Jump to content

A Misconception Regarding Catholicism And Mormonism's Exclusivity Claims.


Oceansun

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

I just wanted to make a point or two regarding all of the comments I've seen around here that speak to the belief that God's "true church" can only be the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints due to the exclusivity claims made by each. I happen to be an Evangelical Christian. Most of you would label me a "Protestant". This brings me to the heart of the issue I have. Comments have been made that protestants would go down with the catholics were the Roman Catholic Church's "one true church" exclusivity claim incorrect.

I totally disagree with this on the basis of the fact that there is NO evidence that Peter was ever a "Pope" or that there was ever even a "Papacy" in place until few hundred of years after Jesus Christ was crucified. In addition, there is also no evidence of there having been a system of "cardinals" and "bishops" during the life of Jesus or immediately thereafter (Jesus was crucified circa 30AD). In fact, the Jews were actually expelled from Rome circa 50 AD, and Peter (if there) would have been one of them (especially since it was his job to minister to them).

My point is that the earliest christians were NOT Roman Catholic. They had been students of Jesus Christ, or disciples with the Apostles, or had been evangelized by the Apostles/new disciples in their travels. The book of Acts gives us a great look at the early church and it looked NOTHING like the Roman Catholic Church. In all of Paul's letters to the various churches there is never any mention of Peter as Pope or that any special deference should be given Peter. Paul teaches nothing similar to catholic tradition, and Peter himself in 1Peter and 2Peter gives us nothing that would even come close to resembling catholic traditonal beliefs and practices. You simply cannot get Roman Catholicism from the Bible. It's just not there.

Now, please understand that I'm not trying to trash Roman Catholicism. Moreover, I certainly am NOT going to attempt to pass judgements on the hearts of Roman Catholics in the same way I would NEVER judge the hearts of the Latter Day Saints or ANYONE for that matter. I am only trying to point out that the fate of so-called "protestants" is definately NOT riding on whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is the "one true church".

Evangelical Christians were here years BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church was ever even close to being organized. I say this because I am going on the teachings of Jesus, Peter, John, and Paul in regards to what THEY taught in the Bible. Even if you do believe that Jesus made Peter the "rock upon which the church is built" (which I do not, but that is yet another argument for another day), that still does not give you "Roman Catholicism".

It is my assertion that it was Roman Catholicism that broke off of Evangelical Christianity, took charge and then had the nerve to label christians "protestants" when they broke away and decided to reform.

If Roman Catholicism is indeed not the "true church" it has absolutely NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on "protestantism". Evangelical Christians may have some minor differences (especially in practices) but we are ALL united when it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We believe the "one true church" is comprised of all those who accept Jesus Christ by faith as Lord and Savior.

I understand that many of you here will disagree with my above statement as it pertains to what we, evangelical christians, believe about what exactly is the "true church". That's okay. I did not post this in an attempt to convince anyone that they are wrong about what they believe it to be. I am posting this because I have seen many LDS post topics in an attempt to clarify what they believe and why they believe it when someone gets it wrong. As an Evangelical Christian I am simply doing the same thing. I also understand that my using the term "evangelical" will make some of you cringe. I stand in disagreement with any evangelical christian that has ever attempted to judge your heart in regards to God or Salvation. I simply consider myself a humble christian, not a "protestant this" or an "evangelical that". I do however disagree with the LDS claims to being the "one true church", but I support your right to believe it.

I believe that it's necessary to inform others when you disagree, but it is not our place to judge them.

Anyway I hope I have clarified the christian stance on the Roman Catholic claims to exclusivity and how that relates to us "protestants". :P

God Bless You All,

Ocean

Link to comment

I find it interesting that the Council of Nicea was called by Emporer Constantine, and the representative from Rome did not play any particular leadership role in this Council.

Apparently the Christians at that time did not recognize Rome in any way prominent in Christian leadership. Certainly not the Seat of Peter.

