Trinity

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

"Calling upon the name of the Lord" does not translate into praying to Jesus. Lord is a synonym for God. It means praying to God. Okay, Jesus is God; but so is the Father. In the Bible as well as the writings of the ECFs, God is generally identified with the Father.

Please read the biblical references I cite for you. They refer explicitly to Jesus:

"...because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'" (Rom. 10:9-13 ESV).

"To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours" (1 Cor. 1:2 ESV).

I asked you where in the Lord's Prayer you find that we should pray "in Jesus' name." You cited other texts in support (John 15:16; 16:23-24) and then asked:

Where does it say in the Lord's Prayer that we should not pray to the Father in the name of Jesus?

Good question. It doesn't. And so I will ask you again: Where does it day in the Lord's Prayer that we should not pray to Jesus? Same answer: It doesn't. No biblical text forbids praying to Jesus. No LDS scripture text forbids praying to Jesus. On the other hand, we have quite a few biblical texts that do teach praying to Jesus (which I have cited several times).

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You wrote:

Ahh, but in the NT what the Jews did not generally realize WAS that Jesus is the God they prayed to in the OT. That is why so few recognized Him. Once Jesus came in the flesh, He made clear what His True relationship with Father was. Part of revealing this knowledge to the people was to now ask them to pray to the Father - which he taught through His Words and through His example.

Jesus also invited his disciples to pray to him, and assured them that he would answer their prayers (John 14:14). Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say anything like "I know you don't recognize me, but I'm the God to whom you used to pray, and now I want you to pray to my Father instead." That idea cannot be inferred from anything in the Gospels.

You wrote:

Acts 1:24-25 seems appropriate that they should be asking Jesus who the next Apostle should be. It was Jesus who chose the original 12 (even though Jesus originally went to Father to help Him to choose them). So they went straight to the source who had called them. It is not often that they had such an unusual circumstance facing them. I don't think it was odd that they should seek Jesus' guidance; but I also do not see that as a regular type of occurrence which should be used as an example of Jesus teaching them to pray to Him. In fact, Jesus wasn't there; it was the decision of the Apostle's to seek Jesus out - it is not an example of Jesus teaching them what they should do.

The exceptions are piling up. People could pray to Jesus when he was known as Jehovah. They could pray to him if they saw him on earth. They could pray to him if they saw him in a vision. They could pray to him if it was about choosing a new apostle. The original claim is dying a death of a thousand qualifications (okay, you haven't reached a thousand yet).

You wrote:

Rom 10:9-13 - I do not see this as a prayer. This is discussing confessing/acknowledging Jesus; IOW, believing in Him - believing the Gospel message. It is through confessing Jesus and believing He is our Savior that we obtain salvation.

To "call on" or to "call on the name of" a divine being meant to pray to him (see Gen. 4:26; Deut. 4:7; Ps. 145:18; Is. 55:6; Joel 2:32). This isn't subject to serious dispute. The non-theological, standard Greek-English lexicon by Liddell and Scott defines the Greek word here, epikaleo, to mean "to call upon a god, invoke, appeal to." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament points out that the Greek translation of the Old Testament used this word with the meaning "to call on in prayer" (3:500). The standard Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich) gives as the word's primary sense "call, call out (to a divinity...)." Such references could be multiplied.

You wrote:

1Cor 1:2 - I would offer that you continue to read through verse 4. You can see that Paul is thanking God (and I believe Paul is talking about prayer) for the Grace of God which is given by Jesus Christ. Thus it sounds like Paul is discussing "calling upon the name of Christ" via praying to Father. Why would Paul be doing something different from what you think he is teaching? That would be like Paul teaching others to do as he says, but not as he does. I would offer this is inconsistent with Paul's reasoning. Therefore, pershaps another interpretation of verse 2 should be considered than what you claim it to be.

You are assuming that Paul could not pray to both Jesus and the Father. That assumption is unjustified; it begs the question. See my comments above about the meaning of "call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

You wrote:

1John 5:13-15 - If you read verses 1-15, you can see that the conversation concerns first God (Father) and then His Son. In carefully reading this entire passage, God is the main subject and His Son is the secondary subject. It would be easy to assume, by taking verses 13-15 out of context, that the Being who is "hearing" our petition and which is according to "his will" could be interpreted to be the Son. However, inasmuch as Jesus continually taught by His Words and through His example, that He was doing everything in accordance with His Father's Will (and which is, in fact, made clear in the Lord's Prayer), that your interpretation is out of sync with everything else Jesus taught.

The passage does indeed refer to both God and his Son, but to say that God is the main subject and the Son is secondary is simply not correct. Here is 1 John 5:11-15:

"And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him" (1 John 5:11-15 ESV).

