Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Thanks for your comments.

Most of the denominational divisions among Protestants have nothing to do with heresy. For example, evangelicals in the various Baptist denominations, the Presbyterian Church in America, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the Evangelical Free Church, Calvary Chapels, etc., do not view one another as heretics. We do view the liberals within mainline denominations (e.g., within the Episcopal Church, the so-called Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the American Baptist Churches USA, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Methodists) as heretics. Those denominations have had a mixture of evangelicals and liberals for decades.

Historically, most Christians distinguish between schism and heresy. Schism is regrettable divisions within the body of Christ. Heresy is division in which those promoting the heresy are teaching false doctrine so serious that those who teach and follow it have de facto cut themselves off from the body of Christ.

1 John is referring to false teachers and their followers, who falsely professed to follow Christ (e.g., 1 John 2:1-4) but who went out from us because they were not really part of us, as John puts it (2:19).

Rob I don't really see a big difference between the LDS church claiming to be the "only true church". And Evangelical churchs claiming every one else are heretics. If each church wasn't claiming this there would be no division.

All the schims that have happend through out history from the time of Christ has been caused by the exact same thing. One group thinks another group is heretical so they begin drawing on screipture to define who they are and what is heretical and thus we end up with all the divisions. It was happening in pretty much every church Paul was writting to.

I think we all would do better to read Romans 14 again and see how much importance Paul put on preceived differences of Christian practice.

Now some doctrinal issues are directly addressed by the Bible and the Lord.

Revelation 2:15

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Revelation 2:24

24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

Revelation 2:14

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

So perhaps we would do well to see what these doctrines are that the Lord is warning us about and try and steer clear of them.

I also mentioned 1 John and some doctrines which set one out as AntiChrist. I actually think that might be Johns attempt to define Judaisms rejection that Jesus was the promised Messiah as an orthodox view. So people who say the Messiah hasn't come yet would be disqualified.

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

You wrote:

Of course you are correct, and one leading evangelical Presbyterian minister very recently told his fellow evangelicals that he considered most Mormons he knew to be Christians. He told them that he was not concerned with distinctive LDS teachings, but rather with the fact that Mormons accept the saving blood of Christ. His fellow evangelicals accepted that inclusionary statement with obvious pleasure. Since that was a private meeting, I cannot disclose the names of the participants.

Such an evangelical Presbyterian minister is, in my opinion, taking too narrow of a view of the issues between evangelicals and Mormons. I am not here addressing the question of the salvation of Mormons who believe they are saved by the blood of Christ. There are some soteriological issues that the minister has overlooked or perhaps even chosen to ignore (I don't know who he is, of course), but even granting that many Mormons might be genuinely saved because of their faith in Christ, the LDS religion remains heretical from an orthodox perspective, just as orthodox Christianity remains apostate from a Mormon perspective. Neither side can be "inclusionary" in the sense of papering over these serious differences.

You wrote:

This does not mean that other evangelicals will not continue to plot, scheme, and hope for the demise of Mormonism. Nor will it prevent missionaries for both sides to continue attempting to convert one another. But it is nice to know that there are people out there who can be described as the honest in heart who are not out to destroy one another -- nor to lie in wait to deceive.

Evangelicals are no more plotting Mormonism's demise than Mormons are plotting evangelicalism's demise. Or perhaps I could say no less. Evangelicals properly view Mormonism as heretical and Mormons, if they are being true to their founding scriptures, properly view evangelicalism as apostate. As you admit, both sides seek to convert the other. I don't consider Mormons dishonest merely because they seek to convert evangelicals, nor are evangelicals less than "honest in heart" for wanting to see Mormons come to an evangelical faith in Christ. (Evangelicals are actually not seeking to convert Mormons to their institutional religion or denomination. I could care less which denomination a person joins, as long as that person knows Christ and is growing in the truth of the biblical gospel and worldview.) Nor would I plead guilty to "lying in wait to deceive." I and other evangelicals with whom I associate in ministry to Mormons work very hard to speak accurately and fairly about the LDS religion.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

No. Obviously. The LDS Church isn't involved here in interfaith discussion, though a few members are, and it is speaking for itself, and to its members, when it claims to be the only true church. How did you miss these two critical qualifiers in your failed attempt at a tu quoque?