Link to comment

I've also found that famous quote ("Either LDS or Catholic, Protestants have no leg to stand on!") to be less than convincing. Assuming that it's either the LDS church or the Catholic church that is true, the quote would carry more weight. But what if the Protestants are right? <_<

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

I've also found that famous quote ("Either LDS or Catholic, Protestants have no leg to stand on!") to be less than convincing. Assuming that it's either the LDS church or the Catholic church that is true, the quote would carry more weight. But what if the Protestants are right? <_<

Take care, everyone :P

If the Protestants are right-and we are saved by true, living faith in Christ which is shown by us being willing to obey God and nothing else-then both Catholics and LDS are saved right along with them-as 'true' catholics and mormons already have such faith and live such a life.

Which seems to suggest that whether or not Protestantism ever existed would not matter as far as salvation was concerned.

:unsure:

Link to comment
But what if the Protestants are right?

They can't be. If there was no universal apostasy, then the Catholic church, flawed though it may be, is it. If there was a universal apostasy, then the Church must be restored and the LDS Church gains primacy. Since the Bible clearly predicts the universal apostasy and restoration, the Catholics and Protestants are both in a bind although one could simply look at the Biblical inconsistency of their doctrines and see their problem from that angle as well.

What the Catholics should have done is NOT have claimed unbroken descent from Peter, but rather, realized the differences in doctrine between the early and the later Fathers and claimed to be the Restored Church. They might even be able to get away with it now as the doctrinal differences between early and late are quite stark.

Link to comment

Can EV Christianity then prove continuity of authority or correct teachings from the time of Peter down to the present day? The only thing I have ever seen in this regard is a Baptist writer (19th century, I believe) who claimed that independent, individual congregations were what the Lord intended the Church to evolve into after His death, and that such independent "Baptist" congregations had always existed since then. I found little to support such a claim.

Link to comment

If the Protestants are right-and we are saved by true, living faith in Christ which is shown by us being willing to obey God and nothing else-then both Catholics and LDS are saved right along with them-as 'true' catholics and mormons already have such faith and live such a life.

Which seems to suggest that whether or not Protestantism ever existed would not matter as far as salvation was concerned.

:P

Unless, of course, we are "saved" from this-worldly bondage to unrighteous authority structures and doctrinal ignorance, as well as from Hell.

-CK

Link to comment

Oceansun,

I totally disagree with this on the basis of the fact that there is NO evidence that Peter was ever a "Pope" or that there was ever even a "Papacy" in place until few hundred of years after Jesus Christ was crucified.

We LDS would agree.

My point is that the earliest christians were NOT Roman Catholic.

Agreed.

In all of Paul's letters to the various churches there is never any mention of Peter as Pope or that any special deference should be given Peter.

True enough, although Matthew 16-18 is pretty definite.

I am only trying to point out that the fate of so-called "protestants" is definately NOT riding on whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is the "one true church".

Wellâ?¦as an LDS I agree, but not for the reason you do.

Evangelical Christians were here years BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church was ever even close to being organized. I say this because I am going on the teachings of Jesus, Peter, John, and Paul in regards to what THEY taught in the Bible.

Youâ??re running into a sever problem. First, the term evangelical Christian is anachronisticâ?¦just like the papacy. Moreover, what is â??taught,â? such as the trinity, was defined and enforced by the (RCC) councils. One of the main arguments contra the LDS is their lack of â??traditionalâ? understandings, and that argument rests solely on the shoulders of these counsels.

Even if you do believe that Jesus made Peter the "rock upon which the church is built" (which I do not, but that is yet another argument for another day), that still does not give you "Roman Catholicism".

Agreed!!

It is my assertion that it was Roman Catholicism that broke off of Evangelical Christianity, took charge and then had the nerve to label christians "protestants" when they broke away and decided to reform.

Terribly inaccurate. There was no such thing, and what exists to day of Evangelical Christianity is in direct response to these counsels.

If Roman Catholicism is indeed not the "true church" it has absolutely NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on "protestantism".

Agreedâ?¦but not for the reason that you believe it.

I do however disagree with the LDS claims to being the "one true church", but I support your right to believe it.

And thatâ??s why the issue is really one of authorityâ?¦not just Catholic authority.

Rhino,

I've also found that famous quote ("Either LDS or Catholic, Protestants have no leg to stand on!") to be less than convincing. Assuming that it's either the LDS church or the Catholic church that is true, the quote would carry more weight. But what if the Protestants are right?

Then who knows what to believeâ?¦evidently authority isnâ??t a necessity for interpretation which reasons that RCC and Protestants have no corner on that market, and no certain possibility to undue the centuries of definitional conundrums.

