Sharing the good news with Mormons
Saw this is on sale today and tomorrow.
Comments
-
Thank you picked that up [Y]
0 -
You are great at finding good deals. Thanks!
0 -
0
-
I wish we’d see some movement on the CP Mormonism collection. It would be useful in showing the alterations of their beliefs compared to the current version
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
David Wanat said:
I wish we’d see some movement on the CP Mormonism collection. It would be useful in showing the alterations of their beliefs compared to the current version
We don't really see many Mormons in the UK. Have their views shifted significantly recently?
0 -
For those of you enjoying this book, they wrote some additional chapters and placed them online. They had more planned but scrapped them.
https://www.mrm.org/sharing-with-mormons
Bonus Chapters (Available only on this site)
The following are additional chapters to Sharing the Good News with Mormons.
- Sharon Lindbloom: Good News for Mormon Women: The Overcoming Obstacles Approach
- Joel Groat: Exploring Mormon Racism: The All-Are-Justified-the-Same Approach
- Eric Johnson: The Gospel Topics Essays: The Dynamite Approach
- Chip Thompson: Real People and Real Places: The Biblical Archaeological Approach
- Bill McKeever: When the Doorbell Rings: Another Missionaries-at-Your Door Approach
- Fred Anson: Two are Better than One: The Tag Team Approach
- Eric Johnson: Combating Poor Biblical Interpretation: The Putting-Verses-Back-Into-Their-Context Approach
- Rob Sivulka: Examining Mormonism’s Founder: The What-Did-Joseph-Smith-Lie-About Approach
0 -
[EDIT] I think you're nitpicking over the fact that I misidentified the book, but avoiding the greater issue. I believe I accurately described the disconnect between past racist teaching and the 1978 revision.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
I've been able to stay out of this so far, but as the resident Latter-day Saint here... well, the assertion quoted below is either carelessly sloppy or bearing false witness. It's the kind of low quality one tends to find in Evangelical witnessing/counter-cult books like this. If you want some responsible scholarship on what Latter-day Saints *actually* think and *actually* believe, I suggest this thread. https://community.logos.com/forums/t/88557.aspx
David Wanat said:One example is, the most recent version of Doctrine and Covenants hides their rather racist past teachings on blacks and says it's a mystery why they were ever prevented from being priests, hiding the fact that in the past their Doctrine and Covenants explicitly barred them.
As there has never been a section of the Doctrine & Covenants codifying what LDS refer to as "the priesthood and temple ban," no such section existed to be secretly removed. (Try this book from Oxford Press for the relevent LDS history.) You can, however, read the canonized Official Declaration #2 in the Pearl of Great Price revoking this ban.
I note that I have corrected *you* before on this false claim, so instead of repeating myself, I will point people to that comment where I provide a brief discussion of useful paradigmatic differences between LDS and Protestants, and a number of links to holographs of original documents, where people can do their own text criticism to their heart's content. https://community.logos.com/forums/p/48213/886876.aspx#886876"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
Thank you Ben, I hoped you would step in with accurate information.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
David Wanat said:
why they were ever prevented from being priests, hiding the fact that in the past their Doctrine and Covenants explicitly barred them.
Unfortunately I am not Black so I do not know how I would have felt towards the prior stand. But I was studying with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and was with two black couples when that "change" took place. At the time they also gave the reasons of the prior and the changed readings. Those couples were the ones that explained both stands to me. They accepted the changes and the explanation for the prior stand. Sometimes why you do something is more important than what you do.
0 -
Also:
No, don't click on that.
Just illustrating how to make absolutely sure your target share-ees will see through your loving rightness. Better to just chat.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
David Wanat said:
[EDIT] I think you're nitpicking over the fact that I misidentified the book, but avoiding the greater issue. I believe I accurately described the disconnect between past racist teaching and the 1978 revision.