I don't appreciate the tone of your question. Whether you think so or not, I am trying to understand you and respond to you honestly.

It is false that the LDS Church is speaking only to its members when it claims to be the only true church. It makes this claim when its missionaries teach their lessons to Christians in the effort to convert them to that supposedly only true church.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

You've already asserted that God has endowed you with the authority to declare who is and not a theological Christian. Now you assert that no one has the authority even to identify the standards that determine who is and is not a theological Christian? Please explain how both can be true....

So you do assert that you are the arbiter over everyone else concerning what standards determine who is and is not a theological Christian, and your standard has nothing to do with any declarations made by Jesus or his apostolic representatives.

I do not consider myself to be "the arbiter over" anyone else, but to be a Christian who is responsible for knowing what the theological standards are for genuine Christianity. I maintain that all Christians have that responsibility, though Christian teachers are responsible to play a leadership role (not a dictatorial role) within the Christian community in teaching other believers to understand those standards. Our authority as Christians for exercising that responsibility comes from God, who has called us to be his people; the authority of teachers (like me) to exercise a leadership role in this matter also comes from God, who by the Holy Spirit gifts and calls certain Christians to be teachers in the body of Christ.

The standards absolutely do derive from the Bible, though Christians may and do use postbiblical statements (creeds, confessions, etc.) to articulate those standards in response to new heresies and new theological issues as they arise.

You wrote:

The Nicene Creed does not even come close to being explicitly biblical. It conflicts with the Bible in dozens upon dozens of places and only works if one superimposes a specific and presuppositional interpretive framework on the Bible.

That's absurd. The Nicene Creed doesn't even have "dozens and dozens of places," let alone have conflicts with the Bible in dozens and dozens of places. Ironically, I've had Mormons on this forum try to convince me that they could accept all but a couple of words in the Nicene Creed. Clearly, they do not agree with your assessment. Your characterization is simply a broad generalization, a bald assertion that sounds bad for orthodox Christians but has no substance to back it up.

You wrote:

But those "truths" are inferences drawn from a specific interpretive framework overlaid on the scriptures. You can't point to a single scripture that supports your standard all by itself. You can only point to a series of scriptures and explain that they must be interpreted with a list of specific presuppositions in mind.

More broad assertions with no substance for me to address.

You wrote:

You're basically saying that all spiritual Christians are also theological Christians, but not all theological Christians are spiritual Christians.

No. Christians in the spiritual sense may not be theologically orthodox (Christians in the theological sense), but a person's lack of theological orthodoxy may be a symptom of a lack of a genuinely saving relationship with Jesus Christ, and in any case those who persist in embracing heresy cannot be functional members of the orthodox Christian community.

You wrote:

A tu quoque fallacy. Conservative Evangelicals are far, far, far more sectarian than Latter-day Saints could ever hope to be.

Perhaps it would help if you would provide a definition of sectarian.

You wrote:

Show me that the deity of Christ, and specifically that he is a separate person within a single being, was an issue determined in the Bible to be critical to the church.

You've rather stacked the question in such a way as to miss the point. A reasonable and fruitful discussion of this issue would have to be a separate thread and in any case would have to proceed from certain hermeneutical agreements that you and I simply do not share.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

Rob Bowman:

If you love me keep my commandments.

I agree (assuming you are quoting Jesus and not asking me to keep your commandments!).

[Mudcat]

I think that it can be applied to either, and it would be equally valid. They share the same mind, the same intellect, the same infinite wisdom. The only difference between them is that the Son is subordinate to the Father; but that does not mean that one is any wiser than the other, or smarter than the other, or knows something that the other doesn't.

