339 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 23 November 2010 - 08:35 AM, said:

That some Jews were in the group Christ spoke of is not in question.  However you are ignoring Jesus' actual words.

So, let's look at it again.

This is tiresome, but okay.

Quote

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."

Notice that the "whosoever" in the second phrase is not limited to the "they" in the first phrase.

So again, the question, could some that professed to being Christians have been in that category?

What is the point of asking, if you profess not to know if any professed Christians were actually in that category???

All sorts of things are hypothetically possible in the abstract. John 16:2 may allow for the possibility that professing Christians might  kill apostles, but it isn't evidence that this happened. The verse  doesn't say who the "whosoever" would be. It doesn't preclude the abstract hypothetical possibility that the apostles were killed by time-traveling Romulans, but I doubt it.

As a simple matter of fact, we have absolutely no record of any professing Christians killing any of the apostles. James the son of Zebedee was executed by order of Herod Agrippa I, who made no pretense of being a Christian. James the Lord's brother was thrown down from the temple and beaten to death by Jewish, non-Christian opponents. Peter and Paul were executed by order of Nero; I'm pretty sure he didn't claim to be a Christian, either. Fairly reliable traditions indicate that Andrew and Simon the Zealot were also crucified. We have little or no reliable information about the deaths of the other apostles, but the traditions about their deaths say nothing about other Christians, real or professed, murdering them. For a judicious and brief review of the deaths of the apostles, see the following PDF document:

http://www.reclaimin...theApostles.pdf

With regard to the expression "not sparing the flock" in Acts 20:29, you asked a lot of rhetorical questions but didn't explain its relevance to the question about the deaths of the apostles. I understand that you interpret this expression to refer to a complete, total apostasy. I don't, but let that pass: the text does not indicate how the apostles would die, let alone who would kill them. It doesn't say anything about the apostles' death! So I still fail to see the relevance of that text to our discussion here.

Finally, you wrote:

Quote

So, you don't see the irony of a Protestant arguing against a general apostasy?  

No, I don't. Protestantism does not teach that the church ceased to exist on the earth. Rather, it teaches that the church was corrupted and needed to be reformed. What I do find ironic is that you don't seem to know this.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Some of your fellow Mormons assert that there is a "pattern" of how one must receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. I simply asked for a demonstration of this pattern. What you are saying, in effect, is that there is no pattern because the Holy Ghost can be received in all sorts of different ways, but there still is some obligation of undergoing the laying on of hands in order to obtain the Holy Ghost in one specific capacity. So, I conclude that you have conceded that this obligation cannot be supported by reference to any "pattern" in the Bible. Is that correct?

zerinus, on 23 November 2010 - 09:01 AM, said:

The scriptures inform us that we can receive the Holy Ghost in different capacities, measures, and states of being. In John 7:39 we read: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." This scripture tells us that the Holy Ghost was not given until Jesus had been glorified; but we find that the Holy Ghost in mentioned well before Jesus was glorified. Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, and John the Baptist is said to have been filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb. Peter tells us that all the ancient prophets spake by the power of the Holy Ghost; and even virtuous people among the unbelieving Gentiles are said to have acted under the influence of the Holy Ghost. So how can that be? How can the Holy Ghost have been so pervasive in times past operating before Jesus was glorified, while John tells us that the Holy Ghost was not given until He was glorified? The answer is that we can receive the Holy Ghost in different capacities and with different conditions attached. There is one of those conditions that it can only be received by the sacrament of the laying on of hands, and not in any other way. That is the theological explanation, if you can detach yourself from too strict an adherence to the verbal expressions used in the scriptures in which that doctrine is semantically expressed.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 09:06 AM, said:

Protestantism does not teach that the church ceased to exist on the earth.

Of course, you HAVE to believe that regardless of the evidence.

Quote

Rather, it teaches that the church was corrupted and needed to be reformed.

"corrupted"?   But not apostate in doctrine and practice?  Right.

Quote

What I do find ironic is that you don't seem to know this.

Indeed.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 09:06 AM, said:

I understand that you interpret this expression to refer to a complete, total apostasy. I don't, but let that pass:

Ah, yes, "let that pass".  Why? Because it would be counter productive to your agenda?

It doesn't mean what is says?  Or you don't believe that it means what it says?

