No. For example, let's say I were to enlist the aid of Mormon's for the political goal of erradicating abortion. I would still claim that the common conclusion I share with a Mormon regarding abortion doesn't lead me to the conclusion that Mormons have part of the "truth" in a theological sense. They have not the Holy Spirit, therefore they do not have the truth. Nevertheless, the fact that abortion is an abomination to the one true God is absolute.
However, if I were to attempt to convince liberal "christians" of the fact that abortion is an abomination to the one true God, it would be completely irrelevant if I were to argue that abortion is obviously wrong for "even the Mormon's agree" that it is wrong.
The fact that Mormon's have stumbled upon the correct conclusion that abortion is wrong does not mean "they have the truth". Neither does this change the fact that the commands of God and the truths of Christian doctrine are, indeed, absolute.
"Thank you! That underscores my original point of the absurdity of saying Joseph Smith was a Methodist. He did not remain a Methodist. The Methodists (as well as the Wesleyan/Arminians) do not claim him."
I fully expected this response, Corin.
However, you are guilty of a common logical error.
To argue that a non-believers position of a particular CHRISTIAN (absolute) doctrine or "truth" is irrelvant IN NO WAY necessitates that the untrue doctrine which a believer holds is dangerous and can easily lead one astray.
Isn't it true that a FALSE DOCTRINE can aide in leading to deeper theological error?
1 Corinthians 5
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I will exlain it differently.
I am attempting to show that the opinions of a NON BELIEVER have no relevance when attempting to assertain the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of a particular Christian doctrine.
[NON BELIEVER'S OPINION] ---> not relevant ---> [DISCUSSION OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH]
In agreement with my point , you are attempting to show that it is NOT PROPER to argue that the opinions of a NON BELIEVER which are in agreement to the opinions of a believer have no relevance in attempting to demonstrate that these COMMON OPINIONS might be the CAUSE or the NON-BELIEVER'S heresy -or at least that they can be a partial help on the way to the NON-BELIEVER'S heresy.
[NON BELIEVER'S OPINIONS (which are also shared with SOME believers] ---> not relevant ---> [NON-BELIEVER'S HERESY]
These are two completely different ideas! It simply DOES NOT FOLLOW to conclude that since the opinions of a non-believer have no relevance when attempting to ASSERTAIN THE TRUTH of a PARTICULAR DOCTRINE then one cannot likewise show that the opinions which a NON BELIEVER shares with SOME believers might just have bearing on swaying some towards heresy.
This is wholly relevant.
IF a particular doctrine is wrong, then it is totally relevant to note that many particular heresies also hold dearly to the very same particular doctrine.
While I would agree that it is NOT logical to automatically conclude that this COMMON DOCTRINE is ~NECESSARILY~ the CAUSE of the heresy (there ~could~ be other causes), it is just as wrong to RULE OUT that it ~MIGHT~ be the CAUSE.
This is why Rev911 attempted long ago to link Charles Taze Russell and Mary Baker Eddy to Calvinism. He attempted to demonstrate this because he believed that the errors he saw in Calvinism was either a cause or a help in bringing them to their grave theological errors.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING as attempting to enlist the aid of NON BELIEVER'S to demonstrate that a particular doctrine in question is wrong.
We never "called" rev on this issue because of his logic. We "called" rev on this issue because of his PRESUMPTIONS.
For it is COMPLETELY INCORRECT to link Calvinism with Russell's Jehovah's Witnesses theology and Eddy's Christian Science theology. It is wrong to even ATTEMPT to link Calvinism with these heresies BECAUSE it simply IS NOT TRUE that either of these individuals WERE CALVINISTS when they made up their heretical doctrines.
In fact, both of these individuals REJECTED the particular Calvinist doctrines in question BEFORE they fabricated their heretical theologies.
In fact, Charles Taze Russell REJECTED his covenanter (Scottish Presbyterian) roots and moved into unbelief. He was then persuaded by and became a member of the Seventh Day Adventist (ARMINIAN) movement. It was his fascination with the SDA's theology which led him to bring about his own heretical doctrines. Note that he sumarily REJECTED his calvinism in total BEFORE he ever brought out his JW theology.
In fact, Mary Baker Eddy ALSO REJECTED her Calvinist upbringing. From the Mary Baker Eddy Library we read from their on-line biography of Ms. Eddy, we read the following:
...Raised in a deeply religious Congregational [Calvinist] home, she rebelled against the Calvinist doctrine of predestination at an early age, and regularly turned to the Bible and prayer for hope and inspiration...
THIS is why we rejected Rev's attempts. His PRESUMPTIONS were wrong.
On the other hand, the Mormon Thomas G. Alexander, who is a professor at BYU, wrote an article in the Mormon "Sunstone" magazine in which he PROUDLY identified the roots of Mormon theology as Arminian:
The doctrines of God and man revealed in these sources were not greatly different from those of some of the religious denominations of the time. Marvin Hill has argued that the Mormon doctrine of man in New York contained elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism, though tending toward the latter. The following evidence shows that it was much closer to the moderate Arminian position, particularly in rejecting the Calvinist emphasis on absolute and unconditional predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, and absolute perseverance of the elect...
We read from another Mormon of the close association Mormonism has with Arminianism:
Some nineteenth-century deacons and elders and a few evangelical pastors struggled with grave temptations to doubt the truth and relevance of large portions of the book upon which they had been taught to stake their eternal destiny. True, the details of the histories recounted in the two sacred books were radically different. But they fit together wondrously. And their moral structure, the story they told of Jesus, their promise of salvation, and their description of humankind's last days were remarkably similar. Though the new scriptures had similarities with evangelical Arminianism, at the expense of the Calvinist views long dominant in colonial America, the same was true of the early nineteenth-century teachings of many Protestants, even Presbyterians, to say nothing of Methodists and Disciples of Christ. In the voice of two witnesses, the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saints declared the truth confirmed, just as the prophet Nephi1 had predicted (cf. 2 Ne. 29:8).
from Timothy L. Smith's on-line paper
Furthermore, it is misleading to simply say that Smith "did not remain a Methodist". Since he was all-to-happy to stay in the Methodist church, it was necessary for the Methodists to force him out.
It is NOT illogical to reason that the Arminianism of these three individuals AIDED in their manufacturing of their theological heresies.
Jean
Bonus points for the Methodists!
Nice spin Jean, as usual. But you're wasting your time.
Oh, that's right, it's for the "lurkers."
Truth is truth. God is God. Nothing fallible man can do or say will change that.
As for the running away part, I'm getting ready to head out of town, so I don't have time for your reindeer games.