 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Seeing Is Believing = Mormon Truth | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/25/2004 5:04 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Spenlake and Feelinahole:
I have enjoyed our conversation in this thread, and I hope that I haven't said anything here that would make you feel otherwise. My intent hasn't been to argue that the differences between Evangelicals and Mormons aren't important, but rather to argue that there doesn't seem to be a clear basis for denying Mormons the appellation "Christians". We may have beaten that horse to death, and that's okay, but our discussion did lead me to do some interesting reading last night and this morning, as I tried to improve my understanding of the theological controversies of the 4th century A.D. A couple of the books I own that give some detail on these matters are: Eerdmanns Handbook to the History of Christianity, and John S. Feinberg's No One Like Him. The first of these gives a nice historical perspective, while the second delves deeper into the philosophical issues involved. Incidentally, feelinahole, if you don't already own the latter book, you might find it gives you a lot more bang for the buck than Navigating the Storms of Providence. Feinberg's book, from Crossway Books' "Foundations of Evangelical Theology" series, costs $24 at Amazon for a nicely-bound 800-page trade paperback + endnotes. Of course I don't agree with everything he says, but it's a pretty good read.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/25/2004 7:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Chris: I'm just finishing up "Storms," which I thought was very good (though $40 is still a lot...what was I thinking  ). I'll definitely look into that one... | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/26/2004 11:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
This is Greg -- you know, the Mormon guy. Hi.
Just a few notes, for what its worth.
a) p.116 (and elsewhere): "Jesus does not literally change what happened in the past, of course. But he certainly changes its message oto us in the present.... He personally enters the memory and brings his healing love to it." Spenlake must have missed this. Its about changing the meaning of the past, not making up a fictional past.
b) on the "mysticism" thread (oddly named, for mysticism is apophatic [clearing the mind] while cataphatic prayer is the opposite [intentionally filling the mind]) spenlake argued that my healed memory was demonic on the grounds that my grandmother said "Greggie is a good boy," whereas in fact the little Greggie was a lost sinner. Does this mean that spenlake believes all parents or grandparents who say "good boy" or "good girl" to their 2 yr olds are demonic? Does it mean that spenlake will never tell his 2 yr. old children they are a "good boy" or "good girl" until they have received Christ into their lives?
c) spenlake's other objections are pretty much covered in Ch.8.
Blessings
Greg -- the Mormon guy
Greg,
While you state, a) p.116 "Jesus does not literally change what happened in the past, of course. But he certainly changes its message oto us in the present.... He personally enters the memory and brings his healing love to it." Spenlake must have missed this. Its about changing the meaning of the past, not making up a fictional past." In your example, you do make up a fictional past. It is extremely clear that you find healing and the power to forgive in the fictional past - in the red airplane instead of the red blood shed for your sins. The love of God has content and it is expressed in His blood, that is where forgiving power comes from.
When you state, "on the "mysticism" thread (oddly named, for mysticism is apophatic [clearing the mind] cataphatic prayer is the opposite [intentionally filling the mind])," this isn't exactly true. Mysticism is more the concept that truth is experienced subjectively as a spiritual experience as opposed to objectively through the intellect and mind - separating truth from objective reality. It is this that you are filling you mind with. Your example has you filling you mind with fictional history and anti-events. It is through fiction that you experience "truth."
When you state, "Does this mean that spenlake believes all parents or grandparents who say "good boy" or "good girl" to their 2 yr olds are demonic? Does it mean that spenlake will never tell his 2 yr. old children they are a "good boy" or "good girl" until they have received Christ into their lives?" I think that you intentionally miss the point. Parents and humans calling each other "good" is one thing. Men speak the words of men, and say what men will. You claim that God is speaking, this is radically different. We are commanded to test the words of those who claim to have the words of God and speak for Him. Unless, of course, you really mean that it wasn't God at all. Maybe you mean that your concept of "Resting in Christ" is actually just your own imagination without God inspiring it so that the whole thing is "human therapy" pretending to be the Holy Spirit. I think that this is what we believe Joseph Smith was doing, improperly claiming a revelation from God and speaking His words, vain worship through teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. It is in this sense that you have your affinity to Mormonism - false history and false words. If you read the posts on this thread, you will find the Mormon, Chris, is a nice guy. I would like him as a friend, but I reject the words he believes to be God's words.
