What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Akboy]

That's great! But it leaves me with questions.

You've said before that if you felt the Holy Spirit was trying to teach you something that you believe goes against something you've been taught about the bible, you would automatically dismiss it as not being the Holy Spirit.

How can the Holy Spirit guide you in your beliefs if you are not open to be corrected?

I wouldn't dismiss it that quickly. If something was bugging me about a verse I read or a teaching I heard in the church, I would look into it, which includes praying about it and finding relevant verses. If I research the issue and can't find any biblical support for the concern, then I would dismiss it. But that doesn't mean I would ignore it. I would probably keep it in the back of my mind in case I find new insight or research on the issue.

I know, from the witness of the Holy Ghost, that the Book of Mormon is God's word. I can't have any part of a religion that denies that.

Just like you asked me, how can the Holy Spirit guide you in your beliefs if you are not open to be corrected? Aren't you asking me to keep an open mind that I might be wrong about some beliefs? Are you willing to do the same thing?

So why do you (general, protestant 'you') ridicule the LDS teaching that we must pray to find out God's truths for ourselves, and you (personal you, has as been demonstrated in this thread) even went so far as to claim any scripture in the bible which teaches that the Holy Ghost is supposed to teach us truth was meant only for the apostles?

You have thoroughly and completely confused me here.

That's not what I said. You quoted a verse of Jesus telling the disciples the Holy Spirit would help them remember His teachings. Since you were not there to hear the teachings in the first place, the HS couldn't help you remember them. I said the teaching that the HS helps teach us truth IS in the bible, but you shouldn't use THAT verse to support the idea since Jesus wasn't talking to us.

But leaving it up to the scholarship and study of fallen men who are also fighting against their sinful nature and who deny any witness that disagrees with them, that's a strong foundation to build upon?

Can you see why I'm confused?

Ultimately, it's based on what's in the Bible. Scholarship and study are just tools. It doesn't matter how much studying someone does if their teachings are not supported by the Bible.

Despite what your religion teaches about people who don't believe like you do, mine doesn't believe that God loves me any more than He loves you. I believe you are just as much a child of God as i am.

I've never said, believed or heard that God loves me any more than people of other faiths.

Can you deny the doctrine of the Trinity and be a Christian?

I agree that the Trinity is a very important doctrine, but I don't believe someone has to have an accurate understanding of it to be saved. I've been involved in children's ministry for many years and it's fairly common for kids younger than 7 years old to get saved, and I seriously doubt they understand the doctrine.

I know, from the witness of the Holy Ghost, that the Book of Mormon is God's word. I can't have any part of a religion that denies that.

Okay, I'll try this a different way. Lucifer was an angel of light before the fall and there's no indication he lost that form since then. The other angels who fell probably also kept their form. Lucifer is now the prince of the power of the air, the father of lies and a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. So he has the power and will to deceive many people, and has a history of doing so.

2 Cor. 11

¹² But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be ^[e]regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. ¹³ For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. ¹⁴ No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. ¹⁵ Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

So isn't it possible Satan could appear to someone in order to deceive them? He could also bring along another fallen angel to appear along with him. Is there any reason to believe Satan wouldn't or couldn't do that? Is it possible?

If Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light, why couldn't he disguise a deception as a witness of the Holy Ghost? Is it possible?

I really don't mean to sound offensive. I'm just asking 'Is it possible?'

Edited August 7, 2012 by Akboy

[djholmess]

It's something James taught as well.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

I know LDS bring up James 1:5 often to support their idea of receiving a witness of the Spirit and specifically on whether JS was a prophet. However I think this misses the context of the passage. At the very least you would have to admit that there is nothing in the context of James 1:5 that is dealing with knowing if someone is a false prophet or not.

We could look at more detail of James chapter 1 and try to understand what he is talking about but even setting that aside for a moment from the rest of the Bible we can see that there are ways that Gods people can discern false prophets - and none of them set out the standard given in the BoM.

Passages like Deuteronomy 13 & 18, Galatians 1 and as a specific example Acts 17:10-11

¹⁰ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

¹¹ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I believe this is the way that the Bible consistently sets out how Gods people are to test anyone's claim to be a prophet - by searching the scriptures to see if what they say accords with what has already been given by God.

It's like the difference between when Moses taught the 10 commandments to Israelites and when he taught that bats were birds and that some fowls crept on all fours.

No mortal is infallible and since prophets are mortal, they cannot be infallible either.