PacMan

P.S. In an analysis of alpha and beta errors, the only thing that makes sense is to be Mormon. Know why is that?

Link to comment

They can't be. If there was no universal apostasy, then the Catholic church, flawed though it may be, is it. If there was a universal apostasy, then the Church must be restored and the LDS Church gains primacy.

What if the "apostasy" and the claim to authority/exclusivity are one and the same? Then the Protestants would be right. What you've erected is called a false dichotomy.

Can EV Christianity then prove continuity of authority or correct teachings from the time of Peter down to the present day?

Why in the world would we want to do that? We don't believe in apostolic succession. At least not in the sense that the LDS and Catholics believe it.

-CK

Link to comment

What if the "apostasy" and the claim to authority/exclusivity are one and the same? Then the Protestants would be right. What you've erected is called a false dichotomy.

And if we mixed matter and anti-matter, that'd be the end of us all.

I'm lost as your hypothetical. Authority is a New Testament principle, so I can't see how it evolved from the apostasy.

PacMan

Link to comment

They can't be. If there was no universal apostasy, then the Catholic church, flawed though it may be, is it.

I cannot speak for the Protestant position, but as I understand it, the issue really came down to priesthood authority.... the priesthood of the church leaders vs. the priesthood of the believers.

If the Protestant church is true, there was no "apostacy" but a misappropriation of leadership. The Catholic church is also "true" but fails the claim of exclusivity.

So where does that leave the Mormons? That is why I asked (repeatedly) my question.

Link to comment

And if we mixed matter and anti-matter, that'd be the end of us all.

I'm lost as your hypothetical. Authority is a New Testament principle, so I can't see how it evolved from the apostasy.

PacMan

The New Testament itself contains a variety of views on authority. It (the NT canon) was assembled by Roman Catholic males, so I am not surprised to find in it documents like 1 Timothy, which asserts the authority of males over females and enjoins submission to authority figures. Yet at the same time we have Jesus telling us not to let anyone call us "Rabbi"! In any case, I do not see in the pages of the New Testament any evidence of authority as it is practiced in the RCC and LDS churches: i.e. a priesthood authority that privileges a few men by virtue of their position and gender. Rather, I see a charismatic authority that is imparted by the Holy Spirit and that cannot be bought or sold (cf. Simon Magus) the way a bishopric or papacy can.

Blessings,

-CK

Link to comment

I cannot speak for the Protestant position, but as I understand it, the issue really came down to priesthood authority.... the priesthood of the church leaders vs. the priesthood of the believers.

If the Protestant church is true, there was no "apostacy" but a misappropriation of leadership. The Catholic church is also "true" but fails the claim of exclusivity.

So where does that leave the Mormons? That is why I asked (repeatedly) my question.

I would say that their church is also "true", but its claim to exclusivity also fails.

Then again, I'm certain other Protestants would disagree with me. Which is the price we pay for having a priesthood of all believers. It's a price I'm willing to pay, frankly.

-CK

Link to comment

If the Protestants are right-and we are saved by true, living faith in Christ which is shown by us being willing to obey God and nothing else-then both Catholics and LDS are saved right along with them-as 'true' catholics and mormons already have such faith and live such a life.

Which seems to suggest that whether or not Protestantism ever existed would not matter as far as salvation was concerned.

:P

Bluebell,

That is simply not true, and is a common misconception some LDS have with evangelical christianity. As a Christian I believe that it's not necessarily OUR faith and/or "obedience" that saves us but rather the joining of our faith with the proper object to place it in. In other words, our faith is only as good as the object we place it in. If you place your faith in a toad or a tree for example, it will not save your soul as it has no power to do so.

Well, we believe the same is true of Jesus Christ. The Bible warns us of the existence of false Christs. Understand that I mean no offense by saying this, but evangelical christians believe in a very different Jesus Christ then the one who is the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We believe differently about Jesus Christ on these points...

1.) Our Jesus is called God (John 20:28), (Heb. 1:<_<

2.) We do not believe Him to be our literal brother, but rather our "brother in God's truth". Our Jesus is not the brother of Satan in any way.

