What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Vance]

Ironically, Djholmess' attitude is diametrically opposed to teachings from the Gospel of St. John.

http://calba-savua.b...r-all-else.html

And, interestingly enough, in a way Paul (quoting the OT) teaches a similar concept.

Rom 10:14 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?

15 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!

Edited August 8, 2012 by Vance

[altersteve]

Let’s start with Galatians 1:

⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

I believe Joseph Smith preached and taught another gospel and therefore falls under the curse of the above passage.

The gospel Joseph Smith preached and taught was that Jesus Christ came to the world to be crucified for the sins of all God's children, so that we may be saved and live with our Father again. How is that "another gospel"? Unless you think certain LDS doctrines somehow taint that message and damn those who believe it, in which case you may want to prayerfully consider Joseph Smith's own words on that very subject: "I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief."

Whilst the above passage doesn’t distinguish someone as a false prophet – the teachers of this false gospel in Galatia didn’t claim to be prophets, I think being under the curse of Paul would identify someone claiming to be a prophet as false.

In the Galatians Paul goes on to explain the gospel;

Galatians 2:

¹⁵ We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; ¹⁶ yet we know that a person is not justified^[b] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:

⁷ Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. ⁸ And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify^[c] the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” ⁹ So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

¹⁰ For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” ¹¹ Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”^[d]12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Paul actually describes the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4: "I declare unto you the gospel . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." This is what Joseph Smith taught: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." Sounds like the gospel to me. I think you probably know that the word "gospel" means "good news," the "good tidings of great joy" that the angel declared to Joseph and Mary (see Luke 2:10–11). This wonderful news is explained by Christ Himself to the Nephites, "that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me" (3 Nephi 27:21). What great news! Best news ever. How is this "another gospel" from the one preached in the Bible?

I am willing to be corrected but I have not seen anywhere where JS taught that justification was by faith apart from any works. Now he may have taught this at one time but he certainly didn’t teach it consistently – and as Paul said, even if Paul was to come and preach another gospel he would be accursed.

Now obviously Paul teaches what I quoted above time and time again, especially in Romans, but I think Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good summary:

⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not a result of works, so that no one may boast. ¹⁰ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Latter-day Saints completely agree with this passage. We emphatically believe that salvation is God's gift to us and that it is not of our own doing. We do not believe we can save ourselves. Far too few critics realize this. That said, a gift is not less of a gift simply because it's conditional, and we realize that one cannot be saved if he or she does not keep God's commandments. God will not give the gift of salvation to one who disobeys Him. Why would He? We aren't doing keeping the commandments in order for us to be saved, though; we keep the commandments because God asked us to. We do it because we love Him and have faith in Him, and we believe He rewards us accordingly.

I want to highlight two things,

1) Being saved through faith is not our own doing, it is a gift not of any works we do.

Agreed.

2) We are saved to do good works, not by doing good works, notice the For at the beginning of verse 10. Good works do not play a part in salvation, the reason people are saved is so that they can then do the good works prepared for them.

I agree, we are not saved by doing good works, but we cannot be saved without doing good works. And yes, there is a difference. I like to use the analogy of a broken arm: When you break your arm, you have to get a cast. But is it the cast itself that heals it? No, of course not. But your arm still cannot be healed without. Similarly, good works, keeping the commandments, and partaking in the ordinances of salvation (baptism, etc.) do not save us, but we cannot be saved without them; they act as the "cast," the means by which Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice fully washes us clean and makes us worthy to enter His Father's presence. The good works we perform that "God prepared beforehand" are the things we were preordained to do to bring others unto Christ so that they too can be saved and also live with God again.

This is an extremely misunderstood topic within Mormon/evangelical dialogue. We frequently talk past and misunderstand each other and it needs to stop. I don't feel our views on this subject are really that different.

Now to give a couple of specific examples of Joseph Smith different gospel: I’m also quoting from the BoM because whilst I know you believe it was written by ancient authors I do not – and at the very least we agree that Joseph Smith was responsible for the translation we have today.

2 Nephi 25:23

For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

As Ephesians 2 just said, ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith...not a result of works.’

Another frequently misinterpreted scripture. The definition of "after all we can do" is given in Alma 24:11: "to repent of all our sins . . . and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain." The preceding verse, verse 10, explains that repentance is a gift from God, so even "all we can do" cannot be done without God's help. We are completely dependent on Christ, even in doing "all we can do."

