If you were visited at home by Mormon missionaries and only had a few minutes, what seed would you plant?
I would first ask them to bear their testimony, and then thank them, and then say, “Would you mind if I shared a testimony?” They always say yes.
If you don’t have time for that you can just skip to this part:
“Can I see your quad for a moment? Thanks.” Open to Isaiah 43:10, put your finger under it. “The testimony I have to share isn’t my own. It is God’s testimony. God bears his testimony in Isaiah 43:10 that, ‘Before me no God was formed, nor shall there be any after me.’ If we consider the testimony of man, how much more should we consider the testimony of God?”
Notice how I speak of scripture to them strictly in terms of “God’s testimony” — not as “scripture” or “God’s word” or “the Bible”. I am trying to drive home the directness of the inspiration of scripture by a fresh use of terms.
Isaiah 43:10 addresses the very heart of the traditional Mormon understanding of the Lorenzo Snow couplet, “As man is God once was, as God is man may be.”
Grace and peace!
Aaron
Jeffrey,
That’s nice that when you say God you think 3 but I guess the natural ? then becomes this: When Jesus says God what is He thinking? I am assuming that He must have a perfect knowledge of the Godhead and must think similar to you (if a Trinitarian view is correct). So, according to your rationale, how would you explain Jesus saying that He would be going to “your God and my God” In other words, “I am going to your (three persons) and to my (three persons)” but I am one of those three persons.
or Jesus saying “my God, my God” why hast THOU forsaken me. How could Jesus cry out to himself and then forsake himself? Is that the butchering you are referring to?
DOF,
I’m not saying that you CANT use God to describe a specific personage of God, I was merely saying that people have a hard time understanding the trinity when all they think of is one person when the word “God” is uttered.
Jesus was crying out to the Father. You have heard it on here many times that each member of the Godhead is fully God.
How about I just use the LDS cop-out and say “God hasn’t yet given us this understanding of this doctrine so we are left to our opinions.”
Jeffrey B
I’m pretty close to the “Amen” you were looking for.
The word “God” is such a liquid word it takes on the shape of almost any container you pour it into. In western usage, it’s commonest association is with a kind of “big bloke in the sky with a beard”. Its hard for us to un-learn this, shed the baggage and begin to allow the Bible to re-form our ideas. I think the truly amazing thing is not that “God” contains the cosmos, fills it and sustains it, but that we can “know” him in a meaningful, relation sense.
I’d say that the journey starts when we try to understand what the Biblical authors meant when they wrote about “God”, rather than trying to impose our deistic notions on their ideas.
The idea of the Trinity gets a lot of criticism because, apparently, its too complicated. Maybe it is, but it solves many of the problems a non-Trinitarian view throws up, particularly (but not limited to) the worship of Jesus that we see time and again in the NT. The non-Trinitarian view might sound plausible to western deistic thinking, but it throws up far more problems than it solves when it is applied to what the Biblical authors wrote.
It gets better, of course.
If I’m not too far wrong in understanding he kind of God that the Bible describes, then He is unconstrained by any external influence (He has the Name that is above all Names, Isaiah 45:23, Phil 2:9), so the only thing that compels Him to any sort of action is what is within his own nature.
Now, given that He has complete freedom of choice, why would he deliberately set things up (or set things in motion, or call the shots) so that, at some point, He would come to live among us and then die on a cross for our sins?
The explanation that I think the Bible offers is this; true love gives of itself until there is nothing left. So, He does not send a surrogate or 2IC or something that He has created for this purpose, but He pours himself out until there is nothing left to pour out.
This is why John concludes that God is Love (1 John 4:8). This is how the Merchant “sells everything” to purchase the Pearl of Great Price (Matt 13:45-46).
We don’t serve a God who flies over the earth in a spaceship, throws a book out of the window and says “I’ll test you on that when I get back”. We worship a God who is love, both in His nature and in His actions.
DefenderofFaith said: Jesus saying “my God, my God” why hast THOU forsaken me. How could Jesus cry out to himself and then forsake himself?
I’ve heard this question before and considered it myself. It is similar to the, “Why would Jesus pray to God? Does he pray to himself?” question.
I am sure you are aware that the Book of Genesis says we are created in God’s image. The LDS take this to mean that God is literally flesh and blood (like us). My personal view is that this means God has a Body (Jesus), Soul (Father God), and Spirit (Holy Spirit). We also have a body, soul and spirit i.e. we were created in God’s image.
Jesus is not crying out to a separate being, or being forsaken by a separate being. He is crying out to his soul (God the Father).
For me… Attempting to explain God with human terms is futile. We never will fully understand the nature of God. He is so Holy and perfect our little minds will never grasp his true nature.
I’d be interested in hearing other people’s viewpoints.
LDSSTITANIC
Amulek was completely correct, in that there is only one God that concerns us, and one that we worship. We do not need to know who the other Gods are, or what they do. We need only be concerned with the one God that we depend on for our salvation.
RICK B
We were all around before the world began. And yes, Christ did create the world. I believe I referenced Abraham 3: 24 in a previous post, where it says that it was Christ (one like unto God) who did the actual work of creation, under the direction of the Father’s plan. It also tells us that many great spirits assisted him.
In the Bible we are told that Jeremiah was with God before he was born (Jer. 1: 5). In this same verse we are told that he was called to be prophet while in this pre-existance.
In Job 38 we read that all the sons of God were there when the earth was created (verses 6-7). As the Bible is constantly telling us that we are teh children of God than through this we knwo we were also there.
In the letter of Paul to Timothy, Paul is speaking of himself and Timothy. They were called in the same way Jeremiah was, while in the pre-existance, to be prophets at that time in the worlds history.
