teddyaware Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) A note about your phrase, “mere salvation”; You used this phrase twice, and I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean to demean salvation by this phrase, but that is how it comes across. You said that, I speak as if I already attained the prize…. I’m unclear where I’ve spoken that way. I haven’t once used that phrase or term (prize). Do I think that I’ve already attained the “prize” such as Paul is referencing? No. We were talking about the minimum requirements for salvation. Now you’re saying that I was talking about rewards? I wasn’t. In answer to your questions, I don’t think that the Laodicians had already obtained the fullness of God’s eternal rewards yet. Your last question entails a question about obedience to a prophet. And I would say the same that I said above, that the diligence that the Bereans showed is what I would expect from someone who didn’t trust John. Christ through the spirit also speaks to us. The Prophets aren’t the only vehicle God uses.You may not realize that the word "mere" can be used in a negative sense but can also be used in a positive sense (think of C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity"). In this instance I used the word mere in the positive sense, meaning something that is pure, simple and unadorned. So my point is that any kind of salvation, including salvation without the fullness of eternal reward, is a good thing. So what I was trying to stipulate by the expression "mere salvation" is that of a glorious salvation in the kingdom of heaven but without the additional heavenly rewards promised to the zealous, valiant and fully faithful in the testimony of Jesus.As for the other items, we're close enough in thought and belief that I'm satisfied our dialogue has been fruitful. If you want to continue on in this dialogue, the nest move is yours. Otherwise, my best to you in your walk with the Lord. Edited April 23, 2014 by teddyaware
danielwoods Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) So precisely which false church does he exercise his authority over since we should not seek the true church? Or maybe you are saying no churches have authority. Or all of them, which is the same. So that means none of us have to confess Him as our Savior or accept him at all, and the Christian "chruch" is not "true"? Or maybe it just means that we should just all be Christians all by ourselves in families and not band together in "fellowships" or whatever you guys call your churches. Or maybe call them that so we can pretend they are not "really" churches??? So what authority do the pastors who think they have churches have? Pretty cool. We all get to interpret the bible for ourselves, Christ exercises authority- some how mysteriously- and we belong to no churches. Pretty interesting approach. Phew. That makes life a lot easier. We can all stay home on Sunday and read the bible. And baptize the babies in the bathtub since everyone has equal authority. No more seminaries or schools of theology. Fuller has to close its doors and BIOLA is out of business. No one to pay collections to, because Christ doesn't have a bank account. Or better yet, I could just write checks to Jesus Christ and wait for him to cash them. I'm going to like that a bunch! Your sarcasm ignored. You assume, without standing, that there is one true church (as in this LDS church organization or that Catholic church organization). I simply am asking for justification for this assumption of yours. If you have none, that's ok. Edited April 23, 2014 by danielwoods
danielwoods Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 You may not realize that the word "mere" can be used in a negative sense but can also be used in a positive sense (think of C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity"). In this instance I used the word mere in the positive sense, meaning something that is pure, simple and unadorned. So my point is that any kind of salvation, including salvation without the fullness of eternal reward, is a good thing. So what I was trying to stipulate by the expression "mere salvation" is that of a glorious salvation in the kingdom of heaven but without the additional heavenly rewards promised to the zealous, valiant and fully faithful in the testimony of Jesus.As for the other items, we're close enough in thought and belief that I'm satisfied our dialogue has been fruitful. If you want to continue on in this dialogue, the nest move is yours. Otherwise, my best to you in your walk with the Lord. Fair enough.
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Your sarcasm ignored. You assume, without standing, that there is one true church (as in this LDS church organization or that Catholic church organization). I simply am asking for justification for this assumption of yours. If you have none, that's ok. OK, I will ask you the questions directly then. You said this: Tell me where Christ stated we should seek the "true" church? What you can't see, yet judge anyway, is the authority Christ exercises over his church.If Christ exercises authority and we are not allowed to ask God who exactly HAS the "authority" how are we supposed to know??? If he wants us to do thus and so- whatever it is he wants, and does not tell us where to find it- WHERE IS HIS AUTHORITY? Does everyone have it? That is like saying no one has it, because clearly Christians disagree. My assumption that authority is necessary is because it is clearly implied by the following, and I think non-denominational Christians miss that point because: 1- You are implying that the "church" is all of Christianity or at least that is my understanding of your position. Yet we have local congregations with pastors who collect tithing, preach sermons and have differing opinions about the interpretation of scripture- allegedly all part of the same "Christianity" where the bible clearly calls for "one faith, one baptism". How do you square that? 2- Clearly since there are so many congregations/ churches/fellowships- whatever the correct jargon you use, some of these are presumably closer to the "truth" than others, since according to you, the truth is eternal and unchanging. How is one supposed to find the "correct" church without guidance from the Holy Spirit, since you believe that one should not pray about "which church is true"? 3- Are you saying that we might as well stay at home on Sunday because ALL Christians have equal authority, so why bother to go to church to be baptized, married, counseled, prayed for etc. In short why do we need congregations at all? 4- Since you obviously disagree about biblical interpretations, and are tossed about by the winds of all kinds of doctrines, what does the scripture mean that there should be "one faith and one baptism" when you cannot even agree about the correct MODE of baptism? 