Elements Of The True Church?

[mfbukowski]

I believe that the Gospel of Mark is the word of God.  I don't know who the writer of Mark was.  There may have been multiple writers.  If one, or more, I makes no difference what title you assign him/them; prophet, evangelist (this term comes up quite a bit in the book), teacher ... how am I to know what gifts were bestowed on this person(s) and why should it matter?  I don't testify to a person's title. Again, we don't know who wrote Hebrews - so what's more important - assigning an unknown author some title or assumed gift, or actually applying the words in Hebrews for a more complete understanding of faith?

 

Christ's call to follow Him is very straightforward and simple.  It's amazing, in my opinion, that people think it's too easy and must be made more complicated and nuanced to have any validity.

Are you ready for a surprise?

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. That is what Mudcat said many moons ago, and as usual, he was and is right- and with this attitude so are you.

But here then is the problem you are not addressing, and which will bring you closer to your Mormon friends if you understand it.

This is how I feel about all the scriptures- the Bible and the Book of Mormon included. I don't care who wrote any of it, and I know it is scripture because God himself has revealed that these are scriptures, to me, personally.

If THAT is what you are saying, I say more power to you- and we have no real differences at all except some semantics.

That's the way I feel about Mudcat and Miserere as well. I consider myself to be in the same "church" as Mudcat and Miserere- the church of Christ. Yes we differ on some stuff, but it becomes pretty irrelevant.

Edited May 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Great for between-meeting exfoliation

:rofl:

[mfbukowski]

The difference is it all comes down to a personal connection to God.

Who's that?

Where's your evidence?  Some legend?  Some stuff written down by who knows what scribe whenever he felt like it??

 

The point is the only way you can even know that you are right about Christ, is personal revelation.  But you won't acknowledge that.

[mfbukowski]

I hate that stuff. I suspect it is used to keep the Children from rubbing their dirty little hands on the walls.

Yeah, but it's slightly more politically correct than razor wire. 

[danielwoods]

Who's that?

Where's your evidence?  Some legend?  Some stuff written down by who knows what scribe whenever he felt like it??

 

The point is the only way you can even know that you are right about Christ, is personal revelation.  But you won't acknowledge that.

 

Your take on truth is based 100% on personal revelation. 

 

I believe that it's mixed. Factual evidence leads us to personal revelation. So, do I deny personal revelation? No.

 

However, it clearly can't be the answer for everything, nor the beginning. Somethings are factual, Jesus even used this principle in his ministry.

 

If truth was based 100% on personal revelation, then telling others they are misguided would be impossible. As you have even said, not that I was "wrong" but rather claimed I was inconsistent. Because without acknowledging objective truth claims, one cannot claim that another is wrong. 

[mfbukowski]

If truth was based 100% on personal revelation, then telling others they are misguided would be impossible.

Yep.  I never said you were misguided, just inconsistent.

 

You apparently believe that somehow you can run a church without what you call "bureaucracy".  You cannot.  Churches are designed for humans and humans create organizations and hierarchies, and therefore "authority"

 

The discussion is about whether or not the primitive church had "authorities".  Of course it did.  It was a human organization.

 

In effect, by saying that it could not be based on personal revelation you are denying your own position.  No authority= 100% personal revelation, but yet you were affirming no private revelation.

 

To me it is a totally confused positon.  No authorities, yet no private revelation.  Those are two incompatible positions.  You can't have both no authorities and no private revelation.  It doesn't make sense.

[teddyaware]

I believe that the Gospel of Mark is the word of God.  I don't know who the writer of Mark was.  There may have been multiple writers.  If one, or more, I makes no difference what title you assign him/them; prophet, evangelist (this term comes up quite a bit in the book), teacher ... how am I to know what gifts were bestowed on this person(s) and why should it matter?  I don't testify to a person's title. Again, we don't know who wrote Hebrews - so what's more important - assigning an unknown author some title or assumed gift, or actually applying the words in Hebrews for a more complete understanding of faith?

 

Christ's call to follow Him is very straightforward and simple.  It's amazing, in my opinion, that people think it's too easy and must be made more complicated and nuanced to have any validity.