I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but most religions and varients have stuffed closets of skeletons. And, considerably more recent than the Latter Day Saints. Debates have to weave carefully to avoid the obvious.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Edit: duplicate post somehow. See below.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
David Wanat said:
[EDIT] I think you're nitpicking over the fact that I misidentified the book, but avoiding the greater issue. I believe I accurately described the disconnect between past racist teaching and the 1978 revision.
No, you didn’t just “misidentify the book.” You engaged in accusations of ignorance and conspiracy mongering. Moreover, such ”disconnects” and changes are expected (though not necessarily comfortable) in a religion which preaches ongoing revelation and an open canon. (Jesus, Peter, and the kosher laws, anyone?); Mormonism is NOT Protestant, and if you approach or critique as if it were, you distort in fundamental ways. Richard Mouw gets that (see my previous link.)
ETA: And this is particularly frustrating, since I corrected you on this several years ago, providing bulletproof academic sources on LDS racial history AND text-criticism of LDS texts, all of which apparently fell on deaf ears."The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
Duplicate... see below.
0 -
Mattillo said:
For those of you enjoying this book, they wrote some additional chapters and placed them online. They had more planned but scrapped them.
Thanks Mattillo, as a former Mormon who's roots go back to Palmyra... I find this stuff fascinating and look forward to reading these other chapters.
0 -
I will apologize for my comments. It was uncalled for, and I hope you will forgive me.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
Ben said:
As there has never been a section of the Doctrine & Covenants codifying what LDS refer to as "the priesthood and temple ban," no such section existed to be secretly removed. (Try this book from Oxford Press for the relevent LDS history.) You can, however, read the canonized Official Declaration #2 in the Pearl of Great Price revoking this ban.
I’m wondering if there Is there is an official document of the LDS church where the church apologizes for it’s racist history? The Church of England and the Southern Baptists have issued public apologies.
0 -
MWW said:
I’m wondering if there Is there is an official document of the LDS church where the church apologizes for it’s racist history?
This is not a case where I am invoking guidelines; this is a case where I am stating my personal response which was ".... get off calling a church racist by framing it as a question?" That's a beating your wife question ... i.e. fallacy hound is tugging hard at his leash.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
s ".... get off calling a church racist by framing it as a question?" That's a beating your wife question ... i.e. fallacy hound is tugging hard at his leash.
No disrespect MJ, but in this case the history is beyond question and tugging even gently on the leash will reveal not a fallacy hound but an “elephant in the room”. The question remains... has there been an apology? I am not aware of one. The beaten wife and the rest of her family at the very least deserve an apology!
0 -
How many of the denominations mentioned in this article have issued apologies for their racist past? https://www.nae.net/black-white-race-american-denominations/
EDIT: I apologize for this post as it should have been obvious that it would fan the flames of an already inappropriate thread. I should have simply reported the thread and said nothing. Instead I fantasized that it might be a teachable moment. Again, I apologize for my poor judgment.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
The forum is supposed to be about Logos, and Logos resources.
To our Mormon friends here, I'm sorry for the turn this thread has taken.
MWW said:has there been an apology?
I think we're all guilty, and racism still manages to exist within churches today, even if a denomination has apologized for specific offenses.
If you've been the victim of racism, I'm truly sorry. But let's please not misuse this forum to hold one denomination to some particular standard, or require proof of their apology.
Thanks to FL for including Carta and a Hebrew audio bible in Logos 9!
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
How many of the denominations mentioned in this article have issued apologies for their racist past?
Most of them have. Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans and some Pentecostals have issued apologies.
I realize that this is probably moving beyond forum guidelines but let me share my perspective. I am a white pastor of a multi-racial but primarily black congregation. I understand how racial bias can pull at people’s hearts. I have performed weddings for many biracial couples and have seen the resistance of family to this. Also, I have had the opportunity to preach in South Africa in churches that were divided racially, blacks sat in front and whites sat in back and I preached against racial prejudice and invited people to repent in three separate churches and was greatly encouraged as whites, blacks and coloreds all responded whole heartedly to the call to repentance... God was glorified! That is the essence of New Testament Christianity (Acts 2 & 13).