All the verses you quote do nothing to contradict the teachings of the LDS faith, but rather seem to support them. None of them say that Christ was God in the pre-existance, but that he was with God, indicating two seperate personages.
GUNDECK
What chapter in Jesus the Christ does Elder Talmage reference Psalms?
Shematwater,
See Chapter 28 Page 489 and note 8 on page 501. Sorry but Talmage does not agree with your interpretation. This is the link http://books.google.com/books?id=XY8aKhQpDwYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA489,M1
shematwater…to that comment I would say HOGWASH!! What a perfect opportunity to acknowledge a multiplicity of gods…yet his answer is NO! The text has no qualifier of “one God for us or that concerns us.” The challenge is to pray about whether the BOM is true is it not? Now you are telling me I have to add words and phrases in to make it true. Try again…
Jeffrey,
No cop out here. The Godhead is as simple a concept as you can get. God has revealed it. They are seperate beings. John 17 is as clear a statement/dialogue as Jesus is going to give. His God is your God. No need to make up any mysterious explanation. If there is anything that has been revealed in scripture it is the tender relationship of these seperate beings (A Father and a Son in every sense of the word)
My question to Freak is, “If your reasoning is correct, then how did Jesus’ soul(the Father) forsake him?” Is his soul, somehow running from the body, like some scared ghost trying to escape the pending doom? I’m curious how you can explain that one. Compare that to the explanation by Elder Holland in last conference about the tender relationship of a Father and a perfect Son and how the Father had to leave the Son briefly as part of the Atonement.
Since JesusFreak brought it up and since everyone here seems to enjoy dissecting the scriptures word for word, I would ask this:
John 1:1 “Logos” in Liddell/Scott Greek Lexicon has multiple definitions. Let’s take one: “explanation/argument” and substitute in place of the current translation.
“In the beginning was the EXPLANTION/ARGUMENT, and the EXPLANATION/ARGUMENT was with God, and the EXPLANATION/ARGUMENT was God.”
I’ve got to believe Trinitarians have to hate the Greeks for their use of the word Logos with the mutiplicity of meanings.
Why don’t Trinitarians who believe in exegesis ever bring this up? Because it doesn’t fit their doctrine. But the Gnostics (a group of Jesus Freaks) believed it and here it is clearly a possibility straight from the oft quoted John 1:1. So why the avoidance? Maybe modern Christians would have to consider a Premortal council. Hmm, early Christianity and Mormonism….sounding uncanningly similar!
LDSSTITANIC
You do not need to add words, but you need to expand your understanding of proper methods of teachings, as well as the disposition of Israel at this time, as well as the men Amulek was teaching.
When people have a habit of worshipping other gods you do not want to give them an excuse to do so. For this reason you do not give them the knowledge of a plurality of Gods, but you focus on the one God of this earth.
If you read all the scriptures you would understand that all that is revealed to this earth is only that which concerns this earth. Moses 1: 35, and 2: 1 tell us this. In D&C 130: 5 we are told that the angels who minister on this earth are of this earth.
When we know that only that which concerns this earth is revealed to men on this earth, and take into account the habit of worshipping other gods, it makes perfect sense that Amulek would tell these men that there was only one God.
GUNDECK
I see what Elder Talmage is saying, but I would also point you to an article from the Ensign (1988) (http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9649d7630a27b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1)
where this same verse is used in the same manner as I use, in defense of a plurality of gods. As it was in the Ensign it was approved by the first presidency.
While I know that Jesus the Christ was commissioned by the First Presidency, both ideas interpretations are sanctioned by the President, or prophet of God. Thus both interpretations are valid.
(One could say that all those who have been called to the priesthood may claim this same title of gods as Elder Talmage explains it.)
GUNDECK
Sorry the link didn’t work. But it is easy to find on LDS.org. Just do a search for psalms 82 in the Search Gospel Library section.
On another note, if you look at the topical guide provided with all copies of the Bible printed by the church, you will find this verse (psalms 82: 6) listed under the topic Man, Potential to become like Heavenly Father. This would indicate that it is speeking of a literal plurality of gods.
DOF,
Are you honestly claiming that the Gnostics were “early Christians”? If they were why were all of their books excluded by both your “official LDS Bible” and all Christians throughout history.
Also, if you are claiming that Jesus wasn’t “The Word” why does the heading for the Book of John in your “official LDS Bible” say he is?
I think this thread has truly revealed the lostness of the Mormon people. What seed would I plant? I would plant the seed of God’s grace. I am learning that the word “grace” is a light that penetrates into their darkness, and they can’t stand the light. They fight against the light. They are afraid of the light, and they don’t know that once they become used to the light of grace that they will see everything regarding the salvation of their souls with clarity. My life’s scripture verse reflects the seed I want to plant: “However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me–the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace” (Acts 20:24).
Grace and Peace to all!
Aaron, there was no mistake or cross rationalization of the contemporary modern and therefore postmodern inclusion of the vacuous implantation of fictitious religious beliefs. I am following the Lord Jesus Christ’s example of love and charity for thy neighbor, followed only by loving the one and only true God (Singular).
It is a bit presumptuous to assume that I am far removed from the Bible based on a few remarks made on this discussion board. I do disagreed with your approach to a specific social encounter, based on what I believe to be ineffective communication styles, which I think does not bring about the most effective and desirous outcome. Is that any reason to make accusation about my scriptural prowess?
I am talking about a very simple concept. I don’t believe by mocking, pandering, or patronizing someone is an effective way to open up communication channels. I challenge anyone on this board to give examples of when contention brought about positive change in any demographic of society. I will eat crow day and night should someone be able to provide evidence to the contrary.