"The Son" or "the Son of God" is mentioned four times in quick succession here. If we have to choose between God and the Son as the main subject we would surely have to go with the Son. In any case, the connection between verses 11-13 and verses 14-15 leaves no plausible way out of the conclusion that it is the Son who hears and answers the prayers of verses 14-15. After speaking of "believing in the name of the Son of God,: John immediately says, "And this is the confidence that we have toward him." Believing (having faith, trusting) in someone and having confidence in someone are synonymous expressions.

Regarding praying in Jesus' name, you acknowledged that this idea is not found in the Lord's Prayer, but you find it elsewhere. Fine. Likewise, the idea of praying to Jesus is not found in the Lord's Prayer, but it is found elsewhere.

You wrote:

Praying to Jesus for salvation is NOT what we are taught. It is BELIEVING in and ACCEPTING Christ as our Savior which gives us access to salvation.

Believing in and accepting Christ are expressed, according to the passages I have cited, by calling on Christ for salvation, i.e., praying to him for salvation.

[zerinus]

Please read the biblical references I cite for you. They refer explicitly to Jesus:

"...because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'" (Rom. 10:9-13 ESV).

"To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours" (1 Cor. 1:2 ESV).

I agree that in some of the references you had given it may refer to Jesus, but in others it could just as well be referring to the Father.

I asked you where in the Lord's Prayer you find that we should pray "in Jesus' name." You cited other texts in support (John 15:16; 16:23-24) and then asked:

Good question. It doesn't. And so I will ask you again: Where does it day in the Lord's Prayer that we should not pray to Jesus? Same answer: It doesn't.

That is right, it doesn't; but it does tell us who to pray to. That is the crucial difference.

No biblical text forbids praying to Jesus. No LDS scripture text forbids praying to Jesus.

Neither does the LDS Church—just that in our liturgical prayers we follow the pattern established by Jesus.

On the other hand, we have quite a few biblical texts that do teach praying to Jesus (which I have cited several times).

But none as emphatic or as authoritative as the Lord's Prayer cited by the Lord Himself in the Gospels.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

The sum of your most recent post is simply to negate what some biblical texts on the basis of your understanding of another biblical text. Sorry, but I agree with Christ that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35) and with Paul that "all Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim. 3:16).

[zerinus]

The sum of your most recent post is simply to negate what some biblical texts on the basis of your understanding of another biblical text. Sorry, but I agree with Christ that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35) and with Paul that "all Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim. 3:16).

I think you are just nitpicking. We pray to the Father as Jesus commanded, and in the name of Jesus to the Father as he commanded. That is the pattern we observe in our public prayers because it conforms most closely to the pattern established by the Lord Himself in the Bible, as well as in the modern scriptures of the Church. If others want to think of Jesus rather than the Father as they pray, I suppose they can. The Church has no rule against that. You are quibbling, not raising a serious issue.

[jo1952]

jo,

Jesus also invited his disciples to pray to him, and assured them that he would answer their prayers (John 14:14). Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say anything like "I know you don't recognize me, but I'm the God to whom you used to pray, and now I want you to pray to my Father instead." That idea cannot be inferred from anything in the Gospels.

Hi Rob!

I am truly surprised by your comment. The entire NT is a declaration by Jesus (who we believe is one and the same God of Abraham), as well as confirmation by the Apostles, that Jesus is not only our Redeemer and Savior, He is also the Son of God; that He is NOT the Father.

Actually, Jesus points out to the people that they don't recognize Him (Jesus) as the God of Abraham by saying this:

John 8:54

Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

Also, it is clear that Paul did not recognize who Jesus was. Paul, in his persecution of the Christians, thought he was serving the God of Abraham by doing so. He learned on the Road to Damascus, however, that he was actually persecuting the very God he thought he was serving.

The exceptions are piling up. People could pray to Jesus when he was known as Jehovah. They could pray to him if they saw him on earth. They could pray to him if they saw him in a vision. They could pray to him if it was about choosing a new apostle. The original claim is dying a death of a thousand qualifications (okay, you haven't reached a thousand yet).

I believe your belief in the Trinity is getting in the way of you being able to see the differences. You would rather see my explanations as excuses; so be it.

To "call on" or to "call on the name of" a divine being meant to pray to him (see Gen. 4:26; Deut. 4:7; Ps. 145:18; Is. 55:6; Joel 2:32). This isn't subject to serious dispute. The non-theological, standard Greek-English lexicon by Liddell and Scott defines the Greek word here, epikaleo, to mean "to call upon a god, invoke, appeal to." The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament points out that the Greek translation of the Old Testament used this word with the meaning "to call on in prayer" (3:500). The standard Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich) gives as the word's primary sense "call, call out (to a divinity...)." Such references could be multiplied.

