Worth Fighting Over

Stormy Sea

The June 2008 issue of Tabletalk magazine included an article rooted in the biblical book of Jude. Noting that Jude speaks directly and forcefully to the issue of false teachers, the Tabletalk article by Niel Nielson explains,

“Notice that Jude isn’t writing to [his readers] about voices calling from outside the visible faith. These people have ‘crept in unnoticed,’ that is, they are inside the congregation of God’s people. …the deadliest recommendations [i.e., encouragement to follow a different spiritual path] may come from those who claim to be fellow believers, because they masquerade as people of the light, they use ‘Christian’ vocabulary, and they assert that their views are faithful to our most holy faith.”

Dr. Nielson continues, noting the harsh language Jude uses to describe these false teachers and their terrible, eventual end (Jude 12-16). “And yet,” Dr. Nielson writes, “Jude’s burden for his readers is to urge them to contend – to fight earnestly – for the faith once for all delivered to the saints…”

For Christians who engage in faith conversations with Mormons, Jude’s instruction to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) provides very important direction for our method and motivation. While many Mormons are uncomfortable with the idea of “contending” (indeed, most Mormons understand contention to be “of the devil” – see 3 Nephi 11:29), Christians recognize the God-revealed necessity of it.

Knowing, then, that Christians must engage in earnest contention for the faith, the question must be asked: What is this faith? Dr. Nielson writes,

“It is the ‘once for all’ revelation from God, gloriously complete in providing all we need to know about God and His plan, purpose, and expectations for His creation.

“Jude gives his readers two clues for recognizing these false teachers and their recommendations: they pervert the grace of our God into sensuality, and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (v. 4). While this list is not exhaustive, it provides very helpful tests.

“First, does a particular viewpoint rationalize sexual sin, in this case by co-opting the very grace of God? Beware, Jude is saying, of any teaching or perspective that would use the grace and love of God as the means for justifying sexual sin…”

Anyone who followed the conversations here at Mormon Coffee last June might recognize Joseph Smith’s polygamy as an example of what Jude is talking about. Joseph did not merely marry multiple women illegally; he asked for other men’s wives and young daughters, promising eternal rewards for those who complied with his requests. Did this not “pervert the grace of our God into sensuality”? While the Word of God promises forgiveness of sins and eternal life freely given through His grace to any and all who surrender to Him, Joseph Smith perverted that offered gift, turning it into something gained via gratification of Smith’s own desires.

Dr. Nielson continues with the clues Jude provides for recognizing false teachers,

“Second, does a particular viewpoint diminish the exclusive glory and truth of Jesus Christ as the only King and Savior? Beware, Jude is saying, of any teaching or perspective that undermines His deity, diminishes His uniqueness, doubts His kingly claims over the creation, or adds or subtracts from His Gospel.”

Again we can see the teachings of LDS prophets as examples of what Jude warns against. Mormonism robs Jesus of His uniqueness, teaching that He is just one of many billions numbered among the pre-existent sons of God; Jesus is Creator of some things, but not all things; Jesus is the Savior for this world, but other worlds have other Saviors; Jesus’ deity is no different than that achievable by any of us who work hard and prove ourselves worthy of Godhood (exaltation).

Using the “clues” provided by Jude, Mormon prophets are exposed as false teachers. Consequently, Mormonism is exposed as a false religion leading millions of people away from a saving relationship with the one true God. If ever there was anything worth contending over, surely, it is this.

For more information on the Jesus of Mormonism see:
Creator or Created? That is the Question.
Who is the “Living Christ” of Mormonism?

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

200 Responses to Worth Fighting Over

  1. Ralph says:

    OK, so now you are saying that we are part of the flock and Christianity, just a bunch of false teachers within the group. I’m confused now, am I a Christian or not?

    But I love the choice of word in the scripture “SAINTS”. We are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SAINTS ! You are CHRISTIAN. According to you the Bible is always correct. So if the Bible says that the true gospel was given to the SAINTS then we LDS have it ! 🙂

    As far as teaching non-God proscribed sexuality, what of the ‘Christian’ churches that allow fornication, for example the Lutheran church of Finland, the Church of England (historically), the Pentacostal (according to a friend of mine who is Pentacostal). And then there are the churches allowing homosexuals into the fold and as clergy, like the Presbyterian and Methodist church in Australia and the Church of England in America (or was it Canada). These fit part of the clues above don’t they?

  2. Rick B says:

    Ralph, Your Not even close to being a Christian, Gal 1:8-9.

    Your headed to the Darkness forever that Jude speaks of, You LDS have a false Gospel and are leading people to Hell forever in great numbers. Under the last Topic we were talking about, I say I rest my case, You guys Dodge Questions even if you claim you can answer them, That makes Someone a liar.

    Some LDS cannot answer simple questions and then get mad at me for calling them on the carpet over it, Some LDS get mad at me for my seemingly hard approach, Yet Jude is very honest in His thoughts on false teachers, Which is LDS in a nutshell. Rick b

  3. falcon says:

    The problem with Mormonism is that it claims a “new revelation” and declares the old revelation null and void. In its attempts to justify its position, Mormonism uses invented history and complex conspiracy theories. The obvious “insidiousness” of Mormonism is seen in it’s attempt to use the same language of traditional Christianity but with different meanings. The meaning switch is not made apparent to the uninformed listener so they think they are dealing with conventional Christianity. As an example see Mitt Romney’s claim that he has received Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Without someone knowing who the Jesus is that Romney has received, they’d think he was speaking of the same Jesus that traditional Christianity speaks of.
    Mormonism is built on falsehood and perpetuated by techniques that seduce people into joining the cult without knowing the true story behind Joseph Smith, Mormon history, and the controlling culture of Mormonism.
    I guess we should be thankful that Mormonism has a real problem holding on to those it baptizes into the aberrent cult. Two-thirds of those on the rolls are inactive, fifty percent of returning missionaries go inactive, the number of “temple Mormons” is but a fraction of the membership and exmembers are speaking out with boldness regarding the cult.
    Unless someone is in total denial, it’s well documented that Joseph Smith used his restored gospel to sexually seduce women. He talked about an angel that would strike him dead if he didn’t take on more wives and he was exchanging sexual favors in the guise of marrage for assurance of salvation for the women and their families. This guy was a snake! He corrupted his own gospel for his own pleasure and purposes and hid it, best he could from his general population of followers. He’s left a legacy of the same type of behavior among many who claim him as a prophet.
    As Christians, we need to heed the words of Jude and continue to expose Mormonism for what it is.