5- If all Christians have the same authority why are there seminaries in the first place and why are pastors needed? Why bother to get ordained? Why attend theology school or bible colleges? 6- If all have equal authority under Christ, to whom does one pay their offerings? I could just open up my own "Christian" church in some storefront and collect money from folks without training or anything else because I say I can? Is that really what is meant by "one faith one baptism"? These are the reasons I think it is clear that authority is necessary for Christians. 1- There is to be no private interpretation of scripture- therefore there must be someone with authority to interpret it.2- God's house is a house of order- not one in which anyone can set up a "church" on a street corner and start collecting money.3- Decisions need to be made about doctrinal modes of baptism etc, with an attempt to get it "right" Most importantly, a just God who has requirements for beliefs and modes of baptism, under pain of hell fire, CLEARLY would have a way of making it CERTAIN exactly what he wanted. A just God would not allow his children to the pearly gates and being denied admittance because they did their best in finding the right church and made a mistake especially if there was a prohibition from asking him which church to join. I find that notion highly disturbing. God would not do that. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability and I promise not to be sarcastic in the least. But trust me, if you do not answer them or at least try, I will pester you. Maybe you'll convert me and save me. That's why you're here isn't it?? Edited April 23, 2014 by mfbukowski
Mudcat Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Hi all, Been a while. For those that are unfamiliar with me. I am an evangelical sort of Christian. In response to the OP, I wonder what the early Church was like. If Christians today are a far cry from those early on... I think likely in the US and other 1st and 2nd tiered lands we may all be a bit off the beam. Though I dunno for sure. There is an element, I don't see often enough that seems like it would be a part of the "true" Church. In James 5 it says.. 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working. (NASB) The whole idea of confessing your sins to one another, doesn't sound appealing.. it takes humility and sense of depravity to name your personal monsters aloud to someone else. Takes guts to do that sort of stuff. But as I understand it, it's the poor in spirit who inherit the kingdom of God. But all the brothers and sisters in the world can't lift a finger to help the fallen up... unless they first know that you've stumbled. I think helping the fallen is where Christ's light shines brightly in the heart of a believer. People talk of seeing Jesus in another person... I think this is one of those places He is on full display not only to be seen by those that are helped by another, but to be seen in their selves as well. As I understand it's the pure in heart that will see God. I don't see many folks doing much of that, and I don't see it so much the fault of those who would like to help one another. It's really more on the fault of the ones who are to prideful to seek the help they need. Sad to say, it's the same folks, I think. Not trying to be overly critical... I mean after all, nobody's perfect... we just don't like talking about it much though;) Respectfully, Mudcat Edited April 24, 2014 by Mudcat 2
Gervin Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 For sure! I pull from a couple of them, some of them are in book form and others in online articles. One of the online articles is available through the jstor database, but its free to make an account and is a wonderful resource for accessing journals, books and articles on every topic in academia: Paul as benefactor: reciprocity, strategy and theological reflection in Paul's collection:http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZK5DVs29JEIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Paul%27s+collection+bible&ots=-eobMaguX1&sig=PYID3h2oTeJuEQ7m7QpUUYEsViQ#v=onepage&q=Paul's%20collection%20bible&f=false The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 5th Ed, Ehrman, Bart. (2012) Oxford University Press, New York. Against Heresies, Irenaeus http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm Contra Celsum, Origin ------------------------- My argument is not that Early Christianity was not an undivided, unified, doctrinally homogeneous group. It most definitely was not. My argument is that the early apostles, including the obstinate Paul (who clashed with the Jerusalem apostles frequently), attempted to maintain communion among the believers. That this was not possible due to preexisting bias, geographical distribution, antique communication methods, and rebellion against the apostle's authority is evident. I'll start with Paul's collection for the poor: To understand the social significance of this you have to understand the Greco-Roman notions of reciprocity, patronage, and beneficiaries. Perhaps the best modern portrayal of the patron-client relationship in modern times is the scene in the Godfather where people come to the Corleone wedding. They meet the Don, congratulate him, praise the family, and bring small gifts. In return the Don gives them promises of protection, financial aid, etc. This is reflective of attitudes in Paul's era. The patron (which could included individuals, governments, or groups) provided aid and favour to a client (made up of the same diverse entities) in return for praise and loyalty. This relationship was seen as sacred and inviolable. It was even extended to relationships between mortals and deities (ex: Athena as the patron goddess of Athens, who glorified her, built statues to her, and sacrificed to her in return for divine protection and wisdom). On a side note, this is how Paul portrays Jesus' and God's relationship with the faithful. Grace is actually better translated in the modern language as "favour," and was shown to those who had Pistis, or loyalty, obedience, and love (this is usually translated as "faith" or "belief" in English versions). Paul describes his meeting with the Jerusalem apostles in Galatians. By recognizing Paul's torah-free Gospel and his authority as a missionary, he is positioned in a client position. As Paul goes about his missionary efforts, one of the biggest problems dividing Early Christianity (and which continued to divide them after the apostes, as evidence by the Marcionites and the Ebionites) was the significance of Jewish law. That his caused friction and division is evidenced by the topics brought up in Galatians (a Gentile cult) and Romans (a mixed Jewish and Gentile cult). Paul, who had been beseeched by Jerusalem to "remember the poor", used this as an opportunity to strengthen ties and establish reciprocal, patron relationships