So you think when Jude says "the only wise God our Savior", Jude meant either the Father or the Son..take your pick. Have I got that right?

This seems to be what you are saying, but I don't understand why you think Jude meant that it could be either one.. when Jude says "only".

Edited October 17, 2011 by Mudcat

[zerinus]

So you think when Jude says "the only wise God our Savior", Jude meant either the Father or the Son..take your pick. Have I got that right?

No; what I mean is that it is not possible to know from the context with certainty whether he had the Father in mind when he said that, or the Son. But the statement would be equally valid whichever one he did have in mind.

This seems to be what you are saying, but I don't understand why you think Jude meant that it could be either one.. when Jude says "only".

I explained to you in post #275 how it could be applicable to either one.

Edited October 17, 2011 by zerinus

[Vance]

Our authority as Christians for exercising that responsibility comes from God, who has called us to be his people; the authority of teachers (like me) to exercise a leadership role in this matter also comes from God, who by the Holy Spirit gifts and calls certain Christians to be teachers in the body of Christ.

Questions await you in this thread.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55982-got-authority/

[Mudcat]

No; what I mean is that it is not possible to know from the context with certainty whether he had the Father in mind when he said that, or the Son. But the statement would be equally valid whichever one he did have in mind.

I disagree with you here.

Looking at v. 24-25 together it is clearer

Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Jude is specifically referring to someone who is supposed to present the believer faultless before "his glory" with joy. If Jude was speaking of the role of the Father, then who does the Father incline himself to present the believer to?

I think it's apparent Jude refers to Christ rather than some pick and choose scenario, as you have posited.

I explained to you in post #275 how it could be applicable to either one.

It was more of an assertion than an explanation, sounded very Trinitarian in some respects. The reason I say so is your statement.

They share the same mind, the same intellect, the same infinite wisdom. The only difference between them is that the Son is subordinate to the Father; but that does not mean that one is any wiser than the other, or smarter than the other, or knows something that the other doesn't.

You are saying the Father and Son actually "share" the same mind, intellect and infinite wisdom.

I was always under the impression that LDS thought Father, Son and Holy Spirit each had independent minds, intellects... Your support that they actually share the same mind and so forth is a new one for me.

Do you really think that?

[Mudcat]

Questions await you in this thread.

http://www.mormondia...-got-authority/

We have yet to see Daddy G offer any support that Bowman made such a statement, though he has been asked.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Mudcat

[diglot]

Saw the discussion on Jude...

FYI, the KJV is wrong in adding the word "wise" to verse 25. It is also wrong in omitting the phrase "through Jesus Christ our Lord".

The verse should read more like this...

25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

[Vance]

We have yet to see Daddy G offer any support that Bowman made such a statement, though he has been asked.

If you will look at post #59 you will find Bowman saying,

Yes, I am a judge as to who is a Christian.

[Mudcat]

If you will look at post #59 you will find Bowman saying,

Oh... well yes.. I see. Thanks Vance.

Hmm... It's rather of out bounds IMO. I suppose he has stepped in it, made his bed and that sort of thing in regards to the topic.

However, we all say some silly (I am trying to be polite) things, once and again. Hopefully this was just one of those moments and hopefully there will be some recognition of that.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Mudcat

[Rob Bowman]

Mudcat,

When I wrote, "Yes, I am a judge as to who is a Christian," there was a context of prior discussion that led to my making that statement. I was responding in a context in which those who were asking the question would not clarify exactly what they meant by a Christian. Nor at the time was anyone expressing interest or openness to what I think the term means. The dogmatism was all on the LDS side, frankly. So I answered the question in the provocative way that I did, knowing that it was provocative, because I hoped it would lead to some constructive discussion that would clarify the real issues.

