Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Anijen]

I am a firm believer of the old adage "a picture paints a thousand words," so in light of that, because a picture can articulate my thoughts better than my words I have changed my avatar to reflect my thoughts on the argument; are Mormons Christian?

[Mudcat]

I am a firm believer of the old adage "a picture paints a thousand words," so in light of that, because a picture can articulate my thoughts better than my words I have changed my avatar to reflect my thoughts on the argument; are Mormons Christian?

My avatar is plainly just to cool to change...

But to echo the need for a face palm Anijen.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Edited October 22, 2011 by Mudcat

[zerinus]

My avatar is plainly just to cool to change...

I think this lion looks cooler:

[Anijen]

that made my day Mudcat!

[zerinus]

The problem still remains though, how would someone like a Mormon choose which one of the "competing theologies" in Christendom is the right one for him to accept in place of Mormonism? Let's suppose I decided to follow your advice, and abandon Mormonism in favor of one of the mainstream Christian denominations; how should I decide which is the right one? Christianity (especially Protestantism) is split up into many competing factions; and they all use the same criteria that you are advocating to determine that their interpretation of the Bible is the closest to the real thing. So if your methodology is the correct way to make the kind of "judgements" you are advocating, how come it has led to such diverse and competing interpretations of Christianity resulting in countless numbers of sects and churches? And how should a Mormon like me decide which is the right one to choose?

Since our friend Rob Bowman has again decided that his interest is better served by ignoring my post rather than replying to it, I am obliged to conclude the discussion myself, without his cooperation. He can still reply if he wants to.

The answer is that the Bible alone isn't enough to help us make that decision, because each of those churches, factions, sects, and denominations use the Bible to justify their respective beliefs. It is relying on the Bible alone that has led to the problem in the first place; therefore the Bible alone can't help us get out of it. There is however a solution. There was somebody else who was faced with the same problem, and he figured out the right solution to it: He was a 14 year old lad called Joseph Smith. He concluded that the only solution was to go directly to the source of all truth, who was God; and he got the answer he needed. That sets a good example for everyone else to follow. We can ask of God which one of all the churches is right, and He is in a best position to be able to tell us. It couldn't be simpler!

Edited October 24, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

deleted

Edited October 24, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

The problem still remains though, how would someone like a Mormon choose which one of the "competing theologies" in Christendom is the right one for him to accept in place of Mormonism? Let's suppose I decided to follow your advice, and abandon Mormonism in favor of one of the mainstream Christian denominations; how should I decide which is the right one? Christianity (especially Protestantism) is split up into many competing factions; and they all use the same criteria that you are advocating to determine that their interpretation of the Bible is the closest to the real thing. So if your methodology is the correct way to make the kind of "judgements" you are advocating, how come it has led to such diverse and competing interpretations of Christianity resulting in countless numbers of sects and churches? And how should a Mormon like me decide which is the right one to choose?

Since our friend Rob Bowman has again decided that his interest is better served by ignoring my post rather than replying to it, I am obliged to conclude the discussion myself, without his cooperation. He can still reply if he wants to.

The answer is that the Bible alone isn't enough to help us make that decision, because each of those churches, factions, sects, and denominations use the Bible to justify their respective beliefs. It is relying on the Bible alone that has led to the problem in the first place; therefore the Bible alone can't help us get out of it. There is however a solution. There was somebody else who was faced with the same problem, and he figured out the right solution to it: He was a 14 year old lad called Joseph Smith. He concluded that the only solution was to go directly to the source of all truth, who was God; and he got the answer he needed. That sets a good example for everyone else to follow. We can ask of God which one of all the churches is right, and He is in a best position to be able to tell us. It couldn't be simpler!

You may notice that I have responded to another post from you on a different thread, so you don't need to feel neglected. There is only so much of me to go around.