Also, I was raised as a Mormon and after my conversion to Christ/Christianity was called to the ministry. I pastored a Christian church in Salt Lake City, Utah. Thus I am probably aware more than most, that Mormonism has a deep history of racial discrimination that is much more offensive than simple racial bias or being influenced by the prejudice of a culture at large. Mormon leaders of the very highest rank classified dark skinned and black skinned people as being of the seed of Cain and having made it though the flood to be Satan’s people and as being cursed by God for choices made in their preexistence and thus they were denied the opportunity of being ordained into the LDS priesthood for well over a hundred years. That is beyond offensive.
Has there been an apology? I am not aware of one.
PS. If the forum administrator feels the need to delete my post for violation of forum guidelines... I understand that.
0 -
MWW said:
I’m wondering if there Is there is an official document of the LDS church where the church (...)
I was attending a local branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when the "change" was made. Several Black members that I was attending with accepted the comments on the subject made at the time. I do not know where you could find copies of what was handed out at that time. [I had copies but I gave all of my resources from that church to a member of that church that needed a larger library when I left]
0 -
PetahChristian said:
The forum is supposed to be about Logos, and Logos resources.
Yes, And, IMHO, some of what has been said shows the need to get more resources from that church into Logos. [[current documents: History is good but need up to date information]]
0 -
We get offended easily. We hold onto our anger. We don’t forgive until we get an apology.
Thanks to FL for including Carta and a Hebrew audio bible in Logos 9!
0 -
David Ames said:
some of what has been said shows the need to get more resources from that church into Logos.
- It might show a need that we’re sinners, that we don’t love one another, etc.
- Not if it’s meant to be a cudgel that we use to beat someone else up.
- Asking for proof of wrongdoing seems... ironic? Hypocritical? Self-righteous?
When the guidelines say, “Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics,” yet we ignore them, we’re setting a terrible example.
Thanks to FL for including Carta and a Hebrew audio bible in Logos 9!
0 -
PetahChristian said:
We get offended easily. We hold onto our anger. We don’t forgive until we get an apology.
Certainly that can be true. But I don't believe 126 years of racial discrimination is being easily offended and apologies to and forgiveness from is certainly not required from me, but from the offended parties, primarily that being God and the Lord Jesus.
(1 Timothy 5:20–21) 20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. 21 I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.
0 -
PetahChristian said:
We get offended easily.
Definition: 'sin-ify' verb; 'sin-ification' noun; The assigning of sin to ones fellows, best done with loving rightness. Generally works best among several sin-ificators.
Tippy-toeing into theology, but in the realm of progressive revelation, apology by the prophet would be saying the Diety made a mistake. Now, before one heads for Salt Lake City, remember 'the Church' (upper-case) slaughtered bunches of jews on those inspired words in John. And repeated the process with the native tribes (again, doctrine).
I very much doubt Paul's 'neither' quote (jews/greeks, etc) ever took hold.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
I very much doubt Paul's 'neither' quote (jews/greeks, etc) ever took hold.
One day... one day.
Thanks to FL for including Carta and a Hebrew audio bible in Logos 9!
0 -
Is it safe to say that the people here believe that Mormonism is a denomination? I did not read anyone make that clear.
0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
Is it safe to say that the people here believe that Mormonism is a denomination? I did not read anyone make that clear.
Maybe if we had their current and historic documents in Logos we could make that determination!
0 -
The only source of which I am aware is The Mormon Church and Blacks: A Documentary History edited by Harris and Bringhurst out of the University of Illinois. See JSTOR site at https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/j.ctt17t760w
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Thanks for that David. But their are several books in logos will tell you a lot about Mormons. Just didn't want to leave any doubt.
iii The Four Major Cults
Hoekema, A. A. (1963). The Four Major Cults: Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism (p. iii). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Mormons
Answered
Verse by Verse
Reed, D. A., & Farkas, J. R. (1992). Mormons: Answered verse by verse (electronic ed., pp. 1–3). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.MORMONISM
CHANGES,
CONTRADICTIONS,
AND ERRORS
Farkas, J. R., & Reed, D., A. (1995). Mormonism: changes, contradictions, and errors (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.How to Answer a Mormon, Torey
0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
But their are several books in logos will tell you a lot about Mormons.