Moroni 10:32

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you

Romans 4:5

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

I see no contradiction between these verses. I'll have to go through and do a verse-by-verse analysis of Romans 4 in order for me to fully get my argument across, and I don't feel like doing that right now, but the gist of it is that the whole point of Romans 4 is that it was Abraham's belief that was credited to him for righteousness and not circumcision ("the law"). It has nothing to do with being saved, as I don't believe having your faith "counted for righteousness" is the same thing as being saved. Evangelicals make this assumption all the time, but I see nothing that supports this. It simply means you are a righteous person. Being righteous doesn't mean you're automatically saved, because after all, one can fall from grace and lose his salvation, even righteous people, as is taught frequently throughout the New Testament (see Matt. 10:22, 24:13; 1 Cor. 10:12; Gal. 5:4; Heb. 6:6, 12:15).

I am aware that the JS translation adds a ‘not’ in front of the ungodly. I have yet to see any evidence at all that this what Paul actually wrote so I would add ‘altering the word of God’ to the list of evidences that JS was a false prophet.

Circular reasoning. Joseph Smith is a false prophet because he tampered with the word of God, you say, but this is based on the assumption that he is a false prophet in the first place. And since he's a false prophet, he can't alter the word of God. But if he were a true prophet, then clarifying the word of God would not be such a bad thing, would it, especially if the Lord commanded it? And furthermore, the Joseph Smith Translation is, in my view, more like having Joseph Smith right next to you while you read it. It was his way of clarifying and elaborating on already existing scripture (again, under the Lord's direction). Some lost parts were restored, but that wasn't the entire point of the translation. (And the translation, by the way, had not been complete by the time Joseph was killed, and thus remains unfinished. This is why it's not our official Bible and why many of Joseph's alterations may be confusing: he never had time to explain or finish them.)

D&C 89:18-21

And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;

And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;

And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.

And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.

Isaiah 40:31

but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint

These two passages are talking about two completely different things. D&C 89 is the Word of Wisdom, a health code which the Lord says, if followed, will bless us with health, both physical and spiritual. Isaiah 40:31 is a poetic verse teaching us, in my opinion, to be patient during our trials, which will make us stronger if we endure them well.

D&C 88

36 All kingdoms have a law given;

37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.

Romans 3

²⁸ Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Again these are talking about two different things. In Romans, Paul is talking about "the law" as in the law of Moses. We are not justified by the deeds we do as part of this law, since it has been fulfilled in Christ. But the D&C is talking about actual laws (specifically, the law of God's kingdom) and tells us that we cannot be given anything if we do not abide by it. All blessings come with obedience to His laws (as explained in D&C 130:20–21).

Edited August 8, 2012 by altersteve

[altersteve]

That's intresting but obviously I disagree. I have never encountered someone who thinks the United States Constitution was inspired before is that typical amoung LDS?

Yes. In fact, it's our doctrine that God's hand was directly involved in its establishment (see D&C 101:77–80).

From 2 Peter 1

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.

Here Peter is explaining how OT prophets spoke; not by their own will but as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit is directly active in the speaking and writing of prophecies this is why I believe Paul can say scripture is 'God breathed.'

I agree, the Holy Spirit is directly involved in the writing of scripture, and I agree with your belief that this is a good reason for scripture to be "God breathed." But being "God breathed" doesn't make it infallible. If it were infallible, then there would be no differences between Matthew's and Luke's versions of Jesus' genealogy. Another example is the date of the Last Supper: Matthew, Mark, and Luke place it on the first day of the Passover, while John places it one day earlier and has Jesus' crucifixion take place on the first day of Passover instead. How can these inconsistencies be explained? Because they were written by flawed human beings who either made "typos" occasionally, had not-so-great memories of the small details of the events, or just didn't care too much about perfect historical accuracy. What they cared about most was that they delivered their message accurately, which is what the Spirit was there to help them with.

If you do think there can be small mistakes what do you make of Matthew 5:18 where Jesus seems to place a great deal of significance on every little iota in the law?

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

This verse doesn't have anything to do with small mistakes. Completely different subject.

Edited August 8, 2012 by altersteve

[bluebell]

Don't blame the Bible for Koresh or other horrific crimes like the Inquisition. No matter how clear and unambiguous something is, it can always be misinterpreted, especially if someone is looking for an excuse to justify whatever they want.

That's true. However, the bible is especially suceptible to such practices because it is not always very clear or unambiguous.

Aren't there splinter LDS or RLDS groups who use the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith to justify continued polygamy and even underage marriage in some cases?

I don't know of any splinter LDS groups who use the Book of Mormon to justify polygamy or underage marriage, but there could be some i'm not aware of. The RLDS deny that polygamy was ever condoned of God and deny that JS ever lived it.

There are splinter groups that use JS as a reason to justify polygamy though.

But I'm not blaming the LDS Church or expecting you to abandon your faith because some people have abused it for their own ends. In the same way, I won't abandon my faith in a Biblical foundation just because some people abuse it.