 

With those your words of yours in bold, I'm pleased to say we're both on the same page. I guess I was mistaken when I though you were the one mucking up the works with all your talk about scholars and such. It seemed to me you were saying the New Testament couldn't stand on its own because scholars are essential to understanding its meaning.

 

All the best...

Edited May 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[Vance]

Your take on truth is based 100% on personal revelation.

How can you really "know" anything without it being revealed to you personally?

I believe that it's mixed. Factual evidence leads us to personal revelation. So, do I deny personal revelation? No.

Evidence (factual or not) must be evaluated, but to "know" the truth of it (or anything else) takes personal revelation.

 

However, it clearly can't be the answer for everything, nor the beginning. Somethings are factual, Jesus even used this principle in his ministry.

Is that why He taught this?

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I am not sure what part of "all truth" is so difficult to understand.

 

If truth was based 100% on personal revelation, then telling others they are misguided would be impossible.

That is a false "IF" "THEN" statement, because the "THEN" statement does not automatically follow the "IF" statement.

[teddyaware]

You do the same. We all do. You said something yesterday that I'd like to respond to. 

 

 

No, the LDS rely on men just as much as anyone else does. Who are your Apostles and Prophets that you rely on? Men! 

 

The difference is it all comes down to a personal connection to God. No one has disagreed that to "our own master we stand or fall." and that master is Christ, not the LDS, Catholic, Eastern, or any other overseeing group that claims to be the true church. There is only one master to whom we all answer to, as believers in Christ.

Ultimately speaking, you are correct. But this brings us back to the message to the Church at Thyatira in the Book of Revelation...

Lets suppose you are a member of the Church at Thyatira, and one day during church services the first three chapters of the Book of Revelation are being read over the pulpit by a man. While listening you are confronted with the undeniable fact that it is not Jesus Christ Himself standing in front of you at the pulpit personally delivering the revelation, but it is a man from the congregation who is reading, purportedly, Christ's words. As you continue to listen you understand that the revelation is something that God the Father first gave to Christ, who in turn gave the same revelation to an angel, who in turn gave the same revelation to a mortal man named John.

So to reiterate, there is a line of custody for possession of the revelation. It is fist had by the Father who then gives it to the Son; the Son then gives it to an angel who in turn gives it to John; then John gives it to at least seven men who then in turn give it to the members of the seven congregations to whom the revelation was addressed. So was it Christ or men who gave the revelation to the seven Churches?

Edited May 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

Yep.  I never said you were misguided, just inconsistent.

 

You apparently believe that somehow you can run a church without what you call "bureaucracy".  You cannot.  Churches are designed for humans and humans create organizations and hierarchies, and therefore "authority"

 

The discussion is about whether or not the primitive church had "authorities".  Of course it did.  It was a human organization.

 

In effect, by saying that it could not be based on personal revelation you are denying your own position.  No authority= 100% personal revelation, but yet you were affirming no private revelation.

 

To me it is a totally confused positon.  No authorities, yet no private revelation.  Those are two incompatible positions.  You can't have both no authorities and no private revelation.  It doesn't make sense.

 

Was the early church based 100% on personal revelations? No, clearly not. 

 

Was it based on a mix of revelation and factual historical events? Indeed. 

 

Were the central authorities (aka Apostles) intended to run and establish one "true church" for the whole world? I don't think so. Obviously many think that was the case.

 

Is my position accurately represented by this statement, "No authorities, yet no private revelation."?   No.  

[danielwoods]

How can you really "know" anything without it being revealed to you personally?

Evidence (factual or not) must be evaluated, but to "know" the truth of it (or anything else) takes personal revelation.

 

Is that why He taught this?

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I am not sure what part of "all truth" is so difficult to understand.

 

That is a false "IF" "THEN" statement, because the "THEN" statement does not automatically follow the "IF" statement.

 

 

If you experience the eating of a strawberry and find it to taste good, is the truth of good tasting strawberry's a revelation? 

 

I call it an experience, not a revelation. 

 

Jesus said if you don't believe based on my words, believe based on the works I do (heal the sick, etc...). That is called factual evidence. It leads us to the truth, where then we are open to revelation from God. 

