Saw this is on sale today and tomorrow.
https://ebooks.faithlife.com/product/155117/sharing-the-good-news-with-mormons-practical-strategies-for-getting-the-conversation-started
not looking for anything except if they were saved or not.
Ah. that is exactly the answer!!! I know many Catholics with funny stories about some Protestant asking them if they are "saved". Probably no question makes a Catholic more uncomfortable because it is so far outside their normal vocabulary and world view. Catholics think in terms of being a member of the family of God/body of Christ, not individual salvation. They leave the final saved/not saved to God and therefore aren't concerned about it in the way the question implies.In the context you supply, I can easily see Catholics, (High) Lutherans, (High) Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox all try to give an answer that implies they reject the question as presented.
Good point. While most Christians would accept the meaning of Christian as "one who follows Christ," they might have certain assumptions about what following means to the other person. So, in saying "No, I'm..." they're probably acting on that assumption.
No again MJ, I said that is what I thought but I always asked them if they were a Christian and usually very early in the conversation and quite frankly that usually ended it. If you want to continue this I tell you will exactly what I think of the Catholic church and the many many many mistakes or out right heresy it does. So quite trying to poke holes in what I am saying, and let it go. The only reason I commented on this thread was to make sure it was stated that Mormonism is NOT Christian and as far as I am concerned a cult, they should stay away from trying to normalize themselves by trying to call themselves Christian.
If you want to continue this I tell you will exactly what I think of . . .
No, the guidelines would be enforced. However your response implies you forget your words are only one part of what you communicate, and what you communicate is always in the context of who you are. This post tells me everything I need to know to understand why you received the response you did. David Wanat and I have provided the "why".
Mormonism is NOT Christian and as far as I am concerned a cult, they should stay away from trying to normalize themselves by trying to call themselves Christian.
Well, in our neck of the woods, 'Christian' doesn't count. 'Born-again'. I remember a local election a few years back, the mayor was invited to our church group at one of the homes. She said she was a Christian ... a member confidently told her that was a zero ... she wasn't born-again. Pretty much finished up the conversation.
So, I'd presume the Catholics and Latter Day Saints are now grouped in with a sizable share of Protestants. Probably meet in Antioch.
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.
Denominational loyalties had already been in decline before the culture war began, but they have eroded much faster during the last four decades. While Catholics still know they are Catholics, and most Protestants know they are Protestants, specific denominational identities have been largely set aside. Rather than calling themselves Lutheran or Baptist or Presbyterian, American Protestants are much more likely to say they are “just Christians.” In fact, the word Christian has begun to function as a synonym for Protestant. This is so much the case that even some Catholics now describe themselves as “Catholic, not Christian” to distinguish themselves from Protestantism. Rather than linking themselves to denominations, increasing numbers of American Protestants identify themselves religiously by their connections with individual congregations. In fact, congregation-centered, non-denominational Protestantism is one of the fastest-growing sectors of Christianity in the nation. This is especially true of megachurches with sufficient resources to go it alone, but many smaller congregation have taken this path as well. The nondenominational sector of Protestantism now accounts for 7 percent of the total American population. The nondenominational movement has become so strong that even congregations with continuing denominational ties often downplay those connections, because denominational affiliation has become more of a detriment than an asset in attracting new members. Christianity in America has always been diverse and offered a wide range of choices. In the past, those choices were often defined denominationally; today they are likely to focus on congregational connections.
Thank you. I suspected there was more to the quote than I could see.
I like this quote from Michael Bird. The point being different denominations will take different viewpoints on certain things, but the first order points are essential and make a "theology" Christian.
First order doctrines are those which are essential and nonnegotiable in the Christian belief mosaic, such as the Trinity, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s return, and salvation by grace through faith—things without which one cannot be a Christian. Second order doctrines are those such as baptism, church government, or one’s view of end-times theology, and other related matters that are indeed important for faith and the life of the church but are not ultimately obstructive for Christian unity. Third order doctrines are those that are adiaphora or matters of indifference, such as whether Christians can drink alcohol, whether should they homeschool their children, what Bible translations should they use, and the like.