3.) Our Jesus is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60), (Psalm 116:4), (Zech. 13:9 with 1Cor. 1:1-2)

4.) Our Jesus is worshipped ( Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9), (John 9:35-38), (Heb.1:6)

5.) Our God was never once a man who existed on another planet or plane of existence

6.) We believe that there is only one God manifesting in three personas.

7.) We believe the plan of salvation consists of placing our faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible alone, adding nothing, nor taking away anything. We believe we receive salvation by grace through faith and not of any works we might vainly attempt by our own hands (Eph. 2:8,9). We believe we perform "good works" BECAUSE we are saved rather than because we are chasing salvation.

Now, please understand that I have no intention of making these points for any nefarious purposes. I do so only to illustrate the differences between the evangelical christian's Jesus Christ and the Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Our savior, our God and Gospel are VERY different. I make no judgements here as to who is "right" and who is "wrong". I leave that to the true God of the Heavens and the Earth.

And so my point is that your above analysis regarding the unessessary nature of the existence of "protestantism" due to the fact (in your eyes) that all catholics and mormons are saved because like evangelicals always say... "we are saved by faith in Christ" and the above two churches believe in Jesus Christ is incorrect. There are many different versions of Jesus Christ in the world today. Someone has it right, but most have it wrong and do not really know Him because they have placed their faith in a Jesus Christ who cannot save them. They might as well have placed their faith in a tree.

Best to you,

Ocean

Link to comment

The New Testament itself contains a variety of views on authority. It (the NT canon) was assembled by Roman Catholic males, so I am not surprised to find in it documents like 1 Timothy, which asserts the authority of males over females and enjoins submission to authority figures. Yet at the same time we have Jesus telling us not to let anyone call us "Rabbi"! In any case, I do not see in the pages of the New Testament any evidence of authority as it is practiced in the RCC and LDS churches: i.e. a priesthood authority that privileges a few men by virtue of their position and gender. Rather, I see a charismatic authority that is imparted by the Holy Spirit and that cannot be bought or sold (cf. Simon Magus) the way a bishopric or papacy can.

How does the Holy Spirit impart authority? The methodology is clear, via the laying on of hands and I don't think he has tangible hands. I find the notion simplistic and untenable. Moreover, why could Philip baptize but not lay on of hands? Clearly there were drastic authoritative differences between he, the Apostles, and others, inclduing giving them the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and seal. They were given to the apostles, and there is no evidence that it was given to the vague entity known as "the church." On the contary, the ideal of the priesthood was well understood, and there's nothing that indicates that it was given any other way then as identified. Moreover, how could Paul expressly leave the possiblity of Christ receiving the Priesthood after the order of Aaron open if He was indeed NOT a levite, unless this Priesthood of Aaron was continued?

And the part about Simon the magican that people miss, is that he received baptism PRIOR to his censure of Peter. If he was now a Christian, why condemn him for asking for an authority that (according to you), he already had?

PacMan

Link to comment

Oceansun,

1.) Our Jesus is called God (John 20:28), [Our's is too!]

2.) We do not believe Him to be our literal brother, but rather our "brother in God's truth". Our Jesus is not the brother of Satan in any way. [Argumentum ad ignoratium--the position is biblically untenable, while ours is!]

3.) Our Jesus is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60), (Psalm 116:4), (Zech. 13:9 with 1Cor. 1:1-2) [umm...those scriptures never indicate that Jesus was praised to. Moreover, Christ's example was to pray to the Father!]

4.) Our Jesus is worshipped ( Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9), (John 9:35-38), (Heb.1:6) [And some worship the devil...what's your point?]

5.) Our God was never once a man who existed on another planet or plane of existence [Considering that Christ said He had done nothing He had not seen His Father do, I daresay you're in a bit of trouble on this one.]

6.) We believe that there is only one God manifesting in three personas. [We do too!]

7.) We believe the plan of salvation consists of placing our faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible alone, adding nothing, nor taking away anything. We believe we receive salvation by grace through faith and not of any works we might vainly attempt by our own hands (Eph. 2:8,9). We believe we perform "good works" BECAUSE we are saved rather than because we are chasing salvation.

