Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

urroner

After What Event Does Christ's Word Count For EVs

Recommended Posts

I was talking with a co-worker the other day and he started poking fun of me for being a Mormon and feeling that the commandments were very important to my salvation. He's Evangelical and this type of fun goes on at work and nobody takes it seriously.

Anyway, so I shot back with "If commandments weren't important, why did he say "If ye love me, keep my commandments?"

He said that Christ was talking to a bunch of Jews at the time who were under the Law of Moses and that at the time of his resurrection, it all changed and what was taught before then wasn't in force any more.

The conversation ended there because we had to go to another BOGSAT (Bunch Of Guys Sitting Around a Table) meeting.

So, do EVs really believe that this scripture was only meant for Jews living under the Law of Moses before Christ's resurrection and what is this about the teachings of Christ before the resurrection weren't in force after the resurrection? Was he telling me true EV doctrine or was it something that most EVs don't agree with?

Share this post


Link to post

You should have asked him... "If that's why Paul told 'a bunch of Gentiles' to keep the 10 commandments too ?"

Romans 1

7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 13 1

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God

Share this post


Link to post

why Paul told 'a bunch of Gentiles' to keep the 10 commandments too?

I don't count ten there.

Did Paul peal away a few of the less important ones?

UD

Share this post


Link to post

I don't count ten there.

Did Paul peal away a few of the less important ones?

UD

Verse 9 covers that...

and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

This verse throws a wrench into the doctrines of Many Evangelical Pastors I've heard preaching over the years.

Share this post


Link to post

Verse 9 covers that...

if there be any other commandment...

Paul seems to lump the first commandment in with being nice

to your neighbors. -- IF it even applies at all...

Perhaps he didn't recall the story of Aaron placating his neighbors.

UD

Share this post


Link to post

I was talking with a co-worker the other day and he started poking fun of me for being a Mormon and feeling that the commandments were very important to my salvation. He's Evangelical and this type of fun goes on at work and nobody takes it seriously.

Anyway, so I shot back with "If commandments weren't important, why did he say "If ye love me, keep my commandments?"

He said that Christ was talking to a bunch of Jews at the time who were under the Law of Moses and that at the time of his resurrection, it all changed and what was taught before then wasn't in force any more.

The conversation ended there because we had to go to another BOGSAT (Bunch Of Guys Sitting Around a Table) meeting.

So, do EVs really believe that this scripture was only meant for Jews living under the Law of Moses before Christ's resurrection and what is this about the teachings of Christ before the resurrection weren't in force after the resurrection? Was he telling me true EV doctrine or was it something that most EVs don't agree with?

I've never heard that interpretation before.

I don't believe it was only meant for the Jews following the Law of Moses. I believe, if we love Jesus, we will follow him in faith.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems as if you havent posting on the intenet much. This interpretation is pretty prevalent in EV / Mormon dialogs in places such as CARM, Walter Martin, Concerned Christians and others.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems as if you havent posting on the intenet much. This interpretation is pretty prevalent in EV / Mormon dialogs in places such as CARM, Walter Martin, Concerned Christians and others.

Actually, I do post (or did, anyway) fairly often in all of those places. I think you and the author of the thread are misunderstanding the EV position on this.

Jesus did fulfill the Jewish law, but we are still obliged to follow the moral laws. Ev's do not believe this has anything to do with salvation, though. That is where they differ from LDS. Following the commandments is a by-product of salvation (stemming from the pure love of Christ). So, it follows that if one is saved they will be trying very hard to follow God's commandments. The moral law is still in effect and still considered sin that must be washed away by the blood of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post

Following the commandments is a by-product of salvation (stemming from the pure love of Christ).

So, when did it change from,

" . . . if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt 19:17)

to,

"Following the commandments is a by-product of salvation"

?????

So, it follows that if one is saved they will be trying very hard to follow God's commandments.

"trying"??????

If it is a "by-product", how can it be "trying very hard"?

Share this post


Link to post

Jesus did fulfill the Jewish law, but we are still obliged to follow the moral laws. Ev's do not believe this has anything to do with salvation, though.

This is the part I find difficult to understand. If we are still obliged to follow the moral laws then why does it have nothing to do with salvation?
That is where they differ from LDS. Following the commandments is a by-product of salvation (stemming from the pure love of Christ). So, it follows that if one is saved they will be trying very hard to follow God's commandments.
So if following the commandments is a by-product of salvation, then a truly saved person should have no problem following the commandments... unless we are saved only to the extent that we follow the commandments and that salvation is a process by which we become perfect in Christ (which is what Mormons believe)
The moral law is still in effect and still considered sin that must be washed away by the blood of Christ.
So if this is the case how is this any different from the LDS doctrine of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring in faith to the end?