I would assume that the leaders of this Blog would say that most, if not all contributors are welcome. Since my first post, which is in this thread, I have not challenged anything scripturally. I have enjoyed the comments that include references to specific passages, for me this has been faith building.
I have provided some feedback, from an outside perspective, and I wish to continue to do so. I just hope that you can respect and at least consider what I have to say.
Kevin, you wrote, “I think it is unchristian to ask someone what they believe, then, point out where they are wrong.” Can you honestly say that kind of thing with a knowledge of the four gospels? Would you be willing to look the Lord Jesus Christ straight in the eye and say, “You never pointed out someone’s error after asking them a question about their beliefs”?
As I’ve said before, I think Mormons would do themselves a great favor if they would spend some time in independent study instead of repeating the slogns and buzz word mottos they learned down at the wards. It’s apparent (to me) that Mormons really aren’t interested in asking the difficult second or third questions. Someone gives them a standard well worn and repeated phrase and they just keep repeating it i.e. “You can’t trust the Bible because it’s been copied so many times that the real meaning has been lost.” That shows a total lack of any understanding of textual critisism and historical information regarding the NT in particular.
I’ve recently talked about the fact that I’m slugging my way through a book called Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly. I read passages, underline, highlight, write notes in the margins and then put the book down for a few days and then go back and reread it again….and again. The reason I do it this way is that the information is for the sort that you want to spend some time thinking about it. The book basically talks about how the basic doctrines of the Christian faith were eventually articulated. The book has nothing to do with Mormonism, but the information basically regarding as apostasy and need for a restored gospel out of the water. In fact, Joseph Smith wouldn’t have even made a very good heretic during the first four centuries of the Church. He would have been ignored, as well he should be. There’s something in the Mormon mindset however, that the more goofy Smith’s teachings are, the more they’re believed by Mormons. This goofiness appears to lend some sort of legitimacy (for Mormons) to Smith’s claims.
We need to keep that in mind when dealing with Mormons. They’ve repeated “the apostasy and there needed to be a restoration” so many times that it becomes reality, when clearly history doesn’t show it. They say patience is a virture. Well it’s needed to the n’th degree when evangelizing Mormons.
Let me provide a couple of passages from “Early Christian Doctrines”:
The doctrine of one God, the Father and creator, formed the background and indisputable premiss of the Churches faith. Inherited from Judaism, it was her bulwark against pagan polytheism, Gnostic emanationism and Marcionite dualism. The problem for theology was to integrate with it, intellectually, the fresh data of the specifically Christian revelation. Reduced to their simplest, these were the convictions that God had made Himself known in the Person of Jesus, the Messiah, raising Him from the dead and offering salvation to men through Him, and that He had poured out His Holy Spirit upon the Church. Even at the NT stage ideas about Christ’s preexistence and creative role were beginning to take shape, and a profound, if often obscure, awareness of the activity of the Spirit in the Church was emerging. No steps had been taken so far, however, to work all these complex elements into a coherent whole. The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the council of Constantinople (381) was the formula of one God existing in three co-equal Persons formally ratified. Tentative theories, however, some more and some less satisfactory, were propounded in the preceding centuries, and it will be the business of this chapter and the next to survey the movement of thought down to the council of Nicaea (325).”
What developed in the Church was a “Rule of Faith” from which, eventually, the creeds were constructed. One of the things that the early Church Fathers kept emphasizing was that what they taught had been handed down by the apostles. In the second century we have Irenaeus’s treatise which says in the first few words: “This, then, is the order of the rule of our faith….God the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith.” I really get good feeling reading this stuff! I know it’s true!
Kevin wrote:I am talking about a very simple concept. I don’t believe by mocking, pandering, or patronizing someone is an effective way to open up communication channels. I challenge anyone on this board to give examples of when contention brought about positive change in any demographic of society.
I agree with you Kevin, about mocking, pandering and patronizing. It does seem to get a little “passionate” in here at times. However, I believe that contention in honest dialogue has a place. I think of the contending of Paul with Herod, where Herod responded that he was almost convinced. I believe Paul was pretty contentious there. I think of Wilberforce contending in British society and parliament against the slavery interests, and succeeding but at great cost. I think of our own history of the abolitionist movement, to a large extent church people in the North contending against slavery, and that impact on President Lincoln.
It seems that this discussion board is at times a meeting place, a greeting place, a friend place, and a contending place. It reminds me of watching rabbinical students contending their viewpoints. A good argument fills out our understanding of each other, no matter how infuriating we can be. I learn a lot by watching and “listening” with my eyes. Thanks for the journey – all of you!
Aaron, you asked, “Can you honestly say that kind of thing with a knowledge of the four gospels?” The answer is undoubtedly, yes! If you read my previous post you will see my supported evidence.
Then you asked, would you be willing to look the Lord Jesus Christ straight in the eye and say, “You never pointed out someone’s error after asking them a question about their beliefs”? Well I would never pose a question like that to God, I would be foolish to think I could even come close to questioning the Almighty on his purpose and design. That is the way He talked to people, that does not mean I am allowed to do the same. I am commanded to forgive everyone.
Point aside, those where different times with different people. Would you agree that U.S. Americans do not have the same mentality or values as those of Middle Eastern decent? If you do agree with this point, then is it safe to assume that the way we talk to people for each culture is different in context and nature? How do you feel when you are patronized? If you do not agree with those statements, then I am going to assume that you think The U.S. is the best place and everyone should be treated as the U.S. sees fit. Myself, I am an American, although I can see the value that other cultures bring to the world, I am not threatened by it, I embrace those differences; even though I may disagree with them, as I disagree with the LDS faith.
