God

[shalamabobbi]

I agree that if there were a true prophet on the earth today, that God's people should follow what he teaches.

Thanks for your confession..

You are either a true prophet or a false prophet.

By Rev 19:10 you just admitted that you do not have a testimony of Jesus.

That makes you the side that fulfills Gal 1:6-9 as the true gospel teaches that we all need to have a testimony of Christ, that we all need to become prophets in our own right, we all need the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Thou "unprophetable" servant..

My goal is to bring as many people to the true gospel of Jesus Christ

How can you do that when everything you offer is a step backwards from where I'm at?

No prophets, no priesthood, no keys of the kingdom, sola scriptura which is the biggest logical contradiction of all being totally unscriptural.

2 Tim 3:16

Uh oh. I don't see salvation listed there..

Salvation is in Christ. Either He contacts us with the offer(through authorized servants sent from heaven) or we are left in the dark.

The Community of Christ is a great example of what happens without true prophets. They have joined the throng of psuedo-churches that have nothing to offer but plagiarized misinterpreted texts from the true church..

Without a true church being upon the earth at some point, with true authority from God, being actually directed by Him through actual - heaven to earth - revelation, you would have nothing to plagiarize, misinterpret, and reconstruct into a worthless caricature without salvific power, fulfilling Gal 1:6-9..

Paul I know and Christ I know but who are ye?

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

Thanks for your confession..

You are either a true prophet or a false prophet.

By Rev 19:10 you just admitted that you do not have a testimony of Jesus.

That makes you the side that fulfills Gal 1:6-9 as the true gospel teaches that we all need to have a testimony of Christ, that we all need to become prophets in our own right, we all need the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Thou "unprophetable" servant..

Your argument here misunderstands me and it also misunderstands Revelation 19:10. First, I certainly have a testimony of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and I am confident that you already really knew this, so in fact I think you are misrepresenting me here. Second, as I have explained recently on another thread, Revelation 19:10 is not saying that everyone who testifies to Jesus Christ is a prophet. Rather, it is saying that the Spirit who inspires true prophecy from God also faithfully expresses the testimony from and about Jesus. One cannot truly have the testimony of Jesus without also having the Spirit of prophecy, but this doesn't mean that everyone who has the Spirit of prophecy is a prophet. The idea here is similar to Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 12:3 that no one can genuinely confess Jesus as Lord apart from the Holy Spirit.

You wrote:

How can you do that when everything you offer is a step backwards from where I'm at?

No prophets, no priesthood, no keys of the kingdom, sola scriptura which is the biggest logical contradiction of all being totally unscriptural.

I respectfully disagree. We do have prophets (in the OT and NT), we do have priesthood (Jesus Christ is our perfect heavenly priest), and we do have the keys of the kingdom (the church's authorization from Christ to extend his kingdom by making disciples of all nations). I also disagree with you about sola scriptura, but that is a subject perhaps best left for another thread.

You wrote:

2 Tim 3:16

Uh oh. I don't see salvation listed there..

Oops. You missed verse 15, which states that "the sacred Scriptures...are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ."

Salvation is in Christ. Either He contacts us with the offer(through authorized servants sent from heaven) or we are left in the dark.

The offer was made by the One who came down from heaven, Jesus Christ himself. Can't get any higher or better than that. You can't possibly mean that each one of us must be personally contacted by an authorized servant sent from heaven. Talked to any heavenly messengers lately?

[BCSpace]

Yes. It means we can also become Gods ourselves. Theosis (the deification of man) is the only method mentioned in the scriptures as to how Gods are made.

Theosis may apply to man, but it does not apply to "God". That is why the notion that God the Father worked out his own mortality before he became a god is problematic, and no longer taught in any of the Church's publications;

That is not true:

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

Gospel Principles Chapter 47

Nowhere in the scriptures is the notion found that God the Father was once a mortal man before he progressed to become a god, or rather THE God (and "the only one with which we have to do")....

Also not true. That we are literally the sons and daughters, offspring, of God implies as much.

[BCSpace]

"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

That was referred to back in '94-95 by president Hinckley as "a couplet". He discounted entirely the first half, claiming not to know much about that, or to know anyone who did know much about that. I have not heard it taught in the Church by the general authorities in my lifetime. I don't think that it is a doctrine of the Church anymore, and has not been for a long time: although considerably more time will be required to see it dead in the past where it belongs - along with the "seed of Cain", "avenging the blood of the prophets" and "plurality of wives" doctrines....

