Elements Of The True Church?

[teddyaware]

In this case, and other examples in the biblical text we have a context that fills in the blanks that are implied in the text and context. 

 

For example, I think we can safely assume that Thyatira was similar to the other churches that Paul started during his ministry. Such as the Corinthian church. Where in Thyatira we have no letters addressed to them (from Paul), but in Corinth, we do. And in that letter Paul instructs them about prophecy, he says, "²⁹ Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. ³⁰ And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.³¹ For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. " (1 Cor. 14)

 

Given the backdrop of this context, the churches of that time were well connected and a acquainted with prophecy and revelation, direct from the Spirit of God. So, while we don't have any other letters to Thyatira, I think it's safe to assume that this letter from John only reiterated what was already being said by the prophets active in that church located in Thyatira. 

 

To assume the opposite would take some sort of additional contextual evidence to support that conclusion. Which I am open to as well. Of course you may disagree, and that's fine. I'm simply explaining why I believe what I do.

No matter how sure you are in the implications and assumptions you see, in the end implications and assumptions are just implications and assumptions.

 

Definition of imply: strongly suggest or insinuate the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

 

Definition of assume: think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true.

 

Point 1. Using your methodology of relying on supposedly "safe" assumptions and implications, consider the following: We know from the New Testament that Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians was actually his second (1 Cor 5:9); we know that Paul's epistle to the Ephesians was actually his second (Eph 3:3); we know that Paul wrote at least one epistle to the Laodiceans (Col 4:6); we also know that Jude wrote at least one other general epistle (Jude 1:3). So considering that there are at very least 3 epistles of Paul that are not in the New Testament, as presently constituted, it seems safe to assume that the writing of epistles to the many New Testament era congregations was a very common practice and that it's likely at least one other epistle (beside the Book of Revelation) was written to the Church at Thyatira. I acknowledge this latter deduction is an assumption, but in light of the facts it seems reasonable to make such an assumption. No?

 

Point 2. The fact is that it is generally believed by non-LDS Christians that Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth at least 4 times; and by the New Testament itself we know that he personally visited the Church at Corinth at least 3 times. So rather than proving your point that local congregations only needed their local prophets in order to be properly led and guided in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God, the fact that Paul communicated with the Corinthian Church so frequently strongly indicates that local congregations absolutely needed revelation and guidance from the governing central authorities of the Church -- the local prophets were not sufficient.

 

Point 3. The LDS Church organizational model has a definite place for local leaders who have authority to exercise the spirit of prophecy (I noticed Vance missed or misunderstood this point in one of his previous posts) and inspired leadership within the scope of their limited local stewardships. This local prophetic mantle, while very important, does not confer the same degree of authority to speak in all matters of theology, soteriology, doctrine and church governance that is only given to the presiding Apostles and Prophets who watch over the entire Church. So living General Authority Apostles and Prophets are needed at the foundation of the Church organizational structure in order for the body of Christ to be fitly framed together and grow as a unified corpus unto the Lord.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chiefcorner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2)

Edited May 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

With all due deference, when it comes to wanting to understand the organization of the Apostolic Era Church of Christ, what source could possibly be better than the New Testament itself? Wouldn't virtually all Christians of the many sects agree that the New Testament (the word of God) is the primary go-to source to learn about the organization and inner workings of the original post-ascension Church of Christ? What could possibly compare? The books of the New Testament were composed at a time when living Apostles and Prophets were yet upon the face of the earth, so how could non-prophetic "scholars" ever take the place of the inspired, duly-authorized leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ who were right there in the Holy Land as first-hand witnesses to what was taking place? 

Your response to mfbukowski leads me to wonder if you are possibly more reliant upon the theories and teachings of men than you are on the Bible itself? Perhaps this is not so, but what else could cause you to seem to treat the New Testament as if it were a secondary or tertiary source for things Christian?

 

When a Latter-day Saints reads the following, there is no doubt in the mind of the reader but that the Apostolic Church of Christ had a centralized leadership of inspired Apostles and Prophets who, if necessary, like the Apostle Paul, could write new scripture:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12)

 

And again,

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (remember, there were living Apostles and Prophets on the earth at the time, Paul being one of them) Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

 

What else could the above verses possibly mean but that at the time of the living Apostles and Prophets there was only one unified Church of Christ under the leadership of the same Apostles and Prophets? It seems to me it would take an awful lot of mental gymnastics to construe Paul's meaning to be anything other than at the time of Paul (and the other revelator Apostles) there was one unified Church of Christ with centralized, top-down leadership.