  4. Ward says:

    Ralph said: “As far as teaching non-God proscribed sexuality, what of the ‘Christian’ churches that allow fornication, for example the Lutheran church of Finland, the Church of England (historically), the Pentacostal (according to a friend of mine who is Pentecostal). And then there are the churches allowing homosexuals into the fold and as clergy, like the Presbyterian and Methodist church in Australia and the Church of England in America (or was it Canada). These fit part of the clues above don’t they?”

    Good points here Ralph. These groups are great examples of the continuing problems of progressive and successive revelation. For them it has become paramount to reinterpret scripture according to the changing cultural context (as well as just plain run of the mill sin!). So without the anchor of a closed canon, and within the flock, come these new interpretations. However, I think you know already that here in the dregs of the cup, there are probably no representatives of those groups. Very few of these people would be found contending for our historic faith. Why? because they pretty much believe as you. Their view of “Christian” is so diluted, that they would have no arguments with you, since you are so sincere and passionate. It is about who you are, not who you serve. If you are frustrated with our broken records, and our forceful accusations, then you should go over to their websites, if they have anything like this.

    Don’t get me wrong. I am not asking or telling you or anyone to leave. I get a kick out of listening to you, and you have been a blessing to me, strange as that may sound. You are teaching me many things about my EC faith. I come from a missions background to this, and this keeps me sharp. I believe God has a purpose in each of us being here.

  5. falcon says:

    The problem with Mormonism is it’s claim to be the “restored” gospel. When someone, anyone makes a claim like that it is incumbent on those who hold to the standard view to test the new claim. Mormonism fails miserably when compared to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. That’s apparent and even Mormons would have to agree with that.
    So then, Mormons have to prove their claim as to representing first century Christianity. The problem for Mormons is that there is an abundance of information/writings available that chronicle the history of the Christian church and Mormonism is no where to be found. So really, Mormonism counts on ignorance to substantiate its claims.
    So the task for orthodox Christians is to continue to tell people about Mormonism. I do it every chance I get. My goal is to inform as many people as possible concerning the doctrines of the Mormon church, Mormon church history and the tactics that are used by Mormon missionaries to seduce the unsuspecting into the cult.
    As orthodox Christians we have a duty and an obligation before God to fight the spiritual battle being waged. We do this through prayer and by making information readily available to people concerning Mormonism and the other cults.

  6. Ward says:

    Contending as a compassionate exercise…

    Too frequently in these posts, it seems like we are yelling at each other, trying to score points, to win on either side, and in any case. Each of us has accused the other of creating straw men which are caricatures of the other’s perspective, so that we can tear them down or burn them up easily.

    I would like to suggest that we from historic EC systems, are as fallible and messed up as anyone. We get so danged frustrated by the same arguments being presented, that we are guilty of lashing out. We get pompous and arrogant and dismissive. I should say that I do, and if I were to post at those points I would sound remarkably like my dear friends here. Lest you become smug, I assert the same stuff comes out of Mormon pens as well.

    What should our approach be? I am not going to say it has to be my way. However, I can say why I do this, and I think it will resonate with my EC buds.

    We contend both as prophets and penitents. We call out to the true historic faith of our fathers through the centuries and challenge both Christian and Mormon seekers to come to the truth and light and grace. In that we are walking along the same path of Samuel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc. Not very well sometimes.

    However, we are also calling out as penitents. “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.” (Isa 6:5, ESV). Like Paul, we can warn of the horrific consequences of sin and misdirection, but in the next breath we must and do join him in saying we are the “chief of sinners.” (I Tim 1:15).

    There are many examples of evil in the Lord’s global church through the ages and today. Some of us have left the narrow path and there will will be consequences. It is not my job, or our job to win. It is my job to reflect the light of Christ.

    God calls us to this, and we may not always answer well, but we will keep trying.

  7. setfree says:

    Amen. I find myself getting frusterated because as someone who now can see from the outside, it makes me miserable for those on the inside who cannot. I have to stop at those moments and remember, “If not for the Grace of God, there go I”. It wasn’t me who “woke me up”, but God’s mercy and abundant Grace. I think sometimes I can fight this in my own strength, and maybe that’s true for a lot of us. But it is in our insufficiency that God’s infinite sufficiency shines best.
    I guess for somebody reading, God’s Glory is coming through! 🙂

  8. shematwater says:

    The original article is very misleading in what it says, but then such things usually are. However, I must comment on one point brought up, one that is constantly brought up, and that is historical Christianity.

    First, who really knows what “historical Christianity” is?
    The Romans, for nearly two centuries, did their best to destroy everything Christian, including writings, which is why we really have very few writing from these first two centuries. All the writings describing these centuries that are used as proof were written some two or three centuries laters.
    Of course, after these first two centuries the Romans, and the church, set on a campaign to destroy all writings that were opposed to christianity. So we don’t get much from the other perspective either.
    Add this to the fact that there are half a dozen large churches that claim to follow “historical Christian” teachings, and yet all teach very different doctrine. Then you get all the small churches and organizations who have their version of “Historical Christianity.”

    So, who truly is following “Historical Christianity” and how do they know.

    I will say that in the grand sceme of things the LDS are a very separate religion from the rest of modern Christianity. In this world we have verious branches of religion. There is Christianity, Jedaism, Islam, LDS, and others of lesser size. What is the cause of this separation? It is not that we do not believe in Christ, because we do. The reason for the separation is that we are the only Christian Religion that is not in some way a breakoff from the Catholic church. The Catholic church came out of that which was taught by Christ and his Apostles. From the Catholic church came all other Christian churchs, except the LDS. We are our own branch, started by Christ himself. We have our own offshoots. We are the same as other Christians in our faith in Christ, but are different in our origins. That is the reason why we are separate from them.

  9. falcon says:

    During the first 450 years of its existence, the Church battled heretics and in so doing, defined the basic doctrines of the faith. Heretics often provided a great service to the Church. For example, Marcion rejected the OT and the Gospels of Matthhew, Mark, and John, thus forcing the Chruch to define the NT cannon. Arius, in denying the deity of Christ, made the Church articulate the doctrine that became the most crucial to Christianity.
    When we look at the history of the Church we see, for example, the doctrine of Christ’s divinity-a doctrine essential and unique to Christianity-formally affirmed for the first time at the first Council of Nicea. In world history, never before had the entire church gathered to determine policy and doctrine. Now if someone really wants to get inside this event, they can take the time to read something like “The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East” by Robert Payne.
    An article titled “A Hammer Struck at Heresy: What exactly happened at the famous Council of Nicea, when the Roman emperor convened some 250 quarreling Christian bishops?” is adapted from Payne’s work.
    My point in presenting this is that Christianity has a rich history that is well documented. There is really no reason for someone to be ignorant of the facts. When we look at the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, they (doctrines) were present from the beginning of the Church-in some form. But it was left to the Church to clearly articulate those basic fundamental doctrines. Early on, the Church fathers didn’t even have the theological vocabulary to express what it was the Church believed. In battling heresy they were forced to develop the language used to communicate what it was that the Church believed.
    I must admit that I get more than a little irratated with our Mormon friends who so easily dismiss the rich and well documented history of the Church and simply settle for repeated mottos and slogans.

