Paul Owen - An Anglican!

[Apologette]

Paul Owen, who has been invovled in dialogue with Mormons, has made some statement which led me to do further research. It appears that Owen approaches beliefs from an Anglican perspective, just as I thought. After all, I am an Anglican myself, so I recognize the conclusions Owen reached.

However, this statenent by Owen has stumped me:

"I was again struck by the fact that typical Evangelicalism all too often lacks the resources to deal constructively with Mormon thought. Evangelicalism lacks a robust understanding of the efficacy of the sacraments, an appreciation for ritual, an acknowledgment of the teaching authority of the Church, a sense of the iden***y of the visible Church (outside of which there is no ordinary way of salvation), the continuation of a ministerial priesthood (including apostolic succession) in the Church conveyed through the laying on of hands, and a recognition of the necessity of good works for salvation (and not merely their inevitability as the fruits of faith)." (Statement by Owen 2006 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology)

Paul Owen identifies himself as a "Reformed Anglican." Well, I'm a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church," part of the Anglican Church in N.A., and I can relate to his above statement about the efficacy of sacraments, liturgical appreciation, the historic episcopate in succession, etc. I believe these things are part of historic Christianity, but not necessarily necessary in themselves for a legitimate expression of Christianity to exist. By the way, these things ARE NOT FOUND in Mormonism.

But when I come to Owen's statement about "the necessity of good works for salvation (and not merely their inevitability as the fruits of faith)", I have to take grave exception. If Owen is an Anglican, of the "reformed" variety, then he should be aware that the teaching of Anglicanism regarding the realtionship between salvation and works is found in the Articles of Relgion. And more specifically, we find this Anglican teaching regarding justification before God:

XI. Of the Justification of Man.

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

What we learn from this article is that our salvation, being accounted righteous before God, is the result of faith in Christ, and not of works. It's pretty clear.

And the next Article reads:

XII. Of Good Works.

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Good works, therefore, are the result of regneration, not the means to it, and are evidence of salvation. It couldn't be clearer.

Now, Paul Owen may be, as he has stated, a "Reformed Anglican," and that means he's part of a conitinuing Church I ***ume, but I would suggest that the statement that works contributes to salvation in any way is not part of the historic Anglican position on the subject, as evidenced by the Articles of Relgion quoted. A clarification in this regard would be welcomed from Paul Owen.

Meanwhile, Mormons have to understand that Christians do not go by what one man says, but must base their faith on what the Bible states. I left the Episcopal Church because of what a man said - Bishop Spong. We do not submit to the word of men, but the Word of God. You would do well to do the same.

[Richard]

I like this, B2M5L2 defends him personally and you kind of throw him under the bus. I love the unity of Faith. Just my opinion though.

[Apologette]

I like this, B2M5L2 defends him personally and you kind of throw him under the buss. I love the unity of Faith. Just my opinion though.

No, I didn't throw him under the bus at all. Why don't you honestly deal with what I stated instead of your usual silliness.

I requested a clarification, and was HONEST enough to say I disagree with part of his statement.

Christians can disagree with one another - unlike Mormons who are under a monolithic dictatorship.

[Richard]

No, I didn't throw him under the bus at all. Why don't you honestly deal with what I stated instead of your usual silliness.

I requested a clarification, and was HONEST enough to say I disagree with part of his statement.

Christians can disagree with one another - unlike Mormons who are under a monolithic dictatorship.

I see, thanks for the clarification, or the pick and choose of their research and beliefs.

[Apologette]

I see, thanks for the clarification, or the pick and choose of their research and beliefs.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The so-called "authority" you have from Cowdery and Smith baptizing and ordaining each other is laughable. And to call yourself a high priest of anything is beyond ludicrous.

[nrajeff]

Christians can disagree with one another - unlike Mormons who are under a monolithic dictatorship.
--What about Van Hale? Wasn't it YOU who cited his disagreement with the monolith regarding the BOM? Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? Does it hurt much? What caliber of gun were you using? Hope it wasn't loaded with hollowpoints.....

[Richard]

You have no idea what you're talking about. The so-called "authority" you have from Cowdery and Smith baptizing and ordaining each other is laughable. And to call yourself a high priest of anything is beyond ludicrous.

Switch and bait, but bankrupt at the same time. :confused:

[Richard]

--What about Van Hale? Wasn't it YOU who cited his disagreement with the monolith regarding the BOM? Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? Does it hurt much? What caliber of gun were you using? Hope it wasn't loaded with hollowpoints.....

They can do this and at the same time and out of the other side of their mouth proclaim Unity of Faith. Interesting.

[Apologette]

--What about Van Hale? Wasn't it YOU who cited his disagreement with the monolith regarding the BOM? Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? Does it hurt much? What caliber of gun were you using? Hope it wasn't loaded with hollowpoints.....

Did you happen to comment on Van Hale's view. I'd agree with him, but I don't think the stories are really inspired in the BoM, I think they're stolen from another source. And you fell for it, Jeff. You should think of where you are leading those you love.