with the Jewish-Christians. This serves as a unifying act in the church, demonstrating that in the Gospel there was no "Jew nor Greek" (Galatians 3:28). The collection can't be thought merely of as a good act. Charitable acts in the time of Jesus were never done without the expectation that patron-client relationships would be established. In other instances we know that beyond Peter's vision in Acts, that he also dined with the Gentile Christians at Antioch. Understood in the social context, this incident carries much more weight back then than it would for us. To dine with someone meant to eat their food. To eat their food meant that Peter was purposefully not eating Kosher food, demonstrating unity with the Gentile Christians. That this was the case, and also not ultimately successful is evidenced by the Jewish-Christians getting mad at the apostle for doing so (though Paul's account points to a probable reconciliation). Of course we know of the Council of Jerusalem headed by James the Just. Though this attempted to bridge the gap between Gentiles and Jews, several other incidents point to this failing to win over the general Jewish-Christian population. Though the principal point of dispute among the earliest Christians was the application of Jewish law, there are incidents recorded where the apostles try to combat other dissenting forms. Acts describes Peter's disputations with Simon Magus. What is not generally known is that Simon Magus himself was a gnostic, and founder of the Gnostic-Christian Simonians. The interplay between Peter and Simon Magus is significant because it is not only a condemnation of simony or magic, but that of Gnostic teachings as well. While not known to modern readers, Simon Magus or his group were not entirely unknown the people in the Roman Empire's eastern frontier. Those at the time of Peter would have understood this incident as having deeper meaning than we read it. In sum, while Early Christianity was a fractured, divided and contentious movement, that does not signify there being no attempt by the apostles to maintain cohesiveness. We see this in other movements, including the Restorationist church of Joseph Smith. There were multiple problems of dispute with converts from Campbelite, Methodist, Shaker, or other sects. That this caused some ultimate division is evidenced by the existence of division following Joseph's death (Sydney with is Campbellite background, and Brigham with his own background). Imagine if it hadn't only be various Christian groups, but Greco-Roman pagans, Zoroastrians, Hellenistic Jews, Torah-law Jews and others trying to combine!thanks for all of that. It sounds as if you contend not that the church was unified then went into apostasy but that the apostasy occurred because the unity never took place in the first place. I may be reading you wrong. 1
Gervin Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Each unconnected congregation making up its own interpretations, with no authority to unify them, and no guidance from the Spirit about what church is "true". All the fragmentation is pretty sad, I think. You have your interpretation and argue with more fundamentalist "Christians" about which is right. This doesn't describe my church and its congregation. We are unified by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit. We don't engage any arguments with others, regardless of their faith walk (or none).
teddyaware Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Hi all, Been a while. For those that are unfamiliar with me. I am an evangelical sort of Christian. In response to the OP, I wonder what the early Church was like. If Christians today are a far cry from those early on... I think likely in the US and other 1st and 2nd tiered lands we may all be a bit off the beam. Though I dunno for sure. There is an element, I don't see often enough that seems like it would be a part of the "true" Church. In James 5 it says.. 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working. (NASB) The whole idea of confessing your sins to one another, doesn't sound appealing.. it takes humility and sense of depravity to name your personal monsters aloud to someone else. Takes guts to do that sort of stuff. But as I understand it, it's the poor in spirit who inherit the kingdom of God. But all the brothers and sisters in the world can't lift a finger to help the fallen up... unless they first know that you've stumbled. I think helping the fallen is where Christ's light shines brightly in the heart of a believer. People talk of seeing Jesus in another person... I think this is one of those places He is on full display not only to be seen by those that are helped by another, but to be seen in their selves as well. As I understand it's the pure in heart that will see God. I don't see many folks doing much of that, and I don't see it so much the fault of those who would like to help one another. It's really more on the fault of the ones who are to prideful to seek the help they need. Sad to say, it's the same folks, I think. Not trying to be overly critical... I mean after all, nobody's perfect... we just don't like talking about it much though;) Respectfully, MudcatIn the King James version of the Bible (the version used by the Latter-day Saints), the word "faults" is used instead of the word "sins" that is found in the New American Standard Bible's translation of James 5:16. It needs to be understood that there is a distinction in meaning between the word 'fault. and the word 'sin.' The word fault refers to personal shortcomings or character flaws, while the word sin refers to specific crimes or offences against God and man.Keeping this distinction in mind, Latter-day Saints can easily imagine a member of the Church coming forward to the podium during fast and testimony meeting and saying something like, "I have to confess I haven't been studying the scriptures and praying as diligently as I know I should, but with the Lord's help I am determined to change my ways;" or saying something like, "I haven't been the best of husbands to my wife and have often fallen down on the job when it comes to my children." In these examples one is admitting broadly to personal faults without going into the lurid, nitty-gritty details of specific serious, and often traumatizing sins.Fast and Testimony meeting is likely a proper venue for confessions of broad faults of shortcomings before the congregation, but the confession of specific serious sins in such a setting could, more often than not, prove to be unwise and counterproductive to the spiritual health of the members. This doesn't mean there may not be exceptions to the rule, especially if the transgression confessed is something that affects the entire congregation in a personal way (think, for example, of financial malfeasance involving monetary contributions). But as a general rule, confession of serious sins in public settings could unnecessarily open up the doors to a world of hurt for both the confessor and even for those who would be emotionally sickened by hearing all the gory details. I believe the only possible way such public confessions of sin could be pulled off successfully, without inflicting unnecessary damage, would be that the practice would have to be carried out among congregations of Christians who are very spirityually mature. And unfortunately, truly spiritually mature people are too few and far between.It would be interesting to know why the Kings James version of James 5:16 uses the word faults where the NASB version uses the word sins. Edited April 24, 2014 by teddyaware 1