No one is asking you to abandon your faith in a biblical foundation. I'm just saying that having the bible be more of a foundation for your beliefs than anything else, including the guidance of the Holy Ghost, seems problematic.

It's not your faith in the bible that i question, but your faith in it above everything else.

In general, I would say yes. But the trinity affects many other doctrines. So I guess it's possible your rejection of the trinity could be a sign of a problem with a foundational gospel belief.

Fair enough.

There's a lot more at that link. Could you read some of it and pray about it?

I've read the criticisms in that link and they are easily refuted.

It claims the first vision wasn't taught in church until 1842. It claims that there "is simply no evidence that Joseph told anyone about the vision until many years later and not until after the Book of Mormon was published."

It's amazing that such stellar scholarship could be so wrong-

1827

• A skeptical account from Rev. John A. Clark mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],---).
  

1831

• LDS missionaries were teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and received a commission from Him to teach true religion (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831).^[2]
  

1832

• LDS missionaries were teaching with regard to Joseph Smith: "Having repented of his sins, but not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse [to] prayer" (The Fredonia Censor, vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
  
• In October 1832, another Protestant minister wrote to a friend about the Latter-day Saints in his area: "They profess to hold frequent converse with angels; some go, if we may believe what they say, as far as the third heaven, and converse with the Lord Jesus face to face."^[3]
  

1833

• A few months later, in March of 1833, the Reverend Richmond Taggart wrote a letter to a ministerial friend, regarding the activities of Joseph Smith himself in Ohio: "The following Curious occurrance occurred last week in Newburg [Ohio] about 6 miles from this Place [Cleveland]. Joe Smith the great Mormonosity was there and held forth, and among other things he told them he had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them, and that he could perform Miracles."^[4] Here is a clear reference to Joseph Smith stating he had seen Jesus Christ. Joseph’s ‘conversations’ with the Apostles could be a reference to having seen, spoken to, and been ordained to the Priesthood by the early Apostles Peter, James, and John. Having received that Priesthood Joseph Smith was now qualified to perform healings, and other ‘miracles’.
  
• A Missouri newspaper contains an article on a mass meeting of Latter-day Saints in July 1833, and refers to the Saints’ “pretended revelations from heaven… their personal intercourse with God and his angels… converse with God and his angels….”^[5]
  
• Philastus Hurlbut, following his excommunication from the Church in 1833, went east to Palmyra. He there interviewed many who claimed to have known Joseph Smith before the organization of the Church. Among those interviewed were some who left statements which give us more information on what the Prophet had been claiming at that early period. On November 3, 1833, Barton Stafford testified that Joseph had “professed to be inspired of the Lord to translate the Book of Mormon.” Stafford claimed to have known them “until 1831 when they left this neighborhood.” Five days later, on November 8, Joseph Capron testified that Joseph had made “the highest pretensions to piety and holy intercourse with Almighty God.”^[6] In 1884 and 1885 Arthur B. Deming collected affidavits in the Painesville, Ohio area, regarding the early Saints, and their recollection of Joseph Smith. Cornelius R. Stafford had been born in Manchester, NY, in 1813. He testified that Joseph Smith “claimed to receive revelations from the Lord.”^[7]
  

1834

• Oliver Cowdery published the beginning elements of the First Vision story as part of a history of the Church ((December 1834) Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1:43.)
  

1835

• William W. Phelps published a reference to the First Vision in October 1835 in the Church's newspaper ((October 1835) Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 2:208.)
  

1836

• The First Vision reference by William W. Phelps was republished as part of hymn #26 in the Saints' first hymnal—March 1836 (see Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1176).
  

When the published 1830s fragments of the First Vision story are compared to the as-yet-unpublished 1838 recital, it becomes apparent that the Prophet's account of things stayed steady during this time frame and was probably known among a wider cross-section of the contemporary LDS population than has been previously acknowledged. 1834 - "the 15th year of his life" [Cowdery] 1838 - "I was at this time in my fifteenth year" 1834 - "There was a great awakening, or excitement raised on the subject of religion" [Cowdery] 1838 - "there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion" 1834 - "our brother's mind became awakened" [Cowdery] 1838 - "my mind was called up to serious reflection" 1834 - "his mother, one sister, and two of his natural brothers, were persuaded to unite with the Presbyterians" [Cowdery] 1838 - "My Fathers family were proselyted to the Presbyterian faith" 1834 - "his spirit was not at rest day nor night" [Cowdery] 1838 - "great uneasiness . . . extreme difficulties . . . my anxieties" 1832 - "not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them" [Missionaries] 1838 - "I kept myself aloof from all these parties"; "no small stir and division" 1834 - "he was told they were right, and all others were wrong" [Cowdery] 1838 - "who was right and who was wrong" 1834 - "a general struggle was made by the leading characters of the different sects" [Cowdery] 1838 - "priest contending against priest" 1834 - "Large additions were made to the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches" [Cowdery] 1838 - "multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties" 1835 - "the world in darkness lay" [Phelps] 1838 - "I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness" 1835 - "he sought the better way" [Phelps] 1838 - "I was one day reading the Epistle of James" 1832 - "being in doubt what his duty was" [Missionaries] 1838 - "I often said to myself, what is to be done?" 1832 - "he had recourse [to] prayer" [Missionaries] 1838 - "I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God" 1831 - "he had seen God . . . personally" [Missionaries] 1838 - "I saw two personages . . . One of them spake unto me calling me by name and said (pointing to the other) 'This is my beloved Son, Hear him'"