When you put words into the mouth of Jesus you have raised the bar and they are to be tested against the words of the real tangible biblical Jesus. The factual Jesus specifically tells us that "good" is ONLY a quality of God Himself. You are welcome to imagine it otherwise, but then deal with the biblical passages that speak directly to the issue and explain why Jesus has now evolved. I don't believe that you can do this. You claimed too much and went too far to support with the scriptures. Just say you made a mistake, repent and go back to the red blood instead of red airplanes and the historical factual gospel instead of anti-events of fiction. If you want to stand your ground, then defend it with scripture, so far this has been weak and flimsy, chapter 8 included.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/26/2004 2:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
This is Greg -- you know, the Mormon guy. Hi.
Just a few notes, for what its worth.
a) p.116 (and elsewhere): "Jesus does not literally change what happened in the past, of course. But he certainly changes its message oto us in the present.... He personally enters the memory and brings his healing love to it." Spenlake must have missed this. Its about changing the meaning of the past, not making up a fictional past.
b) on the "mysticism" thread (oddly named, for mysticism is apophatic [clearing the mind] while cataphatic prayer is the opposite [intentionally filling the mind]) spenlake argued that my healed memory was demonic on the grounds that my grandmother said "Greggie is a good boy," whereas in fact the little Greggie was a lost sinner. Does this mean that spenlake believes all parents or grandparents who say "good boy" or "good girl" to their 2 yr olds are demonic? Does it mean that spenlake will never tell his 2 yr. old children they are a "good boy" or "good girl" until they have received Christ into their lives?
c) spenlake's other objections are pretty much covered in Ch.8.
Blessings
Greg -- the Mormon guy
Greg,
While you state, a) p.116 "Jesus does not literally change what happened in the past, of course. But he certainly changes its message oto us in the present.... He personally enters the memory and brings his healing love to it." Spenlake must have missed this. Its about changing the meaning of the past, not making up a fictional past." In your example, you do make up a fictional past. It is extremely clear that you find healing and the power to forgive in the fictional past - in the red airplane instead of the red blood shed for your sins. The love of God has content and it is expressed in His blood, that is where forgiving power comes from.
When you state, "on the "mysticism" thread (oddly named, for mysticism is apophatic [clearing the mind] cataphatic prayer is the opposite [intentionally filling the mind])," this isn't exactly true. Mysticism is more the concept that truth is experienced subjectively as a spiritual experience as opposed to objectively through the intellect and mind - separating truth from objective reality. It is this that you are filling you mind with. Your example has you filling you mind with fictional history and anti-events. It is through fiction that you experience "truth."
When you state, "Does this mean that spenlake believes all parents or grandparents who say "good boy" or "good girl" to their 2 yr olds are demonic? Does it mean that spenlake will never tell his 2 yr. old children they are a "good boy" or "good girl" until they have received Christ into their lives?" I think that you intentionally miss the point. Parents and humans calling each other "good" is one thing. Men speak the words of men, and say what men will. You claim that God is speaking, this is radically different. We are commanded to test the words of those who claim to have the words of God and speak for Him. Unless, of course, you really mean that it wasn't God at all. Maybe you mean that your concept of "Resting in Christ" is actually just your own imagination without God inspiring it so that the whole thing is "human therapy" pretending to be the Holy Spirit. I think that this is what we believe Joseph Smith was doing, improperly claiming a revelation from God and speaking His words, vain worship through teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. It is in this sense that you have your affinity to Mormonism - false history and false words. If you read the posts on this thread, you will find the Mormon, Chris, is a nice guy. I would like him as a friend, but I reject the words he believes to be God's words.