[Apologette]

Switch and bait, but bankrupt at the same time. :confused:

You're on ignore. I really don't like dealing with people that have nothing significant to add to a discussion. As far as you go, I don't even think you know what an Anglican is.

I have yet to see you post one legitimate response to any inquiry. So, adios. Enjoy your golf game.

[MacG]

But when I come to Owen's statement about "the necessity of good works for salvation (and not merely their inevitability as the fruits of faith)",

On this point I was thinking:

What is the fruit of works? Is it saving faith?

What is the fruit of saving faith? Is it works?

If I work because I think it will save or hope to gain entrance to Heaven, I trust in my own efforts thinking that God will see how hard I worked. Think the rich young ruler.

If I have saving faith, being forgiven my sin, it will produce works, for gra***ude wants to give. Think Zacheaus.

MacG

[ErikErik]

On this point I was thinking:

What is the fruit of works? Is it saving faith?

What is the fruit of saving faith? Is it works?

If I work because I think it will save or hope to gain entrance to Heaven, I trust in my own efforts thinking that God will see how hard I worked. Think the rich young ruler.

If I have saving faith, being forgiven my sin, it will produce works, for gra***ude wants to give. Think Zacheaus.

MacG


What the rich young ruler was asking was: what must I Do to inherit eternal life. Those who belong in a faith group that teaches "works" salvation are always looking to DO something to add to the doctrine of salvation. Failing to realize its WHAT Christ DID.

[ErikErik]

Did you happen to comment on Van Hale's view. I'd agree with him, but I don't think the stories are really inspired in the BoM, I think they're stolen from another source. And you fell for it, Jeff. You should think of where you are leading those you love.


The parts that are factual in the BoM are those that came from the Holy Bible. The rest were "borrowed" from other books and also from Smith's own creative imagination which his own mother attested to. In fact, when Lucy Smith wrote a book and included this very thing, Brigham Young was outraged and asked that changes be made. I had a discussion about this with an lds apologist. He was angry when I brought this up. Another embarr***ment they want swept under the rug.

[Apologette]

The parts that are factual in the BoM are those that came from the Holy Bible. The rest were "borrowed" from other books and also from Smith's own creative imagination which his own mother attested to. In fact, when Lucy Smith wrote a book and included this very thing, Brigham Young was outraged and asked that changes be made. I had a discussion about this with an lds apologist. He was angry when I brought this up. Another embarr***ment they want swept under the rug.

Yes, and the entire book was a money-making project by Smith, Cowdery, Rigdon and Martin. When Smith saw that he could be head honcho prophet, and make even more money (he was a lazy person, essentially) without having to do much but speak out of his twisted mouth all of his imaginary "revelations," he went with it. He also suckered a lot of women into believing an angel would kill him if they didn't "marry" him. So, you see we are dealing with a complete conartist who belonged behind bars and not in womens' beds.

[TheSword99]

Yes, and the entire book was a money-making project by Smith, Cowdery, Rigdon and Martin. When Smith saw that he could be head honcho prophet, and make even more money (he was a lazy person, essentially) without having to do much but speak out of his twisted mouth all of his imaginary "revelations," he went with it. He also suckered a lot of women into believing an angel would kill him if they didn't "marry" him. So, you see we are dealing with a complete conartist who belonged behind bars and not in womens' beds.

If I remember right, Smith claimed God told him to sell the copyright of the BoM to Canada and Smith sent his 2 friends out there. They came back and said nobody wanted it.

[Apologette]

If I remember right, Smith claimed God told him to sell the copyright of the BoM to Canada and Smith sent his 2 friends out there. They came back and said nobody wanted it.

So, they understand then that he was a false prophet? Right? He claimed God told him one thing, and it never came to p***. That's the test - he's a false prophet, and do they even care?

And to tell you the truth, the Book is very boring. I've had one Reogranized Church member who does outreach for them state that she hasn't even read it because it is so darn boring.

[Richard]

If I remember right, Smith claimed God told him to sell the copyright of the BoM to Canada and Smith sent his 2 friends out there. They came back and said nobody wanted it.

Can anyone produce the Joseph Smith Revelation written in Joseph Smith handwriting that would vouch for this revelation. Interesting.

[Apologette]

--What about Van Hale? Wasn't it YOU who cited his disagreement with the monolith regarding the BOM? Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? Does it hurt much? What caliber of gun were you using? Hope it wasn't loaded with hollowpoints.....

Actually, Van Hale's position that your holy book, the BoM, is not literal historical fact is something you have failed to deal with, speaking of shooting yourself in the foot. If some Christian told me the Bible was not literal, and that Jesus wasn't actually literally born and died in the Holy Land, or that he wasn't really resurrected - well, that is not just something I'd disagree with - in that case I'd have to tell that person that they are NOT a Christian.

I've told John Spong and others of his ilk that their beliefs put them outside the framework of Christianity into heresy.

[TheSword99]

Can anyone produce the Joseph Smith Revelation written in Joseph Smith handwriting that would vouch for this revelation. Interesting.

