Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Vance]

This is idiocy. My EV Church was studying 1 John 1 this past Sunday. Read it if you want to try and understand traditional Christian theology. Your broadbrush simply paints ignorance.

No need to get your panties in a bunch. It really just comes down to the definition of repentance being used. As I understand it, the Evangelical definition of "repentance" falls significantly short of what the word really means in the theological (Biblical context).

So, it isn't so much that Evangelicals don't believe in repentance as it is that Evangelicals don't believe in the true scriptural meaning of repentance.

Now, if you would like to discuss this topic further, I suggest that you start a new thread.

[mfbukowski]

If you think this is a fact: "In Evangelical theology there is no need of repentance. Sin has no meaning; judgment does not exist because there are no works to judge" then you show very little knowledge about basic Christian beliefs (the traditional variation).

Fair enough- a slip of the scissors while snipping the quote.

[Gervin]

I think it is idiocy also. Tell me, if I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior today will I go to heaven regardless of what sins I may committ in the future? Do I have to repent of sins to be forgiven? If I don't repent of my sins, am I still saved? Let's start with these simple questions before we go any further in understanding EV theology.

Here's some "EV Theology" espoused by M. Henry through his Bible Commentary of the first chapter of 1 John. See if you can pick out words or phrases that dispute your claim and show the need for repentance, the meaning of sin, and the need for works. (I've provided some help)

"That essential Good, that uncreated Excellence, which had been from the beginning, from eternity, as equal with the Father, and which at length appeared in human nature for the salvation of sinners, was the great subject concerning which the apostle wrote to his brethren. The apostles had seen Him while they witnessed his wisdom and holiness, his miracles, and love and mercy, during some years, till they saw him crucified for sinners, and afterwards risen from the dead. They touched him, so as to have full proof of his resurrection. This Divine Person, the Word of life, the Word of God, appeared in human nature, that he might be the Author and Giver of eternal life to mankind, through the redemption of his blood, and the influence of his new-creating Spirit. The apostles declared what they had seen and heard, that believers might share their comforts and everlasting advantages. They had free access to God the Father. They had a happy experience of the truth in their souls, and showed its excellence in their lives. This communion of believers with the Father and the Son, is begun and kept up by the influences of the Holy Spirit. The benefits Christ bestows, are not like the scanty possessions of the world, causing jealousies in others; but the joy and happiness of communion with God is all-sufficient, so that any number may partake of it; and all who are warranted to say, that truly their fellowship is with the Father, will desire to lead others to partake of the same blessedness.

A message from the Lord Jesus, the Word of life, the eternal Word, we should all gladly receive. The great God should be represented to this dark world, as pure and perfect light. As this is the nature of God, his doctrines and precepts must be such. And as his perfect happiness cannot be separated from his perfect holiness, so our happiness will be in proportion to our being made holy. To walk in darkness, is to live and act against religion. God holds no heavenly fellowship or intercourse with unholy souls. There is no truth in their profession; their practice shows its folly and falsehood. The eternal Life, the eternal Son, put on flesh and blood, and died to wash us from our sins in his own blood, and procures for us the sacred influences by which sin is to be subdued more and more, till it is quite done away. While the necessity of a holy walk is insisted upon, as the effect and evidence of the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus, the opposite error of self-righteous pride is guarded against with equal care. All who walk near to God, in holiness and righteousness, are sensible that their best days and duties are mixed with sin. God has given testimony to the sinfulness of the world, by providing a sufficient, effectual Sacrifice for sin, needed in all ages; and the sinfulness of believers themselves is shown, by requiring them continually to confess their sins, and to apply by faith to the blood of that Sacrifice. Let us plead guilty before God, be humble, and willing to know the worst of our case. Let us honestly confess all our sins in their full extent, relying wholly on his mercy and truth through the righteousness of Christ, for a free and full forgiveness, and our deliverance from the power and practice of sin.

[Gervin]

Fair enough- a slip of the scissors while snipping the quote.

Thank you, sir.

BTW I think the new Dylan cd comes out today. I'm all in.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I wonder -- if a government suddenly decided to do away with all Christians do you think that government would include the Mormons among the Christians they would do away with based on the teachings of the LDS Church?

We would meet the definition.