When you put words into the mouth of Jesus you have raised the bar and they are to be tested against the words of the real tangible biblical Jesus. The factual Jesus specifically tells us that "good" is ONLY a quality of God Himself. You are welcome to imagine it otherwise, but then deal with the biblical passages that speak directly to the issue and explain why Jesus has now evolved. I don't believe that you can do this. You claimed too much and went too far to support with the scriptures. Just say you made a mistake, repent and go back to the red blood instead of red airplanes and the historical factual gospel instead of anti-events of fiction. If you want to stand your ground, then defend it with scripture, so far this has been weak and flimsy, chapter 8 included.
Spen, how much of the book have you actually read? I have just finished chapter 6 and do not see any of the things that you are talking about. The book is grounded in biblical truth - that we are transformed by the renewing of our minds and that as we are transformed from glory to glory - that we are being transformed into the image of Christ. There is nothing mystical about this. It involves the mind, which includes our God given intellect and imagination. As humans we need something concrete to focus on. We do not do well with abstract and that is why so many people struggle in their prayer life. An imagination that is inspired by the Holy Spirit is not ficticious. Throughout scripture God inspired people with visions and dreams that dramatically impacted their life as well as the lives of others.
For the life of me I do not understand what your objection is. I do not see that you are open to hearing from those who have been transformed in this manner. I offered to share my own experience with you. I also spoke to you about prophecy and how it is really Holy Spirit inspired imagination. Have you never been praying Spen and had God give you a vision of something while you were praying, that was meaningful to you and/or others?
What exactly is it that you think Dr Boyd should repent of? I'm not clear on that. And if he does need to repent of something, do you not trust the work of the Holy Spirit to show him what that is? We all, afterall, need to repent from time to time as we are being transformed from glory to glory!
God Bless,
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/26/2004 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Spen,
I have one more question. I realize that since you have responded to few of my questions that you probably consider me to be beneath what you are discussing - but that's alright. No personal offense taken. This, after all, is not personal. It's about ideas and I am not the best here at debate and definitely not a theologian.
My question: Spen, how do you experience God, day by day, in prayer...what makes Him real to you?
Jo-Anne 
Jo-Anne,
I am not offended by a question and I am sorry if I have truly given you some impression that I considered a question of yours beneath me. There are certainly questions that are "on topic" or not, but a sincere question isn't beneath anybody in and of itself.
I experience God objectively (through what He had communicated to me in black and white) and subjectively in feelings, impressions, and emotions. He is "real" to me because I really do believe that He became a man and out of love, He died for me to carry even my sins away and reconcile me to God. It is definitely true that I feel "reconciled" at some times more than others. I also feel "married" and "in love" at some times more than others. The subjective feelings come and go but the reality continues in spite of it. I would also say that, when all evil is assailing me (inside and outside) and when I don't feel loved and cared for...this is what a crisis of faith looks like and where I especially find comfort in the objective truth.
Perhaps this communicates something you can understand.
Regarding your question above on the book, I have laid out quotations and factual evidence why I believe the book is false. Apparently, while non-sympathetic OV issues merit response and defense, when it comes to the more obvious error in this book scriptural defense is only accorded to a sympathetic questioner, like yourself. I would maintain that this refusal to respond with scriptures would also be the case where the arguments are weakest. This, in itself proves nothing of course. However, I think that it is clear that Dr. Boyd went too far and he is now in a difficult position to defend what he has written. He has given an example in which he found the freedom to forgive though a fictional anti-event and a red plane. May God grant him the grace to say that he made a mistake and the the freedom to forgive is truly to be found in the red blood of Christ.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/26/2004 10:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
(Spen) I experience God objectively (through what He had communicated to me in black and white) and subjectively in feelings, impressions, and emotions. He is "real" to me because I really do believe that He became a man and out of love, He died for me to carry even my sins away and reconcile me to God. It is definitely true that I feel "reconciled" at some times more than others. I also feel "married" and "in love" at some times more than others. The subjective feelings come and go but the reality continues in spite of it. I would also say that, when all evil is assailing me (inside and outside) and when I don't feel loved and cared for...this is what a crisis of faith looks like and where I especially find comfort in the objective truth.