Share this post


Link to post

I was talking with a co-worker the other day and he started poking fun of me for being a Mormon and feeling that the commandments were very important to my salvation. He's Evangelical and this type of fun goes on at work and nobody takes it seriously.

Anyway, so I shot back with "If commandments weren't important, why did he say "If ye love me, keep my commandments?"

He said that Christ was talking to a bunch of Jews at the time who were under the Law of Moses and that at the time of his resurrection, it all changed and what was taught before then wasn't in force any more.

The conversation ended there because we had to go to another BOGSAT (Bunch Of Guys Sitting Around a Table) meeting.

So, do EVs really believe that this scripture was only meant for Jews living under the Law of Moses before Christ's resurrection and what is this about the teachings of Christ before the resurrection weren't in force after the resurrection? Was he telling me true EV doctrine or was it something that most EVs don't agree with?

Hi Urroner,

Dispensationalism teaches that one must "rightly divide the word of truth" per the 2nd letter to Timothy 2:15 in the King James Version. They start with the premise that no one believes everything in the Bible is equally applicable to us today. They then proceed to divide those Scriptures which apply to the "Church Age" and those which do not. They perceive the Church Age as having been necessary only because of the Jewish rejection of Christ at His First Coming. They firmly believe that the Jews will accept Him at His Second Coming. For that reason, there are passages, even in the New Testament, which are applicable only to a future age, after the Church is removed, when the Law will return.

James 2, where many evangelicals have difficulty because of the clear expectation of James that works is necessary to make failth "living" is no problem for the Dispensationalist. By "rightly dividing the Word" between what applies when, it is determined that James 2 applies to this future dispensation, when the Church is gone and salvation is by the Jews. How so, you ask? Easy. The author clearly addresses his audience in James 1:1..."to the twelve tribes scattered abroad". Likewise, the letter to the Hebrews is an obvious book that will usually be assigned to the Jewish dispensation. The Gospels, since they are often speaking to Jews who still have not rejected Christ, reflect the doctrine which they say cannot be reconciled with the pure teachings of grace usually found in the Pauline epistles.

It is very interesting that Dispensationalists actually interpret the meaning of the passages which Catholics or Mormons will cite in favor of faith and works the same as we do. If I only had a Bible without history or tradition I would still find it appealing as I once did. It is very clever. The problem for me, a guy who now wants continuity with the Apostles, is that nobody ever thought of it until around the end of the 19th Century. You don't have to go deep in history to reject dispensationalism. So the problem is not biblical illiteracy. Dispensationalists usually know their Bibles very well. I concede that their theories are really brilliant. They used to have a big seminary in Dallas. I am sure it is still there. Maybe it is called simply Dallas Theological Seminary? I was thinking Zondervan was their publishing arm. (I might be wrong about that). Lewis Sperry Chafer compiled the first systematic theology in the 1920's, and the famous Scofield Reference Bible comes from the teens.

By the time I became Catholic and lost track of that crowd they were all over the map. They range from those who restrict Church Age doctrine to the "prison epistles" and Acts after Paul's last frustrating encounter with a Jewish audience (Ac. 28) where he proclaimed he was turning to the Gentiles. These are usually called "utlra-dispensationalist" by the more moderate crowd who begin the Church Age in Acts 2 with Pentecost, or ch. 9 with the conversion of the Apostle to the Gentiles. But both groups will reject James, Hebrews, and portions of the Gospels and Revelation. You just have to be "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing." They do believe in working at their Bible study, but of course, I don't accept that they have, with all their cleverness, the authority to proclaim a teaching that was never heard for the first 19 centuries after the Resurrection of the Lord!

Finally, the doctrine of the "pre-tribulation rapture" is one appealing aspect of their doctrine which is often found among those who don't even really understand dispensationalism and why the Church needs, from a dispensationalist perspective, to be removed.

As usual, you can't understand Evangelicals by hoping they agree and believe in the same things. Most dispensationalists will be found among baptistic groups as opposed to your Reformed (Calvinists), Lutherans, or Anglican branched communities. Besides the fact that dispensationalist can't agree with each other, there is vigorous disagreement between the teachings of what is commonly called "covenant theology" which is usually associated with the latter groups, and the dispensationalists.