As I said earlier, in the OT people prayed to Jesus; but they knew Him as the God of Abraham. The above OT passages support this. It is in the NT when Jesus wants to teach us the distinction, and make sure that we understand that we are to pray to the Father - but in His (Jesus') name.

It's nice that you have referenced the standard Greek-English lexicon by Liddell and Scott for the word "call". However, even though in the following verse (which you listed) it is the same version of the word call (H7121) used both times, I seriously doubt that the Lord is praying to the remnant.

Joel 2:32

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

You are assuming that Paul could not pray to both Jesus and the Father. That assumption is unjustified; it begs the question. See my comments above about the meaning of "call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Once Paul was converted, I have no doubt that he would have been anxious to do what the Savior taught; which was to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus, thus calling upon the name of Jesus because it was Jesus who would be mediating for us with Father. IOW, he wouldn't be praying to Father in the name of Paul, or Cephas, Apollos, etc.; but, rather, in the name of Jesus Christ.

The passage does indeed refer to both God and his Son, but to say that God is the main subject and the Son is secondary is simply not correct. Here is 1 John 5:11-15:

"And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him" (1 John 5:11-15 ESV).

"The Son" or "the Son of God" is mentioned four times in quick succession here. If we have to choose between God and the Son as the main subject we would surely have to go with the Son. In any case, the connection between verses 11-13 and verses 14-15 leaves no plausible way out of the conclusion that it is the Son who hears and answers the prayers of verses 14-15. After speaking of "believing in the name of the Son of God,: John immediately says, "And this is the confidence that we have toward him." Believing (having faith, trusting) in someone and having confidence in someone are synonymous expressions.

You are missing the point. God (Father) is the most important subject; Jesus is of secondary importance. Without Father, there would have been no Son. Therefore, when we consider Jesus' relentless teachings and example of giving glory to the Father and to do the will of the Father, it seems difficult to accept that the following verses have switched gears - which is what you are wont to believe. I simply must disagree with you. Where did Jesus ever teach us to do the will of the Son? In fact, Jesus taught that everything he taught, said, and did was in accordance with the Will of the Father - it was never Jesus' will to do anything other than the Father's Will.

1John 5:14-15

14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Regarding praying in Jesus' name, you acknowledged that this idea is not found in the Lord's Prayer, but you find it elsewhere. Fine. Likewise, the idea of praying to Jesus is not found in the Lord's Prayer, but it is found elsewhere.

I was pondering why, when Jesus taught the Lord's Prayer, He did not include that we pray in His name. It occurred to me that at the time He taught this prayer, that He had not yet revealed His true identity. Therefore, it would have been premature for Him to add that to the prayer; He was still considered to be a Teacher/Rabbi at that time. Clearly, by the time Jesus is teaching what is recorded in John 16, however, He has made His identity clear and is telling us that in addition to praying to Father, we are to do so in the name of Jesus. I noticed you ignored this passage in your response to me; so I am repeating it.

John 16:23-27

23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Believing in and accepting Christ are expressed, according to the passages I have cited, by calling on Christ for salvation, i.e., praying to him for salvation.

I believe that the verses in Romans 10:9-13 (actually, I would like to include verse 14) that the confessing and believing in Jesus, which you consider praying to him for salvation, is concerning a person's conversion to Christ. It is not a recipe being given for all future communications through prayer. If that is what you believe is being presented here, then you would be in conflict with what Jesus Himself taught in John 16:23-27.

Regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You wrote:

I am truly surprised by your comment. The entire NT is a declaration by Jesus (who we believe is one and the same God of Abraham), as well as confirmation by the Apostles, that Jesus is not only our Redeemer and Savior, He is also the Son of God; that He is NOT the Father.

I never said he was the Father. He isn't.

You wrote:

Actually, Jesus points out to the people that they don't recognize Him (Jesus) as the God of Abraham by saying this....

You're missing my point, which was that Jesus did not tell anyone that they used to pray to him but should stop doing so.

You wrote:

I believe your belief in the Trinity is getting in the way of you being able to see the differences. You would rather see my explanations as excuses; so be it.

Your explanations do not arise from the texts themselves, and that, not my belief in the Trinity, is the problem. For example, no text teaches that it's okay to pray to Jesus if you can see him but not if you can't. That is a rationalization that appeals to elements of the texts but doesn't show that those texts are relevant. One could just as well argue that it's okay to pray to Jesus if you're Jewish but not if you're Gentile.