  10. jackg says:

    Ralph,

    Yes, born-again believers are called saints, as you contend. What’s your point? A Christian is a saint.

    Ward,

    Fantastic job!! Keep it up.

    Blessings…

  11. gundeck says:

    Shematwater,

    I must be brief, the origins of the Mormon Church come from the Second Great Awakening.

    You should visit http://www.ccel.org before you make bold claims that the early Church was not well documented.

  12. falcon says:

    Shemwater,
    You simply dazzle me with your account of why we don’t know what first century Christianity really was. It really takes my breath away. Where in the world did you get all of this valuable information from which you draw your conclusions? Tell you what, just for fun, why don’t you provide some documentation because what you presented sounds vaguely like some Mormon talking points that you’d pick-up hanging around the wards. You see without some form of verification, it sounds a little like Mormon mythology. You need to pick-up your game.
    Here’s something for you that I think you’ll enjoy. In 1784 a man by the name of Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book about his visions of the afterlife. The name of the book is “Heaven and Hell and It’s Wonders”. Some of the things he wrote about were something called “the Celestial Kingdom”, “the veil”, “spirit prison”, “celestial marrage”, and more. D. Michael Quinn in his book “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” discusses all of this. Not only does Quinn make a strong case that Smith knew all about Swedenborg’s ideas, but he also shows that his book was in Smith’s hometown library since 1817. Quinn also says that nine miles from where Smith lived, in 1826 the Canandaigua newspaper advertised the book for sale. If you’re curious, this is where Smith got his “visions” for D&C section 76.
    This was all pretty tough for some of Smith’s early followers to swallow and the diaries of Orson Pratt and John Murdock recount countless excommunications of Mormons, including branch presidents who denounced “the degress of glory” as a “satanic revelation”. Seems the folks had a difficult time accepting the occult nature of Smith’s vision.
    Smith, it seems, was a great borrower (see A View of the Hebrews, Free Mason rituals etc.).

  13. Rick B says:

    Shem,
    How can you sit here and tell us that first century Christianity was or was not? You cannot even Answer questions about your own church and how Your Church can claim two different views on the same topic.

    It seems to me your Church cannot get things right, so how can we trust them? Rick b

  14. falcon says:

    Just for my own personal entertainment, I went to my large stack of Christian History magazines and pulled out issue 37 dedicated to the topic “Worship in th Early Church”. Now how in the world do we know anything about this topic? In the first article they provide the reader with an account of Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr was a philosopher and defender of Christianity who was martyred in Rome in about 165. He was the author of First Apology, Second Apology, and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.
    It is said of Justin that he knew Christianity in Asia as well as Rome, perhaps in Palestine also. In his writing he left us a description of a typical worship service of the second century. The article goes on to say that other second century sources support what Justin writes.
    Well how in the world did those nasty Romans miss destroying Justin’s writings and those of other supporting second century sources?
    Well let’s have a little bit more. Ignatius of Antioch (35-107) characterized the Lord’s Supper as “the medicine of immortality.” Clement of Alexandria (150-215) wrote at length about the cults, “The mysteries are simply tradition and idle invention; it is worshiping one of the devils tricks when people honor with bastard religiousity these unholy holinesses and impious initiations”.
    Just a little more: The Didache (Greek for teaching) is our earliest example of a “church order.” It sets out how congregtations should baptize, fast, pray receive visiting prophets and the like. The Didache probably reached its present form before the end of the first century A.D., but it certainly contains earlier material. Hmmmm seems like that gives us a hint that we know what first century Christianity is all about. And, Hippolytus, who died as a martyr around A.D. 236, was a prominent but controversial figure in the church at Rome. His Apostolic Tradition, written c.215, is a church order, much more developed than the Didache.
    Well there’s more but I’m out of space.

  15. Rick B says:

    Call Me crazy, But Psalm 118 says, God puts HIS WORD ABOVE HIS NAME, I figure If God allows His Holy Word and message of salvation to become corrupted, then He is not really who He claims to be. I wonder how many LDS are aware of Psalm 118, and I suspect they dont really believe it. Rick b

  16. gundeck says:

    Thank you Falcon,

    I saw Shematwater’s post earlier today and had to respond despite being limited on time.

    In Radical Origins Val Dean Rust points out that Mormon theology is classically of and from the Second Great Awakening; universalism, millennialist, adventist, communalist, spiritualist, etc. All of these are adapted in one form or another into Mormonism. Grant Palmer has pointed out the the BoM is full of proclamations concerning the religious controversies of the “Burned-over district”.

    Shematwater got one thing correct “the LDS are a very separate religion from the rest of modern Christianity.”

  17. Olsen Jim says:

    falcon,

    The simplicity of your view of church history and the foundations of modern Christianity is stunning. I don’t know that I can recall a more lop-sided approach of extending the “benefit of the doubt.” Any question about Joseph Smith is answered with the worst possible conclusion, irrespective of evidence. But in considering the transmission of the Bible and doctrine in history, the most optimistic, even rosey-eyed assumptions are insisted upon. But this is typical of religious critics of Joseph Smith.

    Without any proof of any connection between the revelations of Joseph Smith and any of the supposedly available reference material of his day, you conclude, again with absolutely no evidence, that he simply copied everything. Your strict academic analysis is well demonstrated.

    On the other hand, with what is a very apparent superficial understanding of early church history, many seem to gloss over any challenges to the transmission of holy writings as well as correct doctrine and practice over 2,000 years. Your version of the Council of Nicea is Disney-like in its merry tone and naive assumptions.

    I encourage you to read some of the work of Bruce Metzger, who is arguably the world’s greatest textual critic of the Greek New Testament in our day (actually, he died in 2007).

    Or what about John Mill?

    It is astounding to me that people can look at history and insist there was no apostasy, even claim that there is a clear and unbroken lineage of doctrine and liturgy through the mellenia.

    I repeat that this is the result of having no ground to stand on. It is a blind faith in the vacuum of history and a complete dependence a perfect ancestry of doctrine, which has never happened before.

