Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Anakin7]

 !.

 

In His Debt/Grace

      Anakin7

[danielwoods]

Then where are the Apostles and prophets?  Are we in a unity of the faith?  No!  Those roles were to be filled until there was unity.  They don't exist in your church because your church is in apostasy.

 

 

 

And this is were you are wrong.

 

Peter wrote to "them that have obtained like precious faith with us". Notice the past tense?

 

Paul wrote to "to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:"  Obviously talking to people living at the time, which doesn't include you.

 

 

Those who fill those roles know who they are, and those to whom they minister. 

 

The faithful in Christ Jesus is to those who are faithful. 

[coolrok7]

Vance, your quoting in post #2917 (in part "not sparing the flock" of Acts 20) is a good example of what I meant in my post #2915 of Mormons twisting Scripture concerning apostasy.

 

St Jude also reacts to what you said in his post #2920. By the way I would say as a catholic (which means universal) Christian (Protestant), the pope of the Roman Catholic Church I don't see as necessarily speaking for God in the way they claim but teaches a lot of what I believe God would have us know (I'm not a part of the "separated brethren" but a part of the body of Christ, the Church, wherever it meets).

 

Vance, your "Prophet", which claims to speak solely for God (sort of along the lines of the pope) is in denial of what God says through both the Old/New Testaments while again still teaching things I can agree with.

 

Again, the Holy Spirit is quoted by Paul as "some will fall away" which is not a, "complete" "total" apostasy as taught by the Mormon Church (in a past missionary training manual before they went out on their "mission" and which is repeated often in the telling of the Mormon story):

 

3. There was a complete apostasy affecting both Catholic and Protestant churches. . . .2. There was a total apostasy affecting the Catholic and Protestant churches. . . .(A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS, Aug. 1961, pp.32, 58)

 

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its place--a religion that professed to be Jesus Christ's Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof". . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of Messiah's true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . .(APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)

 

The context of Acts chapter 20 is Paul attempting to get back to Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost (vs.16) in which he had planned to bypass going to Ephesus, in order to accomplish this. While in Miletus he had sent for the elders from Ephesus to meet him so he could deliver a parting message to them.

 

He recounts by way of reminder the things he wants to say to them (vs.31-31) in light of his knowing it would probably be the last time to see them (vs.25-27) so he wanted to impart to them words of encouragement as well as a warning for those in charge of the flock in Ephesus. He completes his admonition in vs. 32-38.

 

It was not a universal declaration but a specific message of instruction to them in watching out for the flock under their charge because of what would eventually happen. This is not a "complete" "total" apostasy as taught by Mormonism in some of their pamphlets which I've quoted often from.

 

 

 

 

[halconero]

coolrok7, I would actually agree with you that there wasn't a total apostasy of the Church. Numerous quotes by prophets throughout this modern dispensation have indicated that the restoration of the Gospel and Church wasn't so much a replacement of something lost, but a gathering of what had been scattered. The Church was brought back out of the wilderness, not wholly invented anew. There were men during the age between the scattering and disorganization of the early church and its latter-day restoration who spoke with God, had his mysteries revealed to him, and communed with the Holy Spirit.  I imagine that John the Apostle baptized, taught, and revealed truths. The cohesive body of the Church had not disappeared from the earth, but was disorganized and incapable of function as must needs be for the salvation of man.

[StJude]

coolrok7, I would actually agree with you that there wasn't a total apostasy of the Church. Numerous quotes by prophets throughout this modern dispensation have indicated that the restoration of the Gospel and Church wasn't so much a replacement of something lost, but a gathering of what had been scattered. The Church was brought back out of the wilderness, not wholly invented anew. There were men during the age between the scattering and disorganization of the early church and its latter-day restoration who spoke with God, had his mysteries revealed to him, and communed with the Holy Spirit. I imagine that John the Apostle baptized, taught, and revealed truths. The cohesive body of the Church had not disappeared from the earth, but was disorganized and incapable of function as must needs be for the salvation of man.

This is an impossibility of you believe Gods Word and that He can do what He says He can do. In Matthew and John, as I quoted earlier, God promised to guide the church with the Holy Spirit and promised that not even the gates of hell would prevail against it. He promised not to leave us orphans. In 1 Timothy he tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Unless God is limited and incapable of fulfilling His promises, nothing needed to be restored or brought back together.

There are three possibilities in religion: either it isn't true, or the Catholics are right, or the Mormoms are right.

I don't think anyone here would try yo argue that God doesn't exist, so that leaves it to our two churches.

The facts are simple: If God can do as He claims and what the Bible says is true, then the Catholic Church is correct as it was the original church; OR: God didn't do what He promised and He left us orphans and the Mormoms are right.

Its honestly that simple and unfortunately the Mormons are the ones who must meet the burden of proof which I think they fail. Thst is why I am Catholic. I used to be Mormon but I realized the failed burden of proof which led me to Catholicism.

