Chapter 5 Highlights From Doctrines Of Salvation, Volume 1

[mfbukowski]

Not a Catholic doctrine, though I've heard it from some Protestants (and it was the cause of my husband's grandmother becoming interested in the LDS faith, they had to bribe a Protestant minister to smuggle their dead unbaptized infant into a hallowed graveyard to be buried, later the missionaries showed up at the door with the question "do you believe in infant baptism" and yelled out as she slammed the door on them "neither do we"....the rest is history).

Great story!

I know it is not Catholic doctrine.

It was Augustine's doctrine and that is what we talking about. Or at least I am.

I am using Augustine as an example of older doctrine that has changed over years. I wanted to pick something that few believe today to make my point.

Edited March 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Great story!

I know it is not Catholic doctrine.

It was Augustine's doctrine and that is what we talking about. Or at least I am.

I am using Augustine as an example of older doctrine that has changed over years. I wanted to pick something that few believe today to make my point.

Got it.

[orion88]

Well I guess we could start with unbaptized babies going to hell and burning forever. That's a good one.

But I have found that Protestants pick and choose which Catholic doctrines to believe or not believe or modify or not modify. And on the other hand the doctrine differs from church to church and street corner to street corner.

"One faith one baptism"? Hardly.

So what's your doctrine on that one? Is it "mainline Protestant" or not and who determines that exactly? Who determines "false doctrine" in your church?

I belong to a church that is part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. It is mainline

Protestant - we don't teach that doctrine about unbaptized babies going to hell since it

is not biblically based. We [should] teach only doctrine that can be supported by the

Bible.

[orion88]

So your claiming that the portions you copied in your op are found in the GP manual?

Some of what is in the Doctrines of Salavation is also in Gospel Principles. The [what

I view as] sensitve parts were removed, much like many parts of the 1997 version of

GP never made it into the latest version. Some of the DOS teachings are also in the

"Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual" too. You can omit

words and sentences in the future too, but we still have the old copies of the past

to show what was taught as doctrine.

[juliann]

Some of what is in the Doctrines of Salavation is also in Gospel Principles. The [what

I view as] sensitve parts were removed, much like many parts of the 1997 version of

GP never made it into the latest version. Some of the DOS teachings are also in the

"Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual" too. You can omit

words and sentences in the future too, but we still have the old copies of the past

to show what was taught as doctrine.

Oh, no....you said "Most, if not all, of what I see in Gospel Principles and other training manuals of the church". Is that a sensitive statement that must be removed? We still have the old copy ;-)

I'm more interested in why you think nothing can or should change....or that everything you find in a book is correct let alone doctrine. It is hard to have a discussion based on such rigid thinking.

[juliann]

I belong to a church that is part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. It is mainline

Protestant - we don't teach that doctrine about unbaptized babies going to hell since it

is not biblically based. We [should] teach only doctrine that can be supported by the

Bible.

That doesn't appear to be happening in your congregations, unfortunately.

http://jeffkclarke.com/2010/11/03/dr-john-stephensons-article-theological-issues-beyond-2000-revisited-part-i/

In the article, Stephenson wrote about five theological issues within the PAOC that needed to be given explicit attention beyond the year 2000 if they were to remain healthy and experience longevity as a movement.

----------------------------

Canadian Pentecostals need to combine authentic experience with sound biblical/theological study if they wish to remain strong and make a lasting impression on the hearts and minds of a postmodern generation.

[mfbukowski]

I belong to a church that is part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. It is mainline

Protestant - we don't teach that doctrine about unbaptized babies going to hell since it

is not biblically based. We [should] teach only doctrine that can be supported by the

Bible.

I see. And are your interpretations of the Bible written down somewhere? There are obviously many possible interpretations and after all one must have "correct doctrine" - or is that not important?

[mfbukowski]

Some of what is in the Doctrines of Salavation is also in Gospel Principles. The [what

I view as] sensitve parts were removed, much like many parts of the 1997 version of

GP never made it into the latest version. Some of the DOS teachings are also in the

"Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual" too. You can omit

words and sentences in the future too, but we still have the old copies of the past

to show what was taught as doctrine.

I am now going to re-quote that with emphasis on the way I personally read it.

SOME of what is in the Doctrines of Salavation is also in Gospel Principles. The [WHAT I VIEW AS] sensitve parts were removed, much like many parts of the 1997 version of GP never made it into the latest version. SOME of the DOS teachings are also in the

"Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual" too. You can omit

words and sentences in the future too, but we still have the old copies of the past

to show what WAS taught as doctrine.