Ran Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 It would be interesting to know why the Kings James version of James 5:16 uses the word faults where the NASB version uses the word sins. Differing textual basis. NASB: Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th ed."τὰς ἁμαρτίας" — sins KJV: Textus Receptus, Stephanus 1550 ed. (?)"τὰ παραπτώματα" — "faults" in James 5:16 KJV, but "sins" in Ephesians 1:7 KJV, and interestingly, both "sins" and "trespasses" for the two instances of παράπτωμα in Colossians 2:13 KJV. 1
teddyaware Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Differing textual basis. NASB: Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th ed. "τὰς ἁμαρτίας" — sins KJV: Textus Receptus, Stephanus 1550 ed. (?) "τὰ παραπτώματα" — "faults" in James 5:16 KJV, but "sins" in Ephesians 1:7 KJV, and interestingly, both "sins" and "trespasses" for the two instances of παράπτωμα in Colossians 2:13 KJV. I thank you. 1
halconero Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) thanks for all of that. It sounds as if you contend not that the church was unified then went into apostasy but that the apostasy occurred because the unity never took place in the first place. I may be reading you wrong. That would be accurate. I would be one caveat on that: Unity was attempted by the early apostles, both by Paul and the Jerusalem Twelve. Unity was prevented by culture, belief, geography and sometimes rebellion. Edit: I would also say that any unity that was achieved was brief and non-permanent in nature. Example: Awesome day of Pentecost followed by years of dissension over the Gentile issue. Edited April 24, 2014 by halconero 1
Yirgacheffe Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Hi all, Been a while. For those that are unfamiliar with me. I am an evangelical sort of Christian. In response to the OP, I wonder what the early Church was like. If Christians today are a far cry from those early on... I think likely in the US and other 1st and 2nd tiered lands we may all be a bit off the beam. Though I dunno for sure. There is an element, I don't see often enough that seems like it would be a part of the "true" Church. In James 5 it says.. 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working. (NASB) The whole idea of confessing your sins to one another, doesn't sound appealing.. it takes humility and sense of depravity to name your personal monsters aloud to someone else. Takes guts to do that sort of stuff. But as I understand it, it's the poor in spirit who inherit the kingdom of God. But all the brothers and sisters in the world can't lift a finger to help the fallen up... unless they first know that you've stumbled. I think helping the fallen is where Christ's light shines brightly in the heart of a believer. People talk of seeing Jesus in another person... I think this is one of those places He is on full display not only to be seen by those that are helped by another, but to be seen in their selves as well. As I understand it's the pure in heart that will see God. I don't see many folks doing much of that, and I don't see it so much the fault of those who would like to help one another. It's really more on the fault of the ones who are to prideful to seek the help they need. Sad to say, it's the same folks, I think. Not trying to be overly critical... I mean after all, nobody's perfect... we just don't like talking about it much though;) Respectfully, MudcatI read a book about a woman who converted along with her husband to Orthodoxy, IIRC her husband was a minister previously and became a priest when they joined Orthodoxy. She described everyone in church confessing to each other, even her husband confessed to her, I can't really imagine doing what she described. Like you said not perfect, don't really want to talk about just how imperfect, out loud, in front of everyone
mfbukowski Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 This doesn't describe my church and its congregation. We are unified by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit. We don't engage any arguments with others, regardless of their faith walk (or none). And again, how do you know "your church" is true?
danielwoods Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 OK, I will ask you the questions directly then. You said this: If Christ exercises authority and we are not allowed to ask God who exactly HAS the "authority" how are we supposed to know??? If he wants us to do thus and so- whatever it is he wants, and does not tell us where to find it- WHERE IS HIS AUTHORITY? Does everyone have it? That is like saying no one has it, because clearly Christians disagree. My assumption that authority is necessary is because it is clearly implied by the following, and I think non-denominational Christians miss that point because: 1- You are implying that the "church" is all of Christianity or at least that is my understanding of your position. Yet we have local congregations with pastors who collect tithing, preach sermons and have differing opinions about the interpretation of scripture- allegedly all part of the same "Christianity" where the bible clearly calls for "one faith, one baptism". How do you square that? 2- Clearly since there are so many congregations/ churches/fellowships- whatever the correct jargon you use, some of these are presumably closer to the "truth" than others, since according to you, the truth is eternal and unchanging. How is one supposed to find the "correct" church without guidance from the Holy Spirit, since you believe that one should not pray about "which church is true"? 3- Are you saying that we might as well stay at home on Sunday because ALL Christians have equal authority, so why bother to go to church to be baptized, married, counseled, prayed for etc. In short why do we need congregations at all? 4- Since you obviously disagree about biblical interpretations, and are tossed about by the winds of all kinds of doctrines, what does the scripture mean that there should be "one faith and one baptism" when you cannot even agree about the correct MODE of baptism? 