[Well, considering Christ made baptism a necessary requirement (a work), you're off in left field. The works that we do are offered through the grace of Christ, and without such grace we couldn't qualify for salvation through our obedience]

But, which of these (if you're representations were correct) disqualify the LDS from salvation? What authority do you have to make that indication when the basic substance of your arguments are fallacious?

Moreover, you keep saying "your' Jesus. Did you buy him or create him? Sounds a bit...possesive, if you ask me.

PacMan

Link to comment

I've also found that famous quote ("Either LDS or Catholic, Protestants have no leg to stand on!") to be less than convincing. Assuming that it's either the LDS church or the Catholic church that is true, the quote would carry more weight. But what if the Protestants are right? <_<

Take care, everyone :P

Protestants are too divided to be right. This is the problem with protestantism. Split after split has shaped protestantism. Plus, luthernism is an off shoot of the catholic faith, not to mention other protestant sects. Protestants need to understand that if the catholic church is correct then they must be wrong. It does not matter what they preach since they fell out with the truth.

Here is where JS comes into the picture. He got in trouble not for organizing a church. But rather because he declared his way to be the only true way. Here is where the problem started with the protestant sects. For the catholics, the Peter was the first pope and they quote Peter as the rock as an example.

Link to comment

In any case, I do not see in the pages of the New Testament any evidence of authority as it is practiced in the RCC and LDS churches: i.e. a priesthood authority that privileges a few men by virtue of their position and gender. Rather, I see a charismatic authority that is imparted by the Holy Spirit and that cannot be bought or sold (cf. Simon Magus) the way a bishopric or papacy can.

You might want to look at Matt 16 [18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

To have the power to bind things on earth and heaven, that sounds like the definition of priesthood authority to me.

Link to comment

Bluebell,

That is simply not true, and is a common misconception some LDS have with evangelical christianity. As a Christian I believe that it's not necessarily OUR faith and/or "obedience" that saves us but rather the joining of our faith with the proper object to place it in. In other words, our faith is only as good as the object we place it in. If you place your faith in a toad or a tree for example, it will not save your soul as it has no power to do so.

Well, we believe the same is true of Jesus Christ. The Bible warns us of the existence of false Christs. Understand that I mean no offense by saying this, but evangelical christians believe in a very different Jesus Christ then the one who is the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We believe differently about Jesus Christ on these points...

I realize this.

Just because you believe that you believe in a different Jesus that LDS do though, does not mean that your version of Him is correct and neither does it mean that Christ ever taught that anyone who disagrees with your version of Him cannot be saved.

The bible and Christ never make the claim that in order to be saved a person must believe 'this and this and this' about Him.

That is something that some protestant religions have added and it makes perfect sence that they have added it because it is ONLY with that addition that the religion becomes relevant at all.

Without such an addition-as i said before, Protestantism is a completely unnecessary (as far as salvation goes) religion.

Let's look at your list though and see just how different the LDS Jesus is from the Protestant Jesus and whether or not the bible agrees with your assertion that such differences matter when it comes to salvation.

1.) Our Jesus is called God (John 20:28), (Heb. 1::unsure:

So is 'ours'.

From the book of mormon-moroni 8:8-"Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God."

and from the Doctrine and Covenants, speaking about the Second Coming-D&C 88:104-"104 And this shall be the sound of his trump, saying to all people, both in heaven and in earth, and that are under the earthâ??for every ear shall hear it, and every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess, while they hear the sound of the trump, saying: Fear God, and give glory to him who sitteth upon the throne, forever and ever; for the hour of his judgment is come"

2.) We do not believe Him to be our literal brother, but rather our "brother in God's truth". Our Jesus is not the brother of Satan in any way.

We do.

However, the bible is silent on this issue so why do you believe such a belief would automatically keep anyone from salvation?

3.) Our Jesus is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60), (Psalm 116:4), (Zech. 13:9 with 1Cor. 1:1-2)

There are scriptures in the book of mormon where Jesus is prayed to by name as well-however, we do not pray to Christ regularly because we believe that we should pray as Jesus taught-to our Father in Heaven.

If you condemn us for following His example, then so be it.

We don't condemn you for not following it.

4.) Our Jesus is worshipped ( Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9), (John 9:35-38), (Heb.1:6)

As is ours.