What was taught as doctrine is not necessarily what is now taught as doctrine. What's wrong with that? Do you teach the same principles as Calvin or Luther or Wesley, or whoever began the particular movement you belong to?

From its inception, the driving force behind The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada has been church planting. Our forefathers believed that this would be the last generation before the return of Christ. Their vision came from the Scriptures--they trusted in Jesus' words that He would provide the gift of the Holy Spirit as the power for effective witness to go and make disciples. Congregations came into being as Pentecostal power penetrated the population centres of that time. And so it continues.

http://www.paoc.org/about/our-history

Do you still believe this? Were those who believed it wrong? Has your doctrine changed?

By the way, how do you know the Bible teaches true doctrine when there are so many interpretations of it? Why are there so many differing Protestant churches which say they "teach the bible"?

[orion88]

I'm more interested in why you think nothing can or should change....

Doctrines can change if they are proven to be false or if it is clarified more.

or that everything you find in a book is correct let alone doctrine.

In my opinion, if something is not taught as doctrine, then it shouldn't be published

in a book called "Doctrines of Salvation" or "Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the

Gospel Student Manual."

[orion88]

What was taught as doctrine is not necessarily what is now taught as doctrine. What's wrong with that?

If the old doctrine was false and it is not taught now, then there's nothing wrong with that. I

would consider this as good because they have removed this "evil fruit." But if the old

doctrine was true and its not taught now, then I would wonder why it was omitted.

Do you teach the same principles as Calvin or Luther or Wesley, or whoever began the

particular movement you belong to?

I'm not privy to any specific principles they may have taught so I can't comment on whether I

would agree with it or not.

From its inception, the driving force behind The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada has

been church planting. Our forefathers believed that this would be the last generation before the

return of Christ. Their vision came from the Scriptures--they trusted in Jesus' words that He

would provide the gift of the Holy Spirit as the power for effective witness to go and make

disciples. Congregations came into being as Pentecostal power penetrated the population

centres of that time. And so it continues.

Do you still believe this? Were those who believed it wrong? Has your doctrine changed?

I believe that all Christians (even those after the resurrection of Christ) believed that they were

living in the last days. I believe this. If "last days" means within 50 years, then they were wrong

and I would be wrong if Jesus does not return in the next 50 years. Being hopeful that Jesus

can return today is not teaching false doctrine, but teaching that he will come today and it doesn't

happen is false doctrine - like Mr. Harold Camping was accustomed to doing.

I hope I answered your question based on the essence of your question.

By the way, how do you know the Bible teaches true doctrine when there are so

many interpretations of it?

I have faith that it is the Word of God so I take it on faith that it teaches true doctrine.

Why are there so many differing Protestant churches which say they "teach the bible"?

I grew up in the catholic faith. The church was made up of mainly anglo-saxons. My friend

went to another catholic church. It was mostly polish. They taught the same basic truth but

had different structure to their worship service.

Our church has this expression - "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things,

charity,"

You see the same thing in the Mormon faith. It split into a significantly less number of sects.

As long as the churches teach the truth, they are many members of the same body.

[juliann]

Doctrines can change if they are proven to be false or if it is clarified more.

In my opinion, if something is not taught as doctrine, then it shouldn't be published

in a book called "Doctrines of Salvation" or "Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the

Gospel Student Manual."

So the problem isn't that doctrine changes, only that it was once published by someone somewhere? Was your religion's non-trinitarian doctrine never published anywhere before it was discarded for your present trinitarian version?

It is easy to pick away at anything. I can do it in my sleep. But all religion has flaws and I have never ever understood what I would have to gain by going after someone elses. The very same things I could use to pick away at that other religion can be used to pick away at my own. At best I have to own the label hypocrite, at worst.... if I really believe my own hype... I have to begin to question my own religion. Do you really not see the glass house you are standing in?

[mfbukowski]

As long as the churches teach the truth, they are many members of the same body.

I see. And how does one know what "the truth" is? I think you have not looked too well at your own presuppositions.

[BCSpace]

In my opinion, if something is not taught as doctrine, then it shouldn't be published

in a book called "Doctrines of Salvation" or "Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the

Gospel Student Manual."

I agree those are significant titles. But the former is not a doctrinal work and the latter is because of who publishes each. It IS true however, that one will find quotes from Doctrines of Salvation in doctrinal works published by the Church. That doesn't put a stamp of officiality on the work, just the quotes used. In other words, a work not published by the Church can indeed contain official doctrine, but the only way to know is if the same is published by the Church.