As I have explained since making that provocative statement, I do not decide who is saved and who is not. I do not have the authority to excommunicate anyone from the Christian church. I don't "judge" people in those senses. However, in the theological sense of the term Christian as someone who accepts the historic, orthodox Christian faith, all of us in that Christian tradition have the right and even the responsibility to know what it means to be a Christian (in that sense). I am not shy about asserting, for example, that a so-called Christian Scientist, who denies that Jesus died or rose from the grave, is not a Christian (in that sense). I can "judge" that to be so because belief in Jesus' death and resurrection is an essential of the Christian faith. Will that Christian Scientist be saved? Ultimately I don't know, but I do know that she needs to repent of following her false religion and come to faith in the real Jesus Christ in order to have any solid basis of assurance of eternal life with God. I take the same approach with any religious group or individual that denies one or more essentials of orthodox Christianity. My stance is a principled one that I realize Mormons will not accept and that most will not even respect, but I would be flagrantly inconsistent to deny that Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses are genuine Christians (in that theological sense) and not say the same thing about Mormons.

So I don't think what I said was silly or that I have "stepped in it," though I can understand how someone who did not follow the exchange at each step might think so. I hope what I have said here clarifies the matter for you.

Oh... well yes.. I see. Thanks Vance.

Hmm... It's rather of out bounds IMO. I suppose he has stepped in it, made his bed and that sort of thing in regards to the topic.

However, we all say some silly (I am trying to be polite) things, once and again. Hopefully this was just one of those moments and hopefully there will be some recognition of that.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

I do not consider myself to be "the arbiter over" anyone else, but to be a Christian who is responsible for knowing what the theological standards are for genuine Christianity.

What possible purpose could such a responsibility serve outside of acting as arbiter over someone else regarding their participation in genuine Christianity?

I maintain that all Christians have that responsibility, though Christian teachers are responsible to play a leadership role (not a dictatorial role) within the Christian community in teaching other believers to understand those standards.

I have never seen an example of defining the boundaries of Christianity that was cautionary and internal in nature. I have seen numerous, numerous examples of defining the boundaries of Christianity as reactionary and external in nature. In other words, I have never seen people say "these are the boundaries of Christianity, so make sure you stay within them," but I have seen numerous people say "these are the boundaries of Christianity, and you are outside them." Is the latter an inappropriate use of the authority you have?

Our authority as Christians for exercising that responsibility comes from God, who has called us to be his people; the authority of teachers (like me) to exercise a leadership role in this matter also comes from God, who by the Holy Spirit gifts and calls certain Christians to be teachers in the body of Christ.

The standards absolutely do derive from the Bible, though Christians may and do use postbiblical statements (creeds, confessions, etc.) to articulate those standards in response to new heresies and new theological issues as they arise.

I disagree quite emphatically. I've already asked you to support this notion, and so far you've been unwilling or unable. Consider this a formal CFR. Show me the Trinity as articulated by the Athanasian Creed is exclusively biblical.

You wrote:

That's absurd. The Nicene Creed doesn't even have "dozens and dozens of places," let alone have conflicts with the Bible in dozens and dozens of places.

Every place where Christ explicitly describes himself as distinct from and inferior to God, the Bible conflicts with the Trinity. Attempts to mitigate this fact by insisting on a functional/ontological dichotomy in Christ's subordination to God are derivative and don't fully solve the problem. Christ's assertion, for instance, that he is not good, and that only God is good, expresses a quite explicit ontological subordination. Christ's prayer that his followers become one with him and the father exactly as he is one with the Father undermines the idea that Christ's oneness with God is ontological. That conflicts with the Nicene Creed. Christ's own distinction between himself and the Father as "the only true God" conflicts with the Trinity. The descriptions of Christ as the first or beginning of God's creations conflict with the Trinity. Many more examples could be highlighted.

Ironically, I've had Mormons on this forum try to convince me that they could accept all but a couple of words in the Nicene Creed. Clearly, they do not agree with your assessment. Your characterization is simply a broad generalization, a bald assertion that sounds bad for orthodox Christians but has no substance to back it up.