I like this quote from Michael Bird. The point being different denominations will take different viewpoints on certain things, but the first order points are essential and make a "theology" Christian. First order doctrines are those which are essential and nonnegotiable in the Christian belief mosaic, such as the Trinity, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s return, and salvation by grace through faith—things without which one cannot be a Christian. Second order doctrines are those such as baptism, church government, or one’s view of end-times theology, and other related matters that are indeed important for faith and the life of the church but are not ultimately obstructive for Christian unity. Third order doctrines are those that are adiaphora or matters of indifference, such as whether Christians can drink alcohol, whether should they homeschool their children, what Bible translations should they use, and the like.
Is that from a Book, Paul?
I like this quote from Michael Bird. The point being different denominations will take different viewpoints on certain things, but the first order points are essential and make a "theology" Christian. First order doctrines are those which are essential and nonnegotiable in the Christian belief mosaic, such as the Trinity, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s return, and salvation by grace through faith—things without which one cannot be a Christian. Second order doctrines are those such as baptism, church government, or one’s view of end-times theology, and other related matters that are indeed important for faith and the life of the church but are not ultimately obstructive for Christian unity. Third order doctrines are those that are adiaphora or matters of indifference, such as whether Christians can drink alcohol, whether should they homeschool their children, what Bible translations should they use, and the like. Is that from a Book, Paul?
Yes. From a book totally unrelated to this issue, but the quote is still relevant in terms of what shouldn't divide Christians and what matters mean someone cannot rightly be understood to be Christian..
https://ebooks.faithlife.com/product/25299/bourgeois-babes-bossy-wives-and-bobby-haircuts-a-case-for-gender-equality-in-ministry
I think the problem with this quote is it assumes his division of First Order and Second Order is universally accepted. But those who see Baptism as a sacrament would reject his notion that it is a “second order” issue. I won’t break the rules and get into an argument over whose view on that topic is right (though as a disclosure, I am a Catholic who accepts the teachings of the Church), but I think his view reflects his own theology and not a universal view.
I like this quote from Michael Bird. The point being different denominations will take different viewpoints on certain things, but the first order points are essential and make a "theology" Christian. First order doctrines are those which are essential and nonnegotiable in the Christian belief mosaic, such as the Trinity, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s return, and salvation by grace through faith—things without which one cannot be a Christian. Second order doctrines are those such as baptism, church government, or one’s view of end-times theology, and other related matters that are indeed important for faith and the life of the church but are not ultimately obstructive for Christian unity. Third order doctrines are those that are adiaphora or matters of indifference, such as whether Christians can drink alcohol, whether should they homeschool their children, what Bible translations should they use, and the like. I think the problem with this quote is it assumes his division of First Order and Second Order is universally accepted. But those who see Baptism as a sacrament would reject his notion that it is a “second order” issue. I won’t break the rules and get into an argument over whose view on that topic is right (though as a disclosure, I am a Catholic who accepts the teachings of the Church), but I think his view reflects his own theology and not a universal view.
The point Michael Bird is making though relates to the mode of baptism. I believe in believer's baptism but I attend a church that baptises infants. I may disagree, but it's not sufficient for me to not attend the church, as it is thoroughly orthodox in first order matters.
Thank you Paul. I actually have that book for some reason. I’ll have to take a look at that. Currently listed at 1.99 for anyone interested
I like this quote from Michael Bird. The point being different denominations will take different viewpoints on certain things, but the first order points are essential and make a "theology" Christian. First order doctrines are those which are essential and nonnegotiable in the Christian belief mosaic, such as the Trinity, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s return, and salvation by grace through faith—things without which one cannot be a Christian. Second order doctrines are those such as baptism, church government, or one’s view of end-times theology, and other related matters that are indeed important for faith and the life of the church but are not ultimately obstructive for Christian unity. Third order doctrines are those that are adiaphora or matters of indifference, such as whether Christians can drink alcohol, whether should they homeschool their children, what Bible translations should they use, and the like. I think the problem with this quote is it assumes his division of First Order and Second Order is universally accepted. But those who see Baptism as a sacrament would reject his notion that it is a “second order” issue. I won’t break the rules and get into an argument over whose view on that topic is right (though as a disclosure, I am a Catholic who accepts the teachings of the Church), but I think his view reflects his own theology and not a universal view. The point Michael Bird is making though relates to the mode of baptism. I believe in believer's baptism but I attend a church that baptises infants. I may disagree, but it's not sufficient for me to not attend the church, as it is thoroughly orthodox in first order matters.