(Jo-Anne) Spen, I agree wholeheartedly with you in this. We cannot just go by feelings. There are times when we need to rely solely on the facts of our faith. There are times when we must lean on objective truth. But I am thankful for the subjective feelings as well, for the visions that God gives me occasionally in prayer that speak to me, encourage me, inspire me (much of my writing has come from those times). Spen - do you believe He speaks to us in varied ways, depending on the needs of the individual, the culture...? I realize that He speaks to us all through His word, through creation and through the living Word (Jesus), but I believe He also speaks to us through our God given intellect and imagination (through our mind). The world definitely has an impact on our minds. We are constantly assailed and must guard ourselves against images and messages that influence our thinking and ultimately (if we let them and so choose) our character.
"What Ignatius clearly understood was that it's not what you know intellectually that affects your life; it's what you experience, what is concrete and tangible, that transforms your life. And the central place where we experience spiritual realities is the imagination."
Seeing is Believing by Gregory Boyd
(Jo-Anne) I have experienced this to be true Spen. I experienced a tremendous and lasting transformative experience in my life that was the result of a vision that God gave me during imaginative prayer. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit and He guided me through it. That was two years ago and the impact that it had on my life was powerful and obvious to all who knew me. From that experience I was inspired to write a book called "A Wing Tip" Spen, I hear what you're saying. Please hear what I am saying as well. The Father created us with our intellect and imagination and He indwells us and can speak to us through those as well - powerfully and in ways that transform our lives as well as ways that encourage the body of Christ (prophecy - visions and dreams). I believe that this is being transformed by the renewing of your mind. The Word is another way that He does this. He does this in so many ways...that influence our mind. Sometimes I think that mysticism has caused us to be too suspicious. Yes, we need to be discerning...but please Spen, do not discount the work of the Holy Spirit because you are unfamiliar with this. I began the book with the same questions, then realized that it was talking about what had happened in my own life and that this is not something that is unheard of or new - but something that is true and has been experienced throughout generations of believers and is evident throughout the whole of scripture. My vision during prayer was as real to me as Dr Boyds was real to him. You couldn't see it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't real and inspired by the Holy Spirit. The enemy does not want us to be transformed from glory to glory. He's a great imitator but that is one thing he won't do for us.
(Spen) Perhaps this communicates something you can understand.
(Jo-Anne) It did and thanks
(Spen) Regarding your question above on the book, I have laid out quotations and factual evidence why I believe the book is false. Apparently, while non-sympathetic OV issues merit response and defense, when it comes to the more obvious error in this book scriptural defense is only accorded to a sympathetic questioner, like yourself. I would maintain that this refusal to respond with scriptures would also be the case where the arguments are weakest.
(Jo-Anne) Spen, perhaps the best scriptural reference that I can think of, that immediately comes to mind is "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your minds..."
(Spen) This, in itself proves nothing of course. However, I think that it is clear that Dr. Boyd went too far and he is now in a difficult position to defend what he has written.
(Jo-Anne) If you feel he has gone too far, then that is how you feel. I am greatly encouraged by what he has written. Perhaps others have not gone far enough. If what he has written is encouraging and results in transformation in the life of believers, especially those who have struggled and found no victory previously - then praise God. God knows Greg's heart and I believe His heart is good and He is being used by God. If he is supposed to repent of something, I trust the Holy Spirit will let him know just as He lets us know when we need to repent (though I can't see what that would be).
I do believe that our faith is increased as we experience the presence of the living Lord (not just hear about it). God created us with our senses and grey matter and knew how we would learn best and how we would be transformed. It is not by mere "head knowledge" but in allowing the Holy Spirit to show us the truth in ways that we can relate to. I hope this makes sense to you. It does to me.
Good night and God Bless you,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/27/2004 12:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne,
You comment, "I do believe that our faith is increased as we experience the presence of the living Lord (not just hear about it). God created us with our senses and grey matter and knew how we would learn best and how we would be transformed. It is not by mere "head knowledge" but in allowing the Holy Spirit to show us the truth in ways that we can relate to. I hope this makes sense to you. It does to me." I appreciate your believing based upon a subjective experience, your faith growing through internal feelings (unless you mean that you physically experience Jesus and touch/see Him). This isn't what we see as the biblical example, however. Christianity is not a religion based on freestyle spiritual expereinces, but on objective fact.