Here then are several early testimonies from friendly and non-LDS sources, confirming that Joseph Smith and/or the missionaries were talking about Joseph conversing with Jesus Christ, angels, Apostles (Peter, James and John?), and “Almighty God.” Evidently the early Saints were doing a lot more talking about these things than the critics want their readers to know about. (this info is provided by FAIR).

If that link got this much wrong, you should understand why i'm not going to waste my time looking at anything else. I have a history degree, and though that doesn't mean i'm good for much, it does mean that i know how to evaluate sources. This source has proven it's completely worthless. Whoever wrote it should be embarrassed.

Since there are conflicting reports of the vision from Smith, his family and other church leaders, isn't it possible there could be issues with the account of what happened before the vision?

Do you believe that the conflicting reports of Paul's vision means it's possible that there could be issues with the account of what happened?

As for your question, no, i don't. Jeff Lindsay gives an excellent explanation of why-

"There are nine early accounts of the First Vision that come from Joseph Smith or from others who heard him relate the First Vision story. Two well prepared accounts were penned by Joseph Smith, one from 1832 and a later one from 1838, which is the version published by the Church. A letter from Joseph to John Wentworth briefly mentions the First Vision; it was printed and published in 1842. Another reliable account is a document published in 1840 by Orson Pratt, which Joseph apparently endorsed. An excellent discussion of the First Vision accounts and their relationship to each other and recorded historical events is given by Richard L. Anderson in "Joseph Smith's Testimony of the First Vision," Ensign, April 1996, pp. 10-21.

Do reliable documents written or approved by Joseph contradict each other? No (a possible exception: in one place the wrong town may have been mentioned), but the accounts focus on different aspects of a significant and overwhelming experience. This is not real evidence of fraud, any more than Paul's varying accounts of his first vision in the New Testament make Paul a deceiver. Hundreds of details are associated with any major event in history or in one's life, and which ones are included and given focus is a function of the mindset, purposes, and maturity of the writer. The 1832 version was a private writing as Joseph began working on a history of the Church. It focused on what may have been most important to young Joseph at the time: being told by Christ that he had been forgiven of his sins. The 1832 does not speak of seeing God and Christ, but mentions seeing "the Lord." The 1838 account speaks of seeing two Beings, the Father and the Son, and notes that the Father introduced the Son to Joseph, saying "Hear Him!" From then on, the message was presented by the Son, who has directed the restoration of His Church from the beginning. Critics cry foul, but the two documents are compatible. Leaving something unsaid is not the same as a contradiction. Later versions of the account were intended to let others know of the apostasy and the call to restore the Church of Christ, and did not discuss the personal aspect of Joseph's sins being forgiven."

But how do you know what a witness of the Spirit feels like?

How did Peter know? How do you know? How does anyone know?

Haven't you ever felt the Spirit witness something to you before?

If your first witness of the Spirit is really a deception, then your framework of understanding will be based on that deception. Since you'll be expecting similar witnesses, you'll be open for more deceptions or your expectations could trigger a placebo effect.

Are you concerned that your first witness of the Spirit was a deception?

Are you saying peace in your soul can only come from God, Christ and/or the Spirit?

Yes. Satan cannot cause someone to feel peace-that is a gift of the Spirit.

Have you tried saying something like that to an atheist? Christians often want to reach out to atheists and tell them of the love and peace God offers. But this approach offends many atheists. They often already feel loved and peaceful despite the fact that they ignore, if not reject, any idea of God. Where does that peace come from?

Their peace comes from God, Christ, and the Spirit also.

However, i think we both know that there is a difference between the type of peace that an atheist might claim and the 'peace of God' which comes to those who are following His ways and doing His will.