If you want to see some of the debate online, I suspect you can find it by googling the names Tommy Ice (dispensational) and Gary North or Greg Bahnsen (covenant theology). Interestingly, I just googled myself and found an article by Ice...he calls himself Thomas now. Anyway...he is actually arguing for the historicity of the Rapture doctrine!

http://www.rapturere...udoEphraem.html

Share this post


Link to post

I was talking with a co-worker the other day and he started poking fun of me for being a Mormon and feeling that the commandments were very important to my salvation. He's Evangelical and this type of fun goes on at work and nobody takes it seriously.

Anyway, so I shot back with "If commandments weren't important, why did he say "If ye love me, keep my commandments?"

He said that Christ was talking to a bunch of Jews at the time who were under the Law of Moses and that at the time of his resurrection, it all changed and what was taught before then wasn't in force any more.

The conversation ended there because we had to go to another BOGSAT (Bunch Of Guys Sitting Around a Table) meeting.

So, do EVs really believe that this scripture was only meant for Jews living under the Law of Moses before Christ's resurrection and what is this about the teachings of Christ before the resurrection weren't in force after the resurrection? Was he telling me true EV doctrine or was it something that most EVs don't agree with?

Which "commandments" are you talking about? Are you referring to the Bible in general or the extra ones added on by Joseph Smith? I do believe we have to keep the commandments set forth by Jesus Christ, he went as far as to expound on the commandments at the sermon on the mount. However I don't believe myself or any non-LDS is bound to abstaining from coffee or tea, accepting the Book of Mormon, the D&C,Pearl of Great Price,or LDS prophets.

Share this post


Link to post

Which "commandments" are you talking about? Are you referring to the Bible in general or the extra ones added on by Joseph Smith? I do believe we have to keep the commandments set forth by Jesus Christ, he went as far as to expound on the commandments at the sermon on the mount. However I don't believe myself or any non-LDS is bound to abstaining from coffee or tea, accepting the Book of Mormon, the D&C,Pearl of Great Price,or LDS prophets.

Duh, what do you think I meant? Honestly, do you think I expect EVers and other Protestants or even Catholics to be bound to the teachings of the BofM, the D&C, the PofGP, or even those of the latter day prophets.

No, MA0414, my friend was talking about any commandment given before the Resurrection, including any of those given in the OT and almost all of the Gospels. The commandments in the Sermon on the Mount was given before the Resurrection and it was given to the Jews, therefore it doesn't count any more.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, I do post (or did, anyway) fairly often in all of those places. I think you and the author of the thread are misunderstanding the EV position on this.

Jesus did fulfill the Jewish law, but we are still obliged to follow the moral laws. Ev's do not believe this has anything to do with salvation, though. That is where they differ from LDS. Following the commandments is a by-product of salvation (stemming from the pure love of Christ). So, it follows that if one is saved they will be trying very hard to follow God's commandments. The moral law is still in effect and still considered sin that must be washed away by the blood of Christ.

Christ issued commandments, but they are not necessary for salvation. At this point, the first question is: Do you have to obey them? Next: Could a person be saved who did not follow the moral laws? Finally, given that I do not believe that works save us, but rather the combination of faith and works, how is that view of theology functionally different from yours?

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Urroner,

Dispensationalism teaches that one must "rightly divide the word of truth" per the 2nd letter to Timothy 2:15 in the King James Version. They start with the premise that no one believes everything in the Bible is equally applicable to us today. They then proceed to divide those Scriptures which apply to the "Church Age" and those which do not. They perceive the Church Age as having been necessary only because of the Jewish rejection of Christ at His First Coming. They firmly believe that the Jews will accept Him at His Second Coming. For that reason, there are passages, even in the New Testament, which are applicable only to a future age, after the Church is removed, when the Law will return.

James 2, where many evangelicals have difficulty because of the clear expectation of James that works is necessary to make failth "living" is no problem for the Dispensationalist. By "rightly dividing the Word" between what applies when, it is determined that James 2 applies to this future dispensation, when the Church is gone and salvation is by the Jews. How so, you ask? Easy. The author clearly addresses his audience in James 1:1..."to the twelve tribes scattered abroad". Likewise, the letter to the Hebrews is an obvious book that will usually be assigned to the Jewish dispensation. The Gospels, since they are often speaking to Jews who still have not rejected Christ, reflect the doctrine which they say cannot be reconciled with the pure teachings of grace usually found in the Pauline epistles.