But to emphasize David's point, the books you list (none of which have I read) are books of non-Mormons' apologetics against Mormons rather than descriptions of Mormon beliefs as seen by Mormons. As a Catholic, I can tell you two classes of books you should never trust as sources of Catholic beliefs:
- books written by anti-Catholic apologists
- books written by former Catholics
That is not to say that there are no good books in either category, merely that one must read them for what they are. I would expect the same to be true for other groups.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Well MJ I am Reformed. I found it kind of funny that you compare Catholicism to Mormonism. But Mormonism is not a denomination. I will just leave it their, I just wanted this thread to state that in case someone was reading it and may have been confused.
0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
I found it kind of funny that you compare Catholicism to Mormonism.
And I find it funny that you find it funny -- the comparison was on a single attribute, "frequently misrepresented in the forums". I almost added Jehovah's Witnesses, non-trinitarians . . .
Mathew Haferkamp said:but Mormonism is not a denomination.
Nor are Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox as "denomination" is a distinctively Protestant notion. According to the online etymological dictionary, the word is first attested for a religious sect in 1716. More seriously the OED defines "denomination" as "a recognized autonomous branch of a church or religion" - a common (rather than theological) definition that does apply to Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons. I suspect you mean to say "Mormonism is not a Christian denomination" ... but given the range of definitions of the minimal requirement for the term "Christian", I wouldn't touch that with a five-thousand-foot pole. I am steeped in thinking in terms of groups having fuller understanding of the truth than other groups.
Note for the theological use:
denomination, denominationalism. An organizational structure of several congregations who unite together on the basis of common doctrinal, organizational, ethnic, geographical or practical considerations even while meeting in separate localized situations. Denominationalism as a theory understands the church as consisting of a diversity of practices and beliefs under the umbrella of the larger term Christian while at the same time denying that any one Christian group can claim to be the exclusive manifestation of the church on earth. This is in contrast to sectarianism (see sect, sectarianism) which refers to the attitude in which a narrowly defined group sees itself as the only true manifestation of the church to the exclusion of all other groups.
All of which shows why we need Logos for definition of terms - what "denomination" means to you as a Reformed is not what "denomination" means to me as a Catholic. I have to set aside my understand and translate into your "Reformed-speak" for us to not talk past each other. And I can identify the differences between your "Reformed-speak" and my "Catholic-speak" to help you understand that the term means different things depending upon the theological context. What I can't do is translate "denomination" into "Mormon-speak" ... I'd need a Mormon source to explain that to me.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
Is it safe to say that the people here believe that Mormonism is a denomination? I did not read anyone make that clear.
From the BBC website - so having no "denominational" bias:
Both the Vatican and the policy-making body of the United Methodist Church have decided that Mormons must be rebaptised when converting to Catholicism or Methodism.
This shows that the Roman Catholic Church regards Mormonism as varying in its essential beliefs from traditional Christianity. It does allow members of most Protestant and Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism without being rebaptised.
However Mormons require that everyone be baptised when they join their Church, no matter what background they come from.
0 -
Paul Caneparo said:
This shows that the Roman Catholic Church regards Mormonism as varying in its essential beliefs from traditional Christianity. It does allow members of most Protestant and Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism without being rebaptised.
Sort of ... in this case Wikipedia quotes the appropriate canon law - the canon law is available in Logos to check for yourself.
Wikipedia:rebaptism said:The Catholic Church holds that rebaptism is not possible:
1272. Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.
The baptisms of those to be received into the Catholic Church from other Christian communities are held to be valid if administered using the Trinitarian formula. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:
1256. The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
...
1284. In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."The 1983 Code of Canon Law (1983 CIC) addresses cases in which the validity of a person's baptism is in doubt:
Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.
§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.
§3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.
In cases where a valid baptism is performed subsequent to an invalid attempt, it is held that only one baptism actually occurred, namely the valid one. Thus baptism is never repeated.