Romans 10:16, "However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."
Galatians 3:2, "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?"
Dr. Boyd claims to be experiencing Jesus Himself subjectively. Based upon the biblical Jesus given to us in scripture, THIS IS FALSE. The Spirit of Truth does not lead us into truth by having us experience false anti-events. The Jesus in the Bible respected authority, called sinners "loved" and not "good" and gave His red blood for the forgiveness of sins, not red airplanes. When considered objectively, this subjective Jesus in Dr. Boyd's example comes up short. He doesn't meet the test of 1 John 4:1. I am certain that this "Jesus" of Dr. Boyd brings warm fuzzy comfort and assurance - it is simply comfort that is imaginary and delusion. He needs to repent from preaching an imaginary Jesus and return to the Jesus that came in the flesh and accomplished salvation for all men on the basis of His shed red blood.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/28/2004 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris: I have been thinking over and over what you said, about the definition of a Christian (you were quoting the dictionary): "one who believes or professing the religion of Christ." I have a question for you about that...what does one do when differing religions profess the "religion" of Christ? For instance, evangelicals and Muslims both believe that they are properly following Christ. As do Jehovah Witnesses? Who does one reconcil professions of Christ that are different? Is one saved simply because one has a conception of Christ? Is there no truth about Jesus truly was?
I do believe that one is saved by following the religion of Christ. However, it would seem that, unless a person is willing to advocate some sort of universalism or a kind of relativism about Christ, there must be a truth about who Christ was and that is the dividing line.
Interested in what you think...Harold | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/28/2004 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | I do consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians. (Perhaps, for me, the most puzzling denomination of Christians, but Christians nonetheless.) I believe C.S. Lewis called Muslims something like "Christian heretics", but I wouldn't go that far myself. I've never met a Muslim who wanted to be called a Christian, and until I do I'll probably put that question on the back burner.
I don't equate the set of Christians with the set of people who have a proper understanding of Jesus Christ or with the set of people who will be saved by His Atonement, so I don't have a serious problem with Christianity being a "big tent". But I definitely agree that there is an objective fact-of-the-matter about who Jesus was and that this truth is very important.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/28/2004 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Nowadays the term, "Christian" has become so watered down as to be virtually meaningless. I realize many here will judge me as being judgmental for saying this , but I recently learned that Pamela Anderson is now claiming to be a Christian and she has been given a Sunday School class to teach at her nondenominational church. However, she has also recently posed once again for Playboy.
I prefer the term, "disciple" rather than "Christian." When pedophile priests and practicing homosexuals are considered Christians by many, what does the term really mean? Let's not forget, Adolf Hitler was a professing Christian.
Here's the article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30297
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/28/2004 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Chris: my point was not that Muslims claim to be Christians (or would want to be), but rather that, according to your definition, there would seem to be many different groups who are "Christians" by your standard, for they are follow the religion of Christ as they see it, a group that would include Muslism, who would be Christians by your own definition. I was simply wondering how you would view this.
You mention that you believe there is a objective way to know who Jesus was. What would that be?
So you don't equate Christians as being people who have a proper understanding of Jesus Christ? It would seem to me that would be a central tenet of being a Christian, to know who Jesus actually was. If that isn't a proper tenet, then anyone would seem to be included, because one could be wrong about Jesus and still be a Christian. I am curious how you solve this, considering Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life. Perhaps you mean that you don't eqaute a body of Christians with having a proper understanding of Jesus. But still, the individuals make up the body.
Finally, you consider Jehovah Witnesses Christian. Yet they disagree with evangelicals as to the precise nature of who Jesus was. How can both be Christian when they disagree as to the person of Jesus Christ? Look forward to your comments. Harold | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/28/2004 8:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Pamela Sue teaching Sunday school...I'm there...apparently Doctor Boyd is the head pastor...(that was a joke)...