  18. jackg says:

    Olsen,

    I’m curious to know where you get such superior knowledge. And, since you have such stunning biblical and historical acumen, why you still believe in a false prophet and a false religion? What keeps you in it? One last thing…could you please expound on blind faith? After all, this is the clarion call for Mormonism, thanks.

    Curious…

  19. gundeck says:

    Bruce Metzger said, “The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church…”

    From The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel: “How many doctrines in the Church are in jeopardy because of variants?” Metzger: “I don’t know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy.” Strobel: “None?” Metzger: “None.”

  20. setfree says:

    There is a dog somewhere, growling and barking his head off because someone is trying to take his old dry bone and trade it in for a delicious steak, new bone included.

    At least there should be, because it’d make a nice analogy to what’s going on on Mormon Coffee.

    :)!

  21. Ralph says:

    RickB,

    The premise of the article and the scripture from the Bible given indicates that we are to be considered Christian – just that we teach false doctrine. You can’t argue with the Bible now can you?

    Setfree,

    Does this mean the old bone is the historical Christian church and its followers with the old traditions and history – while the fresh steak and bone belongs to the reasonably new LDS church?

    Falcon,

    Be careful with quoting/using the church fathers. I have found out that Tertulian, Novatian and Hippolytes had differing views on the Trinity, which were different again to what it is described as today. Also Novatian and Tertullin became heretics and were excommunicated and at least Tertullian changed his ideology about God and the Trinity – I don’t know if Novatian did. Another fact is that Novatian and Hippolytes set themselves up as antipopes and fought against the Roman Catholic church. Only Hippolytes just before his death recanted and re-joined the RC church. Since only the ‘true’ God and Jesus can give access to heaven and these 3 had a ‘different’ God and Jesus, even though they called it a Trinity, can their writings be trusted given their history and theology. I am asking this because many here say that JS cannot be trusted as his theology about God and Jesus changed as he grew older. These 3 ‘church fathers’ had a different theology to these days and they changed theirs as they got older.

  22. setfree says:

    Of course not Ralph, you’re not trying to give the EC’s anything! 🙂

    I’m talking about a heart and life that knows the Amazing Grace of God, complete with full forgiveness, security and peace, wisdom, comfort, strength, and joy….

    As compared to the legalistic, glory-to-self, never-know-you’re-good-enough,… trap you’re in.

    Why anyone would want the chains and dungeon when they could be standing in the sunshine and fresh air…

    You have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about. But that’s why I’m here. To help someone find freedom in Christ.

    In Him…

  23. mobaby says:

    Olsen-
    You say. . .
    “It is astounding to me that people can look at history and insist there was no apostasy, even claim that there is a clear and unbroken lineage of doctrine and liturgy through the mellenia.”

    Would be a fine argument, except that no real Christian actually claims that. The Old and New Testaments hold many examples of false prophets and apostates. We are REPEATEDLY warned against “wolves in sheeps clothing” “The tares and the wheat will grow together.” The enemy has sown weeds in with the wheat and to uproot all the weed would damage the roots of the wheat, so they are permitted to grow until the final sorting.

    Those would however, be the claims of some cult like group that held their sect was the only right way in every last legalistic detail.

    Such claims are unnecessary for Christianity. Christians have always recognized there were differences of opinion in doctrine… which is why we say “in non-essentials unity.”

    We are however warned NOT to accept any teaching that is a “different gospel.” Jesus is the lamb of God. He is the sacrifice that God ordained from the beginning when God accepted Abel’s sacrifice and rejected Cain’s. The blood was the requirement from the beginning. Evidence of this plan is throughout Scripture.

    Blood sacrifice is central to Judaism and central to Christianity which is the fulfillment of Judaism. The blood of a perfect innocent creature to atone for our sin and make propitiation for God’s wrath. The New Testament doesn’t even vary from the old in the basic doctrine of how the sin of man is to be atoned for. Good works have no place in atoning for sin. You, oh man, how do you even know what good is? “Even the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.” This is an essential and without its acceptance there can be no unity.

    Accept the sacrifice of Jesus as your ONLY hope. In this, you find humility, in this you find the presence of God who will direct you to works that actually have eternal merit.

  24. Rick B says:

    Ralph, Where in Jude do you read that your a believer? Jude Says,

    Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

    You cannot be a believer and yet teach False Doctrine. The Bible mentions Wolves in Sheeps clothing, The Wolves need to kill the sheep to get their hide, How does that make the false teacher and the christian one in the same or equal?

    Jude 1:4 says, they Crept in. The doors of the church are open to all, so yes killers can come in, will we allow them to stay? No. If a killer is released from jail and moves next door to you, are you going to invite him over for diner knowing he might try and kill you? your not a christian, your a wolf in sheeps clothing leading people to the slaughter. Rick b

  25. Ralph says:

    Hey Ward,

    Regarding the Christians I mentioned, why are you saying that they are not as committed as others on this site to the ‘Christian cause’? There are many people in the Lutheran church in Finland that are very much preaching against ‘false religions’, including the LDS church. But the Finnish Lutheran church as a whole is accepting of living together and sex before marriage (ie fornication) whether engaged or not. These people are living their faith – which is they are saved by faith in Jesus without works. They are living as you teach. Can you condemn them then?

    Also, I too have learned much from this forum from both LDS members and non-members as well as having to do my own study. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you wish to view it) all that I have learned has re-inforced my faith in Jesus and His restored gospel.

    RickB,

    If a killer is released from prison and moved in next door I would follow the example of my Saviour. I would not judge/condemn him for what he has already paid for in society and unless he shows he is a threat I would treat him like any other person. Would you? And yes, I can say this confidently because I have been in that situation while on my mission – we had a convicted killer living on the floor below us. I still interacted with him when he was around.

    To all,

    I would just like to point out that thtere is a difference between ‘contending’ by using the Holy Spirit and contending by arguing. The whole thing about teaching the gospel is to have the Spirit present, otherwise there is no conversion – it is the Spirit that does the converting. So if one contends without the Spirit, there will be no conversion of anyone and thus it is just a waste of time in most cases as both parties after yelling at each other go away thinking they did the ‘better’ job. Because of this, both parties get frustrated at the other and there is no edification at all.

  26. Andy Watson says:

    I see that I have returned back at MC at just the right time. By the way, did Crispin ever show up? He’s been gone for two weeks now. I imagine by now the baptismal tank at the ward where he attends has overflowed and is running down the street. He was filling it up for my baptism two weeks ago conditioned upon him answering at least two out of three questions asked of him. This is not a boastful statement. It’s a statement that I am going to make over and over with reminders again and again because it exposes the shallowness of LDS theology in being able to answer the simplest of questions that would one would expect if they want converts especially me. As I said a few days ago: the level of LDS scholarship on this blog is pathetic.