5- If all Christians have the same authority why are there seminaries in the first place and why are pastors needed? Why bother to get ordained? Why attend theology school or bible colleges? 6- If all have equal authority under Christ, to whom does one pay their offerings? I could just open up my own "Christian" church in some storefront and collect money from folks without training or anything else because I say I can? Is that really what is meant by "one faith one baptism"? These are the reasons I think it is clear that authority is necessary for Christians. 1- There is to be no private interpretation of scripture- therefore there must be someone with authority to interpret it.2- God's house is a house of order- not one in which anyone can set up a "church" on a street corner and start collecting money.3- Decisions need to be made about doctrinal modes of baptism etc, with an attempt to get it "right" Most importantly, a just God who has requirements for beliefs and modes of baptism, under pain of hell fire, CLEARLY would have a way of making it CERTAIN exactly what he wanted. A just God would not allow his children to the pearly gates and being denied admittance because they did their best in finding the right church and made a mistake especially if there was a prohibition from asking him which church to join. I find that notion highly disturbing. God would not do that. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability and I promise not to be sarcastic in the least. But trust me, if you do not answer them or at least try, I will pester you. Maybe you'll convert me and save me. That's why you're here isn't it?? a) Authority problem. Clearly Christians disagree (Even LDS among themselves do), however Christ doesn't disagree with himself. It's his authority after all. 1) "Church" is not all of Christianity, but rather all who are saved (could be LDS or anyone). Now if this is what you meant by "all of Christianity" then yes. Now Paul states there is "one faith, one baptism" but that doesn't mean there is only one way to express ones faith or baptism, does it? 2) In answering the question "which church is true", previously, I stated that the church which has the fruits of the spirit and worships in spirit and truth. I think another way to say it would be, which church organization leads people to connect directly to God? My objection is to the phrase, "the true church" as if there is but one organization that is the true one. 3) I am not saying that we don't need structure and leaders and assembling ourselves together. I am saying that there is no such thing as "the true church." (meaning this or that organization) 4) As I said earlier, just because there is "one faith, one baptism" that doesn't mean there is only one way to express ones faith or baptism, does it? 5) Authority and knowledge are completely different things. One doesn't go to school to gain authority, only knowledge. Christ gave his church pastors and teachers (etc.) for our edification. 6) Offerings - each group has expenses, and ministries, this is how those needs are met. We all have the same authority, but not the same gifts. Authority:1) No private interpretation. Indeed. Which is why there is great agreement in Christendom about the fundamentals. 2) Your definition of "order" is different than Gods. Order doesn't mean "same as..." Baptism is a good example. Some dunk, some sprinkle. God looks at the heart of man. 3) "Decisions need to be made..." Why? What difference will it make? I certainly don't hold that God will punish someone because they chose what someone else thinks is the wrong mode of baptism. My purpose for being here? Yeah you caught me... you converted yet? (sarcasm right there!) Actually, probably has more to do with finding something interesting to think and discuss in a venue that isn't threatening, if that makes sense.
mfbukowski Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Hi all, Been a while. For those that are unfamiliar with me. I am an evangelical sort of Christian. In response to the OP, I wonder what the early Church was like. If Christians today are a far cry from those early on... I think likely in the US and other 1st and 2nd tiered lands we may all be a bit off the beam. Though I dunno for sure. There is an element, I don't see often enough that seems like it would be a part of the "true" Church. In James 5 it says.. 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working. (NASB) The whole idea of confessing your sins to one another, doesn't sound appealing.. it takes humility and sense of depravity to name your personal monsters aloud to someone else. Takes guts to do that sort of stuff. But as I understand it, it's the poor in spirit who inherit the kingdom of God. But all the brothers and sisters in the world can't lift a finger to help the fallen up... unless they first know that you've stumbled. I think helping the fallen is where Christ's light shines brightly in the heart of a believer. People talk of seeing Jesus in another person... I think this is one of those places He is on full display not only to be seen by those that are helped by another, but to be seen in their selves as well. As I understand it's the pure in heart that will see God. I don't see many folks doing much of that, and I don't see it so much the fault of those who would like to help one another. It's really more on the fault of the ones who are to prideful to seek the help they need. Sad to say, it's the same folks, I think. Not trying to be overly critical... I mean after all, nobody's perfect... we just don't like talking about it much though;) Respectfully, MudcatMister Mud! How great to see you! Hope all is well with you! These guys don't seem to want to tell me how Evangelicals know which biblical interpretation is true, since supposedly asking God such a thing is not acceptable, for reasons I do not understand. Can you help? 1
Tacenda Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) a) Authority problem. Clearly Christians disagree (Even LDS among themselves do), however Christ doesn't disagree with himself. It's his authority after all. 1) "Church" is not all of Christianity, but rather all who are saved (could be LDS or anyone). Now if this is what you meant by "all of Christianity" then yes. Now Paul states there is "one faith, one baptism" but that doesn't mean there is only one way to express ones faith or baptism, does it? 2) In answering the question "which church is true", previously, I stated that the church which has the fruits of the spirit and worships in spirit and truth. I think another way to say it would be, which church organization leads people to connect directly to God? My objection is to the phrase, "the true church" as if there is but one organization that is the true one. 3) I am not saying that we don't need structure and leaders and assembling ourselves together. I am saying that there is no such thing as "the true church." (meaning this or that organization) 4) As I said earlier, just because there is "one faith, one baptism" that doesn't mean there is only one way to express ones faith or baptism, does it? 5) Authority and knowledge are completely different things. One doesn't go to school to gain authority, only knowledge. Christ gave his church pastors and teachers (etc.) for our edification. 