[zerinus]

Here's some "EV Theology" espoused by M. Henry through his Bible Commentary of the first chapter of 1 John. See if you can pick out words or phrases that dispute your claim and show the need for repentance, the meaning of sin, and the need for works. (I've provided some help)

"That essential Good, that uncreated Excellence, which had been from the beginning, from eternity, as equal with the Father, and which at length appeared in human nature for the salvation of sinners, was the great subject concerning which the apostle wrote to his brethren. The apostles had seen Him while they witnessed his wisdom and holiness, his miracles, and love and mercy, during some years, till they saw him crucified for sinners, and afterwards risen from the dead. They touched him, so as to have full proof of his resurrection. This Divine Person, the Word of life, the Word of God, appeared in human nature, that he might be the Author and Giver of eternal life to mankind, through the redemption of his blood, and the influence of his new-creating Spirit. The apostles declared what they had seen and heard, that believers might share their comforts and everlasting advantages. They had free access to God the Father. They had a happy experience of the truth in their souls, and showed its excellence in their lives. This communion of believers with the Father and the Son, is begun and kept up by the influences of the Holy Spirit. The benefits Christ bestows, are not like the scanty possessions of the world, causing jealousies in others; but the joy and happiness of communion with God is all-sufficient, so that any number may partake of it; and all who are warranted to say, that truly their fellowship is with the Father, will desire to lead others to partake of the same blessedness.

A message from the Lord Jesus, the Word of life, the eternal Word, we should all gladly receive. The great God should be represented to this dark world, as pure and perfect light. As this is the nature of God, his doctrines and precepts must be such. And as his perfect happiness cannot be separated from his perfect holiness, so our happiness will be in proportion to our being made holy. To walk in darkness, is to live and act against religion. God holds no heavenly fellowship or intercourse with unholy souls. There is no truth in their profession; their practice shows its folly and falsehood. The eternal Life, the eternal Son, put on flesh and blood, and died to wash us from our sins in his own blood, and procures for us the sacred influences by which sin is to be subdued more and more, till it is quite done away. While the necessity of a holy walk is insisted upon, as the effect and evidence of the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus, the opposite error of self-righteous pride is guarded against with equal care. All who walk near to God, in holiness and righteousness, are sensible that their best days and duties are mixed with sin. God has given testimony to the sinfulness of the world, by providing a sufficient, effectual Sacrifice for sin, needed in all ages; and the sinfulness of believers themselves is shown, by requiring them continually to confess their sins, and to apply by faith to the blood of that Sacrifice. Let us plead guilty before God, be humble, and willing to know the worst of our case. Let us honestly confess all our sins in their full extent, relying wholly on his mercy and truth through the righteousness of Christ, for a free and full forgiveness, and our deliverance from the power and practice of sin.

This doesn't answer the question. Why don't you give a straight answer to the question, instead of beating about the bush and creating smoke screens?

[Vance]

Here's some "EV Theology" espoused by M. Henry through his Bible Commentary of the first chapter of 1 John.

<SNIP>

And here is some "EV Theology" espoused by Pastor Mark Cares. See if you can pick out words or phrases that water down or destroy the true meaning of repentance. (I've provided some help)

Salvation, in the Bible, is all about what Jesus has done for me – not about what I have to do. Yes, it does tell me to bring forth fruits of repentance. But fruits are the result, not the essence of repentance. Repentance itself is a change of mind. It’s the abandoning not of sin, but of trust in anything I do and replacing that with trust in what Jesus has done for me. That change of mind motivates me, out of gratitude, to try and lead a life pleasing to God. But even then it doesn’t say or even give the impression that I will be able to do this perfectly. Rather, as it shows me how deeply sin has infected me, it gives me the understanding that yes, I will inevitably commit sins throughout the rest of my life. But that doesn’t disqualify me from salvation – because my salvation doesn’t depend on what I do.

. . .

A repentant person doesn’t think he has to quit sinning to remain in God’s good graces – he knows he can’t.

[Gervin]

That puts Evangelical Christianity squarely in the camp of the church of the devil, simple as that.

A small percentage of my church's budget goes to the Southern Baptist Convention and a small amount of that money is potentially used to pay the salaries of missionaries who might witness to a member of the LDS Church or potentially used to produce some type of written material that attempts to steer people away from the LDS Church - and I'm ok with all of that.