    Ralph,

    Your post to Falcon warning him of quoting the early Christian church Fathers was quite the “bomb”. You and I had quite a number of discussions offline in private emails regarding the Christian doctrine of the Trinity that branched off of my MC article several weeks ago. In those offline discussions I painstakingly went through the writings of Novatian line-by-line with a yellow hi-liter. You supposedly read the work by Tertullian in which he discusses the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Ralph, why don’t you share with the LDS brethren here your findings and conclusions on the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity in relation to the Council of Nicea and how that relates in what the LDS Church is putting out for its members to “swallow”? Have you shared your findings with your LDS family? Why don’t you tell everyone what you told me. I respect our offline discussions and your privacy too much to do a “cut and paste” of what you said, but this “bomb” you dropped indirectly caused me to get hit with some “shrapnel”.

    As the title of this blog article states: “Worth Fighting Over”, I will defend this fundamental teaching of orthodox Christianity with everything that I have.

    “Fire mission”

    [email protected]

  27. Andy Watson says:

    Ralph,

    You made it very clear where you stand and I cannot talk anyone out of Mormonism. One has to look at the evidence and then I pray the Holy Spirit will take it from there. I have no power on my own. Your conclusions and mentioning the Gnostics is what drew silence from me. However, you’ve brought some of this to the table in this topic so I’m going to have to engage you here or offline again.

    First, in your document you gave no Roman Catholic Encyclopedia references or quotations. I want those “chapter and verse”. You will have to back up everything you say with references. Mormons demand that of Christians, so it goes both ways, my friend.

    Second, you are incorrect in your findings regarding compatability between Tertullian and Novatian on their views of the Trinity. Novatian’s work “On The Trinity” and Tertullian’s “Adversus Praxean” (especially chapters 2 & 3) are in harmony with each other.

    Third, Tertullian’s thinking on Christ in his work was that Christ was subordinate to the Father. True, that is an incorrect view. However, Tertullian made it clear when he said:

    “We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God…Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her— being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ…one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person.” (Against Praxeas, chapter 2)

    Fourth, these men didn’t have a “different” God or Jesus. How do you come up with this? If you think they were helping the LDS cause then I challenge you to read what they said again. They said that Jesus was God and taught monotheism. They wouldn’t be in the Joseph Smith “camp” by any stretch of the imagination.

  28. Andy Watson says:

    When Jude 3 mentions “the faith” that should be noted in the context of singular. It was “THE Faith”. There isn’t more than one and that includes “another testament” as well which is what is written on the cover of the Book of Mormon that is given away by missionaries. Hebrews 9 rules that out to the detriment of the LDS Church, but that is another discussion. The “faith” (singular) has been delivered (past tense – already happened) ONCE (singular again) unto the saints (they already received it back in the 1st century).

    Paul said in Romans 15:19 (KJV) that he has “fully preached the gospel of Christ.” He didn’t only give us half what was given to him in 1 Cor 15:3. Paul gave us the whole thing. God is not going to hold back something from us that is necessary for our salvation until Joseph Smith shows up in the 1800’s or allow His Word and Gospel to be thwarted by the whims of man. It’s great for LDS “talking points” at the ward, but not a biblical reality. By the way, Mormons, you’re not alone. The JW’s teach of an apostasy too to justify their prophet Charles Russell in 1879.

    The contrast between “in times past” and “in these last days” in Hebrews 1:1-2 suggests to us that God’s speaking to us through His Son in the finality of His revelation to mankind in this era of redemption. This indicates that there is a finality to the revelation of God in Christ and that once this revelation has been completed, no more is to be expected. This text in Hebrews 1:1-2 demonstrates to us that no more can be added to the Bible after the time of the New Testament. We should expect no more Scripture to be added beyond what we already have. God the Father is in control of all history, and He is not the kind of Father who will trick us or fail to be faithful to us or keep from us something we absolutely need.

    John 12:48 – “the word that I HAVE SPOKEN” (past tense); Jesus’ words are complete. A new prophet has nothing to offer.

  29. FIGJAM says:

    Man o’Man. Being tired of the rhetoric that takes place on this blog, I’ve kept quite for some time … lending my opinion when I deem it “fit”. Perhaps that’s too often taboo :)! Let me just say this – I know some wonderful people in the LDS church. Family, friends, and acquaintances, if you will. But I’m absolutely terrified. The indoctrination runs so deep, that these individuals in the MORG do not know the heresy they covet. To any mormons on this blog, explain to me the DNA and the “book of abraham”. Two points that led me out of the adversary’s church (Mormon Church). Explain to me why Christ’s original word is insufficient. Explain to me the many fallacies in the B of M, and why you beat around the proverbial bush. Do you not understand that no matter your work here, on this earth, you diminish the importance of CHRIST, our LORD, SAVIOR, and GOD. Our God of TRUE CHRISTIANITY. You are blinded by your stubbornness and false “prophets”. Just because you think you’re doing “Okay”, or better than most, doesn’t mean that JESUS accepts your heretical nature. Hell is real, as is your blindness for truth. Does that not scare you like it scares me? Who will you answer to on judgement? Joseph or Jesus?

  30. Ralph says:

    Berean,

    I did say that I have learned that the Trinity doctrine was formed before the councils. As far as Novatian below are quotes from the web and the link to the page, scroll down to ‘Writings’ –

    ”But Novatian falls into the error made by so many early writers of separating the Father from the Son, so that he makes the Father address to the Son the command to create, and the Son obeys; he identifies the Son with the angels who appeared in the Old Testament to Agar, Abraham, etc. “It pertains to the person of Christ that he should be God because He is the Son of God, and that He should be an Angel because He announces the Father’s Will” (paternae dispositionis annuntiator est). The Son is “the second Person after the Father”, less than the Father in that He is originated by the Father; He is the imitator of all His works, and is alwaysobedient to the Father, and is one with Him “by concord, by love, and by affection”.

    …In this doctrine there is much that is incorrect, yet much that seems meant to express the consubstantiality of the Son, or at least His generation out of the substance of the Father. But it is a very unsatisfactory unity which is attained, and it seems to be suggested that the Son is not immense or invisible, but the image of the Father capable of manifesting Him. Hippolytus is in the same difficulty, and it appears that Novatian borrowed from him as well as from Tertullian and Justin. It would seem that Tertullian and Hippolytus understood somewhat better than did Novatian the traditional Roman doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son, but that all three were led astray by their acquaintance with the Greek theology, which interpreted of the Son as God Scriptural expressions (especially those of St. Paul) which properly apply to Him as the God-Man.”