6) Offerings - each group has expenses, and ministries, this is how those needs are met. We all have the same authority, but not the same gifts. Authority:1) No private interpretation. Indeed. Which is why there is great agreement in Christendom about the fundamentals. 2) Your definition of "order" is different than Gods. Order doesn't mean "same as..." Baptism is a good example. Some dunk, some sprinkle. God looks at the heart of man. 3) "Decisions need to be made..." Why? What difference will it make? I certainly don't hold that God will punish someone because they chose what someone else thinks is the wrong mode of baptism. My purpose for being here? Yeah you caught me... you converted yet? (sarcasm right there!) Actually, probably has more to do with finding something interesting to think and discuss in a venue that isn't threatening, if that makes sense. I can get behind this one, especially after looking at a so-called Christian church on another thread, that was plain scary, I know that the true church per say, is a people rather an organization. I know that the LDS have a great group of people as do other religions! I feel for those that get tied into a system that does more harm then good. I like that we are free to choose in the USA and not forced to believe a certain way because of our birthplace or heritage. Too bad some people fall for an unrighteous leader or leaders. It makes me heart sick to see the evil that a leader can do in an organization. That's why it's vital that we don't rely on leaders but on the big leader in the sky, sure we can follow a good example I guess. As long as we know what a good example is. I worry over organizations that start preaching to young, young children, so that when they reach adulthood they are so indoctrinated they don't have the ability to discern as well. I like this poem, It Matters What We Believe a poem by Sophia Lyon Fahs Some beliefs are like walled gardens. They encourage exclusiveness, and the feeling of being especially privileged.Other beliefs are expansive and lead the way into wider and deeper sympathies. Some beliefs are like shadows, clouding children's days with fears of unknown calamities.Other beliefs are like sunshine, blessing children with the warmth of happiness. Some beliefs are divisive, separating the saved for the unsaved, friends from the enemies.Other beliefs are bonds in a world community, where sincere differences beautify the pattern. Some beliefs are like blinders, shutting off the power to choose one's own direction.Other beliefs are like gateways opening wide vistas for exploration. Some beliefs weaken a person's self-hood. They blight the growth of resourcefulness.Other beliefs nurture self-confidence and enrich the feeling of personal worth. Some beliefs are rigid, like the body of death, impotent in a changing world.Other beliefs are pliable, like the young sapling, ever growing with the upward thrust of life **I saw this once on another forum, I liked it so much that I posted it on FB and kept it on my page. Now bummed because when I Googled it today, I saw that an anti-Mormon site uses it as their mantra. Therefore I took it off my FB page. I'm ticked. Edited April 24, 2014 by Tacenda
Mudcat Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 In the King James version of the Bible (the version used by the Latter-day Saints), the word "faults" is used instead of the word "sins" that is found in the New American Standard Bible's translation of James 5:16. It needs to be understood that there is a distinction in meaning between the word 'fault. and the word 'sin.' The word fault refers to personal shortcomings or character flaws, while the word sin refers to specific crimes or offences against God and man.Keeping this distinction in mind, Latter-day Saints can easily imagine a member of the Church coming forward to the podium during fast and testimony meeting and saying something like, "I have to confess I haven't been studying the scriptures and praying as diligently as I know I should, but with the Lord's help I am determined to change my ways;" or saying something like, "I haven't been the best of husbands to my wife and have often fallen down on the job when it comes to my children." In these examples one is admitting broadly to personal faults without going into the lurid, nitty-gritty details of specific serious, and often traumatizing sins.Fast and Testimony meeting is likely a proper venue for confessions of broad faults of shortcomings before the congregation, but the confession of specific serious sins in such a setting could, more often than not, prove to be unwise and counterproductive to the spiritual health of the members. This doesn't mean there may not be exceptions to the rule, especially if the transgression confessed is something that affects the entire congregation in a personal way (think, for example, of financial malfeasance involving monetary contributions). But as a general rule, confession of serious sins in public settings could unnecessarily open up the doors to a world of hurt for both the confessor and even for those who would be emotionally sickened by hearing all the gory details. I believe the only possible way such public confessions of sin could be pulled off successfully, without inflicting unnecessary damage, would be that the practice would have to be carried out among congregations of Christians who are very spirityually mature. And unfortunately, truly spiritually mature people are too few and far between.It would be interesting to know why the Kings James version of James 5:16 uses the word faults where the NASB version uses the word sins.Hi Teddy, Thanks for the response. A good tool for you in studying the KJV is to download e-sword.. if your interested in the Greek and Hebrew, but don't speak them.http://www.e-sword.net/ You can download a copy of the KJV with Strong's Numbers, definitions and it's searchable. Here is an example of what a search for (G3900) turns up in its usage Mat_6:14 ForG1063 ifG1437 ye forgiveG863 menG444 theirG846 trespasses,G3900 yourG5216 heavenlyG3770 FatherG3962 will alsoG2532 forgiveG863 you:G5213 Mat_6:15 ButG1161 ifG1437 ye forgiveG863 notG3361 menG444 theirG846 trespasses,G3900 neitherG3761 will yourG5216 FatherG3962 forgiveG863 yourG5216 trespasses.G3900Mat_18:35 So likewiseG3779 shall myG3450 heavenlyG2032 FatherG3962 doG4160 alsoG2532 unto you,G5213 ifG3362 ye fromG575 yourG5216 heartsG2588 forgiveG863 notG3362 every oneG1538 hisG848 brotherG80 theirG846 trespasses.G3900 Mar_11:25 AndG2532 whenG3752 ye