Operational Dynamics of “Reasoned Faith”

[Kishkumen]

When I first started studying Mormonism, what surprised me most was not seeing much of that kind of exploration. Given the claim to restored truth, I expected more engagement with the source material itself—how the text developed, where concepts within the book overlap, or how redactions and borrowing might be understood. Instead, the single authoritative source seems to have produced a kind of manufactured tidiness that resolves theological difficulties and reduces the need for that kind of inquiry. This thread began as a tongue in cheek satirical take on that phenomenon, but it’s more so simply an observation about how the system functions.

For some reason, Mormon arguments tend to cluster around historical questions. The story of the faith is the history of the faith and so forth. Richard Bushman called it Narrative Theology, which I consider fine as far as it goes. All of this papers over the fact that Mormonism really lacks a robust defense of its theology, although those who are familiar with Blake Ostler's tyro efforts would disagree.

[Limnor]

Limnor, I have been a Presbyterian for some 30 plus years. During that time I studied some serious thinkers in that tradition. I am unsure why you want to project Mormon ideas on me.

In studying I have asked myself about a comparison to LDS talk. I have been influenced or have considered a variety of things. What reservations I have about Calvinism may connect with the more liberal lines of Catholic teaching.

An LDS phrase "after all one can do" is not a part of a protestant type soteriology. Mormons all think they need the Holy Spirit transforming and guiding them in order to do all they can do.

I’m not trying to project LDS ideas onto you, and I’m not questioning your background. I’m trying to understand where, in Paul’s own language, you see room for the kind of gradual alignment you’re describing.

When I read Romans 7, Paul seems to emphasize incapacity rather than progress—the desire to do good is there, but the ability isn’t, which is why he frames it as helplessness and ends with “Who will rescue me?”

That question feels less urgent if the problem is simply incomplete transformation over time. If you see specific passages where Paul frames this differently, I’d honestly like to see how you’re reading them.

[Limnor]

For some reason, Mormon arguments tend to cluster around historical questions. The story of the faith is the history of the faith and so forth. Richard Bushman called it Narrative Theology, which I consider fine as far as it goes. All of this papers over the fact that Mormonism really lacks a robust defense of its theology, although those who are familiar with Blake Ostler's tyro efforts would disagree.

I’ve wondered if it has something to do with how “apologetics” itself is viewed in LDS circles. The term itself seems to carry a sense of being defensive or secondary, rather than a normal or even necessary part of theological work. If apologetics is understood as inherently “reactive,” that may help explain why defending the historical narrative feels safer.

Frankly, I’m not even sure where a theological defense would even begin. Since Mormon theology is grounded in continuing revelation, rather than shared metaphysical claims, it’s hard to imagine how that type of discussion would play out.

[Kishkumen]

I’ve wondered if it has something to do with how “apologetics” itself is viewed in LDS circles. The term itself seems to carry a sense of being defensive or secondary, rather than a normal or even necessary part of theological work. If apologetics is understood as inherently “reactive,” that may help explain why defending the historical narrative feels safer.

Frankly, I’m not even sure where a theological defense would even begin. Since Mormon theology is grounded in continuing revelation, rather than shared metaphysical claims, it’s hard to imagine how that type of discussion would play out.

Excellent point. I don't think anyone has shown how LDS theology works in the framework of systematic theology, but I would love to see more attempts at making a good case. But, yes, continuing revelation is a kind of wackamole problem. You say one thing and the case may very soon change. The Neo-orthodoxy of the '80s and '90s is hardly mentioned these days. You are also right about the negative view of apologetics. It has very much to do with the said ignorance of most Mormons regarding the ancient context of Christianity. Most Mormons are essentially ignorant of Christian history in se from AD 100 to 1820 (Joseph Smith's First Vision). With that lack of knowledge, apologia is a mysterious word.

[huckelberry]

Limnor, I have been aPresbyterian for some 30 plus years. During that time I studied some serious thinkers in that tradition. I am unsure why you want to project Mormon ideas on me.

In studying I have asked myself about a comparison to LDS talk. I have been influenced or have considered a variety of things. What reservations I have about Calvinism may connect with the more liberal lines of Catholic teaching.

An LDS phrase " after all one can do" is not a part of a protestant type soteriology. Mormons all think they need the Holy Spirit transforming and guiding them in order to do all they can do.

I’m not trying to project LDS ideas onto you, and I’m not questioning your background. I’m trying to understand where, in Paul’s own language, you see room for the kind of gradual alignment you’re describing.