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm

  31. Andy Watson says:

    Ralph,

    That’s right, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was being discussed long before the Council of Nicea. Matter of fact, in writings that we have today that anyone can read, at least 100 years. You know what that means? When the LDS Church “spoon feeds” to its people that the Trinity doctrine was a by-product from the Council of Nicea they are historically in error, they are telling their people a lie and they know this. I find it hard to believe that all the educated Mormons out there and especially the BYU religious history professors don’t accurately give out the information. Then again, to do so would go against the information that the LDS leadership is putting out. I call this intellectual dishonesty. Ralph, you now know and can no longer say as you did before, that the Trinity came out of Nicea. There is a historical trail going back over 100 years before 325 A.D. Don’t feel bad, the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the same thing as the Mormons do when it comes to Council of Nicea and the Trinity. Apathy won’t get anyone anywhere. In this case, it’s a first-class ticket to outer darkness.

    Somehow that statement by the reviewer regarding Novatian on that site you linked overlooked this statement by Novatian in his work “ON THE TRINITY” in chapter 30:

    “But because heretics, ever struggling against the truth, are accustomed to prolong the controversy of pure tradition and Catholic faith, being offended against Christ; because He is, moreover, asserted to be God by the Scriptures also, and this is believed to be so by us; we must rightly— that every heretical calumny may be removed from our faith— contend, concerning the fact that Christ is God also, in such a way as that it may not militate against the truth of Scripture; nor yet against our faith, how there is declared to be one God by the Scriptures, and how it is held and believed by us.”

  32. I’d just like to congratulate Ralph for doing some reading outside his “comfort zone” (presumably), especially from the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia.

    Keep going, Ralph, you’ll find the truth in the oddest places!

    P.S. Huzzah! We just got Clarke for 3. Pity Ponting stayed put for so long.

  33. falcon says:

    Andy/Berean thank you very much for your contributions here. I’m afraid it will be too much for our Mormon friends however since they like to stay in the comfort zone of the LDS womb. If they begin to expand their intellectual horizons, they won’t stay LDS too long. That is of course unless they shut their eyes, plug their ears and jump up and down and repeat their testimony over and over again. Despite what one of our LDS friends has told us in the past, the LDS bishops aren’t too crazy about their people coming to sites like this. First of all the LDS folks generally make fools of themselves with their childish rants and expose their lack of knowledge and demonstrate how naive they are. Secondly, the last thing the LDS bishops want is their people getting exposed to some solid scholarship and analytical thinking.
    I know I get very impatient with these folks so I have to remind myself often that they are the product of targeted and repeated brainwashing. I really hate intellectual laziness however and the recitation of some of the most simplistic slogans made in the guise of historical or theological fact. There really isn’t any excuse for that.
    One of my “set your watch by it” moments will be coming along quite soon. When we get this oft repeated line, I know it’s a white flag of intellectual surrender. The line of course is, “It’s all a matter of interpretation.” It’s a line that says, “We’re all out of arguments. We’re not going to do the hard work of scholarship and everything is true anyway, it just a matter of how you look at it. It’s like “moral equivalency” that says there is no objective truth or morality but everything is contextual.
    Our LDS friends need to take off their magic spectacles and begin to see things through the lens of reality.

  34. falcon says:

    As Jude reminded his followers to contend for the faith, Paul was quite explisit in warning the Christians to be on the look out for those who would corrupt the faith. In Acts 20:26 Paul tells his listeners,
    “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”
    Notice that Paul wasn’t warning the disciples of outside threats despite the fact that the church was being persecuted. Paul saw the greatest threat from within. This is basically what Jude says also. In his first letter to (First Timothy 1:3-7) Paul says “….instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines..”
    Paul articulates the basics of the faith in statements found in (First Timothy 1:17) and (First Timothy 2:5-6). As Paul continues to write to this young pastor he expands the theme (First Timothy 4:1-3) when he says “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons….”
    So having laid out the basics of the faith in both this epistle and the others that he wrote, Paul was telling Timothy (and us) what the standard of the faith is and how we should be vigilant to protect it. So when heretics arise within the Body of Christ, they need to be dealt with. Now Mormons are not within the Body of Christ but are an aberrent cult that would seek to corrupt the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As such they need to be exposed and the faith that was once and for all delivered to us vigorously defended.

  35. falcon says:

    Paul often talked about the Gospel of Jesus Christ as his/Paul’s Gospel. Reading what he wrote, it’s pretty easy to discern what the Gospel that Paul preached was. The basics of the faith are contained in Paul’s writings. This is also true of the other writers of the NT. There is no lost Gospel. That’s a fairy tale Mormons tell themselves in an attempt to justify the weird and wacky religious world that Joseph Smith created.
    The Mormon gospel was not revealed, it was invented. It’s sold on the basis of emotion masquerading as spirituality. Paul and the other writers of the NT were really “take no prisoners” types when it came to defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ that they preached. They understood how false teachers with false claims could lead people into spiritual distruction.
    Those of us who defend the faith need to remind ourselves that the coming out of Mormonism is a process for people. It takes time to work through all of the issues and overcome the psychological conditioning of the cult. This week I’ve been revisiting some presentations by Mormons and exMormons and this realization of the emotional stages of exiting Mormonism has been brought to the front of my mind again.
    A very interesting presentation is that of Lyndon Lamborn. I’ve done some corresponding back and forth with him and he’s recently written a book regarding his journey. His family’s roots in Mormonism goes back to the time of Joseph Smith. I would recommend it for viewing. It was a simple question by a nonMormon coworker that got him thinking about the Mormon religion he was part of. He ended up getting excommunicated for his trouble and as of this video he was still processing where he would go, spiritually speaking.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbj7hwy-VCw&feature=related

  36. falcon says:

    A big “oops” on my part. That above link will get you to youtube but no Lyndon Lamborn. Just put his name in the “search” box and you’ll get his presentations.

    Readers might also like to check out an audio interview that Mormon John Dehlin did with Grant Palmer author of “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”.

    http://mormonstories.org/?p=92

  37. shematwater says:

    ANDY

    I notice you mention the fact that you asked, Crispen was it, three questions. Did you miss my post in which I asked you to ask me the same three questions, or were you just avoiding my challenge.

    RICK B

    Ask me any question about the LDS faith, and I will answer to the best of my ability.

    As to “Historical Christianity” I never said all records were destroyed, and said the government did their best. There are records serviving, but very few of them, and even fewer that are the originals and not some translation of transcription.
    Even with this, please tell me how there can be dozens of denominations all following historical Christianity. From what I can see the only ones that can truly claim this are the Catholics, because any denomination that came out of the Reformation changed that Historical church in some way, and usually to a great extant.