GBH developed his answer out loud, trying not to cast pearls before swine imho, and ended up with it being doctrine. It remains an official doctrine of the Church:

Each Young Man Can Become like His Father in Heaven

Quotation

Explain that since the restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ in the latter days, Church members have known of their origin and destiny as children of God. A latter-day prophet, Lorenzo Snow, summarized this teaching clearly when he said, “As man is God once was; As God is, man may be” (in Thomas C. Romney, The Life of Lorenzo Snow [salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1955], p. 46).

"Lesson 1: Who Am I?," Aaronic Priesthood Manual 2

[Vance]

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

Gospel Principles Chapter 47

Why is it that the antis ALWAYS forget that part in red?

[BCSpace]

Several official manuals of the Church also teach that:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!"

The Great Plan of Happiness

New Testament Teacher Resource Manual

The Great Plan of Happiness

Book of Mormon Teacher Resource Manual

The Great Plan of Happiness

Old Testament Teacher Resource Manual

Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith

Chapter Twenty: Doctrinal Developments in Nauvoo

Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual

http://lds.org/search?lang=eng&query="and+is+an+exalted+man"

Edited October 24, 2011 by BCSpace

[jo1952]

Why is it that the antis ALWAYS forget that part in red?

They've got that covered in the Trinity dogma......and when it gets to the point where they cannot explain what their belief looks like, they resort to its mystery. Even the Catholic dictionary explains that the Trinity CANNOT be completely understood; though you ARE required to believe it.

Regards,

jo

[diglot]

They've got that covered in the Trinity dogma......and when it gets to the point where they cannot explain what their belief looks like, they resort to its mystery. Even the Catholic dictionary explains that the Trinity CANNOT be completely understood; though you ARE required to believe it.

Regards,

jo

I think it is a very good thing to say that one does not completely understand their conception of God. If not, then your idea of God must be pretty simplistic.

I've encountered plenty of Trinitarians who can ably explain their Trinitarian beliefs. And I have encountered others who don't have a clue what the Trinity is (yet claim to believe it and that it is very important to believe in).

The same thing happens with Mormons I have met. I've asked 4 or 5 different missionaries about their view of God, and what they think concerning eternal progression and what this means regarding God's in time past. I've asked obvious questions that arise in one's mind after hearing their spiel about God, e.g., if God is corporeal, then did God exist before the creation of the cosmos when there was no time and matter. No exaggeration, but the answer I received to these types of questions is that I just need to pray about it to see if its true. The only answer I got that even began to address the question is one who mumbled something about "intelligences." Heck, even the Bishop was at a lost for words when I asked him philosophical questions about the God of the LDS Church.

I am saying all of this for the purpose of merely showing that there are many people in every religion who have no idea how to explain in full detail their beliefs concerning God. This is not a bad thing, because, personally, I would be utterly turned off by a God who can be so easily explained in such a way that it does not raise any further, unanswerable, questions.

Edited October 24, 2011 by diglot

[jo1952]

I think it is a very good thing to say that one does not completely understand their conception of God. If not, then your idea of God must be pretty simplistic.

I've encountered plenty of Trinitarians who can ably explain their Trinitarian beliefs. And I have encountered others who don't have a clue what the Trinity is (yet claim to believe it and that it is very important to believe in).

The same thing happens with Mormons I have met. I've asked 4 or 5 different missionaries about their view of God, and what they think concerning eternal progression and what this means regarding God's in time past. I've asked obvious questions that arise in one's mind after hearing their spiel about God, e.g., if God is corporeal, then did God exist before the creation of the cosmos when there was no time and matter. No exaggeration, but the answer I received to these types of questions is that I just need to pray about it to see if its true. The only answer I got that even began to address the question is one who mumbled something about "intelligences." Heck, even the Bishop was at a lost for words when I asked him philosophical questions about the God of the LDS Church.

I am saying all of this for the purpose of merely showing that there are many people in every religion who have no idea how to explain in full detail their beliefs concerning God. This is not a bad thing, because, personally, I would be utterly turned off by a God who can be so easily explained in such a way that it does not raise any further, unanswerable, questions.