You wrote:

It's nice that you have referenced the standard Greek-English lexicon by Liddell and Scott for the word "call". However, even though in the following verse (which you listed) it is the same version of the word call (H7121) used both times, I seriously doubt that the Lord is praying to the remnant.

Joel 2:32

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

In Hebrew, the same word (qara') is used but in two different ways. The text does not say that the Lord "calls on the name of" the remnant. When Yahweh "shall call" the remnant, he will not be confessing or expressing belief in the remnant, will he? So you will also have to recognize two different uses of the word in this verse. The Greek translation uses two different Greek words; the first word is translated with epikaleo, the verb of interest in the NT texts we are discussing. The second word is translated in Greek with the word proskekletai, an entirely different word meaning to summon. Remember, what I said was that epikaleo, when used in the context of calling on a deity or calling on the name of a deity, denotes prayer to that deity.

With regard to 1 John 5:11-15, your argument amounts to trying to argue that what the text appears to say doesn't fit with what you think Jesus said in the Gospels. That's not an exegetical response. Your reasoning about Jesus doing the Father's will misses the point: Jesus is God and what the Father wills, Jesus wills.

You wrote:

I was pondering why, when Jesus taught the Lord's Prayer, He did not include that we pray in His name. It occurred to me that at the time He taught this prayer, that He had not yet revealed His true identity. Therefore, it would have been premature for Him to add that to the prayer; He was still considered to be a Teacher/Rabbi at that time. Clearly, by the time Jesus is teaching what is recorded in John 16, however, He has made His identity clear and is telling us that in addition to praying to Father, we are to do so in the name of Jesus. I noticed you ignored this passage in your response to me; so I am repeating it.

I ignored it because I agree that when we pray to the Father we do so in the name of Jesus. This doesn't prove that we should not pray to Jesus.

Your own reasoning provides an easy explanation for why, in the Lord's Prayer, Jesus said nothing about praying to him. As you said, his disciples did not yet know he was God. Once they came to understand this, they would be ready to pray to him--and they did.

[jo1952]

You're missing my point, which was that Jesus did not tell anyone that they used to pray to him but should stop doing so.

Why would Jesus need to tell them such a thing? Your question is agenda driven and, quite frankly, silly. The Jews had prayed to the God of Abraham; Jesus is the God of Abraham, therefore, they prayed to Him. They just did not know that Jesus was the God of Abraham once He came in the flesh. They missed their day; they failed to recognize the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. Few converted to the recognition that Jesus was the Messiah as well as the God of Abraham. They had been generally blinded to His identity because they missed the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. Now, the Gentiles being converted had never prayed to the God of Abraham; they had never recognized Jesus as being ANY God until He came in the flesh. And who has everyone been instructed to pray to? According to John, they have been instructed to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. According to Jesus, before He was revealed as the Son of God, the Christ, they are to pray to the Father. Where does Jesus teach us to pray to Him?

In Hebrew, the same word (qara') is used but in two different ways. The text does not say that the Lord "calls on the name of" the remnant. When Yahweh "shall call" the remnant, he will not be confessing or expressing belief in the remnant, will he? So you will also have to recognize two different uses of the word in this verse. The Greek translation uses two different Greek words; the first word is translated with epikaleo, the verb of interest in the NT texts we are discussing. The second word is translated in Greek with the word proskekletai, an entirely different word meaning to summon. Remember, what I said was that epikaleo, when used in the context of calling on a deity or calling on the name of a deity, denotes prayer to that deity.

Well, I suppose you have to pick and choose which scholars you want to listen to. According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, it is the same version of "call" being used in both places in the verse in question. It's rather confusing to depend upon a scholar who is also agenda driven as opposed to trying to use one's commen sense in accordance with what the Holy Ghost is guiding and directing us to believe as truth.

With regard to 1 John 5:11-15, your argument amounts to trying to argue that what the text appears to say doesn't fit with what you think Jesus said in the Gospels. That's not an exegetical response. Your reasoning about Jesus doing the Father's will misses the point: Jesus is God and what the Father wills, Jesus wills.

Well, YOU may consider it poor exegisis. I believe the entire Bible needs to not conflict with itself according to our interpretations. If conflict arises, then I look to man's interpretation as the culprit - this includes me sometimes; as I have been known to need to adjust my thinking on various passages when they suddenly force something I thought I had interpreted correctly to push other verses out of sync with my previously held understanding.

I ignored it because I agree that when we pray to the Father we do so in the name of Jesus. This doesn't prove that we should not pray to Jesus.