John, judgmental, heavens no. I prefer the term "healthy cynicism." | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/29/2004 1:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Dr. Boyd is welcome to cling to his spiritual "Jesus" and his fictional anti-events.
Your friend,
Spen,
I am a non-fiction prose writer. Some would look at my writing as a prose writer and regard it as fiction, except they were my own personal experiences, many of them inspired by my prayer times with the Father.
This is a sincere question for you Spen. Don't you ever get just a little bit nervous judging the transformative event in Dr Boyd's (or others) lives as "anti-events" or as "ficticious anti-events" (isn't that like a double negative by the way which would make it an event?)?
I am very careful when it comes to judging something that happened in the life of another believer, especially something that brought about genuine transformation. The "ficticious anti-event" that took place in my own prayer life about 2 years ago brought healing and transformation to my life and dramatically changed my walk with the Father.
If Dr Boyd's experience was an anti-event...then praise God for anti-events. Obviously HE thinks they're a good idea!
God Bless,
Jo-Anne 
Jo-Anne,
I don't even get a little nervous when I judge Dr. Boyd's example as a fictional anti-event.When I call it an "anti-event," the anti is used in the sense of a substitution or replacement, not phony. Thus, it could also be labeled as a "sincere false replacement event." It is fiction, it is a replacement historical record. You write, "This is a sincere question for you Spen. Don't you ever get just a little bit nervous judging the transformative event in Dr Boyd's (or others) lives as "anti-events" or as "ficticious anti-events" (isn't that like a double negative by the way which would make it an event?)?" The reason that I don't get nervous in calling it a fictional anti-event is because that is exactly what it is. This is what Dr. Boyd has written down and what he described in the record of his book. I am not making something up, which is what he does, I am simply calling a spade a "spade."
I have never "judged" whether Dr. Boyd actually found freedom or comfort in this false historical record. That is subjective and would take place inside of him. Who am I to know? I know, and can be certain based upon the Bible, that what he is claiming to be "resting in Christ" is delusion (or perhaps man-made therapy based on self-delusion) and NOT the gospel. This is NOT where the Bible claims that we will find freedom to forgive others. The red airplanes are not the red blood of a crucified Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Jo-Anne, you state, "If Dr Boyd's experience was an anti-event...then praise God for anti-events. Obviously HE thinks they're a good idea!" Chris, my Mormon friend, would also claim that the spiritual expereinces that he has are a good idea and bring him comfort. Based upon your standard of "discernment" the Hindus who like their experiences, the Dali Lama, and even the overt occultists and nature worshippers would have something of value. That they feel better and comforted , I have no doubt. Thay you feel better and comforted, I have no reason to doubt. That Dr. Boyd feels better and comforted, I have no doubt. However, what I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the experiences of the Mormons, the Dali Lama, and the example of Dr. Boyd are NOT the gospel, nor are they resting in Chist as he claims. This is a lie with potential eternal implications, the worst kind of lie because it is the most costly. He should repent and return to the message where God promises us eternal freedom.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/29/2004 3:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Chris: my point was not that Muslims claim to be Christians (or would want to be), but rather that, according to your definition, there would seem to be many different groups who are "Christians" by your standard, for they are follow the religion of Christ as they see it, a group that would include Muslism, who would be Christians by your own definition. I was simply wondering how you would view this.
I guess I'm not sure why you keep calling it my standard. I've quoted definitions provided by 2 major dictionaries. I reaffirm my willingness to discuss other definitions that you or someone else might propose. Or, is "Christian", like "obscenity", a word that allegedly can't be adequately defined but "you know it when you see it"?
quote:
You mention that you believe there is a objective way to know who Jesus was. What would that be?
I think what I said was that I believe that there is an objective fact-of-the-matter. That is different from claiming that we have objective access to that fact-of-the-matter. I'm not sure what form such objective access could take. A deductive proof from self-evident principles? I don't know of such a proof.