None of us will completely know everything about God while we are in the flesh. With all due respect, the problem I had with the Trinity while I was Lutheran, and the same one I have now, is the very basic concept that the dogma was created by man to offer an explanation about what he believed is the "True" nature of God. I never accepted it because that theory disagreed with what I believed the Bible and the Holy Ghost was teaching me even before I ever knew about the LDS Church.

Irony is manifested in their insistance that all the rest of mankind MUST believe in their version of the nature of God - even though they admit that their version is not completely understandable. Their grave error, however, is the punishment for NOT accepting this dogma; i.e., your soul is JUDGED permanently damned. Now, even though not all Orthodox Christians actually believe in this restriction as pertaining to the Trinity doctrine, those ARE the terms that have been established by the Orthodox Christian institutions of religion, and are currently irrevocably attached to the Trinity. Thus these institutions effectively shut the gates of Heaven to individuals who do not agree with them; something Jesus was not very happy about when pointing out how the Pharisees were doing the same thing. Additionally, they have managed to place God into a man-built box which they have already admitted is a box whose dimensions cannot be known, while they have taken over Christ's right and responsibility to Judge a man's soul.

Why don't Trinitarians who do NOT believe in the terms and conditions which Orthodoxy has established concerning the Trinity, try to change those terms? By continuing to claim they are Orthodox Christians, but doing nothing about this, they are giving the impression to the institutions that they are supporting those terms and conditions. Also, since this is such an important "essential core" doctrine, would it be accurate (though not well received, I am sure) to ascertain that the Orthodox Christian who does NOT agree with the terms and conditions that one MUST agree with the Trinity, is actually in a state of apostasy? IOW, they are walking the walk WITH Orthodoxy; but they do not believe in the application of this "essential core" belief toward those who do not agree with it, which Orthodoxy has established hand-in-hand with that Dogma.

Regards,

jo

[diglot]

None of us will completely know everything about God while we are in the flesh. With all due respect, the problem I had with the Trinity while I was Lutheran, and the same one I have now, is the very basic concept that the dogma was created by man to offer an explanation about what he believed is the "True" nature of God. I never accepted it because that theory disagreed with what I believed the Bible and the Holy Ghost was teaching me even before I ever knew about the LDS Church.

Fair enough. I personally am agnostic of the whole issue. For me, the crux of this issue boils down to one's view of Church tradition. Most mainstream Christians view (to varying degrees) that God has been with his believers throughout the past 2000 years gradually guiding them into a more fuller revelation of himself, etc.

If one accepts this presupposition, then the Trinity was not just a man-made dogma, but rather was the result of God guiding the body of Christ.

Personally, I am undecided on the exact role that Church tradition should play in forming theology. I just honestly have no firm opinion on the role and relation that scripture and tradition play. Hence why I said I am agnostic on this issue.

Irony is manifested in their insistance that all the rest of mankind MUST believe in their version of the nature of God - even though they admit that their version is not completely understandable. Their grave error, however, is the punishment for NOT accepting this dogma; i.e., your soul is JUDGED permanently damned. Now, even though not all Orthodox Christians actually believe in this restriction as pertaining to the Trinity doctrine, those ARE the terms that have been established by the Orthodox Christian institutions of religion, and are currently irrevocably attached to the Trinity. Thus these institutions effectively shut the gates of Heaven to individuals who do not agree with them; something Jesus was not very happy about when pointing out how the Pharisees were doing the same thing. Additionally, they have managed to place God into a man-built box which they have already admitted is a box whose dimensions cannot be known, while they have taken over Christ's right and responsibility to Judge a man's soul.

Yes, I find it quite unfortunate that mainstream Christianity uses a highly nuanced doctrine of God as some sort of litmus test in determining who will be in and who will be out of the kingdom of God.

This type of exclusion is typical to all religions though. I mean, if I understand LDS theology correctly, in order for me to obtain the Celestial Kingdom and enjoy the fullness of God, I would have to perform certain acts, yes? Though obviously this isn't as bad as certain streams of Christianity, because at least in LDS theology I would still probably get to inhabit the telestial kingdom, whereas in mainstream Christianity you wind up in the flames of hell for eternity.