I get that. But it’s *not* second order for those who believe Baptism to be a Sacrament. It would be part of the first order truths. In ecumenism that has to be recognized. Otherwise, one group becomes dismissive of what another holds to be important.
I like this quote from Michael Bird. The point being different denominations will take different viewpoints on certain things, but the first order points are essential and make a "theology" Christian. First order doctrines are those which are essential and nonnegotiable in the Christian belief mosaic, such as the Trinity, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s return, and salvation by grace through faith—things without which one cannot be a Christian. Second order doctrines are those such as baptism, church government, or one’s view of end-times theology, and other related matters that are indeed important for faith and the life of the church but are not ultimately obstructive for Christian unity. Third order doctrines are those that are adiaphora or matters of indifference, such as whether Christians can drink alcohol, whether should they homeschool their children, what Bible translations should they use, and the like. I think the problem with this quote is it assumes his division of First Order and Second Order is universally accepted. But those who see Baptism as a sacrament would reject his notion that it is a “second order” issue. I won’t break the rules and get into an argument over whose view on that topic is right (though as a disclosure, I am a Catholic who accepts the teachings of the Church), but I think his view reflects his own theology and not a universal view. The point Michael Bird is making though relates to the mode of baptism. I believe in believer's baptism but I attend a church that baptises infants. I may disagree, but it's not sufficient for me to not attend the church, as it is thoroughly orthodox in first order matters. I get that. But it’s *not* second order for those who believe Baptism to be a Sacrament. It would be part of the first order truths. In ecumenism that has to be recognized. Otherwise, one group becomes dismissive of what another holds to be important.
I do believe Michael Bird's 3 lists are fundamentally valid. He's saying that first order points are valid reasons to exclude a denomination as being true to the Christian faith, which was one of the questions posed earlier in this forum - i.e. what is a "Christian" denomination? The second order points are ones Michael Bird suggests we should passionately argue for, but should not be used to regard others as being outside the Christian church.
(I think most denominations would regard baptism as a sacrament. We might differ on whether faith should come first and on the mode. Some would believe it is critical in the salvation process. For myself, I'd simply say that faith in Jesus and in his death on the cross in my place is essential and that baptism should ideally follow. Obviously some - like the thief on the cross - never get a chance for some reason.)
That is so interesting. A few years back, I chatted with the ministers/pastors in our town. I guess maybe 15 or so. In discussing church growth, only one mentioned theology (Masters). One was quite aggressive ... child care was absolutely key. Another refused older music ... the seniors die ... the key is younger members and the music team. When the seniors complained, the team glued several oldies together to get the checkoff. One pastor was really depressed, until he removed the denominational moniker, with greater success.
But times have quickly changed. Now, it's hot-sin positioning, and politics. The smaller hispanic church got tagged big time.
Being a statistician at heart, I periodically scan the respective parking lots to see how things are coming. I read an article yesterday, that Covid may well shake things up (after a lengthy stay-home).