Unlike the people who lived in the time Jesus walked the earth, we have the NT to read and study, thus giving us a way to study the spirit, along with the law.
Falcon,
The quote you just gave basically backs up the 5 Bible dictionaries that I keep talking about. It says that the doctrine of the Trinity was a post-Biblical evolution of ideas. Some of these ideas come from various verses in the Bible but the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible. That is what your quote is saying.
As far as Irenaeus goes, he did not know any of the apostles as he was born a few decades after the last one was supposed to have died. So his information is at best second hand. He also grew up in a Catholic family and was not a convert. So who’s to say that his upbringing and teachings did not influence his ideology? If he grew up in a ‘Trinitarian’ household and not a ‘Godhead’ (ie LDS teachings) household don’t you think he would stick to that? What if the situation was different and he grew up in a ‘Godhead’ household – would he still be recognised as being one of the early Christian fathers? Or would he be a heretic as well and all his writtings ignored?
Shematwater,
Thanks for the link, I found your article. I think that Peterson and Ricks lack a certain amount of intellectual honesty that Talmage maintains in his books.
Both Peterson and Ricks who site theosis and deification in the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox Churches and even Luther, fail to point out that in every example they site the original writer believed that God was ontologically different than man, his creation, making eternal progression impossible. This is either a unacceptable ignorance of the people they are claiming to write about or a dishonest omission of vital information. For instance they say, “Montanists and Marcionites—who are invariably referred to as Christians…” From my reading of history the Montanists and Marcionites were called heretics and to use them to prove Mormonism is Christian seems, to put it charitable, questionable.
But in the end, it is your Church and if you can accept mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible as being true, then by all means do so. I hope you will understand that I cannot.
Here’s your problem Ralph.
The doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible. It’s what the Church Fathers believed. It’s what the apostles passed down. You keep missing that part of the presentation. It was never lost. The challenge of course for the early believers, is that the Jews, who made-up the body of early Christians, were monotheists. So the Church struggled with how to articulate the entire concept of the nature of God. How did it all work? I would suggest before you jump to any conclusions, you get a couple of good books on how the Church articulated its foundational doctrines. I could give you a list (by name) of all of the heretical concepts regarding the nature of God they rejected, including Arianism, because they didn’t fit the monotheism the Church always believed and taught.
One thing you won’t find in any of the writings Ralph, is that God was a man who progressed to godhood along with his goddess wife who procreate spirit children into eternity and rule there own planets, as the SLC Mormon sect believes. In fact, you can’t find Mormonism in any of the writings of the Church Fathers. That includes also Christian temples, temple garments,temple rituals, magic underwear with occult symbols, polytheism or polygamy. Joseph Smith, before he totally went off the deep end, was a monotheist and a person who believed in monogamy. Other sects of Mormonism recognize this and reject post 1832 Smithianity.
I love to dig through these early writings and examine these things. It affirms to me the doctrine of the Trinity. The One, eternal God; no beginning, no end. I get excited just writing about it here. What a marvelous God.
Ralph, I don’t expect you to get it. You are blinded by the spirit of the antiChrist. But you have been told the truth of the Christian gospel and have chosen instead to believe another gospel. Which isn’t a gospel at all, but you have been deceived by the spirit of this world. You have no excuse Ralph for rejecting God for “a god”
Falcon,
There is a growing idea in the archaeological circles from evidence found, that pre-Moses the Israelites/Ancient Hebrews (including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) were polythiests. In one presentation, by a non-LDS, that I have seen it says that they believed in a head God, His wife/consort, their son and their messenger. Now I can only point to one website with this reference in and since it was a TV programme I cannot find his references, but that to me sounds very similar to another religion does it not?
But many (note many not all or most) archaeologists agree that pre-Moses the Ancient Hebrews were polytheists and the strict Yahweh worship was pushed by Moses after the Exodus from Egypt.
Like I said, your quote says that the Trinity doctrine is not in the Bible – it says that it was formed post-Bible by ideas from people in the later NT times. Yes I ubderstand what you are saying about the Jew converts being monotheists and that they had to find a way to conglomerate what the Jews believed and their (the Christian community’s) ‘Modern Revelations’ – but the quote says that it is not in there, it came later. There are verses in the Bible that can point to a Trinity, but there are also verses in the Bible that point to a modalist view and a Godhead view.
I also stand by what I said about Irenaeus – his information about what the original apostles believed in was second hand and he had already been indoctrinated about his God as he grew up in a Catholic background.
Ralph said “There is a growing idea in the archaeological circles from evidence found, that pre-Moses the Israelites/Ancient Hebrews (including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) were polythiests.”
That’s intriguing.
I mean, intriguing because, as far as I am aware, there is no actual archaeological evidence for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob outside the Biblical record.
I’m not saying that we should reject the Biblical record, nor that we should not believe that Abraham and co. actually existed – that’s another debate.
My concern is that if there is no evidence outside of the Bible, how do we know what these people thought? Without any evidence, our interpretation of what went on inside their heads must be regarded as speculation, So, the conclusion that they were polytheists is just as speculative as the conclusion that they were monotheists.
And, so what if their contemporaries were polytheists? Perhaps it was their refusal to conform to the prevailing polytheism that separated them from their contemporaries, which would fit the Biblical narrative quite nicely.
I’ve just recalled that Terah, Abraham’s father, was referred to as an idolater; Joshua 24:2 “And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.”
As far as the Bible is concerned, Abraham’s journey out of this “other gods” culture was regarded as a good thing.