Why don't Trinitarians who do NOT believe in the terms and conditions which Orthodoxy has established concerning the Trinity, try to change those terms? By continuing to claim they are Orthodox Christians, but doing nothing about this, they are giving the impression to the institutions that they are supporting those terms and conditions.

Also, since this is such an important "essential core" doctrine, would it be accurate (though not well received, I am sure) to ascertain that the Orthodox Christian who does NOT agree with the terms and conditions that one MUST agree with the Trinity, is actually in a state of apostasy? IOW, they are walking the walk WITH Orthodoxy; but they do not believe in the application of this "essential core" belief toward those who do not agree with it, which Orthodoxy has established hand-in-hand with that Dogma.

Regards,

jo

Many Trinitarians who don't believe in such things as being essential for salvation are vocal about it. I mean, a common stream of thought in the emergent Christian movement and in progressive Christianity is that holding to certain doctrinal beliefs is not the marker we should be using to determine who is in and out of orthodoxy. Unfortunately, all of these people who are parts of these movements just get labeled as apostates and thus their voice is squelched from having any effect on "orthodox" Christianity.

Heck, I've been cast as a "heretic" by fellow evangelical bloggers due to the fact that I've expressed my hesitancy concerning the Trinity and because I've said that believing in it isn't essential for salvation.

Edited October 24, 2011 by diglot

[bluebell]

My goal is to bring as many people to the true gospel of Jesus Christ. That goal is not a negative one, but it does have negative implications for any religious institution or individual that teaches a gospel at variance with that true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).

I've got no qualms with such a goal, it's the exact same goal that the LDS church has, the same that i and most members of the LDS church have.

I agree that if there were a true prophet on the earth today, that God's people should follow what he teaches. I will go further: if there were a true prophet on the earth today, God's people would follow what he teaches. But as you surely understand, from my perspective the LDS Church presidents are not true prophets of God. Regretfully, I am convinced that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and as you correctly state, one need not and should not follow a false prophet.

Yes, i know where you stand on this issues, and that's fine. I just think that often you are trying so hard to make cases against the LDS church that you harm the Gospel of Jesus Christ as you yourself espouse it.

[Rob Bowman]

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

Gospel Principles Chapter 47

Why is it that the antis ALWAYS forget that part in red?

Ain't nobody hear forgettin' that part, dude. We sure enough understand that Joseph thought the Father lived for a spell on an earth, jus' like Jesus did. Jesus lived on an earth; so did the Father, said Joseph. Nothin' forgotten there. But in case you hadn't noticed, it's one of yer own clan, Ms. BCSpace, who's sayin' here that the Father was a mortal man before'n he got to be a god. And in fact it's you that are fergettin' part of what Joseph said: "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea...." I put it in red so's you wouldn't miss it this time.

[Calm]

Many Trinitarians who don't believe in such things as being essential for salvation are vocal about it. I mean, a common stream of thought in the emergent Christian movement and in progressive Christianity is that holding to certain doctrinal beliefs is not the marker we should be using to determine who is in and out of orthodoxy. Unfortunately, all of these people just get labeled as apostates.

Heck, I've been cast as a "heretic" by fellow evangelical bloggers due to the fact that I've expressed my hesitancy concerning the Trinity and because I've said that believing in it isn't essential for salvation.

I am unfortunately not the least bit surprised by this.

[diglot]

I am unfortunately not the least bit surprised by this.

Yea, me neither.

I used to be one of those types of people unfortunately. Back in my early days as a new believer (when I was 15 or so), I patrolled a certain corner of the interwebs and decried anyone who disagreed with certain doctrines to be a spawn of Satan. lol I remember those days... I was young, naive, and thought I knew everything.

Man, now that I think about it, the person I am now is someone I definitely would have labeled as a liberal Christian who doesn't understand the first thing about the Bible and Christianity. Fortunately, that was ten years ago now and I have made progress! My how times have changed!

Edited October 24, 2011 by diglot

[Rob Bowman]

diglot,

You wrote:

Heck, I've been cast as a "heretic" by fellow evangelical bloggers due to the fact that I've expressed my hesitancy concerning the Trinity and because I've said that believing in it isn't essential for salvation.