I agree no mortal is infallible. However I do not think that the prophets spoke simply in their own power but as 2 Peter 1:21 says

²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Therefore I do believe that the scriptures are an infallible rule of faith for Gods people. Jesus himself on a number of occasions quotes the words of prophets but rather than saying ‘Moses says’ Jesus would attribute the words of the prophet to God.

I have never heard that about Moses, where does he say those things?

Joseph Smith never said anyone should go after 'other gods'.

This is where I disagree, granted Smith presented himself as a prophet of the God of the Bible. However as I read Smith the God he claims to know and represent is to far removed from the God I see in the Bible. I can only conclude that Joseph Smith did not know the God of the Bible and that therefore he was leading people away from the true God and after a different God instead.

What makes me say this? Well I already gave one example regarding JS rejecting that God has been God for eternity – but that he instead was once a man who progressed to the position of being a God. Honestly I think that is enough to reject Smith as a prophet.

The King Follett sermons are not doctrinal.

I know it isn’t ‘doctrinal’ in the sense that LDS use the term but you see nowhere do I see such a distinction made in the Bible. Joseph Smith stood up claiming to be a prophet of God and taught 20,000 people the things of the King Follett Sermons. Based on these teachings I must conclude he was a false prophet.

Now if he had of started his sermon ‘not I am not sure about this, really I am just guessing so do not accept what I am saying as me speaking as a prophet’ then I would be willing to give him some slack in this sermon. But as I demonstrated in my previous post he said quite the opposite.

I am aware that Smith never got to look over it before his death – but again this is not a standard I think is necessary before I test the words of someone who claims to be a prophet. And I know how this particular sermon came together, however this hasn’t stopped the LDS Church leadership publishing the sermon a number of times in official publications so if they are happy to present it as JS teaching I am happy to test it with the word of God.

If the King Follett sermon is the only reason you have for automatically dismissing JS as a prophet, then your arguments are not very convincing.

This is not the only reason; I could multiply quotes from Smith where I believe he teaches a concept of who God is that is so far from the biblical perspective to label him a false prophet (see a example below).

Further other reasons of a slightly nature for why I reject Smith as a prophet are;

-I believe he taught a false gospel (fails the test of Galatians 1)

-I believe some of his prophecies failed to happen (fails the test of Deuteronomy 18)

-I believe he was not qualified to be a leader in Gods church (fails the requirements of 1 Timothy 3)

I do understand that my ‘arguments’ (I’m not arguing I’m just trying to explain) why I can’t accept Joseph Smith was a prophet don’t seem very convincing, we come from two very different perspectives.

I believe that the Bible; as the Holy Spirit inspired word of God, is the ultimate authority and rule of faith for followers of Christ. So as the Spirit speaks to me in and through the words of the Bible I believe my thoughts and feelings and ideas should be tested by the word of God – just as those of a prophet should. So when I talk to others about God I always base whatever I say around the word of God (hence all the Bible verses that are usually in my posts) as I do not believe I have any authority in and of myself, however if I am faithfully representing the word of God then that word itself has the very authority of God.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth but in talking to Mormons it consistently seems to me that in practice ‘emotion and experience’ seem to be the ultimate source of authority for them. It is their feelings and experiences that confirmed to them that JS was a prophet and it is through their feelings and experiences that they distinguish what is a witness of the Holy Ghost and what isn’t.

Obviously these are two very different ‘authorities’ so our ‘arguments’ may often seem unconvincing to each other.

If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus

Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father?

And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence

without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is

heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?

(History of the Church, vol. 6,

p. 476)

Edited August 7, 2012 by djholmess

[Vance]

I know LDS bring up James 1:5 often to support their idea of receiving a witness of the Spirit and specifically on whether JS was a prophet. However I think this misses the context of the passage. At the very least you would have to admit that there is nothing in the context of James 1:5 that is dealing with knowing if someone is a false prophet or not.

Well, since you want to look at the context of the passage, let's look at the Greek and find out what the definition of the word which is translated into the English "wisdom".

From Strong's we find that the Greek word is (transliteration) "sophia" which has the definition,

1) wisdom, broad and full of intelligence; used of the knowledge of very diverse matters

a) the wisdom which belongs to men

1) spec. the varied knowledge of things human and divine, acquired by acuteness and experience, and summed up in maxims and proverbs

2) the science and learning

3) the act of interpreting dreams and always giving the sagest advice

4) the intelligence evinced in discovering the meaning of some mysterious number or vision

5) skill in the management of affairs

6) devout and proper prudence in intercourse with men not disciples of Christ, skill and discretion in imparting Christian truth

7) the knowledge and practice of the requisites for godly and upright living

b) supreme intelligence, such as belongs to God

1) to Christ

2) the wisdom of God as evinced in forming and executing counsels in the formation and government of the world and the scriptures

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4678&t=KJV

So, you are trying to say that knowing whether some one is a prophet or not doesn't fit any of those categories.