If a person is serving another in need, for example, they don't have to believe in God for the Spirit to witness to them of the goodness of their actions. An atheist who wipes away the tears from the eyes of a hurt child feels peace for the exact same reason a Christian does in such instances-because they are behaving as Christ would in the same circumstance and the Spirit is telling them their actions are good.

Matt. 7

¹⁵ “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. . . .

²¹ “ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. ²² Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ ²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

It sounds like those false prophets honestly believed what they were preaching. But they were deceived. I doubt God was behind those miracles.

I'm speaking of these verses in Mark 9

38 ¶And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

[djholmess]

The witness of the Holy Ghost is the ultimate source of authority for Mormons. Only someone who has never felt the Holy Ghost would equate what mormons are speaking about with 'emotion'.

But you see when you say that it seems to me that you are either calling hundreds of thousands of other people who believe they have had a witness of the Holy Ghost liars - when they say their witness is different to yours or you are calling the Holy Ghost a liar for actually telling different people different things are true.

I am well acquainted with the witness of the Holy Ghost – mainly coming through the Bible but also in day to day life. In studying Mormonism over the last month I have had a very strong witness that JS was a false prophet and that he did not know the Biblical God and did not teach the Biblical gospel.

Yet you have a witness that the opposite is true. Similarly I am sure we could members of other Mormon denominations who would say they have a witness that their current Prophet is the true prophet and not yours, or Roman Catholics who have a witness that the Roman Church is the one true Church.

So if the witness of the Holy Ghost is the ultimate source of authority what is true? Why is your claim to having a witness more genuine than mine? I hope we would agree that the Holy Spirit does not lie so he can’t give contradictory witnesses- either JS was a true prophet or he wasn’t.

So I want to ask you, how do you know that your witness that JS was a true prophet is true and my witness that he was a false prophet isn’t true?

-I’m more than happy to explain how I know the Bible is the word of God but I don’t want to tackle too many topics at once – I’ll answer your question onve we have talked about this for a bit if that is ok?

[djholmess]

This verse doesn't have anything to do with small mistakes. Completely different subject.

But if Jesus believed as you do why whould he be so concerned about every little iota in the law. Surely from your perpective there are iota's and words and scentences that are wrong so why would Jesus be so concerned?

[Zakuska]

From 2 Peter 1

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.

Here Peter is explaining how OT prophets spoke; not by their own will but as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit is directly active in the speaking and writing of prophecies this is why I believe Paul can say scripture is 'God breathed.'

If you do think there can be small mistakes what do you make of Matthew 5:18 where Jesus seems to place a great deal of significance on every little iota in the law?

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The key word there is 'holy men of God "spake"'.

It says absolutley nothing about the "writting down" of the words that the Prophets spoke, nor does it say anything about "perfect transmital" and "preservation" of the texts that we have. Heck many of the texts that we do have weren't even written by the people they claim to have been written by.

I can show you a bazillian (i exaggerate) places where whole sections of scripture have been added and/or removed from the Bible. Where a translators bias has been inserted into it. Where text has been intentionally and/or unintentionaly changed.

Like I said before, Living breathing people have more Authority than 1,000,000,000 pages of written word.

djholmess 10:15

14 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 BIBLE?

The only reason Christ quoted the Scripture was because the people he was teaching held it as ALL authoritative. However, If one were to read the Sermon on the Mount... er plain... er... you know what I mean (Matt 7) You notice that Christ changed scripture at every turn in his discourse.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

But you see when you say that it seems to me that you are either calling hundreds of thousands of other people who believe they have had a witness of the Holy Ghost liars - when they say their witness is different to yours or you are calling the Holy Ghost a liar for actually telling different people different things are true.

Straw man alert

[altersteve]

But if Jesus believed as you do why whould he be so concerned about every little iota in the law. Surely from your perpective there are iota's and words and scentences that are wrong so why would Jesus be so concerned?

An "iota" is a very small piece of something. Every iota of the law refers to every small piece of the law, every crumb, every atom. Jesus was so concerned with this because He was making a point that the entire law of Moses, every jot and tittle of it, would be fulfilled, and I don't believe any of these "iotas" are wrong. Yes, some descriptions of them in the Bible may not be 100% accurate (obviously), but that's a different topic altogether and it's not what Jesus was talking about.

Now, again I must ask you about the contradictory genealogies given in Matthew and Luke. If the Bible is without error, and if "God breathed" means what you seem to believe it means, then how can these contradictions, among several others, exist? Clearly these details are not what God was concerned with. What He inspired the New Testament writers to do was declare that Jesus is the Christ, not get every single detail perfect.