If you don't advocate a non-Trinitarian theology, then you're not teaching heresy on the subject. However, if you are, as you put it on your blog, agnostic about the Trinity, you haven't embraced orthodox or evangelical theology. That is, you can't functionally be orthodox or evangelical and remain on the fence about the doctrine of the Trinity.

[diglot]

diglot,

If you don't advocate a non-Trinitarian theology, then you're not teaching heresy on the subject. However, if you are, as you put it on your blog, agnostic about the Trinity, you haven't embraced orthodox or evangelical theology. That is, you can't functionally be orthodox or evangelical and remain on the fence about the doctrine of the Trinity.

Fair enough. I don't mind not being able to be functionally "orthodox", but from my own experience, even being agnostic on the issue is equivalent to denying it. A couple of days ago an evangelical poster on the CARM boards said that by being agnostic about the issue I was effectively denying it.

I noticed you said that I can't be agnostic about the Trinity and be "evangelical". I am interested in what your definition of evangelical is because in my mind someone can definitely be agnostic about the precise nature of God and still be evangelical. Though, "evangelical" is a very nebulous word so I wouldn't be surprised if we have quite different definitions of it.

Edited October 24, 2011 by diglot

[ERayR]

Fair enough. I don't mind not being able to be functionally "orthodox", but from my own experience, even being agnostic on the issue is equivalent to denying it. A couple of days ago an evangelical poster on the CARM boards said that by being agnostic about the issue I was effectively denying it.

I noticed you said that I can't be agnostic about the Trinity and be "evangelical". I am interested in what your definition of evangelical is because in my mind someone can definitely be agnostic about the precise nature of God and still be evangelical. Though, "evangelical" is a very nebulous word so I wouldn't be surprised if we have quite different definitions of it.

You really have to adhere to Bowman's interpretation or at least get his blessing to depart a little.

[Rob Bowman]

diglot,

You wrote:

Fair enough. I don't mind not being able to be functionally "orthodox", but from my own experience, even being agnostic on the issue is equivalent to denying it. A couple of days ago an evangelical poster on the CARM boards said that by being agnostic about the issue I was effectively denying it.

I noticed you said that I can't be agnostic about the Trinity and be "evangelical". I am interested in what your definition of evangelical is because in my mind someone can definitely be agnostic about the precise nature of God and still be evangelical. Though, "evangelical" is a very nebulous word so I wouldn't be surprised if we have quite different definitions of it.

Evangelicals are a subset of orthodox Christians. That is, they are orthodox Christians who accept the Reformation doctrines of Scripture and justification. Therefore, one must be orthodox in order to be evangelical.

The statement of faith of the World Evangelical Alliance is clearly Trinitarian and represents a bare minimum of confessional doctrine defining evangelical belief.

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You're just injecting confusion in your remark here. I am not advocating for some idiosyncratic interpretation all my own. I represent a very conventional evangelicalism that is shared by hundreds of millions of people.

You really have to adhere to Bowman's interpretation or at least get his blessing to depart a little.

[jo1952]

name='diglot' timestamp='1319496601' post='1209059022']

Fair enough. I personally am agnostic of the whole issue. For me, the crux of this issue boils down to one's view of Church tradition. Most mainstream Christians view (to varying degrees) that God has been with his believers throughout the past 2000 years gradually guiding them into a more fuller revelation of himself, etc.

If one accepts this presupposition, then the Trinity was not just a man-made dogma, but rather was the result of God guiding the body of Christ.

I can see where some could reason it out in their minds this way; though I would not agree with their reasoning. I would be busy pointing out that Jesus taught us NOT to Judge others, that Judging should be left to Christ, etc.... I think if Orthodoxy had not attached the restrictions and terms to the Trinity which they have, we would all be getting along much better. We would be rejoicing in our Savior together, etc.

Personally, I am undecided on the exact role that Church tradition should play in forming theology. I just honestly have no firm opinion on the role and relation that scripture and tradition play. Hence why I said I am agnostic on this issue.

"Fair enough", to coin a poster I know.

Yes, I find it quite unfortunate that mainstream Christianity uses a highly nuanced doctrine of God as some sort of litmus test in determining who will be in and who will be out of the kingdom of God.