    God is not the author of confusion, nor will he accept twenty different versions of his gospel. He will accept only one.

  38. setfree says:

    Shem,

    “God is not the author of confusion, nor will he accept twenty different versions of his gospel. He will accept only one.”

    Yup.

    Which one do you think it is? The elitest one, where you must be perfect, learn secret handshakes and wear silly underwear, and want godhood like Lucifer did, be okay that your leadership keeps lying to everyone…

    or the one where the price has been paid for the foolish and the wise, the rich and the poor, the clumsy and the delicate… of every race, every nation, every language…
    Where God’s Only Begotten Perfect Lamb, and God Himself, gets all the Glory!

    I’m serious. Try to answer that question after actually considering it, okay?

  39. Rick B says:

    Shem said

    God is not the author of confusion, nor will he accept twenty different versions of his gospel. He will accept only one.

    Funny you should say this, since the LDS church is all confusion, and more holes than Swiss cheese.

    I’m glad that Since I had to mention LDS avoiding question about a dozen times, you finally decide to answer me. My question to you about 3 topics back was, Why is it you said the LDS church teaches the J.S.T was not finished and you stand by your Church on this issue?

    But then I gave quotes from your church saying the J.S.T was finished. My question was, was it finished or not? Your Church teaches both, and since your church is teaching confusion who can I trust in your Church and If your Church teaches both how can you trust them to be honest? Rick b

  40. Andy Watson says:

    Shem,

    Why would I avoid your challenge? I am the one that put it out there originally over two weeks ago. I drop in here occasionally from time to time. You could have contacted me via email. I usually post it after my posts. [email protected]

    Here it is and I’ll make it two questions:

    1. Show me from the LDS KJV Bible with clear, detailed Scripture supporting what Joseph Smith said was “the first principle of the gospel” (King Follet Discourse; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345; Teachings of Presidents of The Church, p. 40; In Conference Report, Ensign, Nov. 2008, p. 75): God (Heavenly Father) is an exalted man. I must see that Heavenly Father was once a man and became exalted to what He is now – God.

    2. Be the first Mormon in history to tell me and everyone here that you know that you have been forgiven for ALL of your sins RIGHT NOW and that if you died RIGHT NOW you know you’d be in the celestial kingdom with your god who resides near Kolob.

    BONUS: I’ll ask you what I asked my last Gospel Essentials teacher who had been a Mormon for 80 years: “Jesus Christ is my Savior. I am born again, have forgiveness for my sins and have eternal life RIGHT NOW in Jesus Christ. What can the LDS Church offer me that I don’t already have in Jesus Christ RIGHT NOW?”

    His reply (actual verbal word): “Nothing”

    I see no point in becoming a Mormon based on his answer. There is nothing to gain. I’ve got it now. Shem, what say you?

    Shem, document #1; answer #2 with an honest “yes” and I’ll convert and you can baptize me. Answer the bonus question and I’ll give you credit for all of this at your ward on the next Fast/Testimony Sunday. Everyone can slap your back and you’ll gain some bragging rights with your peers. If you’re single, you might be able to get a date from one of the ward beauties. It’s a win-win for you, Shem. Shall I start packing as Crispin requested that I do? Will you fill the baptismal tank as he did supposedly 2 weeks ago?

  41. shematwater says:

    SETFREE

    It is the one that was set up by Christ himself, not by men who were disatisfied with the Catholic church.
    It is the one that holds the authority of the Priesthood, that can act in the name of Christ in all things.
    It is the one that does not deny his commands, calling them unimportant, and unecessary.
    It is the one that gives all glory to the Father and the Son, that praises them, and thanks them for the gift of grace.
    It is the one that will not permit false teachings.
    It is the one that recognizes that Christ has only one church, not dozens of denominations.

    This is the true church of Christ. Who can claim to fulfill all this?

  42. shematwater says:

    RICK

    I could have sworn I answered that question, but let me do so again.

    Of the quotes you gave, one was from Joseph Smith himself, in whichhe stated that the Translation was complete. This is likely a reference to the fact that they have gone through the entire Bible once, thus it was complete. However, since he himself continued to make corrections over the next ten years I feel safe in saying that he was not satisfied, and thus he did not think it truly complete. So, if I agree with the man who was doing the work, I find no problem.

    As to the church Almanac, this is not a publication done by the church. It is not approved by the First Presidency in everything that it prints. Thus, when I stand with what the church has said, I am not standing with this Almanac.

    The rest of the quotes you gave were from leaders of the church, and all agreed that it was not complete.

    Thus, the church has said it is not complete. Regardless of what others have said concerning it, I stand by the prophets of God chosen to lead his church.

  43. shematwater says:

    ANDY

    Your questions are loaded, and you know it. They are safe to ask because you can always trist the answer. However, I will answer them the best I can.

    1: God is an exalted man – from the Bible.

    I can see this plainly taught in the Bible. However, I am coming from an LDS perspective. As such I see things in a very different way than you do. All I can do is explain what I see.

    I think we can all agree that Christ was a man, that he lived a mortal life, died, was resurrected, and is now God. I no you believe that he is one being with the Father, but to see the answer to the question you must look at the Bible from the LDS perspective (that of a Godhead).
    In John 5: 19 Christ tells us “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
    So, since Christ is only doing what his father has done, then at some time the Father also lived a mortal life, died, was resurrected, and is now God.

    As I said, this is very plain to me, easy to understand, but only when looking at it from an LDS perspective.

  44. Rick B says:

    Shem, Like I asked before,
    Why is it the Angel moroni Does not agree with Scripture quoted in the J.S.T? An Angel of God that JS listened to Misquotes scripture?

    And if JS “Corrected” Scripture, that includes the OT, Why was it that Jesus Himself simple did not “Correct” the OT instead of Quoting as Fact corrupted Scripture? Rick b

  45. setfree says:

    Shem,

    I asked you “which gospel” and you answered with “which organized religion”.

    I don’t known if you have heard me say this before, but I don’t believe any organization to be “The Truth, The Way, and The Life”. I believe in Jesus.

    Your church teaches Mel. Priesthood, and they embrace it as giving “the church” the “authority”. But you should really research it.

    For one thing, “priesthood” in the Bible is not a power, but an office. It’s the word used to describe the office of, or the things having to do with, being a priest. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3550&t=KJV
    The “hood” suffix is used the same way as “fatherhood” or “motherhood”; it’s all that goes along with being a father or mother. Not some weird transferable power that someone can give to another.