5.) Our God was never once a man who existed on another planet or plane of existence

How do you know, have you ever asked Him? :P

Again though-why does this belief matter in terms of salvation. If i'm wrong-why would that negate the affects of the Atonement of Christ and His grace in my behalf if i 'believed', accepted Him as my personal Savior and had faith in Him my entire life?

6.) We believe that there is only one God manifesting in three personas.

We believe there is one Godhead that is manifest in three Beings.

Both yours and our beliefs can be supported by biblical scriptures so again, how can you condemn us for a belief that the bible does support simply because it disagrees with non-biblical creeds?

How does that make your Jesus more correct than ours in this regard?

7.) We believe the plan of salvation consists of placing our faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible alone, adding nothing, nor taking away anything. We believe we receive salvation by grace through faith and not of any works we might vainly attempt by our own hands (Eph. 2:8,9). We believe we perform "good works" BECAUSE we are saved rather than because we are chasing salvation.

Yes, and we believe, as James taught that faith and works both exist for us to gain salvation and that one with out the other cannot save us-

Do you really disagree with that?

And so my point is that your above analysis regarding the unessessary nature of the existence of "protestantism" due to the fact (in your eyes) that all catholics and mormons are saved because like evangelicals always say... "we are saved by faith in Christ" and the above two churches believe in Jesus Christ is incorrect.

Incorrect, in your belief but not to all of Protestantism. I've met many Protestants that agree that if a mormon has true Faith in Christ and believes Christ is His personal Savior than he will be saved.

If you disagree with that-then that is fine-but your belief in this regard does not represent protestantism as a whole but merely one branch of that group.

<_<

Link to comment

Oceansun,

We LDS would agree.

Agreed.

True enough, although Matthew 16-18 is pretty definite.

Wellâ?¦as an LDS I agree, but not for the reason you do.

Youâ??re running into a sever problem. First, the term evangelical Christian is anachronisticâ?¦just like the papacy. Moreover, what is â??taught,â? such as the trinity, was defined and enforced by the (RCC) councils. One of the main arguments contra the LDS is their lack of â??traditionalâ? understandings, and that argument rests solely on the shoulders of these counsels.

Agreed!!

Terribly inaccurate. There was no such thing, and what exists to day of Evangelical Christianity is in direct response to these counsels.

Agreedâ?¦but not for the reason that you believe it.

And thatâ??s why the issue is really one of authorityâ?¦not just Catholic authority.

Rhino,

Then who knows what to believeâ?¦evidently authority isnâ??t a necessity for interpretation which reasons that RCC and Protestants have no corner on that market, and no certain possibility to undue the centuries of definitional conundrums.

PacMan

P.S. In an analysis of alpha and beta errors, the only thing that makes sense is to be Mormon. Know why is that?

Pacman,

1.) I agree with a lot of what you had to say (mostly because you agreed with me :P ), However, one of the BIGGEST misconceptions I've come accross is that the trinity and even the Bible for that matter was the product of RCC councils. The Bible was simply a compilation of the already agreed upon and accepted scriptures of the day. There were many heretical groups like the gnostics and others who were desperetly seeking to challenge the accepted Apostle driven scriptures with those of no divine authorship who were also hundreds of years older. The trinity is a word that does not appear in the Bible, but is one we have adopted to describe the nature of God as we decipher it from within the scriptures. Even the Book of Mormon declares the existence of ONE God, and if there is but only one God, and Jesus is worshipped, prayed to, and called God then we begin to see the trinity taking shape along with the Holy Spirit.

2.) Secondly, there is nothing "terribly inaccurate about what I said about "evangelical christians" existing before Roman Catholicism. When I use the term "evangelical" I do so out of respect to LDS here at FAIR. I do this because if I were to leave out "evangelical" I would have to refer to myself as "christian" it might appear as if I was denying them the right to be recognized as such by refering to them as just mormons or LDS.