That is fine if that is what you are comfortable in believing. I happen to not agree with you. The only times we call to Jesus are at the time we are converted to Him and exercise faith in Him - and not always even then, should a person first pray to Father at the moment he is exercising faith in God's Son. Another time would be when He is standing in front of us - it just makes common sense since He is the one who intercedes on our behalf any way. And, as I mentioned, there will be times when we are filled with tremendous emotions of joy or despair or pain. I believe these prayers are still heard by the appropriate Beings. However, since we have been taught to pray in a certain way; in general, I believe we should be following those teachings. I beieve that it is not in praying to either Father or the Son that we get to know them best. Rather, it is in keeping the commandments, trying to be Christlike, loving and serving others, studying the scriptures with the invoked guidance of the Holy Ghost, that we learn so much about the Kingdom of God and about the types of Gods they Truly are. Their heirarchy is better understood in following their instructions, rather than deciding to make our own way on our journey; their attributes, their astonishing and incomprehensible love, etc. Once we are doing these things, our prayers to Father become much more meaningful as we express our love and devotion to both Him and to His Beloved Son, our Savior.

Your own reasoning provides an easy explanation for why, in the Lord's Prayer, Jesus said nothing about praying to him. As you said, his disciples did not yet know he was God. Once they came to understand this, they would be ready to pray to him--and they did.

Actually, you have not proved that this is what they did beyond the special parameters I have already discussed. We will need to agree to disagree.

I am so amazed, humbled, and grateful for the witness of the Holy Ghost on the earth, who guides and directs us to all Truth as we are ready to have it revealed to us. Our Savior lives!! Hallelujah!

Love,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You wrote:

Where does Jesus teach us to pray to Him?

In the writings of his apostles in the New Testament.

Regarding the word "call" in Joel 2:32, you wrote:

Well, I suppose you have to pick and choose which scholars you want to listen to. According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, it is the same version of "call" being used in both places in the verse in question. It's rather confusing to depend upon a scholar who is also agenda driven as opposed to trying to use one's commen sense in accordance with what the Holy Ghost is guiding and directing us to believe as truth.

You do seem to be confused, not because I have an agenda, but apparently because you are driven to find some way around the clear teaching of these passages. I plainly said, "In Hebrew, the same word (qara') is used but in two different ways." I then explained why the word was used with different connotations and showed that the Greek translation of the OT used two different Greek words to represent the two occurrences of the same Hebrew word. You seem to have missed all that.

[jo1952]

jo,

In the writings of his apostles in the New Testament.

Regarding the word "call" in Joel 2:32, you wrote:

You do seem to be confused, not because I have an agenda, but apparently because you are driven to find some way around the clear teaching of these passages. I plainly said, "In Hebrew, the same word (qara') is used but in two different ways." I then explained why the word was used with different connotations and showed that the Greek translation of the OT used two different Greek words to represent the two occurrences of the same Hebrew word. You seem to have missed all that.

I believe that your scholarly driven agenda to understand scripture interferes with what the Holy Ghost would you have you understand is being taught. You ask us the questions, and we answer them through the very means you require us to answer them with (ie, with scripture). You then reject our answers by using information which "experts" in fields such as "theology", "linguistics", etc., have to say about their "world-based education" on the subjects of those questions. Yet our relationship with Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost, are personal and private ones which entail the method for "educating" us which was given to us by the Father Himself - that is, the witness of the Holy Ghost and His continual guidance of each individual to all Truth. The world is not a part of that spiritual educational system except extemporaneously. Therefore, you will only see what you have been taught to see by the world. On a spiritual level, those who are keeping God's commandments, following the example of the Savior, use personal prayer to build their relationship with God, who faithfully study scripture by invoking the power of the Holy Ghost to help open their minds to the Kingdom of God, and who learn to discern the influence of the Holy Ghost in their lives, will increase their spiritual knowing and experiencing of God - something which the world cannot offer them. On that spiritual level, when Father deems them prepared to receive more understanding, it will be revealed to them.

May your eyes and your ears be able to see and to hear with the power of the Holy Ghost - which is greater than what any man is able to teach you. What God teaches us is more joy-filled to the point where our cups runneth over. May you experience those same joy-filled moments which the world has no such power to bring you.

Best regards,

jo

[coolrok7]

jo, there is such a thing as spiritual deception so just because one receives things from the spiritual realm doesn't necessarily mean its from the God of Biblical Revelation:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. . . .They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1, 5-6)

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, . . .In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. (1 Timothy 4:1 2, 6)

The scholarship of the world can only go so far in the sense of understanding things that scholars deal in the context of acquired knowledge (of which there are believer/people of faith) but not every scholar is open to Biblical truth, especially when it comes to spiritual understanding. The problem is that even people of faith can place their trust in false things spiritually received though not from the God of Biblical Revelation but from the "god of this world" or the "angel of light" which is the devil in disguise who has all kinds of false religious belief mixed in with Biblical truth.