This type of exclusion is typical to all religions though. I mean, if I understand LDS theology correctly, in order for me to obtain the Celestial Kingdom and enjoy the fullness of God, I would have to perform certain acts, yes? Though obviously this isn't as bad as certain streams of Christianity because at least in LDS theology I would still probably get to inhabit the telestial kingdom, whereas in mainstream Christianity you wind up in the flames of hell for eternity.

You have some of the concept down. We believe that both LDS AND non-LDS can achieve Exaltation. Exaltation is not exclusive to the LDS. It is just that right now, in these latter-days, we are the ones who have been given the power and authority to perform the necessary ordinances. That's why we are so busy doing ordinances for the dead in the Temples; so that Christ's Judgment of an individual will allow them entry into whichever Kingdom He has Judged them worthy of. All that is necessary for an individual to complete that part of their journey is to accept the work that was done on their behalf. Anyway, that is the shortened, un-detailed version.

Many Trinitarians who don't believe in such things as being essential for salvation are vocal about it. I mean, a common stream of thought in the emergent Christian movement and in progressive Christianity is that holding to certain doctrinal beliefs is not the marker we should be using to determine who is in and out of orthodoxy. Unfortunately, all of these people who are parts of these movements just get labeled as apostates and thus their voice is squelched from having any effect on "orthodox" Christianity.

This is something I was not aware of. So thank you for teaching me.

Heck, I've been cast as a "heretic" by fellow evangelical bloggers due to the fact that I've expressed my hesitancy concerning the Trinity and because I've said that believing in it isn't essential for salvation.

I am sorry to hear this; though I can understand it from their POV. Orthodoxy has built into their belief system a sort of fail-safe method of hanging on to followers. What believer does not want to be saved?? As such, you are seen as a heretic by those who are afraid to allow themselves to think or believe outside of the Orthodoxy box. Inasmuch as the LDS are also held to certain standards of vocalized belief, we are encouraged to follow the guidance of personal revelation through the Holy Ghost.

Now, should we happen to receive revelation personally which has not yet been sanctioned by God to be revealed to the entire Church (which sanctioning for the entire Church is revealed only through the Prophet) we are warned not only by the Holy Ghost that we should not yet share them, our Leaders have also told us not share them. This is easy to understand since it is Father who deems what each of us is personally ready to have revealed to us by the Holy Ghost. Since each person is on their own journey, and at their own place in this personal journey, not everyone is ready at the same time for the same information to be revealed to them UNLESS God has revealed to the Prophet that the entire Church should receive it. Indeed, there is such a mass of Truth not yet revealed, I imagine there are even different "types" or "categories" within the whole of all Truth which may be revealed ONLY through Prophets, though I do not think that God holds back information from an individual just because the entire Church is not yet ready. We will advance in accordance with our capability and preparedness to have the Kingdom of God revealed to us, regardless of where everyone else is in their journey. Thus, the Church does not have the authority, nor can the Church control what is being revealed by the Holy Ghost. Only Father has that control.

For this reason, I believe that everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation, is able to obtain Truth and guidance from the Holy Ghost in accordance to that same standard of being capable and prepared to receive it. I think this is also why Joseph Smith taught that we seek for Truth everywhere---we have no exclusivity to all Truth.

Best regards,

jo

[diglot]

diglot,

Evangelicals are a subset of orthodox Christians. That is, they are orthodox Christians who accept the Reformation doctrines of Scripture and justification. Therefore, one must be orthodox in order to be evangelical.

The statement of faith of the World Evangelical Alliance is clearly Trinitarian and represents a bare minimum of confessional doctrine defining evangelical belief.

Thanks. I will look into the link you provided.

[jo1952]

name='diglot' timestamp='1319497435' post='1209059028']

Yea, me neither.

I used to be one of those types of people unfortunately. Back in my early days as a new believer (when I was 15 or so), I patrolled a certain corner of the interwebs and decried anyone who disagreed with certain doctrines to be a spawn of Satan. lol I remember those days... I was young, naive, and thought I knew everything.

The more Truth I learn, the more I realize that I have yet to learn!!! I recognize that I am blind to whatever has not yet been revealed to me. Boy, do I have a long way to go.....

Man, now that I think about it, the person I am now is someone I definitely would have labeled as a liberal Christian who doesn't understand the first thing about the Bible and Christianity. Fortunately, that was ten years ago now and I have made progress! My how times have changed!