Ah, yes, "let that pass".

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I have no problem discussing anything. My point was that the question of whether Acts 20:29 refers to a total apostasy has no bearing on the question of who killed the apostles.

Is it possible you are trying to divert attention from your inability to offer a coherent position on that question?

Vance, on 23 November 2010 - 09:29 AM, said:

Ah, yes, "let that pass".  Why? Because it would be counter productive to your agenda?

It doesn't mean what is says?  Or you don't believe that it means what it says?

Ah, yes, "let that pass".

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 23 November 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

Of course, you HAVE to believe that regardless of the evidence.

You seem very confused. If as a Protestant evangelical I "HAVE to believe" that the church did not cease to exist, then what is the "irony" in me as a Protestant evangelical denying the idea that the church ceased to exist???

[Hick Preacher]

A side note-

Most Evangelicals are actually more in line with being Restorationists, than Protestants.

And also Evangelicalism encompasses a much broader set of ideas broader than those found with in the ideas than found alone in the Reformation and Restorationist movements. There are even Roman Catholics that are very Evangelical in orientation.

Evangelicalism holds that the preached word of God can invoke the power of the Holy Ghost toward the salvation of souls who hear and accept its gospel message.

Evangelicals believe that the Heavens are Open to Believers for  Direct and Personal Revelation by the power of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost).  

This indwelling belief is the origin of the popular saying in Evangelical culture concerning having a “personal relationship”with Jesus Christ.  This bond exists because the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the same being (in different persons)- which elements are  found taught by original Christians in the Bible.   This ultimately means that believers receive ongoing personal communication or  'revelation' directly from God on an ongoing basis due to the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost).

There are millions of Evangelicals who testify that they have had their lives changed and regenerated by having the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  This indwelling is evident by the positive change that has happened in there lives.  Some of these did indeed get the Gift by the Laying on of Hands. Many others however, exhibit the fruits of the Spirit, who never had this rite.

Mormons too, testify that they have the Spirit with them, and have exhibited the fruits, said to have been given by the Laying on of Hands.

But really is is a bit off base to call Evangelicals "Protestants" because Evangelicalism is much broader than the set of things seen in the Reformation. The bulk of Evangelicals are much more like the Restorationists of the 1800s. Yet Evangelicals can range from being Roman Catholic, to being Pentecostal( even non-Trinitarian) in denominational affiliation.

[Vance]

Rob,
This offshoot topic got started by you with this statement.
"If that claim is correct, then it isn't the fault of the Christians between 120 and 1820 that the church was apostate and ceased to exist on the earth. Rather, if the LDS claim is correct, it would seem that it was God's own doing that the church ceased to exist on the earth."

To which I responded.

"Partially true. The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles. After this initial rejection and loss of truth and authority, then no fault can be placed on those that followed."

The current topic is the apostasy.  You are artificially trying to limit it to "who killed the apostles".  The "who" has far less relevance to the "what" (murder of the apostles) was done.

History is clear.  There was severe presecution of the church from out side and internal apostasy and descension.

Corruption indeed.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Putting some words in bold and not others won't hide the issue. You had stated that the apostasy occurred "because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles." So I asked you who "murdered the apostles." That is directly relevant to your statement.

Here's the problem you face: The fact is that people outside the church murdered the apostles. Therefore, the murder of the apostles has no bearing on why there supposedly came to be a complete apostasy. If they were murdered by people outside the church, their murder is no reason for Christ not to appear to other believers and appoint them as apostles to replace those murdered, supposing for the sake of argument that the church needed living apostles on the earth. The fact is that the vast majority of Christians in the first century greatly respected the apostles, and those who didn't but professed to be Christians had nothing to do with their deaths. The only apostle criticized by many people within Christianity during the first century was Paul -- criticism that came mostly from Jewish Christians -- but they had nothing to do with his death. So there simply was no widespread disrespect, let alone rejection, of the apostles in first-century Christianity. Even heretical groups generally acknowledged the authority of the apostles while distorting their teachings (something that continues to happen today, by the way).

Thus, your statement, "The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles," makes no sense historically. Christians as a whole respected the apostles. Non-Christians didn't respect the apostles, but that doesn't explain why new apostles were not appointed as the original apostles died off gradually one or two at a time over a period of some fifty years.