[jo1952]

jo, there is such a thing as spiritual deception so just because one receives things from the spiritual realm doesn't necessarily mean its from the God of Biblical Revelation:

The scholarship of the world can only go so far in the sense of understanding things that scholars deal in the context of acquired knowledge (of which there are believer/people of faith) but not every scholar is open to Biblical truth, especially when it comes to spiritual understanding. The problem is that even people of faith can place their trust in false things spiritually received though not from the God of Biblical Revelation but from the "god of this world" or the "angel of light" which is the devil in disguise who has all kinds of false religious belief mixed in with Biblical truth.

Yes, this is so. However, I think that way too long ago in the ancient church that men became so focused on the fear of being deceived, that they determined it would be better to start telling people what they should or should not believe as prescribed by men - rather than allowing the Holy Ghost to guide and direct them. They became so fearful, that they began to deny people their own private journey; thus denying them the opportunity of using the very gift which Father gave to the earth: The Holy Ghost.

Now, surely all of this becomes very tricky; discerning demonic spirits from the Holy Ghost. Determining if a teacher or prophet is false or true - so God taught us guidelines to use. Does the teacher or prophet who is teaching you teach that Christ, the Son of God, came in the flesh, was crucified for our sins, was buried, then arose on the third day, and ascended back into Heaven? Do they claim to be god themselves? Do they claim to be christ? What are the fruits being produced by their efforts? Does the spirit who is speaking to you witness to you that Jesus is the Christ? Does that spirit open up scripture to your mind and thus increase your knowledge about the Kingdom of God? Or does it confuse you with information or deny Jesus?

Remember, there were already false teachers and false prophets among the members as mentioned in the NT. How can you be sure that none of their teachings or commandments of men have not made their way into Orthodoxy? If man believed that apostasy or corruption had not entered the church, there would never have been a Reformation. If apostasy or corruption had never entered the church, then millions of believers would not have died at the hands of other believers. There would have been no teaching of hatred toward others - especially against the Jews who made it possible for the Gentiles to receive the Gospel message.

Now, the adversary is very intelligent and crafty. I think one of his most successful efforts for destroying the church is by causing problems within the church. No outside forces or efforts are as effective as the internal forces. Take the very teachings of the NT and use them to create doubt in the minds of the members. Make them fearful of the Holy Ghost; thus circumventing the Holy Ghost's ability to reach and to teach man.

Of course, as we get closer to the end times, Satan will not be using such subtle tactics. He will actually be performing the very same miracles which Jesus and the Apostles did in order to fool even the Elect. He will never give glory to Father, he will deny Jesus Christ; he will take credit for himself and will want total allegiance to be given to him. He is a very powerful god who already knows that he blew it. He will stop at nothing - and will even claim to be the True God. Of course, we know that he is the father of lies; his reign is only temporary - and he knows it:

Revelation 11:15

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

When Christ returns, Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, and the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord (Father), and of his Christ! And Christ will reign for ever and ever as King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

Best regards,

jo

[coolrok7]

God would not have anyone deceived but we are given the charge to understand the love of God in Christ (not to be spiritually deceived but will happen if one is not spiritually discerning properly):

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. . . .I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (Revelation 1:1-2; 9-11)

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:4-7)

Your statement here is not correct concerning the so-called destruction of the Church itself (which is not a Biblical teaching), which is not immune from problems, even from the beginning, but the problem is not with God but our fallen and corrupted nature that we’re all born with:

Now, the adversary is very intelligent and crafty. I think one of his most successful efforts for destroying the church is by causing problems within the church. No outside forces or efforts are as effective as the internal forces. Take the very teachings of the NT and use them to create doubt in the minds of the members. Make them fearful of the Holy Ghost; thus circumventing the Holy Ghost's ability to reach and to teach man.

The realization that the Lord’s true church was not only vulnerable, but destructible, comes as a shock to many people. But if wicked men were able to put to death the Messiah himself, is it so strange that they should have power to destroy his church? (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.11)

3. There was a complete apostasy affecting both Catholic and Protestant churches. . . .2. There was a total apostasy affecting the Catholic and Protestant churches. . . . (A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS, Aug. 1961, pp.32, 58)

The basic problem with your statement concerning the Christian church and its claimed supposed destruction by Mormonism (which didn’t exist until Joseph Smith and those that follow him into spiritual deception in my perspective) is not a Biblical teaching.