Let's say you really were to adopt the method I advocate, which is to treat the Bible as the unerring, final court of appeal for Christian doctrine and practice, with the Bible interpreted in its historical and literary contexts according to sound hermeneutical principles. What sort of belief would you end up accepting? To answer this question, let's survey the entirety of Christianity broadly defined and see which groups actually accept this standard. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not, since they make their religious hierarchy and teaching offices the final court of appeal, with their tradition as normative for interpreting the Bible. Liberal Protestants do not, because they view the Bible as errant and subject to correction and even repudiation in light of their rationalistic use of reason and supposed modern enlightened understanding of science and values. Heretical sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses (who profess to believe the Bible as unerring but then posit that the text of the NT was so corrupted that they have to "restore" the true text) or Christian Scientists (who claim that the Bible contains "mortal error" wherever it assumes the reality of the material world!) do not accept the standard. What group does accept the standard? The answer is evangelical Protestantism accepts that standard, and no one else does.

Now, of course, evangelical Protestants have their differences. We have different views on a number of topics. On the fringes of evangelicalism one can find sects that have blown these issues out of proportion and that damn everyone who doesn't agree with them (the KJV Only people come to mind). Theologically, when such sects do this, they divide themselves from the rest of evangelicalism and end up with a doctrine of the church, and even a doctrine of salvation, that is not evangelical. So I don't even consider such fringe elements evangelical. Excluding those fringe sects, evangelicalism is actually a surprisingly coherent Christian movement that emphasizes its unity on the essentials and that recognizes its differences as being on nonessentials. Evangelicals constitute a worldwide movement of roughly 600 million believers in 129 countries. You can find a statement of faith that expresses the essentials of evangelicalism here. I would be happy if you were to find your way into any of the varieties of evangelicalism that affirms those essentials. The Bible is enough to establish those essentials, if one approaches the Bible in the way I have explained.

[ERayR]

You may notice that I have responded to another post from you on a different thread, so you don't need to feel neglected. There is only so much of me to go around.

Let's say you really were to adopt the method I advocate, which is to treat the Bible as the unerring, final court of appeal for Christian doctrine and practice, with the Bible interpreted in its historical and literary contexts according to sound hermeneutical principles. What sort of belief would you end up accepting? To answer this question, let's survey the entirety of Christianity broadly defined and see which groups actually accept this standard. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not, since they make their religious hierarchy and teaching offices the final court of appeal, with their tradition as normative for interpreting the Bible. Liberal Protestants do not, because they view the Bible as errant and subject to correction and even repudiation in light of their rationalistic use of reason and supposed modern enlightened understanding of science and values. Heretical sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses (who profess to believe the Bible as unerring but then posit that the text of the NT was so corrupted that they have to "restore" the true text) or Christian Scientists (who claim that the Bible contains "mortal error" wherever it assumes the reality of the material world!) do not accept the standard. What group does accept the standard? The answer is evangelical Protestantism accepts that standard, and no one else does.

Now, of course, evangelical Protestants have their differences. We have different views on a number of topics. On the fringes of evangelicalism one can find sects that have blown these issues out of proportion and that damn everyone who doesn't agree with them (the KJV Only people come to mind). Theologically, when such sects do this, they divide themselves from the rest of evangelicalism and end up with a doctrine of the church, and even a doctrine of salvation, that is not evangelical. So I don't even consider such fringe elements evangelical. Excluding those fringe sects, evangelicalism is actually a surprisingly coherent Christian movement that emphasizes its unity on the essentials and that recognizes its differences as being on nonessentials. Evangelicals constitute a worldwide movement of roughly 600 million believers in 129 countries. You can find a statement of faith that expresses the essentials of evangelicalism here. I would be happy if you were to find your way into any of the varieties of evangelicalism that affirms those essentials. The Bible is enough to establish those essentials, if one approaches the Bible in the way I have explained.

That is all well and good, Mr. Bowman, if I want to suspend my reason and turn my life over to you to run. However, if I want to continue to be a thnking reasoning being, and still wanted to leave Mormonism, then one of your other evangelical denominations may appeal to my reason.

Is it not obvious to you that your approach really does require that one ackowledge you as the arbiter of what is right and wrong and requires that one give abandon their own reason. I for one am not willing to allow you to usurp that power from my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

That is all well and good, Mr. Bowman, if I want to suspend my reason and turn my life over to you to run. However, if I want to continue to be a thnking reasoning being, and still wanted to leave Mormonism, then one of your other evangelical denominations may appeal to my reason.

Is it not obvious to you that your approach really does require that one ackowledge you as the arbiter of what is right and wrong and requires that one give abandon their own reason. I for one am not willing to allow you to usurp that power from my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

The disconnect between what I wrote and your comment here is so vast and so obvious that any attempt on my part to explain it to you seems superfluous.