I heard a sermon once about breaking things up into categories that goes along with what Bird says. What will you: Die, Divide, Debate, and Decide over
I like this quote from Michael Bird. The point being different denominations will take different viewpoints on certain things, but the first order points are essential and make a "theology" Christian. That is so interesting. A few years back, I chatted with the ministers/pastors in our town. I guess maybe 15 or so. In discussing church growth, only one mentioned theology (Masters). One was quite aggressive ... child care was absolutely key. Another refused older music ... the seniors die ... the key is younger members and the music team. When the seniors complained, the team glued several oldies together to get the checkoff. One pastor was really depressed, until he removed the denominational moniker, with greater success. But times have quickly changed. Now, it's hot-sin positioning, and politics. The smaller hispanic church got tagged big time. Being a statistician at heart, I periodically scan the respective parking lots to see how things are coming. I read an article yesterday, that Covid may well shake things up (after a lengthy stay-home).
Covid has certainly been used by God to shake things up and get people "attending" church who didn't previously. I don't know how others feel, but I don't have any denominational hang ups. I simply describe myself as Christian. I may have certain theological beliefs, but like Michael Bird was indicating many of them shouldn't divide us. Certain beliefs are of the first order, but others are simply our considered interpretation.
First order doctrines are those which are essential and nonnegotiable in the Christian belief mosaic, such as the Trinity,
The problem is fundamental - this list excludes non-trinitarians which represent 35 million Christians according to Wikipedia. Then there is the question of the gnostic and syncretic groups. For the forums, if you call yourself Christian you are counted as Christian. Period.
For the forums, if you call yourself Christian you are counted as Christian. Period.
True but for the future what we call ourselves will not be nearly as important as what Christ calls us (Matthew 7:21-23) something that should have us all in fear and trembling 😳 no matter what our affiliation 😇
Hey, everyone: GOOD JOB!
Thanks for steering this back to gracious and productive conversation. This thread was reported a couple of times over the weekend. I have to admit, I cringed a little as I clicked through, fully expecting to have to lock the thread.
Instead, I'm reminded what a wonderful community we have.
Well stated, MJ. Thank all of you for keeping each other accountable to be inclusive and on-topic, and graciously accepting gentle correction when it's needed.
Well, once I realized I was “posting angry” I decided to take a few days away from the forums to cool down. Sorry for my “contribution“ there.
Hey Adam Borries, so if I read you right anyone who wants to come on the forums and claim to be a Christian is beyond rebuke? So if someone said they were Islam or Hindu but defined themselves as Christian we are wrong to say they are wrong? Just want clarity.
Mathew. I believe you and are on the same page theologically given the Facebook group we're on. However, the forum is not designed to question someone's theological beliefs. That may be frustrating, but that's within the spirit of the forum guidelines. Paul
Thanks Paul, but I was around when they did these forum guidelines and per a logos employee it was just done to appease a few people on the forums. But I would like to hear from Adam where logos stands on this. The only reason I posted on this thread was because everyone was dancing around, or condoning, the elephant in the room.
After I posted the Michael Bird quote which I felt in the First Order list covered areas common to all historically orthodox Christians, it struck me that the Nicene Creed is an ecumenical creed accepted by all historically orthodox branches of the Christian faith.
it struck me that the Nicene Creed is an ecumenical creed accepted by all historically orthodox branches of the Christian faith.
Paul - give it a break. Not all Christians accept/accepted the Nicene Creed which is why Wikipedia has an article titled "Nicene Christianity". For an historical example, think Arianism which remained a significant portion of Christianity until the seventh century and re-emerged (embers reignited) in the 16th century. And don't waste my time by yelling "heresy" -- I am sure I could find the label "heresy" applied to every single group represented in the forums. It is meaningless because "heresy" is meaningful only in relationship to your acceptance of the authority of those using the term.
So if someone said they were Islam or Hindu but defined themselves as Christian we are wrong to say they are wrong?
Mathew, what you are speaking of here is syncretism. I've never found a boundary that I am comfortable with between inculturation and syncretism - it's one of those I know it when I see it things. In Asia, think God's Army; in Europe, think Benedicaria. In the Carribbean, think Rastafari. In Africa, think Chrislam - Christian/Islam i.e. your example. For your other example, think Malbars of Réunion. Each of these groups is sufficiently Christian as to find Logos of use. Which is why, in the Logos forums, someone is Christian if they claim to be Christian. Period.