Isn't it wonderful??!!!!

Regards,

jo

[shalamabobbi]

The offer was made by the One who came down from heaven, Jesus Christ himself. Can't get any higher or better than that. You can't possibly mean that each one of us must be personally contacted by an authorized servant sent from heaven. Talked to any heavenly messengers lately?

Well let's start here. First if you are ridiculing the idea of authorized messengers sent from heaven we can throw out the new testament altogether. We have an angel appearing to Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane to strengthen Him. We have John the Revelator on the Ilse of Patmos about to worship the messenger but instructed not to do so. We have Peter freed from jail by an angel. We have the father of John the Baptist visited by an angel.

The mount of transfiguration involved more than a friendly chat with Moses and Elijah. Why if Christ is the direct intermediary for everyone now were keys given to Peter??

Paul after his visit on the road to Damascus was sent to these men who held the keys of authority over the kingdom to receive instruction through the proper channels as to what to do.

So no, we don't each individually need to be visited by angelic ministration. But we do need to receive the kingdom from men who hold the keys of the same and who have been sent through the authorized channels.

His kingdom is one of order and not of chaos. It has ever been so. Read how Moses led the kingdom in his day and you may learn something. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Oops. You missed verse 15, which states that "the sacred Scriptures...are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ."

"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."

Sorry, not seeing it. I think the first requirement of a new EV convert must be a denunciation of a proper understanding of the English language.

Salvation is through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All the value of scripture is to assist to that end.

Unfortunately when Christ sends servants whom He has authorized directly with a message and keys of authority and those servants are rejected, those who reject them have effectively rejected Him who sent them. So they have no claim to faith in the Sender.

I respectfully disagree. We do have prophets (in the OT and NT),

If past prophets were sufficient there would have been no need of any besides Christ in New Testament times. There is nothing at all in scripture that gives any credence to the idea that a need for living prophets has come to an end. But there is plenty to indicate the contrary. Scriptures talking of a restoration of all things, another angel having the gospel to preach to the inhabitants of the earth, Ezekiel's mention of another scroll, the gathering of Israel in the latter days, Daniel's vision of the stone cut out of the mountain without hands. It's pretty hard to be baptized by dead prophets.

Eph 2:20 tells us that the apostles and prophets and the Savior are the foundation upon which the church is built. It does not say that the foundation is the record of the apostles and prophets.

Your reasoning is as unsound as someone arguing that we don't need a current president to run the country because we have history books that describe past presidents and what they did.

we do have priesthood (Jesus Christ is our perfect heavenly priest),

Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Do you just ignore the Bible when it disagrees with you?

and we do have the keys of the kingdom (the church's authorization from Christ to extend his kingdom by making disciples of all nations).

And I am head of CTU because I watched all the seasons of 24 and saw instances of where this transfer of power and authority was given to others..

I also disagree with you about sola scriptura, but that is a subject perhaps best left for another thread.

Let me guess. Your arguments will come from quotes from the Bible?

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Doesn't sound like scriptures alone is what the Savior had in mind..

Your argument here misunderstands me and it also misunderstands Revelation 19:10. First, I certainly have a testimony of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and I am confident that you already really knew this, so in fact I think you are misrepresenting me here.

If you had a testimony of the Savior you would not be opposing His church and kingdom upon the earth.

One cannot truly have the testimony of Jesus without also having the Spirit of prophecy, but this doesn't mean that everyone who has the Spirit of prophecy is a prophet.

I see. Could you be any more self contradictory?

Romans 10:14-15

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Rob Bowman, who sent you??

Edited October 25, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Rob Bowman]

shalambobbi,

You wrote:

Well let's start here. First if you are ridiculing the idea of authorized messengers sent from heaven we can throw out the new testament altogether.

Let's end there. If you can't make a better effort to understand me than that, we're not going to make any progress. I wasn't ridiculing the idea of authorized messengers from heaven. I was simply pointing out that even you can't claim that each individual needs to have a personal visit from such an authorized messenger from heaven. And you ended up conceding that point.

The rest of your post is equally off the mark.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[shalamabobbi]

I was simply pointing out that even you can't claim that each individual needs to have a personal visit from such an authorized messenger from heaven. And you ended up conceding that point.

That would be because I never made that point. That was your strawman..