cksalmon Posted September 17, 2008 Posted September 17, 2008 Ck- who are your prophets and apostles today?I don't see the relevance of the question, frankly. best.cksPS. For starters, though, just for fun, I'd claim today Isaiah as a prophet and Paul as an apostle. Not exclusively, of course.
sleepyhead Posted September 17, 2008 Posted September 17, 2008 >>>The additional criteria is that the individuals who wrote the NT are dead and there is no line of succession. There isn't the connection made that if one believes peter was God's representative that proves that oral roberts is god's representative. Each individual is evaluated independantly based on the value of the information they provide.Actually we don't accept the NT authors as individuals. Some of their writings (not all) were determined to be scripture by a group of individuals and there selection became the official selection.<<<Sleepy Head:See Ephesians 4:11-15 would seem to disagree. Ephesians 4:11-14 (King James Version) 11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Hello sometimessaint, I don't see the relevance between what I wrote and your quoted verses.
Markk Posted September 17, 2008 Posted September 17, 2008 Hi Consig,Long time, no see.One of the large dividing points between LDS Christianity and Evangelical Christianity is the concept of latter-day prophets and apostles.AgreedThe LDS point of view is that we cannot accept Christ in the full sense of that word without at the same time accepting his prophets and apostles.OK, but I think it goes much deeper here, LDS theology teaches that man can not be saved ( presence of the Father or exaltation or true salvation for the saint) without these men and the authority possess. In other words LDS theology teaches that salvation can not be achieved by any other means than Man+another man and organization with authority+ God.The Evangelical point of view seems to be that we can accept Christ separate and apart from accepting any of his earthly representatives.The Bible teaches that God came here reaching out to man, to offer salvation to those who want it. I accept that God has chosen men to teach, preach,and reveal His Word and Message to mankind and I receive those who receive God as the verses you quoted say. But salvation is between myself and God by His Grace. Grace means "free gift" and because man was given a free will to choose, we can choose to accept this gift or not.John 1:12 says...Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: This means that man through a receiving belief, the are given the right (power and authority) to become a child of God...and verse 1 qualifies this by saying Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood , nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. This is saying itis not by a physical birth, or by our own will, or by any will of man, but only by God. John says very clearly that id we do not reject Christ, but receive Him (Grace), then we will become a Child of God. This is through adoption, (rom 8...gal 4...eph 1...). we can then go boldly to God and cry Abba Father. This is all done by choice through belief, not through any org . or by other men.Chew on this Consig. Remember....LDS views: man+ mormonchurch (authority of men) + personal duty and merit + Jesus = salvation (exaltation, eternal life, celestial glory)...or man+ basic good works apart from mormonchurch, less authority + Jesus = Terrestial kingdom...or man + general atonement = Telestial Kingdom The Biblical view: man + receiving belief (Grace) = eternal lifeTake caremarkJohn 1:12
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted September 17, 2008 Posted September 17, 2008 The LDS point of view is that we cannot accept Christ in the full sense of that word without at the same time accepting his prophets and apostles.All the Best!--ConsiglieriThis gets my vote...D&C 84: 3636 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me
consiglieri Posted September 17, 2008 Author Posted September 17, 2008 But, then, EV's can simply deny the premise that Joseph Smith, for example, was a prophet of God. That is the reveal check and you're going to have move your king. In other words, we're back to examining that very substantial LDS claim. Best.ChrisI agree with your analysis.My concern with the position of some evangelical Christians is their claim not to do a "reveal check" on my king, but the claim that I don't have a king, and the reason I don't have a king is because God will not allow any kings on the board, although there used to be lots of kings on the board, but there can't be any more for some undisclosed reason. At the heart of this "undisclosed reason" is usually the fact that since they don't have a king on the board, I can't possibly have one.But I will try to get away from the chess analogy for a minute.It is my feeling that those who promote no church structure through which the grace of God is mediated have created a system of salvation completely at odds with the Bible, on which it is putatively based.The Bible story that immediately comes to mind is that of Korah.If memory serves, Korah was a Levite who stirred up a rebellion against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness on the basis that Moses and Aaron were setting themselves up as authorities over the Israelites and "took too much unto themselves." Korah felt this was wrong because all of Israel was chosen by God and therefore they did not require any people on earth to mediate between them and God.Moses won the argument.It would seem that this example had some force in New Testament times as it serves as one of the OT examples that Jude warns the early Christians against.All the Best!--Consiglieri
sleepyhead Posted September 17, 2008 Posted September 17, 2008 Hello consiglieri, It is quite common for religious leaders to want to want to put a damper on any new theology. The moslems believe mohamed was the last prophet. The lds believe that no one but them (the leaders) can have revelations with regards to a new teaching. The protestants don't accept the new theology presented by JS. The LDS don't accept the new theology presented by Edgar Cayce. I really don't see the difference between the protestant reasoning and the LDS reasoning. They want the theology to remain as is.
cksalmon Posted September 17, 2008 Posted September 17, 2008 At the heart of this "undisclosed reason" is usually the fact that since they don't have a king on the board, I can't possibly have one.I think that's probably the default (read: lazy) way to think about it (of which I've probably been guilty). It is a fallacious way to approach the topic. The reason(s) should be disclosed and discussed, then. But, I'll need to develop my back-row pieces first. Best.ChrisEDIT: I think probably the more foundational debate your post brings up is the closed canon position vs. the open. Believers in a closed canon, for obvious reasons, do not accept the proposition that canonical prophets (i.e., prophets called to add to the canon of scripture) exist today (or, to be sure, at any point after the closure of the canon).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.