It is very interesting that Dispensationalists actually interpret the meaning of the passages which Catholics or Mormons will cite in favor of faith and works the same as we do. If I only had a Bible without history or tradition I would still find it appealing as I once did. It is very clever. The problem for me, a guy who now wants continuity with the Apostles, is that nobody ever thought of it until around the end of the 19th Century. You don't have to go deep in history to reject dispensationalism. So the problem is not biblical illiteracy. Dispensationalists usually know their Bibles very well. I concede that their theories are really brilliant. They used to have a big seminary in Dallas. I am sure it is still there. Maybe it is called simply Dallas Theological Seminary? I was thinking Zondervan was their publishing arm. (I might be wrong about that). Lewis Sperry Chafer compiled the first systematic theology in the 1920's, and the famous Scofield Reference Bible comes from the teens.

By the time I became Catholic and lost track of that crowd they were all over the map. They range from those who restrict Church Age doctrine to the "prison epistles" and Acts after Paul's last frustrating encounter with a Jewish audience (Ac. 28) where he proclaimed he was turning to the Gentiles. These are usually called "utlra-dispensationalist" by the more moderate crowd who begin the Church Age in Acts 2 with Pentecost, or ch. 9 with the conversion of the Apostle to the Gentiles. But both groups will reject James, Hebrews, and portions of the Gospels and Revelation. You just have to be "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing." They do believe in working at their Bible study, but of course, I don't accept that they have, with all their cleverness, the authority to proclaim a teaching that was never heard for the first 19 centuries after the Resurrection of the Lord!

Finally, the doctrine of the "pre-tribulation rapture" is one appealing aspect of their doctrine which is often found among those who don't even really understand dispensationalism and why the Church needs, from a dispensationalist perspective, to be removed.

As usual, you can't understand Evangelicals by hoping they agree and believe in the same things. Most dispensationalists will be found among baptistic groups as opposed to your Reformed (Calvinists), Lutherans, or Anglican branched communities. Besides the fact that dispensationalist can't agree with each other, there is vigorous disagreement between the teachings of what is commonly called "covenant theology" which is usually associated with the latter groups, and the dispensationalists.

If you want to see some of the debate online, I suspect you can find it by googling the names Tommy Ice (dispensational) and Gary North or Greg Bahnsen (covenant theology). Interestingly, I just googled myself and found an article by Ice...he calls himself Thomas now. Anyway...he is actually arguing for the historicity of the Rapture doctrine!

http://www.rapturere...udoEphraem.html

Thanks Rory. Reading your post made me think of the astronomers of yore who attempted the define the orbit of the planets around the Earth in the geocentric universe. The planets were making all sorts of loops within the orbit and their attempt to explain these orbits became more complex and harder to understand as they kept finding errors in their explanations.

Finally, when science discovered that the solar system was not geocentric, rather heliocentric, the math became easier and the explanations became simple and very easy to understand. It even explained the apparent retrograde motions of the planets.

Share this post


Link to post

So, when did it change from,

" . . . if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt 19:17)

to,

"Following the commandments is a by-product of salvation"

?????

Probably when you read Ephesians...specifically 2:8-9. :P

(I want to clarify that I'm explaining what I understand of conservative Protestant (mostly Reformed) belief...not, necessarily, my own beliefs, which are kind of in transition, right now)

"trying"??????

If it is a "by-product", how can it be "trying very hard"?

Yes, trying, out of love for Christ. Again, according to a conservative EV interpretation (and probably an LDS interpretation to some degree) we are still prone to sin, even after we have been saved..and will be, as long as we are in the flesh. It's just that we have less desire to sin and more freedom to turn away from it, once Jesus is in our lives and the Spirit lives within.

Share this post


Link to post

This is the part I find difficult to understand. If we are still obliged to follow the moral laws then why does it have nothing to do with salvation?

From an Ev perspective, salvation is of God, period. Sinful people simply cannot save themselves.

My personal view is moving away from the whole dynamic of sin and punishment and more towards a simple path to God. An awareness of God. When we have that experiential awareness and connection with God, then our lives change and we more naturally follow God's laws. So, I do still believe our behavior is a by-product of our relationship (or lack thereof) with God. I think certain practices (like prayer/meditation, for example) can help bring us to a better awareness of God, which in turn will change our behavior (naturally).

So if following the commandments is a by-product of salvation, then a truly saved person should have no problem following the commandments... unless we are saved only to the extent that we follow the commandments and that salvation is a process by which we become perfect in Christ (which is what Mormons believe)

Yes, I actually do (personally) lean towards the latter. I wouldn't even use the term salvation, but awareness of God. The more aware we are of the Presence, the more likely we will reflect it.