[Vance]

Let's say you really were to adopt the method I advocate, which is to treat the Bible as the unerring, final court of appeal for Christian doctrine and practice, with the Bible interpreted in its historical and literary contexts according to sound hermeneutical principles.

That is what you CLAIM to advocate. But making that "claim" doesn't make it so. It is rather obvious to you have many PRESUMPTIONS that MUST BE imposed on the text to get your interpretation. Strip away those presumptions and you won't get your interpretations.

What sort of belief would you end up accepting?

Something quite different from yours, that is for sure.

To answer this question, let's survey the entirety of Christianity broadly defined and see which groups actually accept this standard.

What you really mean here is to "see which groups actually CLAIM to accept this standard. Your group makes that "claim", but making the claim doesn't make it so.

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not, since they make their religious hierarchy and teaching offices the final court of appeal, with their tradition as normative for interpreting the Bible.

Which can be supported from the Bible. The NT Apostles were the final arbiters of official doctrine and practices, and the only scriptures to which they may have appealed to support their decisions were found in the "Old Testament", but in the end it was the Apostles that had the final say.

Liberal Protestants do not, because they view the Bible as errant and subject to correction and even repudiation in light of their rationalistic use of reason and supposed modern enlightened understanding of science and values.

Which can also be supported by the Bible, after all the NT Apostles often reinterpreted OT scripture to support their teachings. There is far more evidence errancy in the Bible than there is against it. You have to PRESUME inerrancy and force it into the text to even come close to finding there.

The answer is evangelical Protestantism accepts that standard, and no one else does.

Well, what you really mean is that the "claim" it. In practice they must PRESUME way to much.

Now, of course, evangelical Protestants have their differences.

Sure they do. And that is evidence that the Bible is insufficient to establish unquestionably accurate doctrine. Even when you agree on the PRESUMPTIONS, you still come to different conclusions.

We have different views on a number of topics.

See above.

On the fringes of evangelicalism one can find sects that have blown these issues out of proportion and that damn everyone who doesn't agree with them (the KJV Only people come to mind).

See above.

Theologically, when such sects do this, they divide themselves from the rest of evangelicalism and end up with a doctrine of the church, and even a doctrine of salvation, that is not evangelical.

True!!

BUT!

They are still using the same method you are using. They just have different PRESUMPTIONS and different opinions which result in different conclusions.

Again, more evidence that the Bible is insufficient.

So I don't even consider such fringe elements evangelical.

So?

Excluding those fringe sects, evangelicalism is actually a surprisingly coherent Christian movement that emphasizes its unity on the essentials and that recognizes its differences as being on nonessentials.

So you "claim".

The Bible is enough to establish those essentials, if one approaches the Bible in the way I have explained.

Nah, they have to approach the Bible with the same PRESUMPTIONS that you do. And even then, there is no guaranty that they will agree with your "essentials".

[ERayR]

ERayR,

You wrote:

The disconnect between what I wrote and your comment here is so vast and so obvious that any attempt on my part to explain it to you seems superfluous.

ERayR,

You wrote:

The disconnect between what I wrote and your comment here is so vast and so obvious that any attempt on my part to explain it to you seems superfluous.

No the disconnect is on your part. Do you really not see that your expectations are that one unquestionably follow your interpretations or they are damned?

[Vance]

ERayR,

You wrote:

The disconnect between what I wrote and your comment here is so vast and so obvious that any attempt on my part to explain it to you seems superfluous.

That is because you fail to recognize and admit that you approach the Bible with PRESUMPTIONS. ERayR would have to abandon his reasoning skills and blindly accept your PRESUMPTIONS to even come close to buying your theology. Thus he would be acknowledging "you as the arbiter of what is right and wrong" thus forcing him to "abandon (his) own reason."

[Gervin]

Which can be supported from the Bible. The NT Apostles were the final arbiters of official doctrine and practices, and the only scriptures to which they may have appealed to support their decisions were found in the "Old Testament", but in the end it was the Apostles that had the final say.