The Biblical “moral of the story” is that Abraham’s children, the people of YHWH, should honour their forefather’s journey by separating themselves from “other gods”.
Here is something that I think is very instructive:
“The clasical creeds of Christendom opened with a declaration of belief in one God, maker of heaven and earth. The monotheistic idea, grounded in the religion of Israel, loomed large in the minds of the earliest fathers; though not reflective theologians, they were fullly conscious that it marked the dividing line between the church and paganism. According to Hermas, the first commandment is to ‘believe that God is one, Who created and established all things, bringing them into existence out of non-existence’. It was He who ‘by His invisible and mighty power and great wisdom creatd the universe, and by His glorious purpose clothed His creation with comeliness, and by His strong word fixed the heavens and founded the earth above the waters’. For Clement God is ‘the Father and creator of the entire cosmos’, and for Barnabas and the Didache our maker’. His omnipotence and universal sovereignty were acknowledged, for He was ‘the Lord almighty’, the Lord Who governs the whole universe’, and ‘the master of all things’………These ideas derive almost exclusively from the Bible and latter-day Judaism……….”
Irenaeus appeals not only to Scripture but to our reason when he refutes heresy by saying:
“……the very notion of Godhead excludes a plurality of Gods. Either there must be one God Who contains all things and has made every creature according to His will; or there must be many indetermiate creators or gods, each beginning and ending at his place in the series….But in this case we shall have to acknowledge that none of them is God. For each of them…will be defective in comparison with the rest, and the title ‘Almighty’ will be reduced to nought. The Demiurge of Gnosticism cannot be God since he has another superior to himself”.
The early Church was as is the Church today, monotheistic. This is the God who is the Creator and Savior of mankind.
GUNDECK
My point is that both interpretations are possible. When the psalm was written it was written to a group of men, and for this purpose it has one meaning. However, as it was included in scripture it was also intended for all men, and for this purpose it has another. However, they do not contradict each other.
When interpretation gives the title of gods to devinely appointed earthly judges, the other to devinely appointed heavenly judges. Where is the contradiction.
Many scriptures have two meanings. There are many stories that are told that are also prophecies. There are many parables that have multiple meanings. There are many prophecies that have multiple fulfillments.
FALCON
Many things can be found in the Bible when you are looking for them, and that is the evidence that the Bible is not without error.
When one person can justify something, and another condemn it, and both are using the Bible, there is something wrong, and we neeed a source outside the Bible to clarify it. This is where additional scripture comes in.
Falcon & jackg:
Sorry, I meant to be responding to shemawater’s citation of 1 Cor 8:5.
“If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from their apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her instituional life, an unering grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness.”
So the Church not only had the Scriptures to appeal to for orthodoxy, but also the traditions of the Church which had been handed down as a legacy from the apostles. In the fourth century there was a tendency to appeal to the orthodox fathers of the past. The mindset was that the authority of the Church fathers consisted precisely in the fact that they had so faithfully and fully expounded the real intention of the Bible.
The shame of Mormonism is that it doesn’t “get” this. Clinging to often repeated mottos and slogans, Mormons make no real attempt to understand the precision and exactness that the early Church fathers safe guarded the Word of God and the teachings of the apostles. The only way Mormonism works is to degrade the Bible and the Chruch fathers and instead cling to a false system of apostasies and conspiracy theories which have no place in Church history. Grasping at isolated straws of information, Mormons try to build a case for the neeed of a restoration of the gospel. The problem is that there is no evidence that what they call restored, ever existed in the first place. Not only is Mormonism absent from the Bible, but it doesn’t make any sort of an appearance in Church history. Conspiracy theories are fun, but when it comes to the loss of someone’s eternal soul, the thrill of the conspiracy can’t make up for eternity without Christ. The stakes are way to high!
Shematwater wrote “When the psalm was written it was written to a group of men, and for this purpose it has one meaning. However, as it was included in scripture it was also intended for all men, and for this purpose it has another.”
Shem, that’s a pretty big call to make. Are you suggesting that the Biblical authors were somehow unconscious of the “true” meaning of their words? Take this thought further and you’ll end up by saying the true meaning of scripture does not relate to its context, but it only became apparent long after the event.
As for me, I’ll stick with the proven idea that the Biblical authors were very deliberate in what they wrote. Remember Jesus’ comments about every jot and tittle (Matt 5:4)? I plead with you to shift your mindset from interpreting the Bible from your context, to interpreting the Bible from the context of its authors.
…and “Many things can be found in the Bible when you are looking for them, and that is the evidence that the Bible is not without error.”
So what? If you say that the “Bible is the Word of God, as far as it has been translated correctly” (and it has, as far as any translation can be “correct”), then you should allow it to shape your thinking, even it has some “errors”.
I’m not sure if you mean to transmit it, but the message I’m receiving is “the Biblical authors did not fully know what they were writing, but we can’t trust them anyway”.
Falcon,
Thanks for the quote from Irenaeus.
“Many things can be found in the Bible when you are looking for them, and that is the evidence that the Bible is not without error.
When one person can justify something, and another condemn it, and both are using the Bible, there is something wrong, and we neeed a source outside the Bible to clarify it. This is where additional scripture comes in.”
There is so much that is wrong with this statement it is hard to know where to begin.
David,
I know exactly what you’re saying. I’ve often wondered if interacting with Mormons here has any real benefit. Now there are many types of Mormons all the way from the “arrogant true believer” to the “doubter”. So it’s helpful to know who you’re interacting with. I write here with the idea in mind that there are Mormons reading here (but not writing) that are truly seeking the truth. So I write for them.