One strength of the forums is that we are all introduced to Christians of beliefs and practices that we would never encountered in our own tiny social region. And in accepting them as fellow Logos users, we often find they are not as different from ourselves as we would have expected. Plus we are presented with challenges that force us to think about and refine our beliefs, or at least how we express them.
"we are wrong to say they are wrong?"
You are here, yes. And they would be to make such claims, regardless of whether those claims are correct or not. The Logos forums are not a place for asserting, denying, or discussing theological claims; it's not a place for boundary maintenance. I'm well aware of traditional perceptions of Latter-day Saints, and I strongly suspect virtually everyone else is too.
Given the mix of people and backgrounds of Logos users, it is neither safe nor fair to assume that everyone will share your (generally speaking) degree of academic comfort, theological boundaries, or idiosyncratic vocabulary.
I've been a Logos user 20 years, on the forums nearly that whole time. When it comes to relevant sources (or categorizing sources as more or less useful), or flagrant inaccuracies, I speak up. But I do not argue for, critique, cast aspersions on, or privilege my own or anyone else's beliefs here.
I'm here to talk Logos.
You can probably sum it all up as: FL isn’t going to create a definition of orthodox Christianity binding on all members and will not allow members to debate it on their own forums.
I've never found a boundary that I am comfortable with between inculturation and syncretism - it's one of those I know it when I see it things.
We had a friend visit who works at Shinto 'HQ' (their version of such). I asked if I could sweep the steps of a local Shinto shrine (a pain, but highly spiritual). She was agreeable, and later asked a village. Then I asked if I could be Shinto and Christian. Not possible. My impression was the Christian part wasn't synchro-able.
Matthew, the way that question is framed, it's almost impossible to give a satisfactory answer. The purpose these forums is to help people with Logos and other Faithlife products. It's theological neutral ground, and it always has been.
Then I asked if I could be Shinto and Christian.
I fear I know too little about Shinto to know why it is common to be Shinto & Buddhist but not Shinto & Christian. But multi-religion membership is a separate issue from a single "merged" religion. I was just trying to find resource on the former ... limited availability outside Asian discussions.One possibility from a Christian perspective: Many Yet One?: Multiple Religious Belonging by Rajkumar Peniel Jesudason Rufus OR maybe Many Mansions?: Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity by Cornille, Catherine
per a logos employee it was just done to appease a few people on the forums.
I don't know to whom you spoke nor do I know anything about the internal Logos discussions beyond the hope that as Christians we would automatically behave ourselves. What I do know:
I'm sure that if I knew of three cases, there were probably others. We have come a long ways from those days. Most requests for suggestions representing a particular theological stance generate reasonable lists with polite discussions asking for definitions etc. to appropriately understand the request. A recent example: I would have given a wildly off target suggestion for "social Gospel" because I did not know that besides the Catholic understanding, it also referred to a specific twentieth century Protestant movement.
Well that is not true Adam. I do not know how long you have worked for logos but it started with very little guidelines. It was just a statement. I wanted to make sure if someone new was reading this that logos does not support Mormonism, or are you going to set a platform for Mormonism like Catholicism? As far as MJ I know of many people who have left the forums because of dealing with you (and people like you). Just as you did in this thread you start talking about "the guidelines" and proceed to break them yourself, and let us not forget you are constantly trying to change logos into verbum. You have your own platform leave logos alone. Why don't you petition logos to improve that one???
I fear I know too little about Shinto to know why it is common to be Shinto & Buddhist but not Shinto & Christian. But multi-religion membership is a separate issue from a single "merged" religion.
Yes, I recog where you're seeking (and not intending to drag it out). But my excessively hint-ified comment, was that Christianity is a very synchro religion, from both history, and even these days, where native-American pastors are not fully embraced; they might be synchro-contaminated (have watched that dance).
I've not seen any research/resources, though discussed at length in the missions.
It was just a statement. I wanted to make sure if someone new was reading this that logos does not support Mormonism, or are you going to set a platform for Mormonism like Catholicism?