What is your source for claiming that the "NT Apostles were the final arbiters of official doctrine and practices?" I’ve read this wasn’t the case. Helmut Koester, John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School, writes:

Christianity did not start out as a unified movement. We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time.... That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be. What Christian rituals should be. What they should think about Jesus or what they should tell about Jesus. The sources that we have tell us that Christianity started as a very diverse movement, as the founding of churches... moved into very different cultural and language contexts....

Paul's conversion as an apostle to the gentiles may date as early as three years after Jesus' death. No later than the year 35, but probably already 32 or 33.... He was in Damascus when he was called, according to his own witness. So we have, already, within two years or three or five years, of Jesus' death probably Greek speaking communities outside of Palestine, very early in Antioch, but we have also the founding of communities in Samaria.... We have apparently more isolated Christian communities founded very early in Galilee. Paul's mission carried Christianity all the way over Asia Minor, present Turkey into Macedonia, into Greece, within 20 years. And at the end of that period, Paul already knows that there's a Christian community in Rome which he has not founded.

With this explosive spread of Christian churches, not a very slow moderate growth, getting a few new members every few years, but an explosive spread of this movement, it cannot be expected that everywhere, everybody was doing and believing the same thing, singing the same hymns and reading the same scriptures and telling the same story. So we have a beginning with great diversity, and the slow process, particularly in the second century, to establish a greater unity among the very diverse churches.

I'd be curious to read sources that support your claim of full NT Apostle control of the early church.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Gervin

[LeSellers]

I'd be curious to read sources that support your claim of full NT Apostle control of the early church.

At the very least, we have Matthew 16:13~19.

Jesus gave Peter (first of all, then in the next chapter, to all of the Apostles) "the keys of the Kingdom". They had the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven.

The Epistles (not Paul's particularly, but even his), demonstrated an authority over any of the stakes, even where they had never personally been. (Your own example, Paul to the Romans, is but one.) John's Revelation of Jesus Christ at the end of most Bibles talks about those who were not really Apostles, but who had arrogated that title unto themselves, and their fate.

This list is far from complete; additional biblical scriptures are readily available.

But wait!! There's more!!!

Modern revelation confirms the Bible. However, in your sad and lonely situation, wherein you have rejected the living Apostles and prophets of God, you don't accept their words, so you don't have the corroboration you claim to seek.

Lehi

Edited October 24, 2011 by LeSellers

[ERayR]

At the very least, we have Matthew 16:13~19.

Jesus gave Peter (first of all, then in the next chapter, to all of the Apostles) "the keys of the Kingdom". They had the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven.

The Epistles (not Paul's particularly, but even his), demonstrated an authority of any of the stakes, even where they had never personally been. (Your own example, Paul to the Romans, id but one.) John's Revealtion of Jesus Christ at the end of most Bibles talks about those who were not really Apostles, but who had arrogated that title unto themselves, and their fate.

This list is far from complete; additional biblical scripture are readily available.

But wait!! There's more!!!

Modern revelation confirms the Bible. But, in your sad and lonely situation, wherein you have rejected the living Apostles and prophets of God, you don't accept their words, so you don't have the corroboration you claim to seek.

Lehi

Also the 10 Chapter of Acts is an appeal to Peter as the presidung authority.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You have disqualified yourself from being taken seriously so many times I have lost count. The latest is your refusal to answer a CFR issued by a fellow Latter-day Saint. Dialogue with you is bound to be fruitless.

[ERayR]

Dialogue with you is bound to be fruitless.

I agree it sure is.

[cdowis]

What is your source for claiming that the "NT Apostles were the final arbiters of official doctrine and practices?"

The Bible, such as Eph 2:19-20, latter day revelation.

What is your source otherwise?

I’ve read this wasn’t the case. Helmut Koester, John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School, writes:

Christianity did not start out as a unified movement. We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time.... That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be.

Their statement is based on the false premise that the Bible is inerrant and complete.

They completely ignore, for example, the forty day visit of Christ to the disciples after the resurrection (Acts chapter 1). Now, MR Scholar, tell us what Christ taught during those 40 days. Show us that Christ did not give them a "fixed formulation" of Christ's teachings. Give us the text of those 40 days of teaching.

Do the Catholic scholars, equally educated, agree with them?

I am afraid that that they have deceived you into thinking that they know what they are talking about. They have no clue. they are basing their conclusions on the traditions and assumptions of Protestant Christianity, not historical fact.