When I read Romans 7, Paul seems to emphasize incapacity rather than progress—the desire to do good is there, but the ability isn’t, which is why he frames it as helplessness and ends with “Who will rescue me?”

That question feels less urgent if the problem is simply incomplete transformation over time. If you see specific passages where Paul frames this differently, I’d honestly like to see how you’re reading them.

I think people need a connection with God to be transforming in the right direction. Justifying oneself only makes matters worse. The problem is not incomplete transformation, none of us are without sin but whether there is any transformation in the right direction.

I value Romans chapter 8 and 11 through 15 where in Paul repeats Jesus's instruction on behavior to be sought.

Limnor, perhaps to my ears a passage such as this is what I am thinking of. Romans 8:22, we know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now, and not only creation but we ourselves who have the first fruits of the Spirit groan inwardly in labor pains while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopes for what is seen?

I think Paul sees in structure of our life and relation to God a crisis either or as described in chapter 7. In time, our individual living there is changed over time involving our choices and actions responding to God's call.

[Limnor]

If Romans 7 really is an either/or crisis, I’m not sure how change over time within that state resolves the situation. A cleaner reading, at least from my perspective, is that Romans 8 marks a transition into a different state of being rather than a gradual changing of the same one.

What catches my attention is that even in Romans 8 Paul says the flesh “cannot” submit to God’s law (8:7–8), which makes me read the change he’s describing as a change of state rather than gradual obedience developing within the same condition.

I also read Romans 8:22 as pointing to the final redemption of the body at the end. The groaning there seems to describe life after rescue but before completion—those who already have the first fruits of the Spirit still waiting for full adoption. That again makes me read Romans 8 as marking a change of state, with the remaining tension being eschatological rather than a continuation of the Romans 7 crisis.

[huckelberry]

Limnor, are you proposing that the only true Christians are those who are completely free of sin?

You might not but I am afraid I am just not understanding your view.

I do not read Paul laying out any specific pattern in time for people's faith. It could be considered that there is one moment when God's call reaches a person. That may be but human experience is clear that people are hardly made completely impervious to the flesh at such a moment no matter how fundamental it is.

Limnor, Perhaps I am left uncomfortable with your question so will attempt again, perhaps more simply. Paul observes we are in the flesh leading to death due to sin. We need to live in the spirit for life. Though we glimpse what we should do the flesh does not do it. The flesh does not have the power to change this no matter how it might thrash around. It will repeat the works of the flesh. A bridge to cross the gulf is necessary. Jesus Christ is that bridge. In faith we become part of the body of Christ the bridge from flesh to spirit.
//////////_/// I accidently copied limnors words below I am unsure how that tangle happened//////
My reading is Paul seems to distinguish between the moment Christ comes to dwell in a person—“Christ in you”—and the life of faith that follows from that indwelling.

That moment reads as decisive, while the latter is where faith in that indwelling life actually puts the flesh to death. I read it as not as a bridge toward Christ, but as trust in the indwelling life that comes through faith.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting sinlessness at any point—I just place a marker to distinguish between the moment Paul describes as “Christ in you,” which changes the source of life, and the process that follows, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

[Limnor]

My reading is Paul seems to distinguish between the moment Christ comes to dwell in a person—“Christ in you”—and the life of faith that follows from that indwelling.

That moment reads as decisive, while the latter is where faith in that indwelling life actually puts the flesh to death. I read it as not as a bridge toward Christ, but as trust in the indwelling life that comes through faith.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting sinlessness at any point—I just place a marker to distinguish between the moment Paul describes as “Christ in you,” which changes the source of life, and the process that follows, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

I agree with this

[huckelberry]

My reading is Paul seems to distinguish between the moment Christ comes to dwell in a person—“Christ in you”—and the life of faith that follows from that indwelling.

That moment reads as decisive, while the latter is where faith in that indwelling life actually puts the flesh to death. I read it as not as a bridge toward Christ, but as trust in the indwelling life that comes through faith.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting sinlessness at any point—I just place a marker to distinguish between the moment Paul describes as “Christ in you,” which changes the source of life, and the process that follows, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

I agree with this

Limnor, I do not know how the quoted sections combined, I did not intend to post the mix. I find I do not disagree with your comments here however.

[Limnor]

I agree with this

Limnor, I do not know how the quoted sections combined, I did not intend to post the mix. I find I do not disagree with your comments here however.

Great! Thanks for the discussion!