3.) When I stated that Christians were here prior to Roman Catholics, I meant it. I absolutely stand by it. Christ brought many in to follow Him, and so did his Apostles/Disciples. The early church was NOT Roman Catholic, but it was most certainly Christian. It was everything the Book of Acts says it was in my belief. There is nothing in the descriptions of the early church by the men who founded it that were even remotely Roman Catholic or even Mormon (as it pertains to the doctrine and covenants that is) for that matter. You have some truth in what you say regarding today's "evangelical christianity" existing in direct response to the "councils" but not because the RCC was first and we broke off from them, but because we were first (as christians described in the Book of Acts) and had to reform true christianity. We do not believe it was a true "restoration" because the Gospel has never been lost as faith in Jesus Christ will save your soul just like it always has. We believe there will be a great apostacy in the last days as christians continue to fall away in apathy, people are taken in by false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing, and the ecumenical church gains prominence.

4.) You are right in that all of this comes down to the issue of "authority". Of course, we believe in the authority of the believer.

However we may disagree, I thank you for taking the time to read and answer my post!

God Bless You,

Ocean

Link to comment

Oceansun,

I agree with a lot of what you had to say (mostly because you agreed with me ), However, one of the BIGGEST misconceptions I've come accross is that the trinity and even the Bible for that matter was the product of RCC councils. The Bible was simply a compilation of the already agreed upon and accepted scriptures of the day.

Thatâ??s completely untrue! 1800 Bishops were invited to the counsel of Nicea, and the vast number of Ariusâ?? sympathizers were detained. Thatâ??s why there were only some 300-400 Bishops present, even though Constantine offered to pay for travel and expenses. There was MUCH disagreement at these events, and the fact that heretics were tortured and killed adds suspicion that the Protestant movement just â??happenedâ? to be in conformity with RCC teachings. Moreover, Iâ??d love to speak of the trinity and how your understanding necessitates an inconsistent use of the scriptures to maintain tenability.

The trinity is a word that does not appear in the Bible, but is one we have adopted to describe the nature of God as we decipher it from within the scriptures.

Are you thus adding to scripture?

Even the Book of Mormon declares the existence of ONE God, and if there is but only one God, and Jesus is worshipped, prayed to, and called God then we begin to see the trinity taking shape along with the Holy Spirit.

Except we know what that means. We treat John 10 and 17 consistently.

It was everything the Book of Acts says it was in my belief.

And Ephesians with Apostles, prophets, etc., etc.

You have some truth in what you say regarding today's "evangelical christianity" existing in direct response to the "councils" but not because the RCC was first and we broke off from them, but because we were first (as christians described in the Book of Acts) and had to reform true christianity.

You canâ??t suggest that because there was no Christian entity in the old world outside the Catholic Church after a couple hundred A.D. What Christian group existed, and continued to exist through the Catholic reign until the present? What evidence did you have that there was even a simple fragment that existed exclusive from the Catholic church? Your claim is untenable.

Again, what of your multiple points extinguishes the LDSâ??s chances of salvation?

PacMan

Link to comment

I realize this.

Just because you believe that you believe in a different Jesus that LDS do though, does not mean that your version of Him is correct and neither does it mean that Christ ever taught that anyone who disagrees with your version of Him cannot be saved.

The bible and Christ never make the claim that in order to be saved a person must believe 'this and this and this' about Him.

That is something that some protestant religions have added and it makes perfect sence that they have added it because it is ONLY with that addition that the religion becomes relevant at all.

Without such an addition-as i said before, Protestantism is a completely unnecessary (as far as salvation goes) religion.

Let's look at your list though and see just how different the LDS Jesus is from the Protestant Jesus and whether or not the bible agrees with your assertion that such differences matter when it comes to salvation.

So is 'ours'.

From the book of mormon-moroni 8:8-"Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God."

and from the Doctrine and Covenants, speaking about the Second Coming-D&C 88:104-"104 And this shall be the sound of his trump, saying to all people, both in heaven and in earth, and that are under the earthâ??for every ear shall hear it, and every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess, while they hear the sound of the trump, saying: Fear God, and give glory to him who sitteth upon the throne, forever and ever; for the hour of his judgment is come"

We do.

However, the bible is silent on this issue so why do you believe such a belief would automatically keep anyone from salvation?

There are scriptures in the book of mormon where Jesus is prayed to by name as well-however, we do not pray to Christ regularly because we believe that we should pray as Jesus taught-to our Father in Heaven.

If you condemn us for following His example, then so be it.

We don't condemn you for not following it.

As is ours.