[danielwoods]

Ultimately speaking, you are correct. But this brings us back to the message to the Church at Thyatira in the Book of Revelation...

Lets suppose you are a member of the Church at Thyatira, and one day during church services the first three chapters of the Book of Revelation are being read over the pulpit by a man. While listening you are confronted with the undeniable fact that it is not Jesus Christ Himself standing in front of you at the pulpit personally delivering the revelation, but it is a man from the congregation who is reading, purportedly, Christ's words. As you continue to listen you understand that the revelation is something that God the Father first gave to Christ, who in turn gave the same revelation to an angel, who in turn gave the same revelation to a mortal man named John.

So to reiterate, there is a line of custody for possession of the revelation. It is fist had by the Father who then gives it to the Son; the Son then gives it to an angel who in turn gives it to John; then John gives it to at least seven men who then in turn give it to the members of the seven congregations to whom the revelation was addressed. So was it Christ or men who gave the revelation to the seven Churches?

 

Ultimately speaking and through the interim as well. 

 

Using your example. As a member of the Thyatira church, one would probably be thinking, that is the same message that I have gotten from Christ directly, therefore I agree it's about time. 

 

In other words, the message is from Christ through John (ultimately) and from Christ (directly) by the spirit to anyone who is willing to listen. 

[Vance]

If you experience the eating of a strawberry and find it to taste good, is the truth of good tasting strawberry's a revelation?

Yes.

 

I call it an experience, not a revelation.

False dichotomy! In this case it is both. 

Jesus said if you don't believe based on my words, believe based on the works I do (heal the sick, etc...). That is called factual evidence. It leads us to the truth, where then we are open to revelation from God.

Yup. But in the end, the truth is revealed to you.

[teddyaware]

Ultimately speaking and through the interim as well. 

 

Using your example. As a member of the Thyatira church, one would probably be thinking, that is the same message that I have gotten from Christ directly, therefore I agree it's about time. 

 

In other words, the message is from Christ through John (ultimately) and from Christ (directly) by the spirit to anyone who is willing to listen.

That is correct. And that's exactly how we Latter-day Saints are constantly taught the Church of Jesus Christ is designed to work. So we agree!!!  Give that man a cigar! Errrrr... I mean a Kit Kat bar!

Edited May 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Is my position accurately represented by this statement, "No authorities, yet no private revelation."?   No.  

Have we heard an articulate statement of your position then?  No.

 

How do you reconcile these two apparent inconsistent positions?  If one is not to have "private interpretation" then there must be some "authority" who gets to do the interpreting which you follow.

 

I don't know how it can be otherwise, unless the prohibition against private interpretation is abandoned and everyone is their own "authority"

 

I, and everyone else, have been bringing up that conflict post after post, and you still have not addressed it.

[mfbukowski]

Was the early church based 100% on personal revelations? No, clearly not. 

 

Was it based on a mix of revelation and factual historical events? Indeed. 

 

Were the central authorities (aka Apostles) intended to run and establish one "true church" for the whole world? I don't think so. Obviously many think that was the case.

 

Is my position accurately represented by this statement, "No authorities, yet no private revelation."?   No.  

It WAS based 100% on personal revelation, TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS CONVERTED.

 

Are you saying that every single person who were actual eyewitnesses to the miracles were converted?  Obviously not.  The Jewish leaders were not, the Romans were not, many many were not.  They were eyewitnesses to the events- they saw them with their own eyes right in front of their faces!

 

They could have been tricks or sorcery, or lies, or whatever!

 

In fact Christ himself said "It is a wicked and adulterous generation who seeks after evidence...oops... a sign"

 

Signs and "evidence" do not convert people, at least not people who are not awfully gullible.  In my opinion, one would have to be gullible to believe that the bible is "true" based on "evidence".

 

One who is a true skeptic- and we see them everywhere in this world- is NOT convinced by the "evidence" one iota.  Think of Dawkins.  Think of Bill Mahr.  If the evidence is so convincing why is the world not flocking to Christianity????

Edited May 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If you experience the eating of a strawberry and find it to taste good, is the truth of good tasting strawberry's a revelation? 