 

But if the scholars you are referring to are speaking of the nature of the post-apostolic church (the church as it existed when there were no longer Apostles and Prophets at the helm), then the above scriptures would no longer apply and your scholars might very well be correct in their analysis. Latter-day Saints readily acknowledge there is a very big difference between the pre-apostasy Church of Christ, and the post-apostasy church.

IOU

Several rep points.

[teddyaware]

IOU

Several rep points.

Thanks mfb.

[mfbukowski]

Acts 20:

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

[mfbukowski]

2Thessalonians 2:1-12

 

2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

² That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

³ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

⁴ Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

⁵ Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

⁶ And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

⁷ For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

⁸ And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

⁹ Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

¹⁰ And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

¹¹ And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

¹² That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

Edited May 5, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

(I noticed Vance missed or misunderstood this point in one of his previous posts)

Not sure what you are talking about here. I understand very well the different areas of responsibilities between local and general leadership.

The problem is that to combat the LDS position, many EV's argue for an equivalence of authority for both local and general leadership. A position that is not supported by scripture. The scriptures do show the subordination of the local leadership to the general leadership.

[mfbukowski]

2 Peter 2

 

2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

² And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

[mfbukowski]

2 Tim 1

¹³ Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. ¹⁴ That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.

¹⁵ This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. ¹⁶ The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; ¹⁷ but when he arrived in Rome, he sought me out very zealously and found me. ¹⁸ The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day—and you know very well how many ways he ministered to me^[c] at Ephesus.

There are many more- real life beckons. Edited May 5, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

"With all due deference, when it comes to wanting to understand the organization of the Apostolic Era Church of Christ, what source could possibly be better than the New Testament itself? Wouldn't virtually all Christians of the many sects agree that the New Testament (the word of God) is the primary go-to source to learn about the organization and inner workings of the original post-ascension Church of Christ? What could possibly compare? The books of the New Testament were composed at a time when living Apostles and Prophets were yet upon the face of the earth, so how could non-prophetic "scholars" ever take the place of the inspired, duly-authorized leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ who were right there in the Holy Land as first-hand witnesses to what was taking place?

Your response to mfbukowski leads me to wonder if you are possibly more reliant upon the theories and teachings of men than you are on the Bible itself?"

Numerous people from varying traditions go to the NT source and arrive at different conclusions. How does any of us know we're interpreting the text correctly? Each of us assumes that what we read, and what we think about it, corresponds to the 2,000 year old reality, but how do we know for sure? What are the grounds on which we base that belief? Is it by virtue of the fact that I'm me (you're you) and I'm (you're) able to perceive the objective facts plainly, while everyone else reads the text with filters in place? I'm (you're) the only person reading the Bible without any filters? How do you know? Does the simple perception on my (your) part of my (your) own assumed objectivity guarantee that my (your) interpretation is correct? A belief in 'Bible alone' is merely 'my interpretation alone' or 'interpretation of my favorite Bible interpreter alone' and this sola scriptura approach leads to utter CHAOS and this is the fatal flaw of Protestantism. We need an authority, appointed and guaranteed by Christ himself, to obviate pointless bloviating by ordinary individuals who think they are experts, or by individuals with many degrees who similarly style themselves as 'experts', holding forth their degrees as evidence that they're better qualified to interpret. This is the path of disorganization and disorder. This provides the key to understand why, seemingly overnight, thousands of sects sprung up once Catholic authority was challenged in the West. It's nothing more than the emergence of the democratization of biblical interpretation. "I'm an individual. I get to decide for myself". Truth cannot be democratized. This is the road to relativism and chaos. This is why the Protestants are wrong.