The above quote you refer to is an example of what I’ve alluded to here on this thread. That quote is a standard Mormon slogan of sorts. It’s surface level deflection without any real thought applied to it. Another would be “You can’t trust the Bible because it’s been copied so many times that there are errors and things left out.” Another would be something like; “The truth of the Gospel was lost after the death of the apostles.” The Mormon faithful shake their heads up and down and never think to actually do some independent investigation to see if that’s an accurate portrail of history. That basically denies the role of God in safe guarding His Word and Church (I’m speaking of the mystical body of Christ, not some denomination) and ignores the intertexual reliability that’s shown the accuracy of the human transmission of the Bible. In fact in the OT there were rules for scribes that they could only copy letter for letter, not word for word or sentence for sentence. When they’d come to the word that signified God, they’d put down their writing instrument, ceremonially wash and then write the word.
The whole approach in cults is to keep the people ignorant and obedient to authority. I can’t even imagine what it’s like to have some organization or man dictate what you do with your time, your treasure and your intellect.
Aaron,
I know that doubt is not a value generally espoused evangelical christians or mormons. But I will tell you that in a certain way it really is a value. You said the following:
“…Another is the superiority of the Christian worldview to explain life, existence, and morality…”
I know that your faith is of value to you, but I am always a bit taken aback when anyone expresses their religion/philosophy using the terms like ‘superiority’.
You may not see this as a problem,as I am sure you understand your words in a different light. However, I have observed unethical behavior and speech from people who feel that their point of view is the only one which is correct or superior to another.
Mobaby,
You said the following,
“Trust in the Lord Jesus Christ alone, He has paid the price for your sin on the cross. You are called to believe and take hold of the faith that God gives you in the sacrificial death of Christ and His resurrection. Not one of us will ever be worthy to merit God’s favor…”
Thats one problem that I have with the Christianity in general, and specificially with fundementalist christianity. The idea that one will never be worthy of gods favor. How is that supposed to make me feel? I can tell you that my experience with the nazarene is not a good one. It was filled with neurosis, and very, very low self-esteem, people also took advantage of me because I let them walk all over me, because I was supposed to be ‘nice’ and ‘christlike’, turning the other cheek etc…
Have you considered the possibility that christianity is just an invention designed to keep you away from some vital knowledge and activity? I think that christians are confusing arrogance with confidence, there is a difference. And its difficult to gain confidence without some activity and achievement. I really believe thats essential.
Falcon,
If you are sincere about your interaction with anyone, including Mormons, then why not pursue the course followed by those whom you claim to follow (Jesus, apostles, etc.)? Every thread on this blog insinuates that Mormons do not follow so-called “Biblical Christianity”. So how does anyone here realistically expect the LDS to legitimately consider their comments, when it does not follow the apostolic pattern of testimony and warning; ie Biblical Christianity preaching. We are looking for true messengers. They are all consistent. They testify and warn and speak with authority. There is no argument or debate. That is the pattern of the NT and where do I find that same message today? A brief review of the last General Conference vs. MRM….well everyone on this blog must answer for him/herself….but I can honestly hold my hand high in sustaining the Lord’s true messengers in the LDS faith.
Freek,
My argument has nothing to do with whether the Gnostics scriptures should be part of the canon today. I simply want to know on what basis a modern Trinitarian can throw aside ancient documents, proven to be legitimate writings from those closest to Jesus, and simultaneously accept other writings from the same group? The ? is simply, where is the standard or authority to accept or reject scripture when they are both coming from leaders of the early Christian apostles?
LDS have no need to restore or accept other ancient scriptural documents for two reasons: 1) The Lord has not told us to do so….this could happen in the future and 2) We have all the necessary doctrines already revealed to us that those documents contain (the premortal life as an example)
I am not saying Jesus isn’t the Word. I am pointing out that Christians are unwilling to use a word (logos) that could easily have been translated differently (instead of “word” it could have been “discussion/council”). Why not? Because it would then suggest a doctrine that they have predetermined is not true. In other words, their doctrine has been set despite what the scriptures say. And if the translation doesn’t fit the Christian doctrine then the mantre is “find a translation that fits our doctrine” or just exclude the text (Gnostics) since it cannot be true.
Enki objected to the Evangelical message because “… one will never be worthy of [God’s] favor.” Enki also objected to the pride that comes from the idea that “I’ve got it right”.
Enki,
Please believe me when I say that I am as concerned as you about “Christian pride”. Perhaps more so, since I have an interest and I cannot allow myself to dismiss it as something that someone else does.
However, the solution, or antidote, is actually contained within the idea that none of us can become worthy of God’s favor.
Think about it. If we could make ourselves worthy by doing this religion or that, or by coming to the right “theory of everything”, then we would have reason to be proud. I could then say that I have got myself into the “right” church, subscribed to the “right” dogmas, and done the “right” rites, and by doing so, I have persuaded God to like me. I would then be justified in considering everybody else, who hasn’t got into the “right” church/dogma/lifestyle, as being inferior to me.
The Good News (and I really have to stress the “Good” here), is that God loves us because of who He is, not because we make ourselves worthy or not. His love is unchanging because He is unchanging. Our business is not to try to make God love us, but to allow that love to change us, and we do that by loving our neighbors.
I hope you find a church that actually lives out the idea that we are all equal because we are all sinners, and we are saved because, and only because, of Jesus.
I hear what you say about the passivity of much Evangelical culture. There’s this idea that being “spiritual” is to be passive. Effort and achievement are shunned. Perhaps the Christians who promote this mentality should consider the way that God “invaded” our world in Christ.
I say, work hard and earn your crowns. Only, do it for His glory because one day you’ll have to relinquish them. Either death will strip them from you, or you can follow the example of Rev 4:10-11. Its your choice.