We could look at more detail of James chapter 1 and try to understand what he is talking about but even setting that aside for a moment from the rest of the Bible we can see that there are ways that Gods people can discern false prophets - and none of them set out the standard given in the BoM.

What is "the standard given in the BoM?

Passages like Deuteronomy 13 & 18, Galatians 1 and as a specific example Acts 17:10-11

¹⁰ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

¹¹ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I have searched the NT vigorously over the last 30+ years. I can honestly say that I find that "Mormonism" permeates its pages.

I believe this is the way that the Bible consistently sets out how Gods people are to test anyone's claim to be a prophet - by searching the scriptures to see if what they say accords with what has already been given by God.

And by any test that the Prophets in the Bible can pass, Joseph Smith Jr. passes with flying colors.

I agree no mortal is infallible. However I do not think that the prophets spoke simply in their own power but as 2 Peter 1:21 says

²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And yet the verse you quote demonstrates just the opposite of what you are trying to impute to it. Notice that the "they" who are moved by the Holy Ghost are not God, but are FALLIBLE MEN!!! Also, these FALLIBLE MEN must attempt to communicate God's will through FALLIBLE HUMAN LANGUAGE.

Oh, the horror of it all.

Therefore I do believe that the scriptures are an infallible rule of faith for Gods people.

A FAULTY conclusion, based upon FAULTY premises.

[Vance]

Jesus himself on a number of occasions quotes the words of prophets but rather than saying ‘Moses says’ Jesus would attribute the words of the prophet to God.

You mean like in Matt 4:15 where He MISQUOTES Isaiah 9:1?????

Or like in Matt 12:18 where He MISQUOTES Isaiah 42:1??????

I have never heard that about Moses, where does he say those things?

So?

This is where I disagree, granted Smith presented himself as a prophet of the God of the Bible.

"of the Bible"????

However as I read Smith the God he claims to know and represent is to far removed from the God I see in the Bible.

That is because of those 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical Blinders you have on.

I can only conclude that Joseph Smith did not know the God of the Bible and that therefore he was leading people away from the true God and after a different God instead.

Or it is you that doesn't know "the God of the Bible". And since the trinitarian God doesn't come from the Bible but from the philosophers of the 3rd and 4th Century CATHOLIC CHURCH, it is rather OBVIOUS who doesn't know "the God of the Bible".

What makes me say this?

Ignorance??

Well I already gave one example regarding JS rejecting that God has been God for eternity – but that he instead was once a man who progressed to the position of being a God. Honestly I think that is enough to reject Smith as a prophet.

And, as has been shown to you, you got that wrong, so now what?

I know it isn’t ‘doctrinal’ in the sense that LDS use the term but you see nowhere do I see such a distinction made in the Bible.

Did I mention "BLINDERS"?

Joseph Smith stood up claiming to be a prophet of God and taught 20,000 people the things of the King Follett Sermons.

You are beginning to sound like you aren't very bright. AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU,

1) the King Follet discourse isn't canonized.

2) there is some question about its accuracy.

3) Joseph Smith never authorized it.

But hey, you keep

Based on these teachings I must conclude he was a false prophet.

Now if he had of started his sermon ‘not I am not sure about this, really I am just guessing so do not accept what I am saying as me speaking as a prophet’ then I would be willing to give him some slack in this sermon. But as I demonstrated in my previous post he said quite the opposite.

There is no proof of this accusation.

I am aware that Smith never got to look over it before his death – but again this is not a standard I think is necessary before I test the words of someone who claims to be a prophet.

Oh, so you are going to use UNRELIABLE SOURCES to make your judgement. Oh, goodie!!!

And I know how this particular sermon came together, however this hasn’t stopped the LDS Church leadership publishing the sermon a number of times in official publications so if they are happy to present it as JS teaching I am happy to test it with the word of God.

That still doesn't make it canonized. Jude quotes the non-canonized words of Enoch, so, by your method, Jude MUST BE A FALSE PROPHET!!!

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Whatever!!!!

The problem is that ANY standard you use to exclude Joseph Smith Jr. from being a prophet can also be used to exclude other Biblical prophets.