Edited October 24, 2011 by cdowis

[Vance]

What is your source for claiming that the "NT Apostles were the final arbiters of official doctrine and practices?"

<SNIP>

I'd be curious to read sources that support your claim of full NT Apostle control of the early church.

Acts 6, 10:9-48, 15:6-29

[Vance]

Vance, You have disqualified yourself from being taken seriously so many times I have lost count.

You are projecting again.

The latest is your refusal to answer a CFR issued by a fellow Latter-day Saint.

I answered the CFR.

Dialogue with you is bound to be fruitless.

More projection.

[coolrok7]

The Bible tells me so. . . .Sola Scriptura! For those Christians who say Mormons are not Christian….well...they are adding to the Bible? Since they claim they are bound by the Bible as their only and final authority. . .I’m curious how they are going to dance around this one…because they will or probably already have. If they do then they are turning on their Sola Scriptura belief. . . .In the Bible the word Christian is used three times in reference to Christ’s followers or disciples. (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28 & 1 Peter 4:16.). . .

Edited by Hannah Rebekah, A week ago.

Hannah Rebekah

"LDS Christian"

Hannah, I’m really familiar with the song where the phrase, “The bible tells me so” has as the refrain (we sang it all the time at Sunday school when I was growing up. I believed it then as I still do today):

Yes Jesus loves me,

Yes Jesus loves me,

Yes Jesus loves me,

The Bible tells me so!

For God so loved the world. . . John 3:16

This I do believe and know as a Biblical proclamation of Truth!

In regards to the thread op concerning Evangelicals and the idea of “Sola Scriptura” as our “final authority” (to be understood in its proper historical Biblical context) is our understanding that we have come to based on Biblical teaching in context (not derived of our own self-authority).

Unfortunately, Mormons and others are always misunderstanding/misrepresenting what it actually means. The “Solas” of the Reformation are not an imposed understanding but are understood from specific verses.

Sola Scriptura is the underlying principle for the Protestant Reformation in defense of the truth of Scripture, not mans false teaching. Here is Luther’s view of his own writings as contrasted with Scripture:

I would gladly have seen all my books forgotten and destroyed; if only for the reason that I am afraid of the example. For I see what benefit it has brought to the churches, that men have begun to collect many books and great libraries, outside and alongside of the Holy Scriptures; . . .Not only has good time been wasted, and the study of Scripture neglected; but the pure understanding of the divine Word is lost, . . .Then, too, it was our intention and our hope, when we began to put the Bible into German, that there would be less writing, and more studying and reading of the Scriptures. For all other writing should point to the Scriptures, as John pointed to Christ, when he said, “He must increase, but I must decrease.”. . .I only ask in all kindness, that the man who wishes at this time to have my books will by no means let them be a hindrance to his own study of the Scriptures, . . . (Luther’s preface to the first part of his German Works, 1539 edition, pp.7-9)

It is the primary reason for Biblically refuting the selling of indulgences in which Luther correctly disputed that it was not a biblical teaching in his 95 theses (mirrored from the following):

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, . . . (Acts 17:11-12a)

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

The first of the Solas (Scripture alone, Grace alone, Faith alone go together). “Sola Scriptura” (Biblical doctrine comes from the “it is written”, the source of doctrinal understanding), followed by “Sola Gratia/Fide” (by grace through faith is the how of salvation through believing and is inclusive of acting on the word of God) demonstrated right here in Ephesians, itself Scripture:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Note the following quote of Luther in a Mormon proselytizing pamphlet (his reference is to the pope):

A falling away from the true religion that Christ preached, from the ordinances he performed, and from the church he organized was foretold in the Bible. Confirming this loss of truth are many of history’s great Christian reformers. Many of them sought to conform with the Holy Scriptures; some looked for the restoration “of all things” that Peter had prophesied. The Latter-day Saints not only recognize that this falling away did occur, but also announce that God has made himself known to mortal men in these modern times and has restored his church in detail as it was anciently. . . .Christianity Has Ceased to Exist- I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. . . .I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it. . . .MARTIN LUTHER. . .The Gospel of Jesus Christ Restored Through a Modern Prophet—Joseph Smith (The Falling Away And Restoration Foretold pamphlet, pp.1, 4, 5, 14, 15)