Or for the official position with regards to baptisms in the Mormon Church against these canons, see https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
Thanks for that David. But their are several books in logos will tell you a lot about Mormons. Just didn't want to leave any doubt.
iii The Four Major Cults
Hoekema, A. A. (1963). The Four Major Cults: Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism (p. iii). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Mormons
Answered
Verse by Verse
Reed, D. A., & Farkas, J. R. (1992). Mormons: Answered verse by verse (electronic ed., pp. 1–3). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.MORMONISM
CHANGES,
CONTRADICTIONS,
AND ERRORS
Farkas, J. R., & Reed, D., A. (1995). Mormonism: changes, contradictions, and errors (electronic ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.How to Answer a Mormon, Torey
Don’t forget reasoning from the scriptures with the Mormons and Decker’s complete handbook on Mormonism
0 -
Thank you for that input Mattillo. I just grabbed a few titles from my library.
But I did find your post interesting MJ. Just from personal experience when asking someone if they are a Christian a Catholic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran (I don't remember encountering any type of Orthodox) will say no I am Catholic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran but they don't consider themselves Christians why is that?
0 -
Assuming I haven’t totally misinterpreted your question, I’ve encountered some who think that the question “Are you a Christian?” means “Are you a Protestant?” I suspect their answer reflects that interpretation.Mathew Haferkamp said:Thank you for that input Mattillo. I just grabbed a few titles from my library.
But I did find your post interesting MJ. Just from personal experience when asking someone if they are a Christian a Catholic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran (I don't remember encountering any type of Orthodox) will say no I am Catholic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran but they don't consider themselves Christians why is that?
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
Thank you for that input Mattillo. I just grabbed a few titles from my library.
Sure! I like Deckers. after I posted I also remembered that Walter Martin’s kingdom of the cults had a section too but I haven’t read it yet. I bought it from fleb
0 -
Yea Mattillo I thought of that one after I posted, good call.
Now David I have never heard that before. Do you have some kind of reference to that or just a guess?
0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
Yea Mattillo I thought of that one after I posted, good call.
Now David I have never heard that before. Do you have some kind of reference to that or just a guess?
I've mainly seen this incident cited in Apologetics manuals where they say, "DON'T ever do this!" in talking to other Christians. I don't know if this will be a useful fact for you or not.
But I am coming from a Catholic perspective. It might not be the case for non-Catholics doing it.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
Thanks for the answer. I searched my library for "DON'T ever do this" and received two hits and not near any apologetics. Would you mind giving me a title, I hope that is in logos. Thanks very much.
0 -
Not Logos. It was a Catholic Answers book. I'll see if I can find it. And I was paraphrasing. Sorry, I guess I made it look like I was making a direct quote.
[EDIT]: Searching my Logos for "Catholic not Christian", I was given a reference to a work called "Global Gospel" in the chapter "Later 20th Century" where the sample seems to be going in that direction. Unfortunately, I don't have the work to give the full quote. SO I don't know if this supports the point I was making or whether the context would be anti-Catholic.
WIN 11 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD | iPad Air 3
Verbum Max0 -
Mathew Haferkamp said:
if they are a Christian a Catholic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran (I don't remember encountering any type of Orthodox) will say no I am Catholic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran but they don't consider themselves Christians why is that?
Given that in nearly 3/4 of a century I have never heard a Catholic or a Lutheran say they are not Christian, I haven't the slightest idea. The closest I have heard is when people ask with a very specific definition of Christian i.e. Christian = favored group only, they may say something to make clear that they are not part of that particular group but rather Christian in the sense of a broader definition.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
No MJ, it was just during the course of my day. I was not even thinking about Catholic or the others. Just talking to someone and then just asking them if they are Christian, not looking for anything except if they were saved or not.
0 -
Thanks David, I don't have that book. But what you were saying I must say I have never read, it must be a Catholic thing. Not really wanting to get into Reformed vs. Catholicism, Thanks for looking!
0