“Some” as taught in the Bible is not “total” “complete” as taught in Mormonism. This would be based on the words contained in the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit to be written so that one could know the truth and discern the difference between the true and the false based upon the warnings and counsel given:

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14-16)

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, . . .In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. (1 Timothy 4:1 2, 6)

There is no pronounced Biblical statement concerning the claimed “destruction” of the Church (some within deceived of course but not if they pay attention to the truth, delivered to the saints of Biblical faith, which is not the Mormonism of Joseph Smith, with correct spiritual discernment).

The following is part of a past conversation I had with Kevin (Wayne) Graham from his Mormon Answers website (first my statement, then his response; this was from back in May of 1999):

When your Church teaches that what I believe as a Protestant Christian is “pagan” and “heretical” and that I’m wrong, my point back is to give a defense of both what I believe from scripture (the Bible) and what I have been told officially by members of the LDS Church.

In reference to the word “some” Paul as you know wrote both 1&2 Timothy as well as 1&2 Thessalonians. The word apostasy in Thessalonians and some that would fall away in Timothy is speaking about the same thing. . .There will always be people falling away from the truth which will eventually culminate in the final delusion of the last anti-Christ (Paul identifies as the son of perdition)(there have been many anti-Christ’s as John says), who will be destroyed at the appearing of Jesus in the clouds. The point being there was and always will be the truth as contained in the Bible, preserved by the Holy Spirit of God. . . .

Excellent post Roy, and I do agree with most of what you stated. You have made an interesting argument about the two epistles to Timothy, and I do appreciate this, since I have never heard this as a defense for “some” apostasy. It is well noted! But I do have to say that the “Falling away” passage never literally said “Complete” either, and is perhaps one of the weaker scriptures used to defend the LDS position of a “complete apostasy”, although it is probably the most cited. . . .

[jo1952]

Hi Coolrok7:

It sounds like you do not believe that Satan is continually trying to destroy the church. I believe that is his total dream: "destroying the church". Who is the church? The members! What has apostatized? The "institutions" of religion and the leaders who represent those institutions who knowingly did exactly what the scribes and Pharisees did. They changed the teachings to the point that they were teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. Fortunately, the followers have their righteousness counted according to their faithfulness of what they believe or know to be truth; not whether or not the truth they believe or know is "correct". But their teachers who knowingly changed the teachings, and those teachers who don't follow their own teachings will be punished.

What we offer is not a Reformation which used what was already corrupted as their foundation. We offer the Restoration of Jesus' teachings.

You seem confused as to the distinction of differences between the body of Christ versus the institutions which represent Christ. It is the doctrine of the institutions which have become heresies and represent the apostasy; NOT the body of Christ.

Until you can see that difference and understand it, your message will remain just as confused; therefore, your words will not hold any credibility to me.

Best regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You were fine using Strong's dictionary from his concordance; why is that okay but my pointing out facts about the text learned from academic study not okay? Answer: the facts I presented don't fit with your beliefs. Your suggestion that my problem is that I don't keep God's commandments, follow Christ's example, pray, etc., is as irrelevant as it is insulting (although I certainly admit I need to grow in all of those areas, as anyone should). Also, you are mistaken in thinking I am depending on "the world" for my information, if by that you mean the unbelieving world. I can see for myself what the words of Scripture are and see how they are used.

If this is how you are going to answer non-Mormons, you might as well not bother. We know you think you have something from the Holy Ghost the rest of us don't have. Pulling that claim out as a "trump card" when you can't answer the arguments rationally only exposes the fact that you don't have an answer. But jo, there is no shame in not knowing something. The shame is in being unwilling to admit that you don't know, because that prevents you from learning.

I believe that your scholarly driven agenda to understand scripture interferes with what the Holy Ghost would you have you understand is being taught. You ask us the questions, and we answer them through the very means you require us to answer them with (ie, with scripture). You then reject our answers by using information which "experts" in fields such as "theology", "linguistics", etc., have to say about their "world-based education" on the subjects of those questions. Yet our relationship with Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost, are personal and private ones which entail the method for "educating" us which was given to us by the Father Himself - that is, the witness of the Holy Ghost and His continual guidance of each individual to all Truth. The world is not a part of that spiritual educational system except extemporaneously. Therefore, you will only see what you have been taught to see by the world. On a spiritual level, those who are keeping God's commandments, following the example of the Savior, use personal prayer to build their relationship with God, who faithfully study scripture by invoking the power of the Holy Ghost to help open their minds to the Kingdom of God, and who learn to discern the influence of the Holy Ghost in their lives, will increase their spiritual knowing and experiencing of God - something which the world cannot offer them. On that spiritual level, when Father deems them prepared to receive more understanding, it will be revealed to them.