Unless, of course, you use a DOUBLE standard.

[KevinG]

If Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light, why couldn't he disguise a deception as a witness of the Holy Ghost? Is it possible?

I really don't mean to sound offensive. I'm just asking 'Is it possible?'

If it were a single instance in my life where I was prompted by a spirit I might doubt it, but the Holy Spirit has blessed me first and foremost with a knowledge that Jesus Christ is my savior and then blessed me with many good gifts of God. I find it strange that a false spirit would bring me closer to Christ.

[KevinG]

Obviously these are two very different ‘authorities’ so our ‘arguments’ may often seem unconvincing to each other.

My authority is respectful enough not to go unto the earth and tell them they are going to hell. Mine would rather I taught the ends of the earth to come unto Christ.

[djholmess]

Vance, if you can't have a civil conversation then there is no need for you to reply to things I posted as a response to someone else. Time and time and time again you either don't actually read what I am saying within the context I say it or as I'm coming to guess you just get a kick out of mocking people.

And, as has been shown to you, you got that wrong, so now what?

Could you please point me to the verse where someone demonstrated that I misunderstood what JS was saying in the King Follet sermon about God progressing to God rather than being God for all eternity?

Did I mention "BLINDERS"?

I openly admit that the Bible is my ultimate source of authority – if you want to call that ‘blinders’ then that’s up to you. So what is your source of authority then?

You are beginning to sound like you aren't very bright. AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU,

1) the King Follet discourse isn't canonized.

2) there is some question about its accuracy.

3) Joseph Smith never authorized it.

As I said I don’t accept your church and it’s concept of canonization. When someone claims to be a prophet and then gets up and speaks as a prophet I think it is legitimate to test his words. As I see it Joseph Smith ‘authorised’ it when he stood up at a conference and spoke it.

Oh, so you are going to use UNRELIABLE SOURCES to make your judgement. Oh, goodie!!!

Normally you are accusing me of getting my understanding of Mormonism from anti Mormon sites.

I quote from an official LDS publication sent out by the LDS leadership which in its description says about the record of the sermon “This was not a stenographic report, but a carefully and skillfully prepared one made by these men who were trained in reporting and taking notes.”

Further your former president Hinckley spoke of the King Follet sermon

The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church. It is known as the King Follett Sermon. (Ensign, Sept. 1994)

So if you want to conclude that it is an unreliable source then that’s up to you.

That still doesn't make it canonized. Jude quotes the non-canonized words of Enoch, so, by your method, Jude MUST BE A FALSE PROPHET!!!

How is that my reasoning? I have no problem Jude quoting from Enoch as he isn’t contradicting previous revelations about who God is. I would have no problem if JS quoted something else in any of his sermons. I do have a problem when the whole point of his sermon was to disprove a clear biblical teaching.

The problem is that ANY standard you use to exclude Joseph Smith Jr. from being a prophet can also be used to exclude other Biblical prophets.

Care to elaborate? Maybe with an example?

[djholmess]

My authority is respectful enough not to go unto the earth and tell them they are going to hell. Mine would rather I taught the ends of the earth to come unto Christ.

I know this isn't what you mean but if we look at the words of Jesus in Matthew 23 below I could easily conclude that you are saying that Jesus isn't your authority.

¹⁴ Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

¹⁵ Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves....

³¹ Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

³² Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

³³ Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

[KevinG]

Vance, if you can't have a civil conversation then there is no need for you to reply to things I posted as a response to someone else.

Civility was abused the moment you ordained yourself to preach the Mormons were going to hell. You have very little room to complain about how you are being treated.

[djholmess]

Civility was abused the moment you ordained yourself to preach the Mormons were going to hell. You have very little room to complain about how you are being treated.

Who said I was preaching? I was asked to explan why I do not think Mormons are Christians and that is what I have been doing. I wasn't complaining about anyone other than vance, everyone else in this thread has been able to keep the dialouge at least above the level of mocking.

[KevinG]

I know this isn't what you mean but if we look at the words of Jesus in Matthew 23 below I could easily conclude that you are saying that Jesus isn't your authority.

I'm comfortable letting Jesus correct me towards repentance. In fact He does it all the time and I obey Him.

I am not so convinced you are equipped to condemn me to hell.

[Vance]

Okay, I'll try this a different way. Lucifer was an angel of light before the fall and there's no indication he lost that form since then. The other angels who fell probably also kept their form. Lucifer is now the prince of the power of the air, the father of lies and a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. So he has the power and will to deceive many people, and has a history of doing so.