We need a true, divinely-appointed authority to prevent the inevitable confusion produced by people who recognize no authority except themselves or some scholar and go on and on about 'I can read the New Testament for myself and I know what it says and I'm telling you you're wrong.' Take away the authority, and you end up with 10,000 sects, and millions of private interpretations in support of those 10,000 sects, which is nothing more than each individual's private (after reading the NT for himself) agreement with a particular sect's leader's/founder's own private opinion (or, better yet, if you've come up with something unique - see how smart and wonderful we all are! - then found your own sect), and all of them equally and absolutely convinced their private view of the meaning of the NT is the correct one. No. The only answer is first to accept axiomatically that our Lord would not leave us to our own devices and private interpretation, an approach that leads to chaos; second, identify that Authority that our Lord appointed and unite with it. Who is it and where is it to be found? One clue is to rule out all of those who believe the Lord did not found a church with a teaching authority intended to facilitate harmony, oneness, and sameness of belief. That means we must either 1) find a church that claims the Lord actually founded a church and that claims it is that church founded by the Lord and his apostles, or, 2) if it was lost, was restored by the Lord Himself through revelation. Anyone who believes (like Luther or any Protestant) that he can simply go to the Bible and discover all on his own what the original, Apostolic church was like, is engaging in hubris and self-assurance, convinced that 'he knows best', no matter how many academic shingles may be hanging on the wall. The answer is not to go to the Bible and try to learn what the original church looks like. The answer is to FIRST locate the organization with the best claim to be the original. You must first unite with the authority with the best claim, then you can go read your Bible. Without an authority appointed by the Lord Himself, preserved through the millennia within a single organization, or restored through a person appointed by the Lord Himself, It's all mere private interpretation, with each person with a Bible in their hand believing (without sufficient grounds) that he's the one best-equipped to deduce what was really going on 2,000 years ago. It's all about the correct Christian church and authority. It's either one church in continuity or Apostasy and restoration of that one church. The Protestants, having abandoned the Tradition that gave them their Bible in the first place, are sitting on a branch that they cut off from the trunk by their own hands.

Unfortunately, the Bible alone can't help much with trying to locate the true authority, the actual church founded by the Lord Himself. The Bible, as a bound, single-volume book, did not exist for the first three centuries of Christianity. I'm afraid it really is either the church that gave us the Bible or a church that claims to be a restoration of the original. Either way, the Protestants are completely off base.

If anyone's inclined to cite verses in response, my question will be "how do you know you're interpreting those verses correctly? I'm not going to take your word for it. Cite your authority." The answer will not suffice if your authority isn't an organization that claims to be established by Christ himself, in other words a church that makes that claim.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Spammer

[teddyaware]

Not sure what you are talking about here. I understand very well the different areas of responsibilities between local and general leadership.

The problem is that to combat the LDS position, many EV's argue for an equivalence of authority for both local and general leadership. A position that is not supported by scripture. The scriptures do show the subordination of the local leadership to the general leadership.

Hello there!

In answer to Daniel, who quoted the Apostle Paul when speaking of local, non-general authority prophets being present in the congregations of the New Testament Church, you said:

"IF there were prophets active in that church (at Thyatira) THEN there would be no need for the LORD to direct John to issue direction, censure and warning."

So my point is that you were half right. While there was no Apostle present in the Church at Thyatira who could have given the saints the Book of Revelation -- as it's clear John was the only Church leader who was given the responsibility to receive that revelation and then begin the process of its dissemination throughout the Church -- simultaneously there could have been local prophets present at Thyatira who, while prophets, did not posses the Apostolic authority possessed by John that empowered him to give revelation from God to the entire Church. By saying "if there were prophets active in that church THEN there would be no need," you inadvertently left the impression there was no such thing in the New Testament Church as local prophets who's sphere of influence and level authority was lesser than that possessed by John and the other Apostles who stood at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ.

[Gervin]

With all due deference, when it comes to wanting to understand the organization of the Apostolic Era Church of Christ, what source could possibly be better than the New Testament itself? Wouldn't virtually all Christians of the many sects agree that the New Testament (the word of God) is the primary go-to source to learn about the organization and inner workings of the original post-ascension Church of Christ? What could possibly compare? The books of the New Testament were composed at a time when living Apostles and Prophets were yet upon the face of the earth, so how could non-prophetic "scholars" ever take the place of the inspired, duly-authorized leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ who were right there in the Holy Land as first-hand witnesses to what was taking place? 

Your response to mfbukowski leads me to wonder if you are possibly more reliant upon the theories and teachings of men than you are on the Bible itself? Perhaps this is not so, but what else could cause you to seem to treat the New Testament as if it were a secondary or tertiary source for things Christian?