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I don't mean to say dozens of points within the creed conflict with the Bible. I am saying that the few innovative portions of the Nicene Creed conflicts with the Bible in dozens of places.

You wrote:

More broad assertions with no substance for me to address.

Ok, here's some substance. The fourth century CE framers of the Trinity held three principles as inviolable in their development and exposition of the doctrine. Only the first is explicit in scripture, and that is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were three different entities. I don't say "persons" or "beings" because these carry baggage in the Trinitarian lexicon that simply did not exist in the first two centuries of the Christian church. No real practical distinction was made between a "person" and a "being" when discussing a sentient entity. That distinction was manipulated in the fourth century in order to accomodate the first and the second interpretive axioms. That second axiom was a specific brand of monotheism. Christ could not be divine and distinct from God. This was a framework that developed in the second and third centuries CE as Greek intellectual categories were appropriated by Christian apologists. Justin Martyr shows the early stages of the transition to this period in his insistence that Jesus is "another God" who is a separate being from the Father. He explains their unity as one of will, not of number. While some manner of monotheism existed in Greco-Roman period Judaism, Christianity's innovation was not immediately or easily reconciled to that ideal. There is a reason the question of how the earliest Christians viewed Christ's deity has been such a popular topic over the last couple decades, and the reason is not that it was quickly or clearly understood (see here, here, here, here, and here, for starters). The third axiom was the last to be developed, and that's because it came from completely outside Judaism and Christianity. It was the notion that all three members of the Godhead had to be ontologically equal. There is a reason subordinationism was the final "heresy" in the development of the doctrine at Nicea (and the "heresy" most clearly found in the proto-Trinitarians like Tertullian). As divine beings, one could not be ontological subordinate to another. This is directly reliant upon the Greek notion that the category of "God" is one of superlatives. Xenophanes expresses this quite clearly: "If God is the mightiest, He must be One; for were He two or more, He would not have dominion over the others, but, not having dominion over the others, He could not be God. Thus were there several, they would be relatively more powerful or weaker, and thus they would not be gods, for God’s nature is to have nothing mightier than He." The need for Christ to be equal had nothing to do with scripture, and is actually directly contradicted by scripture in numerous places. There is not a single verse in all the Bible that can be appealed to to contradict subordinationism without first presupposing that subordinationism is a heresy. How did it become a heresy if not through scripture? Because it conflicted with a philosophical principle. Why has no one ever arrived at the Trinity without first understanding these three principles as inviolable? Because it's the product of a specific set of presuppositions, with scripture playing only a complementary role.

This is why I say there were specific interpretive frameworks that had to overlay the scriptures in order for Trinitarianism to be found therein. Without these frameworks, both native to, and imported into, Christianity, there's simply no way to arrive at the Trinity.

You wrote:

No. Christians in the spiritual sense may not be theologically orthodox (Christians in the theological sense), but a person's lack of theological orthodoxy may be a symptom of a lack of a genuinely saving relationship with Jesus Christ, and in any case those who persist in embracing heresy cannot be functional members of the orthodox Christian community.

You earlier implied that those who are outside the theological circle who become spiritual Christians will resolve their theological problems and move inside the theological circle. You said some Mormons have been spiritual Christians because they were in the "process" of being led out of their religion and into an "authentically Christian church." Thus a lack of theological orthodoxy is unilaterally a symptom of a lack of a genuinely saving relationship with Jesus Christ unless that lack of orthodoxy is in the very process of being remedied. Can one be a spiritual Christian while remaining a theological non-Christian? According to what you said before, one cannot. According to what you say here, one can. You are redrawing your lines, Rob.

You wrote:

Perhaps it would help if you would provide a definition of sectarian.

The one at Wikipedia aligns with the way I am using it: "Bigotry, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group."