Vance, on 23 November 2010 - 09:52 AM, said:

Rob,
This offshoot topic got started by you with this statement.
"If that claim is correct, then it isn't the fault of the Christians between 120 and 1820 that the church was apostate and ceased to exist on the earth. Rather, if the LDS claim is correct, it would seem that it was God's own doing that the church ceased to exist on the earth."

To which I responded.

"Partially true. The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles. After this initial rejection and loss of truth and authority, then no fault can be placed on those that followed."

The current topic is the apostasy.  You are artificially trying to limit it to "who killed the apostles".  The "who" has far less relevance to the "what" (murder of the apostles) was done.

History is clear.  There was severe presecution of the church from out side and internal apostasy and descension.

Corruption indeed.

[Rob Bowman]

Hick,

Evangelicals are Protestants. More specifically, evangelicals are Protestants who maintain the faith articulated in all of the historic Protestant confessions of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Other groups may use the term "evangelical" as an adjective to describe their emphasis on the gospel (as they understand it), but Roman Catholics are not evangelicals; nor are non-Trinitarian groups evangelicals. For a definition of what evangelicals believe, see the following statement of the World Evangelical Alliance:

http://www.worldevan...mentoffaith.htm

And see the following article for a history of the WEA and further references on evangelicalism:

http://www.worldevan...wea/history.htm

[ELF1024]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 01:58 PM, said:

The LDS Church teaches that in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, you must first be baptized; then you must have hands laid on you by someone authorized to do so; and then, and only then, you may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. One serious problem with this claim is that the Bible reports that a whole household of people—the household of Cornelius—received the gift of the Holy Ghost (i.e., the Holy Spirit) before they were baptized. How does the LDS Church handle this difficulty? It simply denies what is right there in the text.

For example, Gospel Principles claims:



Acts 10, however, says the opposite: that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized:

"While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:44-48, emphasis added).

Luke says that “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” before Peter had even finished speaking, and explicitly explains that this meant that “the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out” on the Gentile family of Cornelius (v. 45). Luke also quotes Peter as calling for them to be baptized because they had “received the Holy Spirit” (v. 47). (By the way, notice that here receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit” is synonymous with receiving the Holy Spirit himself; there is no difference.) The order here is undeniable: first, the receiving of the gift (vv. 44-46); second, baptism (v. 48). Furthermore, since Cornelius and his family had not yet been baptized when they received the gift, clearly no one had laid hands on them to impart the gift. We must conclude, then, that these people received the gift of the Holy Spirit before they had been either baptized or had hands laid on them.

Although honest people can disagree about many things, in this instance there really is no room for doubt that the statement made by Gospel Principles—that “Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized”—is flat wrong. Furthermore, it is difficult to see this claim as anything but a deliberate distortion of the facts. This false statement, in clear, explicit contradiction of Acts 10:44-48, has appeared in Gospel Principles from the very first edition over thirty years ago (see Gospel Principles, 1978 ed., 101). More than that, the LDS Church has been contradicting Acts 10 on this point since Joseph Smith himself. In 1842, Joseph made the following comments:



LDS leaders have quoted these statements from Joseph Smith, including in general conference, to support their doctrine that one can only receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by someone holding the LDS priesthood. For example, in 2003 Joseph B. Wirthin quoted the above statements from Smith and commented:

“The gift of the Holy Ghost, which is the right to receive the Holy Ghost as a constant companion, is obtained only upon condition of faith in Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion, and the laying on of hands by authorized servants endowed with the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is a most precious gift available only to worthy members of the Lord’s Church” (“The Unspeakable Gift,” Ensign [conference report], May 2003, 26).

The LDS Church has been perpetuating this falsehood ever since Joseph Smith and continues to do so today in a doctrinal manual that all Mormons are currently studying. Again, honest and sincere people can disagree about many things, but I cannot see any plausible way of denying that in this instance Joseph Smith and the LDS Church is simply wrong.

There is absolutely a difference between having the Holy Ghost dwell within you for a short time, and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Anyone, and everyone is open to the occasional promptings of the Holy Ghost. Anyone may indeed recieve personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, how would a non-member who has not been baptized by authority know of the truthfulness of the Gospel?