So if this is the case how is this any different from the LDS doctrine of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring in faith to the end?

If those things truly lead you to God, in a real/experiential way, I would say, no difference. That's my personal opinion. Ev's will beg to differ, I'm sure. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Probably when you read Ephesians...specifically 2:8-9. :P

Ephesians?

Let's see. Ephesians was written no earlier than 62 AD. So nearly thirty years passed before the change?

Share this post


Link to post

Ephesians?

Let's see. Ephesians was written no earlier than 62 AD. So nearly thirty years passed before the change?

Vance, it wasn't considered "a change". Ev's believe James is God-inspired, just as much as Ephesians. Most consider the entire Bible inerrant.

Share this post


Link to post

But most EV types I've run into forget the next verse...

Eph 2

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Share this post


Link to post

So, do EVs really believe that this scripture was only meant for Jews living under the Law of Moses before Christ's resurrection and what is this about the teachings of Christ before the resurrection weren't in force after the resurrection? Was he telling me true EV doctrine or was it something that most EVs don't agree with?

I know of at least one EV poster that used to post here that held this view. You knew him too. You could play basket ball with him or IOW you could shoot the Hoops.

Share this post


Link to post

Which "commandments" are you talking about? Are you referring to the Bible in general or the extra ones added on by Joseph Smith? I do believe we have to keep the commandments set forth by Jesus Christ, he went as far as to expound on the commandments at the sermon on the mount.

Good.

However I don't believe myself or any non-LDS is bound to abstaining from coffee or tea, accepting the Book of Mormon, the D&C,Pearl of Great Price,or LDS prophets.

So a...... who has argued that if you are not LDS you must accept the WoW or the D&C and BoM? What a silly post Misty.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, I do post (or did, anyway) fairly often in all of those places. I think you and the author of the thread are misunderstanding the EV position on this.

I think the majority view is that you should keep the commandments. However I know there are EVies out there that believe that it there is an age of Grace and a Church age were Jesus was specifically talking to the Jews and those commandments were ment solely for them.

Jesus did fulfill the Jewish law, but we are still obliged to follow the moral laws. Ev's do not believe this has anything to do with salvation, though. That is where they differ from LDS. Following the commandments is a by-product of salvation (stemming from the pure love of Christ). So, it follows that if one is saved they will be trying very hard to follow God's commandments. The moral law is still in effect and still considered sin that must be washed away by the blood of Christ.

As others have pointed out there appears to be a problem with this. As you know (or might not know) the only time Faith alone is used is when James uses it to tell us that it is dead if Faith is alone. One cannot be saved with out works. How can one be saved with out works if faith is dead being alone? And if one cannot be saved with out works how could works be a by product of salvation if you need works to make faith alive to be saved? What works are is a by product of faith. You cannot separate the 2. IOW a mer beleif will not save some one.

Share this post


Link to post

I was talking with a co-worker the other day and he started poking fun of me for being a Mormon and feeling that the commandments were very important to my salvation. He's Evangelical and this type of fun goes on at work and nobody takes it seriously.

Anyway, so I shot back with "If commandments weren't important, why did he say "If ye love me, keep my commandments?"

He said that Christ was talking to a bunch of Jews at the time who were under the Law of Moses and that at the time of his resurrection, it all changed and what was taught before then wasn't in force any more.

The conversation ended there because we had to go to another BOGSAT (Bunch Of Guys Sitting Around a Table) meeting.

So, do EVs really believe that this scripture was only meant for Jews living under the Law of Moses before Christ's resurrection and what is this about the teachings of Christ before the resurrection weren't in force after the resurrection? Was he telling me true EV doctrine or was it something that most EVs don't agree with?

That makes a lot of sense, actually. It would explain why EVs seem to ignore everything Christ said aside from John 3:16 and instead focus on Paul.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance, it wasn't considered "a change".

It doesn't matter what it was "considered" to be. To say that the words of Christ have less importance to us than the words of Paul (as misinterpreted by EVs) is ridiculous.

Ev's believe James is God-inspired, just as much as Ephesians.

That is what they say, just before they reject the clear and plain meaning of James' words in exchange for their misinterpreted words of Paul.

Most consider the entire Bible inerrant.

Yes, that is what they say, just before they throw all but a few verses from Romans, Galatians and Ephesians under the EV bus. (At least when in a discussion with Mormons, they may talk differently amongst themselves, I wouldn't know.)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...