 I've never said or implied that the NT is a secondary or tertiary source.  It is the primary source.  But, in much the same way the LDS Church sells study aids and resources for the New Testament ( http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category3_715839595_10557_3074457345616706192_-1_N_image_0 ), so I wondered if there were scholarly study aids, papers, or resources that describe, from the LDS point of view, the structure of the NT Church and how the LDS complies with this structure. Things like Roman culture, patristics, deutro-Pauline writings, etc., as it related to the structure of the early church.  I full understand why members of the LDS Church would not want to engage with this information; it does nothing to promote the claims of the LDS Church.  Perhaps I should have been more cognizant of the fact that Church interpretation of these scriptures for the members can't allow for the kind of scholarship I was seeking.

 

Edited to add: a poster on another board made some LDS reading recommendations that I will pursue.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Gervin

[Vance]

Hello there!

In answer to Daniel, who quoted the Apostle Paul when speaking of local, non-general authority prophets being present in the congregations of the New Testament Church, you said:

"IF there were prophets active in that church (at Thyatira) THEN there would be no need for the LORD to direct John to issue direction, censure and warning."

So my point is that you were half right. While there was no Apostle present in the Church at Thyatira who could have given the saints the Book of Revelation -- as it's clear John was the only Church leader who was given the responsibility to receive that revelation and then begin the process of its dissemination throughout the Church -- simultaneously there could have been local prophets present at Thyatira who, while prophets, did not posses the Apostolic authority possessed by John that empowered him to give revelation from God to the entire Church. By saying "if there were prophets active in that church THEN there would be no need," you inadvertently left the impression there was no such thing in the New Testament Church as local prophets who's sphere of influence and level authority was lesser than that possessed by John and the other Apostles who stood at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I specifically used the words "in that church". I don't know why anyone would think (or get the impression that) I was referring to any other local churches (congregations) or generally to the local churches (congregations). Edited May 5, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

I full understand why members of the LDS Church would not want to engage with this information; it does nothing to promote the claims of the LDS Church.

Now that is funny!

[Vance]

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/c/93

Matt. 16: 18 upon this rock I will build my church.

Luke 6: 13 (Luke 6: 12-16) chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.

Luke 10: 1 Lord appointed other seventy.

John 15: 16 have chosen you, and ordained you.

Acts 1: 25 take part of this ministry and apostleship.

Acts 6: 6 when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

Acts 13: 1 there were in the church . . . prophets and teachers.

Acts 14: 23 ordained them elders in every church.

Acts 15: 6 apostles and elders came together.

1 Cor. 12: 27 ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Eph. 2: 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

Eph. 4: 11 gave some, apostles, and some, prophets.

Philip. 1: 1 with the bishops and deacons.

Titus 1: 5 ordain elders in every city.

[Vance]

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/c/95

And you say

the LDS Church would not want to engage with this information; it does nothing to promote the claims of the LDS Church.

Funny indeed.

[teddyaware]

"With all due deference, when it comes to wanting to understand the organization of the Apostolic Era Church of Christ, what source could possibly be better than the New Testament itself? Wouldn't virtually all Christians of the many sects agree that the New Testament (the word of God) is the primary go-to source to learn about the organization and inner workings of the original post-ascension Church of Christ? What could possibly compare? The books of the New Testament were composed at a time when living Apostles and Prophets were yet upon the face of the earth, so how could non-prophetic "scholars" ever take the place of the inspired, duly-authorized leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ who were right there in the Holy Land as first-hand witnesses to what was taking place?

Your response to mfbukowski leads me to wonder if you are possibly more reliant upon the theories and teachings of men than you are on the Bible itself?"

Numerous people from varying traditions go to the NT source and arrive at different conclusions. How does any of us know we're interpreting the text correctly? Each of us assumes that what we read, and what we think about it, corresponds to the 2,000 year old reality, but how do we know for sure? What are the grounds on which we base that belief? Is it by virtue of the fact that I'm me (you're you) and I'm (you're) able to perceive the objective facts plainly, while everyone else reads the text with filters in place? I'm (you're) the only person reading the Bible without any filters? How do you know? Does the simple perception on my (your) part of my own assumed objectivity guarantee that my interpretation is correct? A belief in 'Bible alone' is merely 'my interpretation alone' or 'interpretation of my favorite Bible interpreter alone' and this sola scriptura approach leads to utter CHAOS and this is the fatal flaw of Protestantism. We need an authority, appointed and guaranteed by Christ himself, to obviate pointless bloviating by ordinary individuals who think they are experts, or by individuals with many degrees who similarly style themselves as 'experts', holding forth their degrees as evidence that they're better qualified to interpret. This is the path of disorganization and disorder. This provides the key to understand why, seemingly overnight, thousands of sects sprung up once Catholic authority was challenged in the West. It's nothing more than the emergence of the democratization of biblical interpretation. "I'm an individual. I get to decide for myself". Truth cannot be democratized. This is the road to relativism and chaos. This is why the Protestants are wrong.