DoF wrote “I simply want to know on what basis a modern Trinitarian can throw aside ancient documents, proven to be legitimate writings from those closest to Jesus, and simultaneously accept other writings from the same group?”
To put it briefly, because they are not legitimate writings from those closest to Jesus and they are not the same group that wrote the NT.
But, to get to this conclusion, you’re going to have to deal with textual criticism and all the other stuff the Biblical scholars have been doing for 2,000 years.
Gnosticism and Christianity are two conflicting and different world-views. How can they exist within the same group? Would Jesus allow this to happen? “…if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” (Mark 3:25).
Which house are you defending?
DOF,
Without being condesending, I really don’t understand what you’re talking about. If you are talking about prophetic utterances, let me say a couple of things. I come from the neopentecostal/charasmatic tradition of Chrisitanity. I wasn’t raised in this tradition. I was raised Catholic, but gravitated to what I’d call the full expression of the Gospel when I was born again and subsequently received, from God, the baptism in the Holy Spirit. I rarely talk about my spiritual experiences here, choosing instead to focus on the Scriptures, doctrine and the historical record and traditions of the Church (the mystical body of Christ). I do this because an experience is just that. Prophetic utterance, for example should be doubted, examined and jugded for their accuracy. What I see coming out of the Mormon General Conferences wouldn’t qualify in mind as any sort of prophetic message. What I see are some men giving their opinions about Mormonism and the faithful gulping it whole, without question. What Mormons consider “the spirit” is basically good feelings they get. That’s more like ambiance than God’s Spirit.
Frankly, Mormons don’t have a very good grasp of Christianity. Mormons have some preconceived notions that they have been taught that reinforce the idea that Christianity lost the Gospel and it needed to be restored. What’s kind of fascinating is that within Mormonism, there are groups that claim that Joseph Smith or the SLC Mormon Church or any number of other Mormon sects, lost the restored gospel and now they (the other sect) have the “true” gospel.
In closing let me just say, God has supernaturally confirmed to me the truth of the Gospel that I believe in and preach. I guard it in the same way Paul instructed Timothy to guard, protect and manifest both the Gospel and the Spiritual Gift God gave him. I believe in the One, eternal, self-existent, everlasting God, Who had no beginning and will have no end. He is self-sustaining and never changes.
Enki,
Thank you for your response.
God has made the focus of true religion to be on Jesus Christ and Him crucified. It is not to be on me and my efforts, works, or personal righteousness. My eyes must be fixed upon Jesus in worship and adoration of the triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has provided everything (absolutely everything, we provide nothing) we need in the Lord Jesus Christ. True worship consists of those things that God has ordained – Holy Scripture, the Lord’s Supper (Communion), and Baptism. Through these things God reaches down (Grace)and saves us, building faith in our hearts. It is not about us – it is about God. I cannot look at myself or anyone else without seeing that what the scriptures declare about man being sinful and wicked is absolutely true. To deny it, is to deny the reality I see all around me. The awesome truth is that God loved us enough to give His Son for us – and in that act of pure love, we are forgiven and transformed. You and I are forgiven by Christ’s death and resurrection. We receive it by grace through faith (which God plants in our hearts).
I do not find Christianity to be a downer, but rather liberating and exhilarating to know that God loves me that much. It is humbling, because everyone (myself included) wants the truth to be about us. It’s not – it’s about God and what He has done for us. My main struggle is the temptation to take my eyes of of Jesus Christ and focus on my condition, what I am doing, my works – which is a trap that leads to frustration and depression. I don’t know that this answers your questions, and I certainly may not have everything just right, and someone could point out some fallacies in my thinking, as I am learning and growing myself.
Peace –
Mo
Enki,
The Christianity you describe is one that I am aware of but don’t practice. My response in reading your post was,”Man it’s too bad she got mixed up with that bunch.” My personal walk is one of freedom. It might surprise some of the posters here, but I don’t belong to a Church or any kind of orgaizational group. Maybe it’s just my baby boomer tendency to be rebellious and not be a joiner but I look to the Lord and the Bible for my guidance. I’m not really attracted to any denominational distinctives or specific religious cultures. I consider myself a member of the Church, the mystial body of Christ, regardless of distinctive doctrine beyond the basic 10 or 12 things that makes for orthodox Christianity. I wouldn’t recommend my approach to everyone, but my whole program is pretty informal. As far as “pleasing” God goes, I try (to please Him)knowing that I’m going to fall short of the mark. I’m OK with that. Becoming Christ-like is a process, it’s a transformation. I stick with the idea that I’m justified by the shed blood of Jesus, I’m sanctified by the continuous work of the Holy Spirit in my life, and some day I’ll be glorified by God as His final act of love and mercy to me.
I would just say, if the Son has set you free, remain free. Don’t accept the yoke of the law that “religious” people would like to place on you. I cannot tell you how much I value being free in Christ. I’m totally accepted by God as a gift of His mercy through what His Son did for me. God’s grace is just awesome. He extends His gift of eternal life to anyone who would receive, by faith, the gift of eternal life He is offering. I just get all whipped-up pondering this as I write. To know right now, my eternal destiny, brings me peace.