    Priestcraft, on the other hand, is what is embraced (and called M. Priesthood) by witchcraft, Freemasons, and Mormons.
    Don’t take my word for it, check it out yourself, and see if I’m telling the truth.

  46. falcon says:

    SHEM,
    Andy/Berean can answer for himself but what I’ll tell you is that using your approach to Biblical interpretation, there is no heresy because it’s all just a matter of one’s opinion. The first thing you need to do is apply some basic rules of Biblical exegesis because without those rules anything and everything is correct. That’s why Mormonism can deceive people into believing something that is clearly false. I believe SETFREE admonished you previously about pulling a verse here and there from the Bible and stringing them together to come to a conclusion that was way out in left field. You’ve basically applied Mormon Biblical interpretation tactics here and yes it’s no surprise that it supports your Mormon supposition.
    Here’s a simple test for your God was a man who progressed idea. What do the orthodox Jews believe about God. Now we know that they don’t accept Jesus as the messiah, but who do they see God the Father as. Do the Jews see God as a man who became a god? Are the Jews thinking about progressing to this end themselves?
    And don’t you think that somewhere in the writings of the Church Fathers and the heretics we’d find the Mormon concept of the nature of God? It’s not there, because it doesn’t exist. I would think that if you were going to commit yourself to something, especially to something that takes your time, your treasure and your soul, you’d do some serious study with a skeptical mind-set. You basically repeat what the Mormons have told you. If you’re willing to trust Mormonism to deliver you the promise of becoming a god, there’s little hope for you.

  47. setfree says:

    Falcon,
    I believe that my admonishment was directed at GRCluff on the Gods and Goddesses page. But this does not take away from what you said above. The truth is that this stringing-together of unrelated verses to support a false doctrine has been handed down from LDS leadership. For an interesting experiment, you ought to get into the “references” of the Standard Works (Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, Index) to see some real terrific lying. That a believing member does the same thing reflects what they have been taught to do by the leadership. This is how I came to realize that the LDS leadership are AWARE of the con they’re pulling on the membership. Pretty creepy, what they’ve done and are doing. No, more than that. It’s damnable. Evil.

  48. falcon says:

    It’s late Saturday night and there isn’t much action out here so I thought it might be a good time to talk about Biblical interpretation. What is Hermeneutics? Well it is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is referred to as a science because it is guided by rules within a system. It can be seen as an art because the application of the rules is by skill. In-other-words, it is not by mechanical imitation. What is the primary need of hermeneutics? It is to ascertain what God has said in Sacred Scripture. It is to determine the meaning of the Word of God.
    There is a term “sola fidei regula” which is the Reformation position that the Bible is the only authoritative voice of God. In conservative Protestantism, the Bible is authoritative. There is no secondary means of making clear the meaning of the Bible.
    So in hermeneutics we seek: a) that we may know what God has said, and b) that we may span the linguistical, cultural, geographical, and historical gaps which separate our minds from those of the Biblical writers.
    Literary and historical criticism of the Bible is not an evil but a necessity. It must be determined who wrote a book being considered, when it was written, if its contents are authentic, and if the book is a literary unit or not.
    Hermeneutics assumes that the above has been accomplished. Assuming that, exegesis begins. So in order: the study of the canon determines the inspired books; the study of the text determines the wording of the books; the study of historical criticism gives the framework of the books; hermeneutics gives the rules for the interpretation of the books; exegesis is the applicaiton of these rules to the books; and the result of all of this is Biblical theology.
    Finally, the function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unkown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture.

  49. falcon says:

    What are some basic beliefs that guide Biblical interpretation?
    1. The Bible is the literal Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16)
    2. The Bible is God’s means of revealing truth to His people. God reveals His truth through the Holy Spirit’s illumination of the inspired Word.
    3. The Bible is authoritative.

    Some general principles of interpretation:

    1. The Bible interprets itself; Scripture best explains Scripture.
    2. Saving faith and the Holy Spirit are necessary for us to understand and properly interpret the Scriptures.
    3. Interpret personal experience in light of Scripture and not Scripture in the light of personal experience.
    4. Scripture has only one meaning and should be taken literally.
    5. Interpret words in harmony with their meaning in the times of the author.
    6. Interpret a word in relation to its sentence and context.
    7. Interpret a passage in harmony with its context.
    8. Interpret the words of the prophets in their usual, literal, and historical sense, unless the context or manner in which they are fulfilled clearly indicates they have a symbolic meaning.
    9. Since Scripture originated in a historical context, it can be understood only in the light of Biblical history.
    10. A doctrine cannot be considered biblical unless it sums up and includes all that the Scriptures say about it.
    11. A teaching merely implied in Scripture may be considered biblical when a comparison of related passages supports the teaching.

    In summary: Correlation is the process of relating a passage under consideration to the rest of the chapter, the whole book, and other portions of Scripture. This prevents forcing a meaning on a passage which was not intended by the writer. Since the Bible is truth and all truth is unified, all interprertations must be consistent and coherent with the rest of the Bible.

  50. Following Falcon’s observations, and maybe this belongs at the start of a new thread, but I don’t know what’s more significant (I’ll attempt to put this in fairly neutral language);

    1 What the LDS Church teaches its followers, or

    2 The habituation of its followers to the notion that any scripture can mean anything. It can even mean two completely opposing ideas.

    For example, if you ask a Mormon if he believes that there is One God, he will answer “yes”, and back it up with scripture. If you ask him if he believes that there are many Gods, he will answer “yes”, and back it up with scripture.

    Also, recently, we were discussing Lorenzo Snow’s couplet(“As man now is, our God once was; As now God is, so man may be”). Those of us who have benefited from some sort of exegetical training have taken our tools to this text and concluded that it implies that God must have been a sinner. The LDS defence rests upon the argument that this cannot be what the couplet teaches because of its unacceptable implications.

    We could get technical about it, but, to put it in laymans’ terms, it boils down to this; when I read something, do I read what I want it say or do I read what the author wants it to say? Personally, I’ll side with the author and let the consequences be what they may. At least I’ll know whether I agree with what was written, or not.

    Coming back to the query above, we know that the LDS movement teaches everything and anything. This means that its fairly futile to object to Mormon doctrine, because there’s no such thing (despite the assertions of its promoters).

    Also, judging from the comments posted by LDS here, it seems apparent to me that their training in exegesis is woeful. What I mean is, it appears that they are habituated into reading what they want to hear, rather than what the author wanted to say. There appears to be no “rule” of truth, other than that if came from an LDS source, it must be OK. The implications of this are that believers are robbed of an

Leave a Reply