How do you know, have you ever asked Him? :P

Again though-why does this belief matter in terms of salvation. If i'm wrong-why would that negate the affects of the Atonement of Christ and His grace in my behalf if i 'believed', accepted Him as my personal Savior and had faith in Him my entire life?

We believe there is one Godhead that is manifest in three Beings.

Both yours and our beliefs can be supported by biblical scriptures so again, how can you condemn us for a belief that the bible does support simply because it disagrees with non-biblical creeds?

How does that make your Jesus more correct than ours in this regard?

Yes, and we believe, as James taught that faith and works both exist for us to gain salvation and that one with out the other cannot save us-

Do you really disagree with that?

Incorrect, in your belief but not to all of Protestantism. I've met many Protestants that agree that if a mormon has true Faith in Christ and believes Christ is His personal Savior than he will be saved.

If you disagree with that-then that is fine-but your belief in this regard does not represent protestantism as a whole but merely one branch of that group.

<_<

Bluebell,

I thought this might happen. I AM NOT CONDEMNING YOU FOR YOUR BELIEFS! I am simply pointing out our differences as they pertain to the nature of Jesus Christ and why WE evangelical christians believe it is important to place our faith in the correct object God desires us to place it in. I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong, only that we are on different sides of this issue. That's all.

These things are relative to salvation because they determine whether one knows the true Jesus Christ or if he worships in vain.

I absolutely disagree with any notion that we can be saved by our works in addition to grace. Since you asked, I believe it is an insult to Jesus to assume that he needs anything from you to assist in salvation. Ephesians chapter 2, verses 8 & 9 explain...

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES: it is the GIFT of God: NOT OF WORKS, least any man should BOAST." (ephasis added)

Works are important to the christian but only because they are a RESULT of salvation, not because they save. Works here on earth lead to pleasing God and the buiding up of riches for in the heavens. They also lead to blessings here on Earth in this life. But ultimately it is God's loving grace that saves us when we embrace Him.

Hope that helps...

God bless you,

Ocean

Link to comment

How does the Holy Spirit impart authority? The methodology is clear, via the laying on of hands and I don't think he has tangible hands.

I seriously doubt that the Holy Spirit is limited to a single methodology. Yes, it is common in the New Testament and in modern Christianity for people to lay hands on someone when praying for an impartation of the Holy Spirit (just as when praying for healing). That, however, scarcely means that this is some sort of necessary ordinance before the Holy Spirit can indwell someone. John was indwelled from birth (Lk. 1:15). Zechariah was filled spontaneously (Luke 1:67). See also Lk. 2:25, 3:22, Jn 20:22 (Jesus breathes on his disciples and the receive the Holy Spirit), Acts 2:4 (Holy Spirit comes to disciples as wind and tongues of fire), Acts 2:38 (people are told to repent and be baptized and they will receive the HS), Acts 4:32 (a group of believers is spontaneously filled), etc. I'd say there are plenty of examples of the Holy Spirit indwelling people without any laying on of hands.

Moreover, why could Philip baptize but not lay on of hands?

That is an inference some people have drawn, but I do not think it is particularly warranted.

Clearly there were drastic authoritative differences between he, the Apostles, and others, inclduing giving them the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and seal. They were given to the apostles, and there is no evidence that it was given to the vague entity known as "the church."

I disagree. Matthew 18 makes it fairly evident that "the church" may loose disagreeable persons from its ranks (and, by extension, from heaven). This is immediately followed by the statement, "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." Who is the "you" in this passage? Is it restricted to the apostles? Or do the phrases "two or three" and "two of you on earth" refer to a broader group of believers? I feel quite certain that it's the latter, and that the promise "that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven" is just another way of restating the same binding/loosing promise (as can be seen from the bolded words).

On the contary, the ideal of the priesthood was well understood, and there's nothing that indicates that it was given any other way then as identified. Moreover, how could Paul expressly leave the possibility of Christ receiving the Priesthood after the order of Aaron open if He was indeed NOT a levite, unless this Priesthood of Aaron was continued?

There are no Christian priests in the New Testament precisely because Jesus fulfilled and thereby ended it.

And the part about Simon the magican that people miss, is that he received baptism PRIOR to his censure of Peter. If he was now a Christian, why condemn him for asking for an authority that (according to you), he already had?

He had received the baptism of John, but not the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire.

-CK

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...