standG4739 praying,G4336 forgive,G863 ifG1487 ye haveG2192 oughtG5100 againstG2596 any:G5100 thatG2443 yourG5216 FatherG3962 alsoG2532 whichG3588 is inG1722 heavenG3772 may forgiveG863 youG5213 yourG5216 trespasses.G3900 Mar_11:26 ButG1161 ifG1487 yeG5210 do notG3756 forgive,G863 neitherG3761 will yourG5216 FatherG3962 whichG3588 is inG1722 heavenG3772 forgiveG863 yourG5216 trespasses.G3900 Rom_4:25 WhoG3739 was deliveredG3860 forG1223 ourG2257 offences,G3900 andG2532 was raised againG1453 forG1223 ourG2257 justification.G1347 Rom_5:15 ButG235 notG3756 asG5613 theG3588 offence,G3900 soG3779 alsoG2532 is theG3588 free gift.G5486 ForG1063 ifG1487 through theG3588 offenceG3900 of oneG1520 manyG4183 be dead,G599 muchG4183 moreG3123 theG3588 graceG5485 of God,G2316 andG2532 theG3588 giftG1431 byG1722 grace,G5485 which(G3588) is by oneG1520 man,G444 JesusG2424 Christ,G5547 hath aboundedG4052 untoG1519 many.G4183 <more in Romans for "offence">Rom_11:11 I sayG3004 then,G3767 Have they(G3361) stumbledG4417 thatG2443 they should fall?G4098 God forbid:G1096 G3361 butG235 rather through theirG848 fallG3900 salvationG4991 is come unto theG3588 Gentiles,G1484 for to provoke them to jealousy.G3863 G846 Rom_11:12 NowG1161 ifG1487 theG3588 fallG3900 of themG848 be the richesG4149 of the world,G2889 andG2532 theG3588 diminishingG2275 of themG848 the richesG4149 of the Gentiles;G1484 how muchG4214 moreG3123 theirG848 fulness?G4138 Gal_6:1 Brethren,G80 ifG1437 a manG444 be(G2532) overtakenG4301 inG1722 aG5100 fault,G3900 yeG5210 which are spiritual,G4152 restoreG2675 such an oneG5108 inG1722 the spiritG4151 of meekness;G4236 consideringG4648 thyself,G4572 lestG3361 thouG4771 alsoG2532 be tempted.G3985 Eph_1:7 InG1722 whomG3739 we haveG2192 redemptionG629 throughG1223 hisG846 blood,G129 theG3588 forgivenessG859 of sins,G3900 accordingG2596 to theG3588 richesG4149 of hisG846 grace;G5485 Eph_2:1 AndG2532 youG5209 hath he quickened, who wereG5607 deadG3498 in trespassesG3900 andG2532 sins;G266 Eph_2:5 EvenG2532 when weG2248 wereG5607 deadG3498 in sins,G3900 hath quickened us togetherG4806 with Christ, (byG5547 graceG5485 ye areG2075 saved;)G4982 Jas_5:16 ConfessG1843 your faultsG3900 one to another,G240 andG2532 prayG2172 one for another,G240 G5228 thatG3704 ye may be healed.G2390 The effectual ferventG1754 prayerG1162 of a righteous manG1342 availethG2480 much.G4183 I think even making the point within the KJV itself, "faults" may have different connotation than standard English delivers. Sounds like you are suggesting that "fault" is an somewhat polished, encapsulated and generalized version of the consequence of sins. "I haven't been the best of husbands to my wife and have often fallen down on the job when it comes to my children." I agree, it's nitty-gritty to spell it out... but if all one says is that they haven't been the best dad or husband. That is just the result of the actual fault. Extrapolating a bit to an alternate analogy. It's sort of like saying "I'm in jail". Jail time isn't the fault, just the consequence of it. Just some thoughts. All the best, Mudcat
Popular Post Mudcat Posted April 25, 2014 Popular Post Posted April 25, 2014 Mister Mud! How great to see you! Hope all is well with you! These guys don't seem to want to tell me how Evangelicals know which biblical interpretation is true, since supposedly asking God such a thing is not acceptable, for reasons I do not understand. Can you help?Sup Bukowski! Good to hear from you. As to your question... Given the overwhelming consensus;) from LDS member on a question like "What is LDS Doctrine Specifically?" I don't know if I should feel to inclined to take up the flag on anyone's field. I'll just say that I speak for myself, same as the rest of us. In general, I tend to think we all are doing the best we think we can. Best Regards, Mudcat 5
danielwoods Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 These are the reasons I think it is clear that authority is necessary for Christians. 1- There is to be no private interpretation of scripture- therefore there must be someone with authority to interpret it.2- God's house is a house of order- not one in which anyone can set up a "church" on a street corner and start collecting money.3- Decisions need to be made about doctrinal modes of baptism etc, with an attempt to get it "right" Most importantly, a just God who has requirements for beliefs and modes of baptism, under pain of hell fire, CLEARLY would have a way of making it CERTAIN exactly what he wanted. I was thinking Romans 14 was applicable here: Romans 14New International Version (NIV) The Weak and the Strong14 Accept the one whose faith is weak,(A) without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.(B) 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt(C) the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge(D) the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?(E) To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.5 One person considers one day more sacred than another;(F) another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God;(G) and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone,(H) and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.(I) 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life(J) so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.(K)10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt?(L) For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.(M) 11 It is written:“‘As surely as I live,’(N) says the Lord,‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b](O)12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.(P)13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment(Q) on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.(R) 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself.(S) But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.(T) 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.(U) Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.(V) 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil.(W) 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking,(X) but of righteousness, peace(Y) and joy in the Holy Spirit,(Z) 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.(AA)19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace(AB) and to mutual edification.(AC) 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.(AD) All food is clean,(AE) but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.(AF) 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.(AG)22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn(AH) himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts(AI) is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c] In essence whether one thinks they belong to the "true church" or the one with the proper authority, none of that even matters, we all live for God (believers that is), and he is our only master.