2 Cor. 11

¹² But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be ^[e]regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. ¹³ For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. ¹⁴ No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. ¹⁵ Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

WOW!!!!

"whose end will be according to their deeds" sounds more like something that Mormons teach than Evangelicals.

The context of the verse is clear, false teachers (such as evangelical ministers) "also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness".

Who knew??

So isn't it possible Satan could appear to someone in order to deceive them?

Yeah, it is possible, he appeared that way in the garden of Eden.

So what?

He could also bring along another fallen angel to appear along with him. Is there any reason to believe Satan wouldn't or couldn't do that? Is it possible?

Well, the Bible doesn't say that is possible, so according to "sola scriptura", no, that isn't possible.

Just saying.

If Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light, why couldn't he disguise a deception as a witness of the Holy Ghost? Is it possible?

Well, according to the Bible,

Gal. 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Eph. 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Those are the opposite of what Satan can offer.

[KevinG]

Who said I was preaching? I was asked to explan why I do not think Mormons are Christians and that is what I have been doing. I wasn't complaining about anyone other than vance, everyone else in this thread has been able to keep the dialouge at least above the level of mocking.

You are preaching (and it started on an earlier discussion). You are doing precious little to understand Mormons when they explain what you think about them ain't necessarily so. I find your efforts to spin and justify your misunderstanding in the face of many pages of patient explanation may result in some intemperate responses.

However there is a solution to your problem. Board Nannying is not allowed here so if you feel someone has treated you disrespectfully (Pot meet Kettle) you can use the report function.

[djholmess]

I am not so convinced you are equipped to condemn me to hell.

I heartily agree. Only God can condemn anyone to hell and only the Bible can warn anyone that they may be headed towards such condemnation. That’s why I have only ever said things like ‘look at what the bible says here – it seems that if you don’t believe that you can’t be a Christian’

Edited August 7, 2012 by djholmess

[djholmess]

Well, according to the Bible,

Gal. 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Eph. 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Those are the opposite of what Satan can offer.

It's interesting you bring up these verses. Given that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light how could you know if what you think is an experience of the 'love, joy, peace...' mentioned in Galatians 5:22 is actually what is mentioned there? Couldn't Satan trick someone into thinking what they are experiencing is the love mentioned in Galatians when it is really something else?

[KevinG]

I heartily agree. Only God can condemn anyone to hell and only the Bible can warn anyone that they may be headed towards such condemnation. That’s why I have only every said things like ‘look at what the bible says here – it seems that if you don’t believe that you can’t be a Christian’

I'm also not so convinced you are equipped to judge that I am going to hell or that I need warned that my belief is Christ is somehow so flawed that I am in danger of hellfire.

[Sleeper Cell]

¹⁰ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

¹¹ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I believe this is the way that the Bible consistently sets out how Gods people are to test anyone's claim to be a prophet - by searching the scriptures to see if what they say accords with what has already been given by God.

IIRC, nearly all of the top Biblical scholars of the day rejected the claims of the NT prophets.

　

This is where I disagree, granted Smith presented himself as a prophet of the God of the Bible. However as I read Smith the God he claims to know and represent is to far removed from the God I see in the Bible. I can only conclude that Joseph Smith did not know the God of the Bible and that therefore he was leading people away from the true God and after a different God instead.

Didn’t the Biblical scholars of Paul’s day use a similar argument against the NT prophets?

I don’t want to put words in your mouth but in talking to Mormons it consistently seems to me that in practice ‘emotion and experience’ seem to be the ultimate source of authority for them. It is their feelings and experiences that confirmed to them that JS was a prophet and it is through their feelings and experiences that they distinguish what is a witness of the Holy Ghost and what isn’t.

An atheist would probably say the same sort of thing about both of us.

[KevinG]

It's interesting you bring up these verses. Given that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light how could you know if what you think is an experience of the 'love, joy, peace...' mentioned in Galatians 5:22 is actually what is mentioned there? Couldn't Satan trick someone into thinking what they are experiencing is the love mentioned in Galatians when it is really something else?

Once you have to mind read in order to determine if others really "love" you have lost all credibility. Either that or you are so far into hypothetical land your reasoning is meaningless.

Say it straight. Do the fruits of Mormonism deny love for God or their fellow man?

[djholmess]

I'm also not so convinced you are equipped to judge that I am going to hell or that I need warned that my belief is Christ is somehow so flawed that I am in danger of hellfire.