[altersteve]

But you see when you say that it seems to me that you are either calling hundreds of thousands of other people who believe they have had a witness of the Holy Ghost liars - when they say their witness is different to yours or you are calling the Holy Ghost a liar for actually telling different people different things are true.

Sorry, but Latter-day Saints don't believe anyone is a liar when they claim to have a spiritual experience. We simply recognize that sometimes people misinterpret what God is telling them. Or they don't hear Him correctly. Or He gives them a confirmation of the truth in their beliefs and tells them to just keep doing what they're doing, because their time to receive the fullness of the gospel has not yet arrived. There are a lot of options. But the best answer is that we simply don't believe we have the authority to say anything on this matter. A person's spiritual experiences (or lack thereof) is something between them and God, and we are only responsible for what God has told us. What He tells them is none of our business.

[djholmess]

An "iota" is a very small piece of something. Every iota of the law refers to every small piece of the law, every crumb, every atom. Jesus was so concerned with this because He was making a point that the entire law of Moses, every jot and tittle of it, would be fulfilled, and I don't believe any of these "iotas" are wrong. Yes, some descriptions of them in the Bible may not be 100% accurate (obviously), but that's a different topic altogether and it's not what Jesus was talking about.

Now, again I must ask you about the contradictory genealogies given in Matthew and Luke. If the Bible is without error, and if "God breathed" means what you seem to believe it means, then how can these contradictions, among several others, exist? Clearly these details are not what God was concerned with. What He inspired the New Testament writers to do was declare that Jesus is the Christ, not get every single detail perfect.

I said I would be happy to attempt to address thoes issues if you started a different thread - this thread is congested enough.

An iota is actually the smallest letter in the Greek language so what Jesus is saying here is not even a single letter 'a' will pass away from the OT scriptures, the Law and the Prophets, until all is fufilled. If Jesus actually believed that some iota's were actually wrong when Moses or the prophets wrote them why would he be so concerned about every single letter?

Edited August 8, 2012 by djholmess

[Zakuska]

I said I would be happy to attempt to address thoes issues if you started a different thread - this thread is congested enough.

An iota is actually the smallest letter in the Greek language so what Jesus is saying here is not even a single letter 'a' will pass away from the OT scriptures, the Law and the Prophets, until all is fufilled. If Jesus actually believed that some iota's were actually wrong when Moses or the prophets wrote them why would he be so concerned about every single letter?

So why can we see so many "Iota's" in the OT have been altered and changed, and not all has been fulfilled yet?

Edited August 8, 2012 by Zakuska

[djholmess]

The key word there is 'holy men of God "spake"'.

It says absolutley nothing about the "writting down" of the words that the Prophets spoke, nor does it say anything about "perfect transmital" and "preservation" of the texts that we have. Heck many of the texts that we do have weren't even written by the people they claim to have been written by.

I can show you a bazillian (i exaggerate) places where whole sections of scripture have been added and/or removed from the Bible. Where a translators bias has been inserted into it. Where text has been intentionally and/or unintentionaly changed.

Like I said before, Living breathing people have more Authority than 1,000,000,000 pages of written word.

djholmess 10:15

14 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 BIBLE?

The only reason Christ quoted the Scripture was because the people he was teaching held it as ALL authoritative. However, If one were to read the Sermon on the Mount... er plain... er... you know what I mean (Matt 7) You notice that Christ changed scripture at every turn in his discourse.

Actually scripture is exactly what Peter is talking about

¹⁹ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

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.

[Vance]

Zakuska very unfairly misrepresented the Protestant position.

We believe that the Bible consists of the very words of God, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore the Holy Spirit powerfully speaks through them.

But they are not "the very words of God", they are the words of his authorized servants.

Paul claimed the credit for his epistles.

1. Rom. 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
   
2. 1 Cor. 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
   
3. 2 Cor. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
   
4. Gal. 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
   
5. Eph. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
   
6. Philip. 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
   
7. Col. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
   

Need I quote more?

So Peter can call the word of God the; 'living and abiding word of God' in 1 Peter 1:23.

And he wasn't talking about the Bible, because the Bible didn't exist at the time.

Or for Paul the word of God is so closely connected to the Spirit that In Ephesians 6 he says

17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

Ok. So?

And in Ephesians and Colossians we see that for Paul the word of Christ and the Holy Spirit are almost interchangeable.

Ephesians 5:18-19

but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart

Colossians 3:16

16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Ok, So? That doesn't support your supposition that the Bible is the "word of God" spoken of.

And most importantly as I have said before Jesus was very happy to quote Prophets in the OT and attribute their words directly to God. The words of the Bible are the words of God

Nice supposition. But you haven't provided any evidence to support it.

and they come with the same authority as if God was right there speaking them to you.