The problem is with the Mormon false gospel not the loss of truth (it wasn’t lost as it was still in Scripture) or Luther and the Reformation in which he was calling people back to Scripture:

. . .God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, . . . (History of the Church, Joseph Smith Jr., April 1844, 6:305)

“As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be”— Lorenzo Snow

The first principles of men are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. . . . (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.354)

The Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son. (quoted in the pamphlet entitled, BRIGHAM YOUNG PROPHET STATESMAN PIONEER, 11/81; JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 13:233, Brigham Young)

Our Heavenly Parents have through aeons of time and a multitude of experiences gradually become acquainted with and applied in their lives an untold number of these everlasting laws. As they learned these verities and how to operate them, these laws thereby became subject unto Elohim and henceforth were His laws—or, in other words, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.4)

Jesus became a God and reached His great state of understanding through consistent effort and continuous obedience to all the Gospel truths and universal laws. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.51)

The Mystery Religions, pagan rivals of Christianity, taught emphatically the doctrine that “men may become Gods.” Hermeticism, which had its rise in Egypt in the second or third centuries B.C., was a prominent religion in the Mediterranean world during the period of the rise of Christianity. Its literature, The Corpus Hermeticum, professes to be revelations to Hermes from his divine father and teacher. Hermes declared: “We must not shrink from saying that a man on earth is a mortal god, and that God in heaven is an immortal man.” This thought very closely resembles the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and of President Lorenzo Snow. (The Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, p.110)

As shown in this chapter our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children. . . .It is this fact that makes marriage in a temple of God such an important step in our eternal progression. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written this: “Celestial marriage is a holy and an eternal ordinance;. . .The most important things that any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever does in this world are: 1. To marry the right person, by the right authority; and 2., to keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony--thus assuring the obedient persons of an inheritance of exaltation in the celestial kingdom.” (Mormon Doctrine, p.118) (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Salt Lake City: Church Education System, 1976, p.132)

Contrasted with the true Biblical Gospel and a warning concerning that Gospel:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)

The editorial comment of John concerning this statement of Jesus gets right to the underlying theme of the Reformation which is the salvation of the soul in the receiving of the gift of eternal life through believing in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel:

Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:29-30)

Being Evangelical is primarily focusing on the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus dying on the cross for the payment of sin by the shedding of His blood which cleanses us from all sin:

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:9-10)

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; . . . But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. . . . And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. (Ephesians 1:7; 2:13, 16-17)

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:7-10)

It’s not just “mere belief” on our part but valid belief based on the reality of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead which is what the Bible teaches:

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. . . .But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. (1 Corinthians 15:12-17, 20)

Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much that is believed and taught on this subject, however, is such utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one’s salvation. For instance, many believe or pretend to believe that if we confess Christ with our lips and avow that we accept him as our personal Savior, we are thereby saved. They say that his blood, without any other act than mere belief, makes us clean. (WHAT THE MORMONS THINK OF CHRIST pamphlet, pp.19-20)

The above is where Mormonism’s opposition to true Biblical teaching is seen when it comes to Biblical salvation, not the Mormon teaching of “exaltation to godhood” Mormonism’s false gospel.

The things we do as good works, post our Justification and in our Sanctification, are the all the work of Jesus which does make us clean in the shedding of His blood.

Our good works are a fruit of having a faith that enables one to be saved, by grace through faith not of works, not the result of trying to obey commandments which we cannot keep perfectly but nevertheless are commanded to obey, which is what Christians do:

Luther- works are not absent where faith is

Mormonism has its own version of “Sola Scriptura” (which has included that which actually usurps the Biblical “written authority” based on supposed “living oracles” which are not inspired by the Biblical Holy Spirit based on what is taught):

The Standard Works of the Church constitute the written authority of the Church in doctrine. Nevertheless, the Church holds itself in readiness to receive additional light and knowledge “pertaining to the Kingdom of God” through divine revelation. . .We rely therefore on the teachings of the living oracles of God as of equal validity with the doctrines of the written word. The works adopted by the vote of the Church as authoritative guides in faith and doctrine are four: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Many books have been and are being published by officers and members of the Church, and such may be sanctioned by the people and the ecclesiastical authorities; but the four publications named are the regularly adopted “Standard Works of the Church.” Of the doctrines treated in the authorized standards, the Articles of Faith may be regarded as a fair though but partial summary. (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, p.7)

[Vance]

In regards to the thread op concerning Evangelicals and the idea of “Sola Scriptura” as our “final authority” (to be understood in its proper historical Biblical context) is our understanding that we have come to based on Biblical teaching in context (not derived of our own self-authority).