We need an authority to get rid of people who go on and on about 'I can read the New Testament for myself and I know what it says and I'm telling you you're wrong.' Take away the authority, and you end up with 10,000 sects, and millions of private interpretations in support of those 10,000 sects, which is nothing more than each individual's private (after reading the NT for himself) agreement with a particular sect's leader's/founder's own private opinion (or, better yet, if you've come up with something unique - see how smart and wonderful we all are! - then found your own sect), and all of them equally and absolutely convinced their private view of the meaning of the NT is the correct one. No. The only answer is first to accept axiomatically that our Lord would not leave us to our own devices and private interpretation, an approach that leads to chaos; second, identify that Authority that our Lord appointed and unite with it. Who is it and where is it to be found? One clue is to rule out all of those who believe the Lord did not found a church with a teaching authority intended to facilitate harmony, oneness, and sameness of belief. That means we must either 1) find a church that claims the Lord actually founded a church and that claims it is that church founded by the Lord and his apostles, or, 2) if it was lost, was restored by the Lord Himself through revelation. Anyone who believes (like Luther or any Protestant) that he can simply go to the Bible and discover all on his own what the original, Apostolic church was like, is engaging in hubris and self-assurance, convinced that 'he knows best', no matter how many academic shingles may be hanging on the wall. The answer is not to go to the Bible and try to learn what the original church looks like. The answer is to FIRST locate the organization with the best claim to be the original. You must first unite with the authority with the best claim, then you can go read your Bible. Without an authority appointed by the Lord Himself, preserved through the millennia within a single organization, or restored through a person appointed by the Lord Himself, It's all mere private interpretation, with each Protestant person with a Bible in their hand believing (without sufficient grounds) that he's the one best-equipped to deduce what was really going on 2,000 years ago. It's all about the correct Christian church and authority. It's either one church in continuity or Apostasy and restoration of that one church. The Protestants, having abandoned the Tradition that gave them their Bible in the first place, are sitting on a branch that they cut off from the trunk by their own hands.

Unfortunately, the Bible alone can't help much with trying to locate the true authority, the actual church founded by the Lord Himself. The Bible, as a bound, single-volume book, did not exist for the first three centuries of Christianity. I'm afraid it really is either the church that gave us the Bible or a church that claims to be a restoration of the original. Either way, the Protestants are completely off base.

If anyone's inclined to cite verses in response, my question will be "how do you know you're interpreting those verses correctly? I'm not going to take your word for it. Cite your authority." The answer will not suffice if your authority isn't an organization that claims to be established by Christ himself, in other words a church that makes that claim.

 

You make a very powerful case for the absolute need for duly-authorized and empowered Apostles and Prophets to lead and guide the Church of Christ by revelation. While a compiled New Testament didn't exist at that time of the Apostolic Church of Christ, many of the individual books, epistles and revelations of the Apostles did exist that were well-known and disseminated to the Church through the spoken and written word. And it's most critical to remember that the Apostles and Prophets, who were actually living, breathing repositories of the word of God, were also there to speak forth the revelations of God at any given moment in time. I know it might be hard to wrap your mind around such a concept, but the Apostolic Era Church didn't need a compiled New Testament because the living revelators who produced the New Testament were yet alive to speak the word of truth to the Church. The Church at Corinth may not have had Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, but they did have Paul. If given a choice which would one rather have, Paul's Epistles or Paul Himself?    

The only thing that can break the religious logjam of which you speak are living Prophets, Seers and Revelators of God. Without living Apostles and Prophets the logjam will continue ad infinitum, without any hope for the Christian world to ever break free of the strife of words and contest about opinions that characterizes Christendom today. The great reformer Roger Williams perfectly understood this conundrum and the only way the sects of Christianity will ever be able to get out of it...