You wrote:

You've rather stacked the question in such a way as to miss the point. A reasonable and fruitful discussion of this issue would have to be a separate thread and in any case would have to proceed from certain hermeneutical agreements that you and I simply do not share.

Can you provide support for your hermeneutical position on purely academic grounds, or is there an element of dogmatism that must hold in order for your position to be tenable?

[zerinus]

I disagree with you here.

Looking at v. 24-25 together it is clearer

Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Jude is specifically referring to someone who is supposed to present the believer faultless before "his glory" with joy. If Jude was speaking of the role of the Father, then who does the Father incline himself to present the believer to?

I think it's apparent Jude refers to Christ rather than some pick and choose scenario, as you have posited.

Sorry, but it doesn’t appear so certain to me. If you want to look at it in its full context, you should bring verse 1 into it as well:

1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

24 Now unto him [Father] that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his [Father’s] glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God [Father] our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

We normally understand that our sanctification comes by Jesus Christ, don’t we, which is of course correct (e.g. 1 Thes. 3:12-13). But in verse 1 Jude says that we are sanctified by the Father. Likewise in verse 24, “him” and “his” appear to be reflexive, and refer to the Father Himself rather than to a third person.

It was more of an assertion than an explanation, sounded very Trinitarian in some respects. The reason I say so is your statement.

You are saying the Father and Son actually "share" the same mind, intellect and infinite wisdom.

I was always under the impression that LDS thought Father, Son and Holy Spirit each had independent minds, intellects... Your support that they actually share the same mind and so forth is a new one for me.

Do you really think that?

Yes, I do. That is perfectly consistent with LDS theology. Here is a quote from Lecture Five of the Lectures on Faith by Joseph Smith, showing not only that the Father and the Son possess the same Mind, but the Saints will share the same Mind with them when they are fully sanctified and exalted:

The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

So as you can see, not only the Father and the Son have the same mind, but the Saints will also have the same Mind when they are exalted, and become like them. Did you find that surprising?

Edited October 17, 2011 by zerinus

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

When I wrote, "Yes, I am a judge as to who is a Christian," there was a context of prior discussion that led to my making that statement. I was responding in a context in which those who were asking the question would not clarify exactly what they meant by a Christian. Nor at the time was anyone expressing interest or openness to what I think the term means. The dogmatism was all on the LDS side, frankly. So I answered the question in the provocative way that I did, knowing that it was provocative, because I hoped it would lead to some constructive discussion that would clarify the real issues.

Hi Rob,

I agree it was provocative and in the since that provocative statements tend to provoke, I think you likely achieved that goal. Personally, I don't imagine any amount of context would make me very sympathetic towards a statement like, "Yes, I am a judge as to who is a Christian,". It just creates a bit of confusion IMO.

As I have explained since making that provocative statement, I do not decide who is saved and who is not. I do not have the authority to excommunicate anyone from the Christian church. I don't "judge" people in those senses.

I typically try to steer clear of arguing with other Evangelicals and certainly don't want to start a land war in Asia or something like that over the topic. Certainly what you say is your own business, and I am glad you clarified it and that this, emphasis mine, is your actual position on the matter.

So I don't think what I said was silly or that I have "stepped in it," though I can understand how someone who did not follow the exchange at each step might think so. I hope what I have said here clarifies the matter for you.

It does clarify a great deal. I was a bit harsh in my language, my apologies if there is offense, but your provocative statement had as polarizing an effect on me as it would just about anyone.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited October 17, 2011 by Mudcat

[Vance]

Oh... well yes.. I see. Thanks Vance.

Hmm... It's rather of out bounds IMO. I suppose he has stepped in it, made his bed and that sort of thing in regards to the topic.

However, we all say some silly (I am trying to be polite) things, once and again. Hopefully this was just one of those moments and hopefully there will be some recognition of that.

Yes, he did step in it.

But, now that his position has been exposed as without merit, he is backtracking big time.