Defender,
Regarding the word “logos,” the footnotes of your LDS Bible refer to the “logos” as Jesus Christ. Where do you get your argument from? It seems that you are merely arguing for argument’s sake. Also, I suggest that you read about the early church councils to understand the criteria required for a writing to be accepted into the canon of scriptures. I don’t think we have the time and space to educate you on this matter. You need to take some initiative and do the studying yourself. You want to work the presupposition that the Holy Spirit was no longer on the earth, which is why you cannot accept the fact that the early church fathers were indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit at these councils. Such a presupposition on your part suggests that Pentecost was an event to be short-lived, and that the Spirit somehow disappeared from the earth. That really zaps the power of the Holy Spirit, don’t you think? So, if that’s where your thinking takes one, would you suggest that a second Pentecost took place in 1820, and that JS was the only one to experience it? When you take your thinking as far as you can take it, this is where it leads you. And, if it leads you to this, you have to admit that your view of the Holy Spirit is that He is not so powerful, and that your view of JS is unwarrentedly stratospheric. Are you willing to go there? If not, you would most naturally have to denounce Mormon theology, which would be a huge step in your response to God’s grace in your life. Falcon has a firm grasp on early church history. You would do well to pay attention to what he says. Martin also does a great job of presenting the true gospel of Jesus Christ to you. These two men represent God’s true messengers, as do the others who prayerfully present the gospel message to you on this blog. The leaders you raise your hand to sustain are perpetrating the lies of JS against you and the world. I’m praying for you Defender.
Peace and Grace!
Ward,
Thank you for your comments on April 30th; those are some of the most thoughtful and insightful ideas that I have read. You make a good point about slavery and the revolution that was required to bring about that change. I would like to note that the abolishment of slavery was first approached diplomatically; only after those discussions broke down did the war start.
There was a huge cost in human life associated with the civil war. I contrast this cost with Woman Suffrage and Desegregation; both peaceful moments in compression. Both events were contentious in nature. Regarding to the statement you quoted by me, I stand corrected that contention can bring about positive change. Thanks for the support
Well, I’m back to the original question of what I’d say to Mormon missionaries if I had a few minutes. I still firmly believe that we need to establish two things: that orthodox Christianity and Judism from which it flows, are monotheistic in their view of the nature of God and that Mormonism, as practiced by the Salt Lake City sect (of Mormonism), is polytheistic. I have the sense that there are significant numbers of Mormons who really don’t grasp this concept. I also believe that folks are generally turned-off by the Mormon concept of God, with men becoming gods, their wives becoming goddesses, eternal spiritual procreation and the man/god reigning over a personal planetary system. I’d plant that seed and let God’s Holy Spirit go to work.
It all begins and ends with Who a person is depending on for their salvation. Mormons, with their man to god program, are for-the-most-part, depending on a more righteous man than themselves to be saved. Even at that, Mormons are depending on their own striving for righteousness to lead to their personal salvation and deification. Not recognizing who God is, isn’t a minor matter to be over-looked. Rejecting God for “a god” has eternal consequences. Elevating oneself to godhood is blasphemous. That Mormons don’t recognize this is a testimony to the extent to which men can be seduced by spiritual pride. This was the great sin of Lucifer.
I think what Mormons need to understand is that orthodox, Biblical Christians are reflective people. In short, they think about what they believe. Augustine said: “No one believes anything unless one first thought it believeable….Not everyone who thinks believes, since many think in order not to believe; but everyone who believes thinks, thinks in believing and believes in thinking.” What a marvelous sentiment. The early Church attracted some very well educated people. These “thinkers” reflected o what they believed and what they confessed. So they thought about Jesus. And they thought about the nature of God. And they thought about the Holy Spirit. And they thought about the most important concept which was: How can we believe in one God and claim that Jesus, a human being, is also God? Is this not the seed of controversy? And yes there was bitterness and confusion over one simple question: In what way is Jesus divine? Whatever might be said, these early believers were deep thinkers…..and interesting.
Alexander, the archbishop of Alexandria, followed a century after Origen, who had laid the foundation for a vast mystical unerstanding of the relationship of the divine Logos to the Eternal Father.
Logos was a word in the Greek Bible and it was used to translate “Divine Wisdom”. The word became alomost a synonym for the Son. Alexander said that since the Father had decided to use the Logos as the medium of all creation it followed that the Son-Logos pre-existed creation. Since time was a consequence of creaton, the Son pre-existed all time and was thus eternal like the Father, and his timelessness was one of the attributes that manifested hm as the divine Son, worthy of the worship of the church. Being eternal there could be no before or after in him. There was never a time when the Son hadn’t existed. Alexander said that just as the Father had always existed, the Son had always existed also and was known to be God from God.” Christians could be monotheists.
So the big question during the first four centuries of the Church; which had to be settled was “How does the Son of God relate to the divine Father?” The word that finally put the nail in the coffin of Arianism was “homoousios”. It means “of the same substance as”. When applied to Jesus it means that He, the Logos, has “homoousios” with the Father. Jesus was truly God alongside the Father. At Nicaea, the task of the Bishops was to proclaim the ancient Christian faith against all attacks. They sought to state a common and a clear heritage. In-other-words, they believed that they were the direct continuance of the first apostolic gatherng at Jerusalem. Here the apostles were led by the Holy Spirit to the realzation of the gospel truth.
Really, the question that the Nicene Creed sought to answer is the same question we all must answer: “Do you know whom you worship?” The Nicene statement articulated the central convictions of the Church that God is one and Christ is God. The Creed was crafted according to the intention of church tradition and biblical principles.
So whom do you worship? Do you worship a man who became a god. Do you worship a savior that is the offspring of a man/god and a female/goddess? Or do you worship the One everlasting God; Who had no beginning and has no end. The eternal God who loved the world so much that he made provision for our hopeless, lost state by sending His Son to die for us, that through faith we might have the gift of eternal life? It matters who we believe God is.
(attribution: John Anthony McGuckin; “The Road To Nicaea”;D.H. Williams “Do You Know Who You Worship”; Christian History, Issue 85)