A few years ago I wrote a review of Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief for a little Mormon email list I am on. Let me quote an excerpt from that review that might be relevant at this point:
I've read a reasonable number of books about "traditional"
Christianity by "traditional" Christians, but I picked up on some
themes in WCB that I hadn't noticed before in those other books and
that resonate with me as a believing Latter-day Saint. Plantinga
says that Christians don't need logical arguments based on
incontrovertible facts to justify their belief; he proposes a model
in which God has endowed Man with a faculty that Calvin called a
"sensus divinitatis" which, in properly functioning humans,
naturally produces correct beliefs about God in response to various
stimuli. Is this related to the Light of Christ? Plantinga's model
also incorporates Aquinas's "internal instigation of the Holy Spirit"
(IIHS) as an authoritative and valid source of Christian faith,
independent of logical argumentation.
Does the following footnote (no. 5 on p. 292) remind anyone of D&C 9?
"`My heart, as if aflame, I offer to you, Oh Lord.' This
particular phenomenology--a phenomenology that is naturally
expressed in terms of one's heart being warmed or even
aflame--goes back in the Christian tradition at least to the
disciples who met the risen Christ on the road to Emmaus:
`Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he
disappeared from their sight. They asked each other ``Were
not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on
the road and opened the Scriptures to us?''' (Luke 24:31-32).
There are parallel passages in Aquinas; and in _Preface to
the Epistle to the Romans_ (1522), Luther says that faith
`sets the heart aflame.' John Wesley reports, `As one was
reading Luther's _Preface to Romans_ . . . I felt my heart
strangely warmed." In the Orthodox tradition, St. Seraphim
of Sarov reports something similar . . ."
. . .While reading WCB, I was reminded of my fruitless attempts as a
missionary in Germany to provide some philosophical justification to
skeptical German "investigators" for the idea that testimony and
spiritual witness can be a source of knowledge; Plantinga is fighting
a similar battle.
quote:
So you don't equate Christians as being people who have a proper understanding of Jesus Christ? It would seem to me that would be a central tenet of being a Christian, to know who Jesus actually was.
It's obviously important for Christians that they strive to understand who Jesus actually was. (As Pascal said, there are only two types of persons that can be considered reasonable: Those who serve God with all their hearts because they have found Him, and those who seek God with all their hearts because they have not found Him.) The problem with inclusion of that as part of the definition of the word "Christian" is that anyone who uses the word would then seem to be asserting that they understand who Jesus actually was. Is "Christian" not, then, a word that, say, an atheist could use to describe a certain group of people?
quote:
Finally, you consider Jehovah Witnesses Christian. Yet they disagree with evangelicals as to the precise nature of who Jesus was. How can both be Christian when they disagree as to the person of Jesus Christ?
The same way that the various leaders of the Christian church who were involved in the 4th century A.D. controversy over the relationship of the Son to the Father could all be Christians even though they didn't all agree as to the person of Jesus Christ. (Speaking of getting "bang for the buck" in book purchases, can anyone suggest a book that covers this controversy as thoroughly as Hanson's The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God but that doesn't cost, gulp, $105? I've got the BYU library copy checked out right now, but what's the good of reading a book that you don't own?  )
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/29/2004 4:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Jo-Anne, you state, "If Dr Boyd's experience was an anti-event...then praise God for anti-events. Obviously HE thinks they're a good idea!" Chris, my Mormon friend, would also claim that the spiritual expereinces that he has are a good idea and bring him comfort.
Somewhere, William Lane Craig addresses this issue. He says essentially: "Just because nutcases like the Mormons falsely claim to have confirmation of their false beliefs from the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that real Christians can't put stock in the spiritual confirmations of their own true beliefs." (Oh, okay, I added the "nutcases" part, but not the "Mormon" part.) If anyone cares enough, I could dig up a reference for Craig's discussion.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/29/2004 6:03 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Dr. Boyd is welcome to cling to his spiritual "Jesus" and his fictional anti-events.
Your friend,
Spen,
I am a non-fiction prose writer. Some would look at my writing as a prose writer and regard it as fiction, except they were my own personal experiences, many of them inspired by my prayer times with the Father.
