Richard Lloyd Anderson teaches in the Guide To The Life of Christ (FARMS Reprint, 1999):

The Protestant Problem

At the resurrection Jesus sent his apostles with the command to preach and baptize (Matt. 28:19-20), giving the double requirement. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Yet the Protestant reformers taught that grace alone and faith alone brought salvation. Because Christ was baptized and established the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, Protestants generally emphasize these two ceremonies, though not firmly requiring any ceremony as necessary for salvation. Popularly, baptism is explained as “an outward sign of an inward grace,” advisable but not required by God. But Jesus said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Some claim that “born of water” refers to one’s physical birth, coming out of the amniotic fluid of the mother’s womb. According to this interpretation, Jesus only asked Nicodemus to be born of the Spirit after the fluid of physical birth. This is forced however, for it contradicts John’s context, the apostle’s interpretation, and Jewish terminology of the time. (more…)

The Troll of My Life

By Kristie Wood, the Troll’s wife (Dedicated to All Those Happening Across the Bridge of Life)

He’s hairy. He’s scary—your trollish brute,

He’d rather be sweaty than smell of “Aloof”. (more…)

Blake commented over at the New Cool Thang:

Todd: I have read your post — all of it. Frankly, it is so far ranging with so little contact with responsible issues that I choose to not respond on your blog. I invite you to raise issues in smaller bites here so that we can deal with them. So come back here and let us engage in the context of this discussion. It would be irresponsible to allow such a thread-jack.

However, I will observe that your very world-view of scripture is upset by this issue because you deal with these scriptural passages by rejecting premise (4) and asserting that they just don’t mean what they say. Yet how can a fundamentalist Baptist say that? The biggest problem is that you read the Old Testament through the lens of baptist theology as if the Hebrews were just fundamentalist Baptists. (BTW many Mormons make the same mistake of assuming that the writers of the Old Testament were just Mormon but a long time ago). So engage in this discussion responsibly and in a way that allows us to respond to your objections. Your post is just not focused enough to allow any coherent response that would be a meaningful dialogue as I see it.

I appreciate Blake reading my post.  And I acknowledge the “far ranging” aspects.  On this thread, let me try again by narrowing my comments in the discussion to premise 4 or what Blake chooses.  And on this particular post, I desire to exclusively limit the commenting only between Blake and myself, not to alienate anyone else, but for the sake of focus and my sanity if he is willing.  But before I share a blurb on premise 4, can Blake share with me his sources by John Piper?  I have a voracious appetite for reading and would like to gain possession of the book Blake consulted.

I am trying to get some LDS perspective on Isaiah, so I started reading Mark E. Petersen’s book, Isaiah For Today (Deseret Book Company, 1981).

Not too far into the book, Mark tries to pound me on the head with a sledgehammer:

To understand Isaiah, people need to understand the Latter-day Saint point of view.  They cannot and never will understand him otherwise.  Both Jews and Christians alike grope in darkness concerning this matter until they are willing to accept the restoration of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith (p. 6). (more…)

We just started our verse-by-verse book study in Idaho Falls, Idaho on Isaiah last night. Anticipatory feelings of great things charged my heart as I taught through the opening introductions. The truth of Isaiah is grand in its portrait of God.

From within southeastern Idaho’s borders, I love seeing the rugged, majestic mountains. They are awe-inspiring, towering signs of general revelation pointing me skyward. As a little creaturely spec I am lost in the grandeur and vastness. You wouldn’t have been able to even see me when I had at one time stood on top of the Grand Teton. But who cares about staring at me when you are enveloped in such beauty?

I like mountains because they make me feel very, very, very vulnerable and small. In fact, I have been on mountain crags and sheer cliff walls, overwhelmed by the feelings of utter helplessness, totally dependent on a rope, harness, or a climbing device. That is a good position to be. But also, I can hardly describe to you the accompanying emotions of pure thrill.

Isaiah paints a picture for us, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills: and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:2-3).

Here, we find Beauty that towers infinitely higher than any temple or the Tetons. No wonder peoples from everywhere, who desperately need Him, the One infinitely wiser then themselves, will be steadily flowing to Mount Zion.

Thinking of heart issues . . .

et

Yesterday, for the second time, I read Blake Ostler’s article “Hermeneutical Assumptions and Open Theism” and felt that I should respond back.

Many years ago, there was a poetic ditty written to disseminate the concept of eternal progression to young hearers:

“If you could hie to Kolob,

In the twinkling of an eye, (more…)

As usual at “Mormon Inquiry”, Dave highlights relevant topics for the current thinker.  The stinker.  🙂  This time he beat me to the discussion.

Today, I read “Connor’s Conundrums“; and I must say, if I see anyone making a buffoonery of Christianity by waving undergarments or bellowing Scripture-out-of-context during the dedication time of the Rexburg temple, I will not keep my mouth shut.  Maybe, I will take them behind some woodshed and paddle their butts. (more…)

Andrew Greeley and Michael Hout write in their book, The Truth About Conservative Christians (The University of Chicago Press, 2006):

To be “saved” or (to “find the Lord” or to “find Jesus” or to be “born again” is an experience essential to the Conservative Christian creed. It is also often essential in relationships between Conservative Christians and others. To ask another whether she or he has been “saved” is to establish where one is in religious geography. The ranks of the saved will be rescued early in the end times. Others are, sadly perhaps, in the ranks of those who are destined for damnation. According to some Conservative Christian views, those not saved will be vaporized on the day of the Rapture. For Catholics at any rate the question of “finding the Lord” or “being saved” is a jarring experience. The words do not fit the Catholic’s religious vocabulary. Unless one has had frequent contact with Conservative Christians it’s not quite clear what they are talking about. (p. 16).

What do you think it means to be “born again” in John 3?