It is derived of your own self-authority.

Sola Scriptura is the underlying principle for the Protestant Reformation in defense of the truth of Scripture, not mans false teaching. Here is Luther’s view of his own writings as contrasted with Scripture:

Sola Scriptura isn't derived from the Bible but was a fabrication of Martin Luther and is therefore a false teaching of a man.

So, there is a problem with the Evangelical/Lutheran false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

The rest of your post is just anti-Mormon drivel.

[Avatar4321]

I tend to think that the Highest authority for Most Evangelicals is God, and not merely the Bible. Even if some do have it backwards sometimes.

[Rob Bowman]

Avatar4321,

You wrote:

I tend to think that the Highest authority for Most Evangelicals is God, and not merely the Bible. Even if some do have it backwards sometimes.

No evangelical thinks the Bible is a higher authority than God. There simply is no justification for such a strawman claim even with regard to a minority of evangelicals.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Hannah, I’m really familiar with the song where the phrase, “The bible tells me so” has as the refrain (we sang it all the time at Sunday school when I was growing up. I believed it then as I still do today):

This I do believe and know as a Biblical proclamation of Truth!

In regards to the thread op concerning Evangelicals and the idea of “Sola Scriptura” as our “final authority” (to be understood in its proper historical Biblical context) is our understanding that we have come to based on Biblical teaching in context (not derived of our own self-authority).

Unfortunately, Mormons and others are always misunderstanding/misrepresenting what it actually means. The “Solas” of the Reformation are not an imposed understanding but are understood from specific verses.

Sola Scriptura is the underlying principle for the Protestant Reformation in defense of the truth of Scripture, not mans false teaching. Here is Luther’s view of his own writings as contrasted with Scripture:

It is the primary reason for Biblically refuting the selling of indulgences in which Luther correctly disputed that it was not a biblical teaching in his 95 theses (mirrored from the following):

The first of the Solas (Scripture alone, Grace alone, Faith alone go together). “Sola Scriptura” (Biblical doctrine comes from the “it is written”, the source of doctrinal understanding), followed by “Sola Gratia/Fide” (by grace through faith is the how of salvation through believing and is inclusive of acting on the word of God) demonstrated right here in Ephesians, itself Scripture:

Note the following quote of Luther in a Mormon proselytizing pamphlet (his reference is to the pope):

The problem is with the Mormon false gospel not the loss of truth (it wasn’t lost as it was still in Scripture) or Luther and the Reformation in which he was calling people back to Scripture:

Contrasted with the true Biblical Gospel and a warning concerning that Gospel:

The editorial comment of John concerning this statement of Jesus gets right to the underlying theme of the Reformation which is the salvation of the soul in the receiving of the gift of eternal life through believing in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel:

Being Evangelical is primarily focusing on the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus dying on the cross for the payment of sin by the shedding of His blood which cleanses us from all sin:

It’s not just “mere belief” on our part but valid belief based on the reality of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead which is what the Bible teaches:

The above is where Mormonism’s opposition to true Biblical teaching is seen when it comes to Biblical salvation, not the Mormon teaching of “exaltation to godhood” Mormonism’s false gospel.

The things we do as good works, post our Justification and in our Sanctification, are the all the work of Jesus which does make us clean in the shedding of His blood.

Our good works are a fruit of having a faith that enables one to be saved, by grace through faith not of works, not the result of trying to obey commandments which we cannot keep perfectly but nevertheless are commanded to obey, which is what Christians do:

Mormonism has its own version of “Sola Scriptura” (which has included that which actually usurps the Biblical “written authority” based on supposed “living oracles” which are not inspired by the Biblical Holy Spirit based on what is taught):

Wow....I'm so glad you’re not uptight or anything like that......‘cause that would be awkward!

Edited October 25, 2011 by Hannah Rebekah