[orion88]

So the problem isn't that doctrine changes, only that it was once published by someone somewhere? Was your religion's non-trinitarian doctrine never published anywhere before it was discarded for your present trinitarian version?

If the non-trinitarian doctrine was ever taught by the Pentecostal faith. I am not aware of

it. I found this from GotQuestions. Does the Bible Teach the Trinity? I think it makes

sense.

[orion88]

I see. And how does one know what "the truth" is?

My rule of faith is whether the doctrine is clearly supported by the Bible. I don't believe

a church should speculate on spiritual matters.

[altersteve]

My rule of faith is whether the doctrine is clearly supported by the Bible. I don't believe

a church should speculate on spiritual matters.

So all God wants us to know can be found in the Bible? There is absolutely nothing else we need to learn?

[LeSellers]

My rule of faith is whether the doctrine is clearly supported by the Bible. I don't believe

a church should speculate on spiritual matters.

Which is the crux of the non-LDS Christian's problem: the Bible is silent on so many imperative issues.

You have no baptisms for the dead because the Bible does not "clearly support" the idea, but you seem to ignore the fact that it is a valid concept: Paul, in spite of how some may paint it, approves of the practice.

You don't know whether we are Gods, even though Jesus Himself says so, but the Bible does not "clearly support" His word.

You can't decide if the Bible clearly supports the requirement of baptism because the Bible doesn't say so in those exact terms, even though Christ told Nicodemus that one must be baptized.

You're not sure what, much less who, God is because you can't lay your finger on the passage that describes Him.

Oh, how sad to be bound to an incomplete tome, one that leave so many vital questions unaddressed, or addressed so poorly that you can't be sure what it means.

How grateful we are to have, in addition to the Bible, scripture designed for our day, and living prophets to explain what God meant when He had them written.

Lehi

[juliann]

If the non-trinitarian doctrine was ever taught by the Pentecostal faith. I am not aware of

it. I found this from GotQuestions. Does the Bible Teach the Trinity? I think it makes

sense.

You are a courteous and respectful critic and I appreciate that. But I remain puzzled that you seem more interested in another religion's history than your own. I remember an Assembly of God critic from quite awhile ago who was having a good time calling Mormons racist while completely unaware of the racist origins of his own religion.

Is there any point to arguing over opinions about what the Bible says? No one agrees. The best we can do is pull out scholars to support our opinions. Anyone who takes a Bible only position has to pick a few things but omit a lot more. It is not consistent. It is not a manual. It is a collection of diverse writings that you can pick and choose from.

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostal_Assemblies_of_Canada}

A 1909 attempt to organize the Pentecostal Movement in the East failed because of opposition against institutionalization. In 1918, however, a decision was made to form the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. At the time, the PAOC adhered to the non-Trinitarian Oneness doctrine and there were plans to join the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW), another Oneness Pentecostal denomination based in the U.S. However, those plans never materialized, and the Canadian body remained an independent organization with no formal US ties. Around the same time that eastern Pentecostals were creating the PAOC, Pentecostals in Saskatchewan and Alberta were joining the US based General Council of the Assemblies of God instead.^[16]

In 1920, the PAOC chose to join the Assemblies of God as well. Pentecostals in the West were incorporated into the PAOC, which continued to function as a distinct sub-division of the Assemblies of God. As a result, the PAOC united most Canadian Pentecostals in one denomination. The Assemblies of God, however, was a Trinitarian fellowship, and the PAOC was required to repudiate the Oneness doctrine and embrace the doctrine of the Trinity. This action resulted in the first major split within Canadian Pentecostalism and the creation of the Apostolic Church of Pentecost in 1921 by former PAOC members.^[16]

[mfbukowski]

My rule of faith is whether the doctrine is clearly supported by the Bible. I don't believe

a church should speculate on spiritual matters.

And you know the Bible is true because.....?

[orion88]

So all God wants us to know can be found in the Bible? There is absolutely nothing else we need to learn?

I believe the gospel is clearly explained in the Bible. That is what Jesus wants us to proclaim

it to the world. Is there something else we need to learn? No, not for what we have been

commissioned to do.

I believe the early disciples knew everything they needed to learn to be saved, but I understand

there is much more to salvation in LDS theology.

[orion88]

Which is the crux of the non-LDS Christian's problem: the Bible is silent on so many imperative issues.

While speaking on the topic of silence, we should look at a teaching in "Preach My Gospel" -

a missionary guide used by Latter-day Saints.

