, which I imagine nearly all American Catholics could agree to without reservation.<BR/><BR/>It sounds like they need to add some items to their doctrinal statement in order to be honest.<BR/><BR/>MarkMarkChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14783588922999884233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-88902160163514262862007-05-09T17:38:00.000-07:002007-05-09T17:38:00.000-07:00It was written,"Last week the President of the Eva...It was written,<BR/>"Last week the President of the Evangelical Theological Society swam the Tiber and was denounced by some...<BR/><BR/>Great example. See, even though he moved from Protestant understanding of delegation of authority to Catholic understanding, he intends to retain his membership in the Evangelical Theological Society. He won't remain President, because there is undeniably hostility between Protestants and Catholics. But his belief system is sufficiently similar to his previous belief system that he is able to remain in the society as an active member."<BR/><BR/>Actually, Beckwith also surrendered his membership. That action was considered "appropriate" by the Evangelical Theological Society board and the "acting president Hassell Bullock of Wheaton College, said in a May 8 statement that ETS membership is not compatible with 'wholehearted confessional agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.'"<BR/>http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-32.0.html<BR/><BR/>The ETS statement of faith is very, very short (only about 2 sentences) and thus not terribly specific. Dr. Beckwith had thought that he could maintain his membership. However, the board thought otherwise.<BR/>http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/statement_of_th.html#more<BR/><BR/>This is a bit off topic, but I wanted to clear up misinformation, since there have been a couple developments recently.<BR/><BR/>Commenting on the ETS decision...<BR/>I found it really interesting that the ETS board on one hand excludes Beckwith for holding to a larger canon, while in the very next sentence excluding him for holding to the means of fixing a canon, namely a belief in some sort of Magisterium/binding tradition. These are really smart guys. Am I missing something?<BR/><BR/>"Specifically, it posits a larger canon of Scripture than that recognized by evangelical Protestants, including in its canon several writings from the Apocrypha. It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church)..."<BR/>http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2007/05/ets_on_beckwith.htmlDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-12022937259023264592007-05-09T10:16:00.000-07:002007-05-09T10:16:00.000-07:00Wow, there's been a lot of discussion here since I...Wow, there's been a lot of discussion here since I last looked at this thread. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and explaining more about your beliefs, Katia. It's going to take me a little while to read it all. Baby E hasn't been feeling well lately and that limits my computer time somewhat.<BR/><BR/>I do still plan to attempt to answer Kevin's question, too.purple_kangaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02543172194041505144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-48608772121692145992007-05-09T09:31:00.000-07:002007-05-09T09:31:00.000-07:00MB,I understand where you're coming from now. Tha...MB,<BR/><BR/>I understand where you're coming from now. Thanks,<BR/><BR/>MarkMarkChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14783588922999884233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-29211790527376386702007-05-08T21:06:00.000-07:002007-05-08T21:06:00.000-07:00MB I was taking a closer look at your responce. Yo...MB <BR/><BR/>I was taking a closer look at your responce. You asked why we use the King James version. We believe it was the least tampered with and that King James was inspired to a certain extent but not fully since there are some mistakes but this is the version that is the closest in English. Joseph Smith actually said once that the German translation is closer than the King James but since we can't speak German the King James is what we have to work with. We still teach from the bible and I grew up as a kid learning the bible stories along with the book of mormon stories. I understood it as the bible to be records of God's people in the old world and the Book of Mormon a record of God's people who were lead away during the distruction of jeruselem to a land of promise. Well anyways this is to clarify some more if you will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-91494752258858147012007-05-08T19:24:00.000-07:002007-05-08T19:24:00.000-07:00MBThat is why the article of faith states as far a...MB<BR/>That is why the article of faith states as far as it is translated correctly. We believe that to be the most correct translation in English but we don't believe it has not been corrupted. We believe Joseph Smith was inspired by God and made many corrections to some of the verses that God especially didn't want us to misunderstand. for example the KJ says God hardened pharohs hart in the story of moses but in the JST which is the Joseph smith correction if you will (T stands for translation) it says in the crossnotes Pharoh hardened his own heart which makes more sence. So in a sence you are right we don't believe the bible to be commplete cannon but with the help of the JST (which is added in appendeges and not to the bible itself (more of a reference guide like hebrew translation guides and things like that) it becomes closer to being cannon. And the Book of Mormon which we believe to be untampered and strait from the prophets of God without changes, helps us understand some of the confustion the bible causes. Hope this answers your questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27237113.post-1580851885533780702007-05-08T17:00:00.000-07:002007-05-08T17:00:00.000-07:00"I would say that there is no difference between P..."I would say that there is no difference between Protestant and Mormon views of Scripture."<BR/><BR/>That statement was way too ambiguous and I apologize for that. <BR/><BR/>Mark, I do agree with you that in practice the PCO Scriptures are all vastly different than the Mormon Scripture. I agree that the doctrinal differences that arise from the differences in canon are thus vastly greater between Mormon and PCO doctrine. However, I view that as a matter of degree. Ps differ from OCs on doctrine that has its most direct backing in the books that have been removed from P Bibles.<BR/><BR/>Where I think the Protestant and Mormon views of Scripture are in many ways more similar to each other than to the CO view of Scripture is in how Scripture was formed and whether a decision on the canon is binding. COs believe that the canon is binding because the God inspired the men selecting the books way back in the 300s, and it was approved Tradition. For differing reasons Protestants and Mormons don't believe that the decisions of anybody in the post apostolic period are binding and therefore rely on their own judgement over a millenia after the fact to decide the canon. To give an example, if another epistle of Paul (say the third one to the Corinthians) were discovered, many Protestants would consider adding it to the NT because there is no Biblical basis (or only a very weak one) for closing the canon and setting the contents in stone. OCs wouldn't because their view of canonicity is dependent on liturgy and tradition, so they wouldn't allow it even if it were authentic. So when the Mormons add a book to Scripture, they are in many ways coopting a Protestant view that the NT canon wasn't closed by some OC bishops and Pope Damasus back in the 300s.<BR/><BR/>Katia,<BR/><BR/>What I've never understood and have never been able to get a good asnwer on is where the Mormons get their NT/OT canon and why they believe the KJ version is the best/only approved Mormon version of the scriptures. At least that's my understanding, so correct me if I'm wrong.<BR/><BR/>For the NT canon, the Mormon's rely on some OC bishops that lived over 200 years after the "apostosy." For an OT canon and a translation of Scripture, Mormons seem to rely on some Protestants who lived over some 1500 years after the apostosy.<BR/><BR/>If those people were truly apostates, then why coopt their books?<BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.com