There is no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking. (Roger Williams)

 

And Paul knew the only way to prevent the logjam in the first place was for the Church to be led by living Apostles and Prophets until the arrival of the perfect day: 

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Eph 4)

Edited May 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

IF there were prophets active in that church THEN there would be no need for the LORD to direct John to issue direction, censure and warning.

The very fact that the LORD had to resort to using John is prima facie evidence that there were NOT active prophets within the congregation. 

 

There is no evidence supporting your position. All the evidence provided supports the opposite conclusion than the one you are espousing.

Incidentally, nearly all of Paul's letters were written to correct falsehoods/false doctrine that were overwhelming the so called "prophets active in that church". You should ask yourself why, if there were "prophets active in that church" (in the way in which you are claiming they operated), would the LORD need to have Paul or John write letters of warning/censure.

 

And the above is your opinion. I disagree with it based on what I have pointed out already.

 

You assume that Jesus would only use John as a last resort. I disagree, I think he's reiterating a point made already by some in the church. 

 

You assume that there's no active prophets in that congregation. This is demonstrably false because the passage it self states that the person is claiming to be a prophet. Clearly the gift of prophecy is known to them. Whether they are speaking the truth and just how many there are is unknown. That there are active prophets (at least one) is undeniable.

 

The letters Paul and John wrote were for different reasons. Some to correct and rebuke, and some to encourage and help. Thankfully we have them. 

Edited May 5, 2014 by danielwoods

[teddyaware]

I've never said or implied that the NT is a secondary or tertiary source.  It is the primary source.  But, in much the same way the LDS Church sells study aids and resources for the New Testament ( http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category3_715839595_10557_3074457345616706192_-1_N_image_0 ), so I wondered if there were scholarly study aids, papers, or resources that describe, from the LDS point of view, the structure of the NT Church and how the LDS complies with this structure. Things like Roman culture, patristics, deutro-Pauline writings, etc., as it related to the structure of the early church.  I full understand why members of the LDS Church would not want to engage with this information; it does nothing to promote the claims of the LDS Church.  Perhaps I should have been more cognizant of the fact that Church interpretation of these scriptures for the members can't allow for the kind of scholarship I was seeking.

 

Edited to add: a poster on another board made some LDS reading recommendations that I will pursue.

 

Very well then. Give it your best shot and prove your point. Present some of the most compelling scholarship of which you speak and we'll see if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can withstand the blows. 

[danielwoods]

No matter how sure you are in the implications and assumptions you see, in the end implications and assumptions are just implications and assumptions.

 

Definition of imply: strongly suggest or insinuate the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

 

Definition of assume: think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true.

 

Point 1. Using your methodology of relying on supposedly "safe" assumptions and implications, consider the following: We know from the New Testament that Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians was actually his second (1 Cor 5:9); we know that Paul's epistle to the Ephesians was actually his second (Eph 3:3); we know that Paul wrote at least one epistle to the Laodiceans (Col 4:6); we also know that Jude wrote at least one other general epistle (Jude 1:3). So considering that there are at very least 3 epistles of Paul that are not in the New Testament, as presently constituted, it seems safe to assume that the writing of epistles to the many New Testament era congregations was a very common practice and that it's likely at least one other epistle (beside the Book of Revelation) was written to the Church at Thyatira. I acknowledge this latter deduction is an assumption, but in light of the facts it seems reasonable to make such an assumption. No?

 

Point 2. The fact is that it is generally believed by non-LDS Christians that Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth at least 4 times; and by the New Testament itself we know that he personally visited the Church at Corinth at least 3 times. So rather than proving your point that local congregations only needed their local prophets in order to be properly led and guided in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God, the fact that Paul communicated with the Corinthian Church so frequently strongly indicates that local congregations absolutely needed revelation and guidance from the governing central authorities of the Church -- the local prophets were not sufficient.

 

Point 3. The LDS Church organizational model has a definite place for local leaders who have authority to exercise the spirit of prophecy (I noticed Vance missed or misunderstood this point in one of his previous posts) and inspired leadership within the scope of their limited local stewardships. This local prophetic mantle, while very important, does not confer the same degree of authority to speak in all matters of theology, soteriology, doctrine and church governance that is only given to the presiding Apostles and Prophets who watch over the entire Church. So living General Authority Apostles and Prophets are needed at the foundation of the Church organizational structure in order for the body of Christ to be fitly framed together and grow as a unified corpus unto the Lord.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chiefcorner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2)

 

Your point #1. We agree. 