In light of posts # 59, 67, 73, 157, 164, 165, 186, 223 etc., it is obvious that he was both serious and provocative.

[CV75]

the authority of teachers (like me) to exercise a leadership role in this matter also comes from God, who by the Holy Spirit gifts and calls certain Christians to be teachers in the body of Christ.

As long as a Christian minister favors theology over revelation as the means and process of leading people to spiritual salvation in Christ, such a directive is only man-made. God does not call someone on the basis of his own study and training to impose his views upon others, nor does He sustain the assumption of such authority.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

As long as a Christian minister favors theology over revelation as the means and process of leading people to spiritual salvation in Christ, such a directive is only man-made. God does not call someone on the basis of his own study and training to impose his views upon others, nor does He sustain the assumption of such authority.

Your dichotomy between theology and revelation is a man-made dichotomy, and a false dichotomy to boot.

[Hannah Rebekah]

I think the mistake you are making is that you are assuming that the word "savior" must always apply to Jesus Christ, whereas it need not do so. It is true that Jesus is called our Savior in a very specific sense—i.e. saving or redeeming us by His suffering and death on the cross. But in a wider sense, the Father can also be called our Savior, because He is in fact the ultimate source of our salvation, through whose mercy and grace Jesus was appointed to be our Savior. There are a number of verses in the Bible where the adjective savior is applied in a sense that could be applied to the Father or the Son:

Psalms 106:

21 They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt

Luke 1:

47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

1 Timothy 1:

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope

1 Timothy 2:

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.

And on the flip side, there are passages where the "only wise God" is applied to the Father, distinguished from the Son:

Romans 16:

27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

1 Timothy 1:

17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

D&C 132:

24 This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.

zerinus,

Great posts. This one reminded me of a quote by Origen:

"Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity.... As, then, there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ...." (Origen (ca. AD 185-251), Commentary on John 2:3, in ANF 10:323.)

[Hannah Rebekah]

CV75,

You wrote:

Your dichotomy between theology and revelation is a man-made dichotomy, and a false dichotomy to boot.

I don't think so. Mormons believe in revelation and the Bible is based completely on revelation...everything after that is man-made and we know that because:

"no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Cor. 12:3

Edited October 18, 2011 by Hannah Rebekah

[Bill Hamblin]

CV75,

You wrote:

Your dichotomy between theology and revelation is a man-made dichotomy, and a false dichotomy to boot.

Actually there's no such thing as theology in the Bible. It was invented by the Greeks and imposed on the Bible. Theology consciously replaced new revelation as the arbiter of the meaning of former revelation.

[Rob Bowman]

Hannah Rebekah,

You wrote:

I don't think so. Mormons believe in revelation and the Bible is based completely on revelation...everything after that is man-made and we know that because:

"no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Cor. 12:3

That's quite a non sequitur. Assuming 1 Corinthians 12:3 is describing what could be called revelation, by that definition revelation never ceased (since people continued to confess that Jesus is Lord throughout the past two millennia) and theology that affirms the Lordship of Jesus is, by that definition, revelation.

Thanks for offering such a compelling refutation of the false dichotomy.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Actually there's no such thing as theology in the Bible. It was invented by the Greeks and imposed on the Bible. Theology consciously replaced new revelation as the arbiter of the meaning of former revelation.

That old chestnut.

The apostle Paul is widely regarded as the first Christian theologian. Theology is simply rational thought about God and matters pertaining to God.

I notice that your don't say who imposed theology on the Bible or replaced new revelation with theology. This is likely because you don't have a plausible suspect. There was no time when some Greeks got together and decided that they were done listening to new Christian revelations and that they were going to replace such new revelations with theology. What happened is clear: new revelation ceased with the passing of the first-century apostles, and Christian pastors, leaders, and thinkers continued to do what they were charged with doing by the apostles themselves, namely, to teach and proclaim what Christ had revealed through the apostles. Using their cognitive faculties to do so was no sin.