mfbukowski Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 Sup Bukowski! Good to hear from you. As to your question... Given the overwhelming consensus;) from LDS member on a question like "What is LDS Doctrine Specifically?" I don't know if I should feel to inclined to take up the flag on anyone's field. I'll just say that I speak for myself, same as the rest of us. In general, I tend to think we all are doing the best we think we can. Best Regards, Mudcat Ok I get it. Wish the other guys would be that straight up ! 2
halconero Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) I was thinking Romans 14 was applicable here: Romans 14New International Version (NIV)The Weak and the Strong14 Accept the one whose faith is weak,(A) without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.(B) 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt(C) the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge(D) the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?(E) To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.5 One person considers one day more sacred than another;(F) another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God;(G) and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone,(H) and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.(I) 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life(J) so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.(K)10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt?(L) For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.(M) 11 It is written:“‘As surely as I live,’(N) says the Lord,‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b](O)12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.(P)13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment(Q) on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.(R) 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself.(S) But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.(T) 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.(U) Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.(V) 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil.(W) 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking,(X) but of righteousness, peace(Y) and joy in the Holy Spirit,(Z) 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.(AA)19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace(AB) and to mutual edification.(AC) 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.(AD) All food is clean,(AE) but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.(AF) 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.(AG)22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn(AH) himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts(AI) is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c] In essence whether one thinks they belong to the "true church" or the one with the proper authority, none of that even matters, we all live for God (believers that is), and he is our only master. Hmmmmmm....methinks you're stretching Paul's attempt to reconcile the Jewish-Christian members who kept kosher and sabbath and the Gentile members in Rome a bit too far. It reminds of hearing someone say that we sometimes stumble trying to draw greater metaphors or parables from Jesus' teachings than those he gave himself. Likewise, we shouldn't apply what Paul was saying about this particular topic (Romans is themed around reconciling a Jewish/Gentile-Christian concregation) to unrelated ones. In doing so we create the Epistle of Halconero, danielwoods or mfbukowski to the MD&D board. Edited April 25, 2014 by halconero 1
mfbukowski Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 I was thinking Romans 14 was applicable here: Romans 14New International Version (NIV)The Weak and the Strong14 Accept the one whose faith is weak,(A) without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.(B) 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt(C) the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge(D) the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?(E) To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.5 One person considers one day more sacred than another;(F) another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God;(G) and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone,(H) and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.(I) 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life(J) so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.(K)10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt?(L) For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.(M) 11 It is written:“‘As surely as I live,’(N) says the Lord,‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b](O)12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.(P)13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment(Q) on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.(R) 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself.(S) But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.(T) 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.(U) Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.(V) 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil.(W) 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking,(X) but of righteousness, peace(Y) and joy in the Holy Spirit,(Z) 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.(AA)19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace(AB) and to mutual edification.(AC) 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.(AD) All food is clean,(AE) but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.(AF) 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.(AG)22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn(AH) himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts(AI) is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c] In essence whether one thinks they belong to the "true church" or the one with the proper authority, none of that even matters, we all live for God (believers that is), and he is our only master. So why does that NOT apply to Mormons for you guys? It's all loose and non-judgemental until it comes to Mormons. You really should apply that to us if you actually believe it.
Calm Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 Ok I get it. Wish the other guys would be that straight up !Always a breath of fresh air, isn't he. 1
danielwoods Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 Hmmmmmm....methinks you're stretching Paul's attempt to reconcile the Jewish-Christian members who kept kosher and sabbath and the Gentile members in Rome a bit too far. It reminds of hearing someone say that we sometimes stumble trying to draw greater metaphors or parables from Jesus' teachings than those he gave himself. Likewise, we shouldn't apply what Paul was saying about this particular topic (Romans is themed around reconciling a Jewish/Gentile-Christian concregation) to unrelated ones. In doing so we create the Epistle of Halconero, danielwoods or mfbukowski to the MD&D board. The topic in this chapter is also about eating meat sacrificed to idols, which Jewish-Christians held to be a sin. So, this represents a good principle that is applicable in other areas. "To his own master he stands or falls..."
danielwoods Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 So why does that NOT apply to Mormons for you guys? It's all loose and non-judgemental until it comes to Mormons. You really should apply that to us if you actually believe it. Indeed I do. However, that shouldn't stop healthy discussion about what is true.
Recommended Posts