Section 5, page 114 states, "Help missionaries see how the Book of Mormon teaches the

doctrines from the missionary lessons. In a second column, have them list side-by-side

those same elements as taught in the Bible. Have your missionaries leave blank those

elements that are missing or not taught in the Bible. It will become very evident to the

missionary how the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our doctrine. This same activity

can be done with the other doctrines that missionaries teach."

In my opinion, there's some deception going on here. For an unspecified reason, the

missionaries are not instructed to leave blank those elements (doctrines and practices

of the LDS Church) that are missing or not taught in the Book of Mormon.

This is not a fair way for Mormons to compare the Book of Mormon with the Bible.

For me, I don't find the Bible deficient in what I believe.

You have no baptisms for the dead because the Bible does not "clearly support" the

idea, but you seem to ignore the fact that it is a valid concept: Paul, in spite of

how some may paint it, approves of the practice.

This topic is fully explained on IRR's web site, so I won't add to it.

You don't know whether we are Gods, even though Jesus Himself says so, but the Bible does not "clearly support" His word.

I'm assuming you are referring to the passage in Psalm.

In a nutshell, Moses and Satan are referred to as gods, but they are not deities (Exodus 7:1;

2 Cor. 4:4). There is a great commentary on this section at

http://answering-isl...jn10-34-36.html

How grateful we are to have, in addition to the Bible, scripture designed for our day, and living prophets to explain what God meant when He had them written.

The 2008 version of "Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith" reveals

some odd things when it comes to the acceptance of scriptures in LDS theology:

"We are differently situated from any other people that ever existed upon the earth;

consequently those former revelations cannot be suited to our conditions."

At a meeting in Kirtland, Ohio, Joseph Smith said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to

take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the [living] oracles and the

written word of God." Brigham Young said, "When compared with the living oracles

those books [the previous revelations] are nothing to me; those books do not convey

the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the

Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles

than all the writings in the books."

Joseph Smith said to the congregation, “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the

Lord, and he has told you the truth" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph

Smith, chapter 16, 2008, pp. 198-199).

If the Lord tarries, I suppose even the Book of Mormon will become irrelevant in a

hundred years since it cannot be suited to the conditions of the people in that

time.

Other churches like JW and SDA also claim to have living prophets, but we see the doctrines

they have come up with (Jesus is Michael the archangel and he returned in 1914) when they

stray from the Bible.

[orion88]

You are a courteous and respectful critic and I appreciate that. But I remain puzzled that you seem more interested in another religion's history than your own. I remember an Assembly of God critic from quite awhile ago who was having a good time calling Mormons racist while completely unaware of the racist origins of his own religion.

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I may not agree with everything taught

by the LDS Church but I try to be respectful.

I'm not only interested in the Mormon faith per se. I also do some reading into

other faiths. I feel a need to understand their doctrines before I can talk to

them in face or through email.

By the way, can you explain what you meant by the Assembly of God critic being

unaware of the racist origins of his religion?

http://en.wikipedia....blies_of_Canada (http://en.wikipedia....blies_of_Canada)

Thank you for this link. The doctrine of the trinity is a tough one to grasp.

I have enough trouble figuring out how electricity flows through wires.

I would not agree with their earlier teachings. Seems almost like modalism.

I couldn't find what scriptures the PAOC used to teach what they did back

then.

[orion88]

And you know the Bible is true because.....?

I hope this link helps ... http://www.gotquesti...t-religion.html

Faith is the main reason for believing but we do have some tangible (history,

geography, archaeology) evidence too.

I believe that there was some apostasy, but not a total apostasy - for the gates

of hell would never prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). The parable of the

wheat and the tares is a good parable showing this principle of the word of God

(Matthew 13:24). The tares would grow together with the wheat until the end of the

age until they were separated. Another parable is the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31).

LDS theology requires a complete and total destruction of the church Jesus founded

in order to usher in the restoration. The Mormon Research Ministry has a good analysis

to this at http://www.mrm.org/great-apostasy

[Pahoran]

I belong to a church that is part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. It is mainline Protestant - we don't teach that doctrine about unbaptized babies going to hell since it is not biblically based. We [should] teach only doctrine that can be supported by the Bible.

And what about cherry-picking quotes from religious books you don't believe in, in order to use them as "gotchas" in debates with your ideological opponents? Is that "biblically based?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Faith is not a reason- it is a "hope". You hope it is true.

What is the reason?

(The articles were less than convincing- I could take them apart line by line if you like)

Hint: the reason is most likely that you were born into the religion you have and it is totally cultural. That is most people's real "reason"

Edited March 24, 2012 by mfbukowski