 

If you boil water and it boils at 212 degrees is that not an experience??

 

If you look through a telescope and see the rings of Saturn, is that not an experience??

 

If a scientist sends a particle through a cyclotron and it makes the gizmo give a new reading is that not experience?

 

If you kill a person and feel bad, is that not an experience?  If you pray to Jesus and feel peace, is that not an experience?

 

If you answer an altar call and know you are saved, is that not an experience?

Edited May 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Some experiences can be verified by others.  We call those "objective" and call them "science"

 

Other experiences we have are just as "true" but cannot be verified by others.  We call those "subjective".

 

It's really just that simple.

 

Objective evidence is in the eye of the beholder to be agreed upon or not.  Subjective experience gives certainty in matters of the spirit and heart.

 

Can you prove your wife loves you?  What if she does nice things for you because she is after your money (switch as desired to make politically correct)?

 

Yet can there be any doubt that she really loves you when you know she does?  Of course not. 

 

Many statements can be true, and yet you are the only person who knows they are.  "I know that Jesus lives" is one of those.

[danielwoods]

Yes.

 

False dichotomy! In this case it is both. 

Yup. But in the end, the truth is revealed to you.

 

We may have hit on something. 

 

I certainly don't view experiences as revelations. Although revelations are certainly something one experiences. But not all experiences are, in my view. 

[mfbukowski]

We may have hit on something. 

 

I certainly don't view experiences as revelations. Although revelations are certainly something one experiences. But not all experiences are, in my view. 

No I would agree.

 

All we do as humans is "experience".  Waking up, brushing your teeth, driving to work etc etc etc- all these are experiences.  In fact, all of what we KNOW as "reality" is what we experience.  Your desk- your chair, your wife, your scrambled eggs, the ding on your bumper.

 

But when God speaks to you, he speaks to you.  How do you know it's him?  No way to know other than you are convinced that it was him.

 

I feel an "intelligence" outside myself giving me ideas, accompanied with a sense of peace.  He is teaching me.

 

He teaches us individually- some need to learn addition and subtraction, some are ready for vector calculus and beyond, so what he teaches each of us is not the same.

 

Perhaps we Mormon humans need to learn what authority is about- so we are called here.  Perhaps Evangelicals need to learn something else, so you are called there.

 

Our belief is that we grow in knowledge even after death- it is not a "get it right now or you burn in hell" proposition.  So we grow from grace to grace as the Savior did.

 

We don't all have to agree here for each of us to be on the path we individually need to be on for ourselves.  God teaches us in his way, what we need to learn.

[mfbukowski]

Let me add to that the answer to the question- before it gets asked-

 

"Well then if God teaches us all the way we need to learn, what happened to the "true church" idea??  All must be true then!"

 

The unique thing about the LDS church is that we are the only one which does work for the dead- and therefore has be belief that those who are truly seeking God but have not found him in this life, will get a chance in the afterlife to do so.

 

We are the only church then who can consistently maintain indeed that principle- that God teaches some truth in all churches, but ours is "more correct" than others precisely BECAUSE we have that principle.

 

God is our loving father, and such wants his children to return to Him and will give them every possible chance.

 

All churches have some truth and can teach some of his children to grow closer to God, but I believe that we have all the truth here, just for that reason.  We are the only ones who teach that.

[danielwoods]

Have we heard an articulate statement of your position then?  No.

 

How do you reconcile these two apparent inconsistent positions?  If one is not to have "private interpretation" then there must be some "authority" who gets to do the interpreting which you follow.

 

I don't know how it can be otherwise, unless the prohibition against private interpretation is abandoned and everyone is their own "authority"

 

I, and everyone else, have been bringing up that conflict post after post, and you still have not addressed it.

 

Now you must be referring to 2 Peter 1:20  "²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

 

Your contention then is that, since I believe there to be no "true church organization" on earth, there therefore must not be any authority to properly interpret scripture or prophecy? Is that correct?

 

The first question is the passage. What does it actually say? 

 

Notice in the NIV it says it this way:  "²⁰ Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things."