 

#2. No. You assume that local prophets and teachers are alone, therefore are "not sufficient" to lead the church. I believe this is clearly false. In essence, saying that Jesus can't communicate accurately to them directly. Jesus can, does and will. 

 

Your example of Paul writing to the churches to continue to teach them is an example of a good teacher who is interested in doing all he can to complete his task. 

 

#3. The body of Christ is fit together by the Spirit of Christ, not man's organizational strength. 

[Vance]

And the above is your opinion. I disagree with it based on what I have pointed out already.

 

You assume that Jesus would only use John as a last resort. I disagree, I think he's reiterating a point made already by some in the the church.

Based on NO evidence at all.

You assume that there's no active prophets in that congregation. This is demonstrably false because the passage it self states that the person is claiming to be a prophet.

So, an adulteress calling herself a prophetess is evidence of the existence of true prophets within the local congregation?

Truly your logic is dizzying.

Clearly the gift of prophecy is known to them.

It may have been at one time, but there is no evidence they understood the gift of prophecy AT THAT TIME.

Again, you have NO evidence for your conclusions.

Whether they are speaking the truth and just how many there are is unknown.

So, you admit that there may have ONLY BEEN FALSE PROPHETS.

That there are active prophets (at least one) is undeniable.

So, one active FALSE prophet is supposed to make your case?

 

The letters Paul and John wrote were for different reasons. Some to correct and rebuke, and some to encourage and help. Thankfully we have them.

As if that, somehow, supports your claim.

[teddyaware]

I specifically used the words "in that church". I don't know why anyone would think (or get the impression that) I was referring to any other local churches (congregations) or generally to the local churches (congregations).

Read Daniel's post #292 and see that he believes (based on what you wrote) that local prophets (read non-general authority prophets like Bishops and Stake Presidents) didn't exist within the local congregations of the New Testament Church. Your refutation of Daniel makes it sound like you don't believe there were local prophets in the individual Churches.

[danielwoods]

Based on NO evidence at all.

So, an adulteress calling herself a prophetess is evidence of the existence of true prophets within the local congregation?

Truly your logic is dizzying.

It may have been at one time, but there is no evidence they understood the gift of prophecy AT THAT TIME.

Again, you have NO evidence for your conclusions.

So, you admit that there may have ONLY BEEN FALSE PROPHETS.

So, one active FALSE prophet is supposed to make your case?

 

As if that, somehow, supports your claim.

 

Again, your opinion. 

 

I read about other congregations that have more detail written about them, and based on my personal experience coupled with the context created by those other examples I come to a different conclusion. You can call it based on "no evidence" all day long, I know differently, because I can read too, and thankfully we have those other letters to create that context. 

Edited May 5, 2014 by danielwoods

[pogi]

#3. The body of Christ is fit together by the Spirit of Christ, not man's organizational strength. 

 

I agree, but we don't claim that the church's organization is a result of man's organizational strength.  Christ established the organization and is our head.  We are simply members of the body who organize and move as directed by our head (Christ).  There clearly is/was an organization.  You cannot dismiss the structure of the "body" and its members, or you have no head to direct you.  The strength of the organization is the head, by which authority its members function. 

Edited May 5, 2014 by pogi

[Vance]

Read Daniel's post #292 and see that he believes (based on what you wrote) that local prophets (read non-general authority prophets like Bishops and Stake Presidents) didn't exist within the local congregations of the New Testament Church. Your refutation of Daniel makes it sound like you don't believe there were local prophets in the individual Churches.

What ever.

Clearly if there were true prophets (you know, people guided by the Holy Spirit) in Thyatira AT THAT TIME, they would not have allowed the harlot Jezebel to do what she was doing to the local church.

My speaking specifically about Thyatira says nothing about my beliefs about the other individual churches.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Again, your opinion. 

 

I read about other congregations that have more detail written about them, and based on my personal experience coupled with the context created by those other examples I come to a different conclusion. You can call it based on "no evidence" all day long, I know differently, because I can read too, and thankfully we have those other letters to create that context.

All congregations are not alike. Just because some congregations had true prophets in their midst doesn't mean that Thyatira had them.