May your eyes and your ears be able to see and to hear with the power of the Holy Ghost - which is greater than what any man is able to teach you. What God teaches us is more joy-filled to the point where our cups runneth over. May you experience those same joy-filled moments which the world has no such power to bring you.

Best regards,

jo

[Zakuska]

God would not have anyone be deceived but we are given the charge to understand the love of God in Christ (not to be spiritually deceived but will happen if one is not spiritually discerning properly):

Huh?

2 Thess 2

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

[coolrok7]

I added the underline here for emphasis:

God would not have anyone be deceived but we are given the charge to understand the love of God in Christ (not to be spiritually deceived but will happen if one is not spiritually discerning properly):

I’m well aware of the verses you quoted Zak but that doesn’t mean everyone will be saved. This is the thought I had in mind when I wrote what I did without also providing this passage at the time (being deceived can lead one to perish at the Judgment Day in the context of eternal punishment as not all will repent):

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. . .And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:9, 15-16)

[jo1952]

jo,

You were fine using Strong's dictionary from his concordance; why is that okay but my pointing out facts about the text learned from academic study not okay? Answer: the facts I presented don't fit with your beliefs. Your suggestion that my problem is that I don't keep God's commandments, follow Christ's example, pray, etc., is as irrelevant as it is insulting (although I certainly admit I need to grow in all of those areas, as anyone should). Also, you are mistaken in thinking I am depending on "the world" for my information, if by that you mean the unbelieving world. I can see for myself what the words of Scripture are and see how they are used.

Hi Rob,

You are mistaken to think that I used Strong's version in order to "support" "my" beliefs. I used Strong's version to make my point - which is, that depending upon scholars to try to justify our relationship with God is not a good place to be. Since you have already assumed that this was my purpose, I can see that my entire message has been lost on you. I did not present my comments about depending upon the spiritual for a relationship with God as an accusation that I think you personally have failed in that department. It was a comment pretty much taken from the teachings of the Bible. It is the message that the Bible is teaching everyone - but only the spirit can understand this. I make no claims to be the perfect example of following Christ's example. Far from it. I know that there is still much about the Kingdom of Heaven which I am blind to; when Father thinks I am ready, more and more will continue to be revealed to me. I DO recognize that the Bible warned us about the "scholarly" because they often become attached to the world and man's opinions; thus, they manifest the signs of being more attached to the world than they are to God.

If this is how you are going to answer non-Mormons, you might as well not bother. We know you think you have something from the Holy Ghost the rest of us don't have. Pulling that claim out as a "trump card" when you can't answer the arguments rationally only exposes the fact that you don't have an answer. But jo, there is no shame in not knowing something. The shame is in being unwilling to admit that you don't know, because that prevents you from learning.

I am always disappointed when someone who does not agree with someone else's beliefs automatically thinks that when a person begins to support their beliefs about God through their relationship with the Holy Ghost as being some type of "trump card". It is not only the LDS who specifically seek their understanding about God FROM God; as opposed to depending upon the teachings of men in order to try to make sure their ideas about God are "correct". When they do, as you have now also done, I find it difficult to give their "scholarly knowledge" much credibility. That is because they have manifested to me that they do not understand teachings such as Paul's wherein God's Kingdom is a spiritual existence; and it is only on a spiritual level that we can understand this. The physical world, by nature of its being physical, cannot comprehend the spiritual. This indicates to me that those who claim that the Holy Ghost has guided them in their beliefs who then depend upon worldly evidence to support their claim, have not had much experiencing of God through the Holy Ghost. Rather, they have had little, or are unable yet to discern His guiding influence in their lives. This causes them to depend upon what man has taught them because they still don't have their own experiences with the Holy Ghost to draw upon when they are discussing God.

We walk in faith in our relationship with God; not in physical "proof" as determined and identified by man. You are an intelligent man. I would offer that there is much more to "knowing" God than reading about Him from man's writings. There is much, much indescribable joy to be had Holy Spirit to spirit (YOUR spirit). The things which you hold so closely to in accordance to what man thinks is important when attempting to decipher scripture by taking it to task by every jot and tittle changes when it is actually the Holy Ghost who is guiding you rather than the precepts of man. That is when the scriptures will open up and take on a life of their own, which is very much different from what man teaches. So far, my observation is that you are still very attached to what man teaches vs what you can learn through your own personal experiencing of God through the power of the Holy Ghost. BTW, you don't need to be LDS to enjoy this type of experiencing.

Best regards,

jo