Re: [TruthTalk] Loving and Merciful God of Justice

[Dave Hansen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My only frustration with Dave's response is that it includes an insistence that (1) "protestants" are those who are not Mormon DAVEH:   Nonsense, John. Well, I stand corrected.   I guess my may concern, here, is that Mormons see Catholics and Protestant and the "true church,"  the Mormons.    I've never thought that way at all.  My primary interest is in Protestantism, as I view Catholicism as having a reasonable claim to the priesthood, yet Protestantism has sprung from that framework by rejecting their authority. You make this statement and include all who are not Catholic. DAVEH:  ???  How do you figure, John?  I don't view Jehovah Witnesses (and perhaps others as well) as Protestant.  So....I disagree with your conclusion.  Simply not being RCC does not qualify one to be a Protestant, as I see it.  But, if one accepts the Trinity Doctrine, then it seems to me that their roots are based in Catholicism, or a rejection of such yet retaining some of the doctrinal conclusions. Close but no cigar.  Here is a specific definition that catches it for me  --   a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth. DAVEH:   Thanx for your definition, John.  I'm not suggesting your definition is wrong, but I am curious if it applies to all Protestant churches.  For instance, does the Church of England claim justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers?  And.....I assume you consider it a Protestant church?   To me that is a curious perspective that is fascinating and the reason I am trying to learn how Protestants believe and think.   More than I have complained about your use of the word "protestant." DAVEH:  Which I find very interesting!   What is it about being called a Protestant that would offend anybody who believes in either your above definition (justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers) or mine (believing the T-Doctrine)?     Furthermore....Are there any of those TTers who have protested my use of such (Protestant) who do NOT believe in justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers or the T-Doctrine?  If there are any, then I would certainly appreciate hearing their definition of Protestant framed in a way that it excludes them.     How about you John?  Are you a Protestant?  And....who on TT is not a Protestant?  Will those who do not believe in justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers and accept the T-Doctrine please let me know who you are so I don't step on your toes.  Otherwise, is there any reason I cannot consider most TTers (other than Blaine and myself, since we don't fit the above definitions) to be Protestants???   If you are trying to understand, why not include in the fascinating search an understanding of those who are not attached to the Reformation? DAVEH:  It doesn't interest me.  I've know tons of people not connected to the Reformation.  I'm tired of talking to them.  It is far more interesting to talk to somebody with more diverse views. Who teach  grace as it stands against those who preach legalism (whether of the Mormon variety or of the Miller brand0, who reject the notion that membership in the "right church" counts for anything at all, in an eternal sense. DAVEH:  Maybe I'm missing something, John.  What denominations do you have in mind that meet that criteria?    You have the KJV of the bible.   It teaches these things  --  your problem, of course, is that your KJV does not have a supportive text (a Greek text).  Do I mis-stpeak?   Your views of the biblical message are fashioned and shaped by the dictates of the True Church   -----   something I find to be somewhat nonsensical.  Care to discuss/defend agains that claim? DAVEH:  It may be nonsensical to you, but to me it seems pretty logical.....which makes pretty good sense from my perspective.  I'm not in TT to argue the merits of LDS theology though.  I have always admitted my biases, and make no apology for by religious beliefs. And, I respect your right to disagree with my beliefs.....and allow you the right to believe as you wish.  As I've said before, my interests in being here are to find out what you (assuming you are a Protestant) believe...and why.  If you want to know what I believe and why......just ask.  If you want to argue that the LDS Church is not the True Church....you've got the wrong guy.  Though that is my belief, I'm not here to prove to you that it is the True Church.    It would seem to me that, sense the biblical message was here long before the Mormon message  --   the bibilical account would be the place to begin and defend.   Shall we?  DAVEH:  ???   I'm not sure I'm following you on that, John.  But, I'm ready to hear your defense of the T-Doctrine from a Biblical standpoint. and (2) that all "protestants" think alike. DAVEH:  I realize that all "protestants" don't necessarily think alike.  However, I am interested in knowing how many do think alike. What is of interest in that !!?? It seems to me that if we are going to borrow a word from the non-Mormon world, we should include the attached definition instead of making up our own  ---   it is confusing to those of us who are not "protestant" by historic definition.   DAVEH:  So, how do you define Protestantism, John?   From my perspective, it is those who accept the Trinity Doctrine, yet reject Catholicism.  While that may be a bit simplistic, it seems to work for me.  Do you view my definition as flawed? Dave, this is YOUR definition.    It is not a historical definition. DAVEH:  Agreed.  But for me it seems to work rather nicely.  Other than Protestants (excluding Catholicism), do you know of any denominations that have adopted the T-Doctrine?   Shall we use yours or that which grows out of the history of the circumstance. DAVEH:  I tend to like mine as while it may not tell the whole story, it is simple and works for me.  Depending on how you answer my above questions, I may want to explore your definitions further.     If so....how? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.