 

Interesting, it's actually talking about a prophet interpreting his own words, and that's not how it works, interesting isn't it? 

 

The passage really has nothing to do with interpreting scripture, rather interpreting prophecies, and the statement is clearly saying that prophets don't interpret their own prophecies, because God is the source of them. 

 

So, back to your question. 

 

Is there an authority that is needed to interpret scripture or prophecy? Obviously not according to this passage. This passage is specifically referencing the prophets themselves, as not being the origin of the message. 

[MiserereNobis]

Let me add to that the answer to the question- before it gets asked-

 

"Well then if God teaches us all the way we need to learn, what happened to the "true church" idea??  All must be true then!"

 

The unique thing about the LDS church is that we are the only one which does work for the dead- and therefore has be belief that those who are truly seeking God but have not found him in this life, will get a chance in the afterlife to do so.

Now, now, let's not forget about the Catholic practice of praying for the dead, having Masses said for the dead, celebrating All Souls Day, etc...

[mfbukowski]

Now you must be referring to 2 Peter 1:20  "²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

 

Your contention then is that, since I believe there to be no "true church organization" on earth, there therefore must not be any authority to properly interpret scripture or prophecy? Is that correct?

 

The first question is the passage. What does it actually say? 

 

Notice in the NIV it says it this way:  "²⁰ Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things."

 

Interesting, it's actually talking about a prophet interpreting his own words, and that's not how it works, interesting isn't it? 

 

The passage really has nothing to do with interpreting scripture, rather interpreting prophecies, and the statement is clearly saying that prophets don't interpret their own prophecies, because God is the source of them. 

 

So, back to your question. 

 

Is there an authority that is needed to interpret scripture or prophecy? Obviously not according to this passage. This passage is specifically referencing the prophets themselves, as not being the origin of the message.

I love it!  That is an excellent response!

 

But for what it's worth, that is not the only opinion on the translation.

 

Now, for those who care- and I am not one of those- which of all these is "correct"?

You asked "What does it actually say?" THAT is the big question.

There is a reason we believe the Bible "insofar as it is translated correctly" leaving that up to personal revelation for the most part:

 

Parallel Verses

New International Version

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.

New Living Translation

Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet's own understanding,

English Standard Version

knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.

New American Standard Bible

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

King James Bible

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

Holman Christian Standard Bible

First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation,

International Standard Version

First of all, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

NET Bible

Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

While you first know this: No prophecy is its own exposition of the Scriptures.

GOD'S WORD® Translation

First, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.

Jubilee Bible 2000

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

King James 2000 Bible

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of one's own interpretation.

American King James Version

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

American Standard Version

knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.

Douay-Rheims Bible

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

Darby Bible Translation

knowing this first, that [the scope of] no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,

English Revised Version

knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.

Webster's Bible Translation

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

Weymouth New Testament

But, above all, remember that no prophecy in Scripture will be found to have come from the prophet's own prompting;

World English Bible

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation.

Young's Literal Translation

this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,

But I appreciate the answer- you have taken a stand and committed to it, and it is a reasonable stance, and I have learned something, thank you.

 

That is what I have been looking for, and now you have given me an answer, and I appreciate it.  I hope there are no hard feelings for my pestering you.

 

That position is consistent with not believing in a central authority structure.  I disagree with it because it implies that prophets speak directly God's words, which I do not believe- I believe their revelations come through their human brains and are personal revelations which come to them because they are in authority, and sometimes may be mistaken. 

 

I do not believe the Bible is perfect in every word, apparently you do.  I would wonder if Gervin feels the same about this.

 

But anyway thanks for the consistent and reasonable answer.

But in the context, it sure looks like Peter is pulling his authority

 

19We 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: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For 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.

 

Edited May 8, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Now, now, let's not forget about the Catholic practice of praying for the dead, having Masses said for the dead, celebrating All Souls Day, etc...

I would grant a special indulgence for Catholics....  but now that John XXIII is a saint, I am not so sure.... 

No seriously, Catholics have similar views and at least everybody gets in by "Baptism by Desire" anyway.

 

You take a look at that lake of fire and brimstone and suddenly that cool water looks awfully good....