I'd think you'd be hard-pressed to identify exactly which group FL supports, or even if the Bible is of fairly recent vintage, from their offerings. True, individual staff have preferences.
DeniseI would recommend this book in logos:
Mathew, first things first. Your comments toward MJ are at best uncharitable, and at worst is a personal attack. Either way, it's way outside the guidelines for the tone we want on the forums.
I wanted to make sure if someone new was reading this that logos does not support Mormonism, or are you going to set a platform for Mormonism like Catholicism?
Perhaps it will be helpful to read this excerpt from the Publishing Philosophy statement that Bob put out some years ago.
[quote]
But isn’t Logos a Christian company? I believe X, and I’m okay with your having books from the slightly misguided believers in Y, but the people who believe in Z aren’t even Christians!
True. For many values of Z, I agree with you: they’re beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. But Logos is a library, not a church, and the Z-content relates to the Bible and its study, whether you choose to read it for instruction or in order to refute it.
The statement goes on to differentiate how Faithlife operates as a publisher of original content, as opposed to a library platform; I encourage you to read the whole thing.
Ok Adam but MJ can say whatever she wants with your blessing. I did not address anything to MJ until she addressed me. What a pathetic place these forums have become. So just put me down as one more person who doesn't use the forums (amongst many that I personally know).I guess money has become more important to logos than Christianity.So you leave me no choice but to just call in when I have a question and when they ask why did I not post it on the forums I will save this thread and send it to them. I remember back when you would check the forums and the first ten was would never span more than a couple hours and now usually now a day or MORE.
I guess money has become more important to logos than Christianity.
I’ll read material not attached to my beliefs out of the interest in accurately understanding what different denominations do believe, and don’t think FL is more interested in money in doing so. Given that some Christians openly consider my Church to be the “whore of Babylon,” I’m glad the FL forum chooses NOT to police who is a Christian.
It seems to me they want to avoid sectarian forum wars.
Yea one more thing Adam I went back and read my posts and I did not start an argument with MJ she did with me. I will not let her and you (Adam) run me off, I will start running the forums everyday to help where I can. You have showed me that it is needed.
DeniseI would recommend this book in logos: Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy
I doubt I'd be too confident of doctrines, where there's 4 views, 5 views, etc. At our church, the pastor offerred optional baptism. Folks really appreciated it.
Thanks for that David. But if you go back and read what I said, I only said Mormonism is not Christian. I did not make any more comments about them. And then MJ made comments about it to me and I gave her some commentary on what she told me. But I guess I need to read the guidelines. I guess I am not to answer back to someone who has started a dialog with me??? But David I did not mean to step on your toes, the last thing I thought I would be talking about would be Catholicism. It just shows me I should not let someone else steer the conversation, I know better than that.
But Adam did not help!!!
"I only said Mormonism is not Christian."
Yes, something which hinges on idiosyncratic definitions, and which is not appropriate to affirm or deny on the forums.
Blinded!!!
Mathew. I suggest apologetics typically needs to be more nuanced than that! Like you I have strong beliefs, but these forums aren't for debating the rights and wrongs of each others beliefs
But David I did not mean to step on your toes, the last thing I thought I would be talking about would be Catholicism.
I didn't feel attacked by you. I just used it as an example of why I'm glad they don't define. My apologies if that sounded like I was accusing you.
Thanks Paul, I just didn't want to talk about it anymore so I just gave him a one word response. He knows how I feel why is he going to poke the tiger???. Looking for an argument??? Not going to get an apology for stating the truth.Yea no problem David. You are alright in my book.
"Not going to get an apology for stating the truth." And I'm not asking for one. You still don't seem to get that stating and contesting such "truths" is not appropriate for these forums.
See Adam, just pushing and pushing, and then they make you mad and you push back!!! I already said how I feel period...All you did was embolden them!!! Not going to get anything else Ben, so are we just going to go back and forth??? If you want more fulfillment why don't you read the Word as the final authority and maybe God will help you.