Do your own research.

[Richard]

Do your own research.

I checked all morning, googled, yahooed and Binged, no, nada, zippo document has ever been found. Hmmm, so care to change your mind or just keep on posting accusation without verification and so typical of those who just make, awe, misrepresentations is a nice word, as they go along, folks??

[nrajeff]

[COLOR="Red"]Did you happen to comment on Van Hale's view.
--Here is my comment: I disagree with him. Now, back to the self-contradictory positions:

#1. "LDS aren't allowed to disagree with the monolithic church doctrines."

#2. Van Hale disagrees with the church's monolithic doctrine regarding the BOM."


Wanna comment on [B]that?

[alanmolstad]

Reformed Anglican?

Is that a real thing, or just a name a guy made up on his own?

[theway]

Reformed Anglican?

Is that a real thing, or just a name a guy made up on his own?No, he didn't make it up, he merely reformed the name.

[Apologette]

Reformed Anglican?

Is that a real thing, or just a name a guy made up on his own?

The Reformed Episcopal Church is a denomination, and is now part of the Anglican Church in North America - the largest continuing body. There are "Reformed Anglicans," by belief (Calvinism).

[alanmolstad]

any details about them ?

and the name "Reformed Episcopal Church" suggests they split-off?

[Apologette]

any details about them ?

and the name "Reformed Episcopal Church" suggests they split-off?

They did - an Evangelical bishop left the Episcopal Church, thus retaining the Apostolic Succession. The denomination is fairly evangelical, although it has had its own high church renewal. They are a central part of the ACNA - their priests are very good preachers!

[alanmolstad]

I noted that in the 70s there was a strong "pro-gay" push within the Episcopal Church that really kicked-in and took over by the 90s


EDIT:
I did a google search...and there is a lot more history to this church than i knew about....

[RealFakeHair]

I noted that in the 70s there was a strong "pro-gay" push within the Episcopal Church that really kicked-in and took over by the 90s


EDIT:
I did a google search...and there is a lot more history to this church than i knew about....
Look up the flying Bishop of Alaska..

[dberrie2000]

Paul Owen, who has been invovled in dialogue with Mormons, has made some statement which led me to do further research. It appears that Owen approaches beliefs from an Anglican perspective, just as I thought. After all, I am an Anglican myself, so I recognize the conclusions Owen reached.

These conclusions?

Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect:
Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?

Carl Mosser and Paul Owen:---http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

Introduction:

Spiritual warfare is a reality. Battle in the spiritual realm is not fought with guns and tanks in the manner of the world. This is the war of ideas that vie for men's minds. The Apostle Paul tells us that the weapons we fight with have divine power to demolish such intellectual strongholds. Of Christians he says that, "we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (II Cor. 10:5). However, to tear down arguments entails that one must first know what the arguments are. This paper seeks to describe the scholarly and apologetic arguments of one group which we, as evangelicals, believe inhibit true knowledge of God.
The Church or Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, has, in recent years, produced a substantial body of literature defending their beliefs. This paper does not discuss the full range of defensive and offensive scholarship by Latter-day Saints. Instead, we will focus our discussion upon those disciplines that fall under the broad categories of biblical studies and church history. We choose these two categories because of the importance they play in understanding Christian origins and the nature of early Christianity. Both Mormonism and evangelicalism claim to be the Church which Christ founded. Both claim to be the heirs of New Testament Christianity. Both cannot be correct. It is then appropriate to focus on these disciplines because knowing what the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians were and whether or not the Church which Christ founded apostatized is the central issue of contention. We realize that what we say will not be welcomed by all, especially by some in the counter-cult movement. Some may criticize us for giving the Mormons too much credit and for being too harsh on our fellow evangelicals. However, much like testifying against a loved one in court, we cannot hide the facts of the matter. In this battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that we may be losing the battle and not knowing it. But this is a battle we cannot afford to lose. It is our deep hope that this paper will, in some small way, serve to awaken members of the evangelical community to the important task at hand.

Section A: Mormonism

I. Evangelical Myths and Five Conclusions

There are many evangelical myths concerning Mormon scholarship. The first is that there are few, if any, traditional Mormon scholars with training in fields pertinent to evangelical Mormon debates. This is simply false. It is a myth that when Mormons receive training in historiography, biblical languages, theology and philosophy they invariably abandon traditional LDS believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the prophethood of Joseph Smith. It Is a myth that liberal Mormons have so shaken the foundations of LDS believe that Mormonism is crumbling apart. It is a myth that neo-orthodox Mormons have influenced the theology of their Church to such a degree that it will soon abandon traditional emphasis and follow a path similar to the RLDS or the World-Wide Church of God.(1) These are myths based upon ignorance and selective reading. These myths must be abandoned by responsible evangelicals.

The ***le of this paper reflects five conclusions we have come to concerning Mormon-evangelical debates. The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages."(2) Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided in to four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories-traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormon, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship.

The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.
A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writing.(3) In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.
Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.(4) Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.
Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.