No, they don't. The real word of God ALWAYS carries more authority than the written words of inspired men.

1 Kgs. 12:22 But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,

1 Chr. 17:3 ¶ And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,

Luke 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Luke 5:1 And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,

Luke 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Acts 4:31 ¶ And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Do I need to show more?

All of those verses are NOT referring to written words. The Bible didn't exist.

Sure the paper and ink are inanimate objects but when God speaks his words are far from inanimate.

When God speaks His word TO WHOM?

Edited August 8, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

2 Timothy 3:

¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God^[b] may be complete, equipped for every good work.

So according to Paul scripture, because of its nature ‘breathed out by God’ is able to make the man of God complete and equipped for every good work.

"God breathed" is a 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical MIStranslation of the Greek.

"God inspired" or "God in spirited" is more accurate. Your MIStranslation implies more accuracy to the written word than it deserves. The written word is written by men who interpret the pure knowledge that God has given them and translate it into human language. It is NOT "God breathed".

Therefore I believe scripture alone is sufficient to test someone who claims to be a prophet.

Sorry, but "the word of God" as given through the Holy Spirit ALWAYS takes preeminence to the written words of dead prophets.

So in the Bible God speaks with as much authority as if he is right beside you.

WRONG!!!

God speaks to men and they interpret His message and then using human language they do THEIR best to deliver the message.

In other words I do not see a distinction between the Bible and revelation from the Holy Spirit.

AND THAT is part of YOUR problem.

Edited to correct an error I made.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

BWhen God speaks His word TO WHOM?

Amos 3:7???

[Zakuska]

Actually scripture is exactly what Peter is talking about

¹⁹ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

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.

What we have is what was written. But the holy Men "Spoke" these words, so who recorded them?

No where does Peter claim God possesed the scribes to preserve his word. In fact Jeremiah tells us the scribes in his day were anything but Holy Ghost possessed when they wrote these things down.

Jeremiah 8

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

If Jots and Tittles were missing in Jeremiahs day... how many more are missing in ours?

Edited August 8, 2012 by Zakuska

[djholmess]

The gospel Joseph Smith preached and taught was that Jesus Christ came to the world to be crucified for the sins of all God's children, so that we may be saved and live with our Father again. How is that "another gospel"? Unless you think certain LDS doctrines somehow taint that message and damn those who believe it, in which case you may want to prayerfully consider Joseph Smith's own words on that very subject: "I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief."

It is another gospel because the conditions that Joseph Smith put of to the gift are not biblical. It would be very useful to look at Romans 1-5 but for now at elast could you explain to me what you understand by Paul's usage of the term justification?

Latter-day Saints completely agree with this passage. We emphatically believe that salvation is God's gift to us and that it is not of our own doing. We do not believe we can save ourselves. Far too few critics realize this. That said, a gift is not less of a gift simply because it's conditional, and we realize that one cannot be saved if he or she does not keep God's commandments. God will not give the gift of salvation to one who disobeys Him. Why would He? We aren't doing keeping the commandments in order for us to be saved, though; we keep the commandments because God asked us to. We do it because we love Him and have faith in Him, and we believe He rewards us accordingly.

This is where we differ. I believe the biblical gospel is that men are saved apart from doing any commandments. And that the only people who actually keep the commandments of God - do the good works of Ephesians 2, are people who already have been saved. In the following quote of your below I believe you have misunderstood the order of Ephesians 2. You might not feel our views are that different but I feel they are as different as can be.

I agree, we are not saved by doing good works, but we cannot be saved without doing good works. And yes, there is a difference. I like to use the analogy of a broken arm: When you break your arm, you have to get a cast. But is it the cast itself that heals it? No, of course not. But your arm still cannot be healed without. Similarly, good works, keeping the commandments, and partaking in the ordinances of salvation (baptism, etc.) do not save us, but we cannot be saved without them; they act as the "cast," the means by which Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice fully washes us clean and makes us worthy to enter His Father's presence.

This is an extremely misunderstood topic within Mormon/evangelical dialogue. We frequently talk past and misunderstand each other and it needs to stop. I don't feel our views on this subject are really that different.

I believe justification by faith alone is the event where Jesus atoning scarifice fully washes someone clean and worthy to enter Gods presence - works have nothing to do with it as Paul repeatidly says. I would find it very useful to hear your views yet on justification because while it seems central to Paul's gospel I am yet to see any LDS view of what it means.

[Vance]

Let me ask you this though, do you believe something that is 'God breathed' can be contradictory?

As I said before, "God breathed" is a 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical MIStranslation driven in the false belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

[Zakuska]

But they are not "the very words of God", they are the words of his authorized servants.