Does this put me or my church squarely in the camp of the church of the devil? Just wonderin'.

[Gervin]

This doesn't answer the question. Why don't you give a straight answer to the question, instead of beating about the bush and creating smoke screens?

You aren't following the thread. I wasn't responding to a question. I was responding to this statement:

"In Evangelical theology there is no need of repentance. Sin has no meaning; judgment does not exist because there are no works to judge."

[zerinus]

A small percentage of my church's budget goes to the Southern Baptist Convention and a small amount of that money is potentially used to pay the salaries of missionaries who might witness to a member of the LDS Church or potentially used to produce some type of written material that attempts to steer people away from the LDS Church - and I'm ok with all of that.

Does this put me or my church squarely in the camp of the church of the devil? Just wonderin'.

Read 2 Nephi 10:16 again and see if you can answer that question for yourself.

[Gervin]

Read 2 Nephi 10:16 again and see if you can answer that question for yourself.

Well, as an EV, if I don't believe the Book of Mormon is scripture then applying it to my life doesn't make sense. That's why I asked you.

[zerinus]

Well, as an EV, if I don't believe the Book of Mormon is scripture then applying it to my life doesn't make sense. That's why I asked you.

It don't matter whether you believe it or not. You can tell whether it accurately you and your activities or not. If it does, then it puts you in the category described.

[Gervin]

It don't matter whether you believe it or not. You can tell whether it accurately you and your activities or not. If it does, then it puts you in the category described.

I can't interpret that scripture. I have no idea what it even means, which is why I asked you. If you can't tell me if it applies to me or my church based on what I described, just say so.

[zerinus]

I can't interpret that scripture. I have no idea what it even means, which is why I asked you. If you can't tell me if it applies to me or my church based on what I described, just say so.

Okay, going back to your original post, preaching and promoting your own church or religion does not amount to fighting against Zion. Proselytizing Mormons (or anybody else) does not constitute fighting against Zion either. As to who is actually committing that offence and who isn't, is not a matter for me to decide, and I will tell you why. In every civilized society there are laws, and there are judges of the law. Not everyone can be a judge. That is reserved for certain well qualified people who are considered capable of acting in that capacity. For example, if I caught someone committing (what I thought to be) a crime, I would be entitled to carry out a "citizen's arrest," and then call the police. The one thing that I cannot do is to judge him, because I am not qualified nor appointed to act in that capacity. Only the real judges can do that. His fate thereafter is in the hands of the judicial system. It may even be that after the judges had considered the matter, they decide that he was not guilty of anything (as I had thought), and let him go free. But that is their decision, not mine. The same principle applies to gospel law. The rule is clear: it says that he that fights against Zion shall perish. It also tells you what Zion is, and what it means to fight against it. You will have to be your own arbiter of whether you are fighting against Zion or not; and the final arbiter will be the Lord. If He concludes that that is what you are doing, then you will receive the punishment that is due.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law. Assuming that your actions (whatever that is) does constitute fighting against Zion, in the day of judgement you cannot say, "I didn't believe in the Book of Mormon, therefore couldn't understand what it says correctly". That won't work. You will know in your own heart whether you are fighting against Zion or not, and God will also know, and He will be a merciful judge as well as a just judge, and will take all factors into consideration before passing judgement. But to be on the safe side, I wouldn't fight against Zion at all if I were you!

Edited September 11, 2012 by zerinus

[KevinG]

Oh boy we have two opposing fundamentalists going at it. Pass the popcorn!

[Gervin]

Okay, going back to your original post, preaching and promoting your own church or religion does not amount to fighting against Zion. Proselytizing Mormons (or anybody else) does not constitute fighting against Zion either. As to who is actually committing that offence and who isn't, is not a matter for me to decide, and I will tell you why. In every civilized society there are laws, and there are judges of the law. Not everyone can be a judge. That is reserved for certain well qualified people who are considered capable of acting in that capacity. For example, if I caught someone committing (what I thought to be) a crime, I would be entitled to carry out a "citizen's arrest," and then call the police. The one thing that I cannot do is to judge him, because I am not qualified nor appointed to act in that capacity. Only the real judges can do that. His fate thereafter is in the hands of the judicial system. It may even be that after the judges had considered the matter, they decide that he was not guilty of anything (as I had thought), and let him go free. But that is their decision, not mine. The same principle applies to gospel law. The rule is clear: it says that he that fights against Zion shall perish. It also tells you what Zion is, and what it means to fight against it. You will have to be your own arbiter of whether you are fighting against Zion or not; and the final arbiter will be the Lord. If He concludes that that is what you are doing, then you will receive the punishment that is due.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law. Assuming that your actions (whatever that is) does constitute fighting against Zion, in the day of judgement you cannot say, "I didn't believe in the Book of Mormon, therefore couldn't understand what it says correctly". That won't work. You will know in your own heart whether you are fighting against Zion or not, and God will also know, and He will be a merciful judge as well as a just judge, and will take all factors into consideration before passing judgement. But to be on the safe side, I wouldn't fight against Zion at all if I were you!