Like I said I'm not expecting you to be convinced by me - its the word of God that is equipped to convict people of true or false beliefs.

[djholmess]

IIRC, nearly all of the top Biblical scholars of the day rejected the claims of the NT prophets.

　

By biblical scholars I take it you mean Jewish teachers of the OT law right? If so I don't understand how that in anyway negates the word of God commending the Bereans and giving us their example.

[Vance]

Vance, if you can't have a civil conversation then there is no need for you to reply to things I posted as a response to someone else. Time and time and time again you either don't actually read what I am saying within the context I say it or as I'm coming to guess you just get a kick out of mocking people.

You are projecting again.

Could you please point me to the verse where someone demonstrated that I misunderstood what JS was saying in the King Follet sermon about God progressing to God rather than being God for all eternity?

volgadon's posts on the Hebrew word that is translated "eternal" or "everlasting" in English. You missed the whole point.

If I must, I can repeat and/or add to what he posted.

I openly admit that the Bible is my ultimate source of authority – if you want to call that ‘blinders’ then that’s up to you. So what is your source of authority then?

Well, since I have read the Bible as much as (if not more than) you, I have ALL the authority from the Bible that the Bible can give.

AND, with that authority, I hereby declare your teachings to be false.

Now, prove that I don't have as much authority from the Bible as you do.

As I said I don’t accept your church and it’s concept of canonization.

So?

When someone claims to be a prophet and then gets up and speaks as a prophet I think it is legitimate to test his words.

Sorry, but you can't show that JS was speaking as a prophet during the King Follet discourse.

As I see it Joseph Smith ‘authorised’ it when he stood up at a conference and spoke it.

It was a funeral, not a conference.

BUT HEY!!! Don't let that FACT stop your

Normally you are accusing me of getting my understanding of Mormonism from anti Mormon sites.

CFR!!!!

I quote from an official LDS publication sent out by the LDS leadership which in its description says about the record of the sermon “This was not a stenographic report, but a carefully and skillfully prepared one made by these men who were trained in reporting and taking notes.”

Further your former president Hinckley spoke of the King Follet sermon

The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church. It is known as the King Follett Sermon. (Ensign, Sept. 1994)

SO? That still doesn't mean it is canonized or that what you think about the Hebrew word which is translated to the English word "eternity" means is correct.

So if you want to conclude that it is an unreliable source then that’s up to you.

Hey, why don't you be civil and let LDS decided what LDS documents ACTUALLY mean?

Or is that kind of civility beyond you?

How is that my reasoning? I have no problem Jude quoting from Enoch as he isn’t contradicting previous revelations about who God is.

AND NEITHER was JS. It is your MISUNDERSTANDING that is the problem.

I would have no problem if JS quoted something else in any of his sermons. I do have a problem when the whole point of his sermon was to disprove a clear biblical teaching.

It isn't disproved by the clear teachings of the Bible. It is your MISUNDERSTANDING of the Bible that is the problem.

Care to elaborate? Maybe with an example?

You provide the standard first.

[Vance]

. . . only the Bible can warn anyone that they may be headed towards such condemnation.

CFR!!!!

[djholmess]

Say it straight. Do the fruits of Mormonism deny love for God or their fellow man?

As I have been happy to say I do not believe I can be faithful to the word of God and accept Mormons as Christians.

On that basis:

Does Mormonism deny love for God? I would say yes Mormonism denies love for the true God.

Does Mormonism deny love for fellow man? In a biblical context yes.

1 John 4

⁷ Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

If as I believe you don't know the true God then you cannot love because love is of God. As a practical example; I believe the Bible clearly teaches that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ as their saviour will be condemned to hell. It would be a very loving thing to warn someone who is going to hell that they need Jesus. Mormonism teaches that Jesus has atoned for the sins of the world and that all men will be resurrected - only apostates will go to hell.

[Vance]

It's interesting you bring up these verses. Given that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light how could you know if what you think is an experience of the 'love, joy, peace...' mentioned in Galatians 5:22 is actually what is mentioned there? Couldn't Satan trick someone into thinking what they are experiencing is the love mentioned in Galatians when it is really something else?

If people don't know what love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, and righteousness and truth are then I suppose that Satan could deceive them.

[KevinG]

Like I said I'm not expecting you to be convinced by me - its the word of God that is equipped to convict people of true or false beliefs.

...and the word of God through the scriptures, prophets and the Holy Ghost have convinced me of the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ. Therefore I am Christian in the NT sense.