This is a sincere question for you Spen. Don't you ever get just a little bit nervous judging the transformative event in Dr Boyd's (or others) lives as "anti-events" or as "ficticious anti-events" (isn't that like a double negative by the way which would make it an event?)?
I am very careful when it comes to judging something that happened in the life of another believer, especially something that brought about genuine transformation. The "ficticious anti-event" that took place in my own prayer life about 2 years ago brought healing and transformation to my life and dramatically changed my walk with the Father.
If Dr Boyd's experience was an anti-event...then praise God for anti-events. Obviously HE thinks they're a good idea!
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
Jo-Anne,
I don't even get a little nervous when I judge Dr. Boyd's example as a fictional anti-event.When I call it an "anti-event," the anti is used in the sense of a substitution or replacement, not phony. Thus, it could also be labeled as a "sincere false replacement event." It is fiction, it is a replacement historical record. You write, "This is a sincere question for you Spen. Don't you ever get just a little bit nervous judging the transformative event in Dr Boyd's (or others) lives as "anti-events" or as "ficticious anti-events" (isn't that like a double negative by the way which would make it an event?)?" The reason that I don't get nervous in calling it a fictional anti-event is because that is exactly what it is. This is what Dr. Boyd has written down and what he described in the record of his book. I am not making something up, which is what he does, I am simply calling a spade a "spade."
I have never "judged" whether Dr. Boyd actually found freedom or comfort in this false historical record. That is subjective and would take place inside of him. Who am I to know? I know, and can be certain based upon the Bible, that what he is claiming to be "resting in Christ" is delusion (or perhaps man-made therapy based on self-delusion) and NOT the gospel. This is NOT where the Bible claims that we will find freedom to forgive others. The red airplanes are not the red blood of a crucified Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Jo-Anne, you state, "If Dr Boyd's experience was an anti-event...then praise God for anti-events. Obviously HE thinks they're a good idea!" Chris, my Mormon friend, would also claim that the spiritual expereinces that he has are a good idea and bring him comfort. Based upon your standard of "discernment" the Hindus who like their experiences, the Dali Lama, and even the overt occultists and nature worshippers would have something of value. That they feel better and comforted , I have no doubt. Thay you feel better and comforted, I have no reason to doubt. That Dr. Boyd feels better and comforted, I have no doubt. However, what I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the experiences of the Mormons, the Dali Lama, and the example of Dr. Boyd are NOT the gospel, nor are they resting in Chist as he claims. This is a lie with potential eternal implications, the worst kind of lie because it is the most costly. He should repent and return to the message where God promises us eternal freedom.
 sadly
Spen, love is more important than being right. But, for the record, my standard for discernment is the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and scripture (as well as reason and tradition) - on which all theological positions are based - scripture being the final authority.
I am thankful for the rare visions that the Holy Spirit has inspired during times of prayer. He meets us where we are and He alone knows our deepest need. Even to label the event as false is a judgment and I would hesitate to call something that the Holy Spirit has done in someone's like false, especially when the fruit is there to evidence a life that is being transformed into the image of God's Son.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
 (That's me Victor in Christ!)
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/29/2004 6:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris: its your standard because you adopted it. You quoted it and said that is what is consider a Christian. If it isn't your standard, then I would appreciate if you would give me your definition of what a Christian is, so that we can dialogue on this issue correctly. By quoting it, you seemed to endorsed it. Or do you not know what a Christian is? (But then if that is true how can you call anyone a Christian?)
But you still haven't answered my question to you: how can people who hold totally contrasting views of who Jesus was both be following the religion of Christ? I am curious about what you believe as far as this is concerned, not what the church did or didn't do. In my view, one of them is not Christian, simply because they both recognize their differing views and these views cancel each other out. (I am not commenting on who is right or wrong here, simply that one is and the other isn't).
Again, it would seem to me that a god who is interested in proclaiming who he is and is interested in truth would care enough to proclaim the truth about who he is and want his followers to do the same.
After rereading your post, however, Chris, it sounds to me like you do not want to be pinned down as to a concise definition of what a Christian is. I would like to know if you are willing to give such a definition. | | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:35 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|