I'm thankful that "gospel law" isn't a phrase found in the Bible and that the same book is clear about the "law" under which I'm judged; the royal law. My corruptions - not God's laws of constraint - are my only bondage. Fortunately, it's God's glory and joy to pardon and bless those of us who would be justly condemned at his tribunal. His grace teaches us to partake of his mercy. The only law I'm under is the law of love. Peace out.

[Gervin]

Oh boy we have two opposing fundamentalists going at it. Pass the popcorn!

That's pretty dang funny. If you knew my church or me the last word you'd be using is "fundamentalist." Is it just association by being Baptist, I wonder? Move along ... nothing to see here.

[zerinus]

I'm thankful that "gospel law" isn't a phrase found in the Bible and that the same book is clear about the "law" under which I'm judged; the royal law. My corruptions - not God's laws of constraint - are my only bondage. Fortunately, it's God's glory and joy to pardon and bless those of us who would be justly condemned at his tribunal. His grace teaches us to partake of his mercy. The only law I'm under is the law of love. Peace out.

That is a typical Evangelical attitude. "I am not worried about my sins. I will commit any sin I like, and everything will be all right in the end." You are welcome to believe that, but you will be deluding yourself. You will receive a rude awakening when the day of reckoning comes, when the Master shall say, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:23).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A small percentage of my church's budget goes to the Southern Baptist Convention and a small amount of that money is potentially used to pay the salaries of missionaries who might witness to a member of the LDS Church or potentially used to produce some type of written material that attempts to steer people away from the LDS Church - and I'm ok with all of that.

Does this put me or my church squarely in the camp of the church of the devil? Just wonderin'.

You can ignore zerinus. The church of the devil is not a physical church or a group of churches. One can be LDS and belong to the church of the devil.

[Vance]

I'm thankful that "gospel law" isn't a phrase found in the Bible . . .

The Bible uses other phrases that mean the same thing basically.

Like "the law of faith", "the law of God", "the law of the Spirit of life", "the law of righteousness", "the law of Christ", and "the perfect law of liberty".

[Ahab]

You can ignore zerinus. The church of the devil is not a physical church or a group of churches.

I don't know why you think the Church Of The Devil isn't a physical church. Any church is a group of people, and all people are physical.

One can be LDS and belong to the church of the devil.

Sure, just as someone can be a member of both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints and the Catholic church, at the same time.

It's just easier to join the Church Of the Devil because they don't necessarily have any formal ordinances for membership, like we do.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Ahab

[zerinus]

You can ignore zerinus. The church of the devil is not a physical church or a group of churches. One can be LDS and belong to the church of the devil.

Ignore Mola Ram. The church of the devil is anyone who fights against Zion, including any physical church which institutionally chooses to fight against Zion.

[Gervin]

That is a typical Evangelical attitude. "I am not worried about my sins. I will commit any sin I like, and everything will be all right in the end." You are welcome to believe that, but you will be deluding yourself. You will receive a rude awakening when the day of reckoning comes, when the Master shall say, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:23).

I don't know if I find this sad or troubling, but anyone who so casually generalizes about a few hundred million evangelical Christians, and gets it wrong, is obviously living in a different ... place.

[wenglund]

Wade,

There is no double standard. The two religions are structured differently and therefore differently structured definitions are in order.

What is the difference in "structure," and why does that alleged difference supposedly matter in terms of the respective definitions? In other words, what justification do you have for the double standard?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 11, 2012 by wenglund

[Gervin]

You can ignore zerinus.

Ignore Mola Ram.

OK