Paul claimed the credit for his epistles.

1. 
   Rom. 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
   
2. 
   1 Cor. 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
   
3. 
   2 Cor. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
   
4. 
   Gal. 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
   
5. 
   Eph. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
   
6. 
   Philip. 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
   
7. 
   Col. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
   

Need I quote more?

And he wasn't talking about the Bible, because the Bible didn't exist at the time.

Ok. So?

Ok, So? That doesn't support your supposition that the Bible is the "word of God" spoken of.

Nice supposition. But you haven't provided any evidence to support it.

No, they don't. The real word of God ALWAYS carries more authority than the written words of inspired men.

1 Kgs. 12:22 But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,

1 Chr. 17:3 ¶ And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,

Luke 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Luke 5:1 And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,

Luke 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Acts 4:31 ¶ And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Do I need to show more?

All of those verses are NOT referring to written words. The Bible didn't exist.

When God speaks His word TO WHOM?

Tell me about it Vance... they "read" the word of God every Sabbath in the Synagog. Why did they have to leave the synagog and turn their back on the scrolls to "hear" the word of God ?

[Vance]

Ok you seem to be talking as if this 'breathed' is coming through 'us.' In the context of 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul is saying that scripture is what is 'breathed out' by God. So do you also believe that 'God breathed' scripture can be flawed?

"God breathed" is a 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical MIStranslation.

Nothing more.

[altersteve]

I said I would be happy to attempt to address thoes issues if you started a different thread - this thread is congested enough.

An iota is actually the smallest letter in the Greek language so what Jesus is saying here is not even a single letter 'a' will pass away from the OT scriptures, the Law and the Prophets, until all is fufilled. If Jesus actually believed that some iota's were actually wrong when Moses or the prophets wrote them why would he be so concerned about every single letter?

No, He was saying that no part of the law of Moses would go unfulfilled. Period. He wasn't talking about the written scripture. He was talking about the law of Moses itself, the actual law, of which no tiny part will disappear until its purpose is accomplished. That's it. And, again, it's not that "some iotas are wrong." That has nothing to do with it. The issue is that the biblical text is NOT perfect. It never has been and it never will be. It was written by human beings. Even if God inspired them to write it, there are some minor errors, that generally have NO effect on the doctrinal teachings as long as they are understood correctly. This is the LDS position and you seem pretty desperate to undermine it. You don't seem like you're even trying to see this from our perspective.

Edited August 8, 2012 by altersteve

[Vance]

And just for fun, some quotes.

"For the archives [Old Testamnet] ought not to be preferred to the Spirit." -- Ignatius

"For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice." -- Papius

Edited August 8, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

God breathed?

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Actually the Greek word is "theopneustos".

"Theo" meaning God and "pneustos" a variant of the word "pneuma" or spirit (as in 1 Cor 2:11) and it literally means spirited.

The word “breathed” in John 20:22 is translated from the Greek word "emphusaO" literally meaning 'He-IN-INFLATES'.

If you look at 2 Tim 3:16 in different English versions of the Bible you find;

American Standard Version = "inspired of God"

Darby Translation = "divinely inspired"

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition = "inspired of God"

Holman Christian Standard Bible = "inspired by God"

King James Version = "inspiration of God"

American King James Version = "inspiration of God"

Webster’s Bible Translation = "inspiration of God"

New American Standard Bible = "inspired by God"

New Century Version = "inspired by God"

New King James Version = "inspiration of God"

New Living Translation = "inspired by God"

English Revised Version = "inspired of God"

Wycliffe New Testament = "inspired of God"

Contemporary English Version = "God's Word"

21st Century King James Version = "inspiration of God"

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) = "inspired by God"

Weymouth New Testament = "inspired by God"

New World Translation = "inspired of God"

New Jerusalem Bible = "inspired by God"

Are all of those translations “infallible” or “inerrant”?

[djholmess]

God breathed?

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Actually the Greek word is "theopneustos".

"Theo" meaning God and "pneustos" a variant of the word "pneuma" or spirit (as in 1 Cor 2:11) and it literally means spirited.

The word “breathed” in John 20:22 is translated from the Greek word "emphusaO" literally meaning 'He-IN-INFLATES'.

Are all of those translations “infallible” or “inerrant”?

Why do you insist in being childish, you know Protestants do not believe translations are inspired, the authors are.

Please show where you got your "pneuma" from. That's not the second half of the word.

Strongs Exhaustive Concordance:

given by inspiration of God.

From theos and a presumed derivative of pneo; divinely breathed in -- given by inspiration of God.

http://greekheb-strongs.scripturetext.com/2_timothy/3.htm

Edited August 8, 2012 by djholmess