That is different than the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Which is a much stronger bond with the Holy Ghost than just the occasional visit.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

You wrote:

ELF1024, on 23 November 2010 - 12:18 PM, said:

There is absolutely a difference between having the Holy Ghost dwell within you for a short time, and having the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Anyone, and everyone is open to the occasional promptings of the Holy Ghost. Anyone may indeed recieve personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, how would a non-member who has not been baptized by authority know of the truthfulness of the Gospel?

That is different than the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Which is a much stronger bond with the Holy Ghost than just the occasional visit.

I understand this is the LDS position. It doesn't address the issue I raised in my opening post, which is that according to Acts 10:44-48 Cornelius received the Gift of the Holy Ghost (not just an occasional visit or short indwelling) before he was baptized.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

You had stated that the apostasy occurred "because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles." So I asked you who "murdered the apostles." That is directly relevant to your statement.

The murder of the Apostles was part of the problem.  Rejecting their teachings was the other part of the problem.

Quote

Here's the problem you face: The fact is that people outside the church murdered the apostles.

Like I said, the "who" is less important than the fact that the apostles were murdered.  Taken from the church by violent death.  This coupled with the apostasy WITHIN the church caused the total loss of authority and the loss of sound doctrine.

Quote

Therefore, the murder of the apostles has no bearing on why there supposedly came to be a complete apostasy.

It has bearing in that the apostles were the guardians of authority and sound doctrine.

Quote

If they were murdered by people outside the church, their murder is no reason for Christ not to appear to other believers and appoint them as apostles to replace those murdered, supposing for the sake of argument that the church needed living apostles on the earth.

Accept for the apostasy within the church, Christ could have done just that.

Quote

The fact is that the vast majority of Christians in the first century greatly respected the apostles, and those who didn't but professed to be Christians had nothing to do with their deaths.

Yea right.

That is why the Lord found only 7 churches worth mentioning in Rev.  And of those 7

1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; . . . 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
  5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

  8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write;. . . behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

  12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; . . . 14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, . . . and to commit fornication.
  15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

  18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; . . .  20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; . . . 3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent.  . . .
  4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

  7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write;

  14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; . . . because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Only two seemed to be functioning properly.  And this at the end of the first century. Not good odds for avoiding a general apostasy.

Quote

Thus, your statement, "The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles," makes no sense historically.

See the above statements given to John.

[ELF1024]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 12:30 PM, said:

ELF,

You wrote:

I understand this is the LDS position. It doesn't address the issue I raised in my opening post, which is that according to Acts 10:44-48 Cornelius received the Gift of the Holy Ghost (not just an occasional visit or short indwelling) before he was baptized.

I would say Acts is mistaken, or altered. Perhaps what we consider the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" is not to what they were reffering to at that time. I would say that the meaning they intended is not what we are reading.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 12:30 PM, said:

I understand this is the LDS position. It doesn't address the issue I raised in my opening post, which is that according to Acts 10:44-48 Cornelius received the Gift of the Holy Ghost (not just an occasional visit or short indwelling) before he was baptized.

You have no basis for making that judgment. It very well could have been (and was) the short term indwelling.

[ELF1024]

Rob Bowman, on 23 November 2010 - 12:30 PM, said:

ELF,

You wrote:

I understand this is the LDS position. It doesn't address the issue I raised in my opening post, which is that according to Acts 10:44-48 Cornelius received the Gift of the Holy Ghost (not just an occasional visit or short indwelling) before he was baptized.

Uh... well... ya know... it IS kinda like a "Mormon Apologetic & Discussion Board"... dude...

Just saying...

[Hick Preacher]

See below-- this was an upload error

Edited by Hick Preacher, 23 November 2010 - 02:17 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

Your statement, which suggests as many as three different explanations, provides another example of the observation that I have made, which is that Mormons are willing to entertain almost any explanation for the discrepancy between Luke and Joseph Smith except that Joseph was wrong.

ELF1024, on 23 November 2010 - 01:13 PM, said:

I would say Acts is mistaken, or altered. Perhaps what we consider the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" is not to what they were reffering to at that time. I would say that the meaning they intended is not what we are reading.

[Hick Preacher]

]


Rob says

Quote

Hick,

Evangelicals are Protestants. More specifically, evangelicals are Protestants who maintain the faith articulated in all of the historic Protestant confessions of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Other groups may use the term "evangelical" as an adjective to describe their emphasis on the gospel (as they understand it), but Roman Catholics are not evangelicals; nor are non-Trinitarian groups evangelicals. For a definition of what evangelicals believe, see the following statement of the World Evangelical Alliance:

http://www.worldevan...mentoffaith.htm

And see the following article for a history of the WEA and further references on evangelicalism:

http://www.worldevan...wea/history.htm

I think this WEA site  contains descriptions that are accurate enough for dealing with Catholics, and High Church people over in Europe and the Eastern USA. This is because many people see all of Christianity as being either Catholic or Protestant. So if Evangelicals are not Catholic, then they would be assumed to be Protestant. For what ever reason, and it is common, the Christian world (in the West) is seen as being two big lumps-- Catholics and Protestants.  The WEA description in my view is a kind of maxim of the two lumps, that does not account for the critical distinctions of belief needed with discussing religious ideas with LDS people.

That is to say creating this WEA dichotomy of labeling Evangelicals a kind of Protestant in these discussions and leads to the problems when communicating religious ideas with LDS people.

  It can lead to certain forms of Mormonism  also being 'Protestant'.  On some level I find the assertions that claim that I would have to take on the mantel of the Protestants as becoming potentially offensive.  And yes there are Catholics who are interfacing with Evangelicalism.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Catholic

I am affiliated with an Evangelical Church that is now non-denominational, but has its roots in the Campbell-Stone Restoration Movement. For the older founders of this Church, to infer that they are 'Protestants' gets you corrected in short order that they are NOT Protestants, but rather Restorationists. This comes with an elaborate history lesson shoved down your throat. I have read their reasoning and it is sound and extensive. These Restorationists are just as militant as Mormons are about not being 'Protestants'. They would fight you in the Church parking lot and not let you sit in Church it you insisted they are 'Protestants", yet they have nothing against Protestants-- but they adhere to their own identity and history.


Mormons and Evangelicals dealing with Mormons should be aware that Sidney Rigdon was a Campbellite Preacher.  Also, 'the First Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel' described in Mormonism are are parallel to those of the Campbellites that pre-date Mormonism. A lot of what we see in the LDS Preparatory Gospel is similar to ideas found in the Campbell-Stone Restoration Movement. Alexander Campbell a dominate preacher in the movement, had a vision of Christ in the Woods and e.l..

  When Mormonism was first founded many in the 1800s considered Mormonism to be an offshoot of the Campbellites. And of course Mormons are not 'Protestants'.

In the most technical sense Church organisations that are tied to the Campbell-Stone movement along with a wide spectrum of other Churches that  are congregationalist in nature are not Protestants in a technical sence. (this would for example included Independent Baptists). This technical sense may be important as it relates to the Latter-day Saint Movement as a king of Restorationism.  Evangelicals have gotten into the habit of calling themselves "Protestants" when they have no direct organisational ties or links to the Reformation of the Roman Catholic religion, aka the Protestant Reformation.   In most situation this does not matter, but it might when Evangelicals communicate certain ideas to Mormons.

It is true that Evangelicals are often classed as Protestants by non-technical encyclopedic taxonomies This is because these simple taxonomies class Christianity  as being universally split three ways into Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant movements. (Two splits in the West).

Under the three way over simple taxonomies many descriptions of a "Protestant" would place Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists as Protestants.

In this same way, Churches that have there roots in the Restorationist movement, and even the Campbell-Stone movement are technically incorrect in being classes as "Protestant". This is even seen in Wikis-
http://en.wikipedia....iples_of_Christ)  

So some taxonomies now place Non-Trinitarian Groups in an  an Ad Hoc non-catagory Then note other odd groups  with another small side note.


Evangelicals however of all kinds (Protestant or otherwise- or what ever one wishes to lump them)  reject the idea of a complete and total Apostasy.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 23 November 2010 - 02:16 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Hick,

It's true that the Churches of Christ and similar groups often deny being "Protestant," and yet some would call themselves "evangelical." Religious terminology is notoriously subject to being reused in different ways. Groups that view themselves as Restorationists rather than Protestants simply do not fit in what is known historically as evangelicalism. However, for sake of clarity, I am comfortable with the term "evangelical Protestantism," which will exclude such groups more clearly.

I have gone on record repeatedly pointing out that there are other forms of Christianity beside Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.