[Calm]

The facts are simple: If God can do as He claims and what the Bible says is true, then the Catholic Church is correct as it was the original church; OR: God didn't do what He promised and He left us orphans and the Mormoms are right.

 

Or you and others have misinterpreted what God has claimed.

[thesometimesaint]

This is an impossibility of you believe Gods Word and that He can do what He says He can do. In Matthew and John, as I quoted earlier, God promised to guide the church with the Holy Spirit and promised that not even the gates of hell would prevail against it. He promised not to leave us orphans. In 1 Timothy he tells us that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Unless God is limited and incapable of fulfilling His promises, nothing needed to be restored or brought back together.

There are three possibilities in religion: either it isn't true, or the Catholics are right, or the Mormoms are right.

I don't think anyone here would try yo argue that God doesn't exist, so that leaves it to our two churches.

The facts are simple: If God can do as He claims and what the Bible says is true, then the Catholic Church is correct as it was the original church; OR: God didn't do what He promised and He left us orphans and the Mormoms are right.

Its honestly that simple and unfortunately the Mormons are the ones who must meet the burden of proof which I think they fail. Thst is why I am Catholic. I used to be Mormon but I realized the failed burden of proof which led me to Catholicism.

 

God doesn't fail in his promises. Men do.

Last I heard the Catholic church also believes in agency. So your God forces us to do what he says. To the LDS agency is paramount.

[Flyonthewall]

This is an impossibility of you believe Gods Word and that He can do what He says He can do. In Matthew and John, as I quoted earlier, God promised to guide the church with the Holy Spirit and promised that not even the gates of hell would prevail against it. ...

Perhaps the meaning of "not even the gates of hell would prevail against it" could be understood better.

Just what are the gates of hell? and what do they do?

There has been many a dialogue about this so I won't go into it here

[halconero]

The gates of hades (death) didn't prevail against Christ as evidenced by the glorious victory of the resurrection, yet Christ still died.

[StJude]

Or you and others have misinterpreted what God has claimed.

It's kind of hard to misinterpret those verses. They aren't exactly ambiguous.

[StJude]

The gates of hades (death) didn't prevail against Christ as evidenced by the glorious victory of the resurrection, yet Christ still died.

He had to. He bore the punishment for our sins and the wage of sin is death. He was however victorious over death with His Resurrection.

[thesometimesaint]

He had to. He bore the punishment for our sins and the wage of sin is death. He was however victorious over death with His Resurrection.

 

The LDS don't claim otherwise. His Church wasn't so lucky.

[StJude]

The LDS don't claim otherwise. His Church wasn't so lucky.

I know of that we are in agreement. However the gates of hell, however you wish to define that which you chose death; they did not overcome the church. So the church did not die, therefore the church and authority that belongs to it did not die.

[StJude]

God promised us, clearly in very unambiguous text, that it would not happen.

[StJude]

Perhaps the meaning of "not even the gates of hell would prevail against it" could be understood better.

Just what are the gates of hell? and what do they do?

There has been many a dialogue about this so I won't go into it here

"The gates of hell" -death, sin, corruption...any way you wish to interpret it, it is clearly interperated that it would not overcome the churh.

[theplains]

Perhaps the meaning of "not even the gates of hell would prevail against it" could be understood better.

Just what are the gates of hell? and what do they do?

There has been many a dialogue about this so I won't go into it here

 

This means the Church of Christ is on the offensive.  It has taken the battle even to the gates

of hell, and hell would not prevail.  This is why I do not agree with the Mormon manual Gospel

Principles (1997). It says "More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the

destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer

existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy".  This LDS version depicts the scenario where

"even the gates of heaven would not prevail against the devil".

 

Thanks,

Jim

[StJude]

This means the Church of Christ is on the offensive. It has taken the battle even to the gates

of hell, and hell would not prevail. This is why I do not agree with the Mormon manual Gospel

Principles (1997). It says "More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the

destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer

existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy". This LDS version depicts the scenario where

"even the gates of heaven would not prevail against the devil".

Thanks,

Jim

Very well said.

[Flyonthewall]

"The gates of hell" -death, sin, corruption...any way you wish to interpret it, it is clearly interperated that it would not overcome the churh.

The topic of the scripture is revelation, not the church.

[danielwoods]

The topic of the scripture is revelation, not the church.

 

I'd say the topic of that phrase is about how Jesus will build his church.

 

 

 

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[StJude]

The topic of the scripture is revelation, not the church.

Actually no, the Greek word used here is "ekklasia" which means "assembly" or "called out". It is literally referring to the His church that He is establishing on earth and this is the first time "church" is referred to in the NT. It does allude to His resurrection as well, which I assume is what you mean by revelation. However quite literally it refers to the actual church as well with the gates of hell being the power of evil.

[Freedom]

"The gates of hell" -death, sin, corruption...any way you wish to interpret it, it is clearly interperated that it would not overcome the churh.

If it were so clear then everybody on the earth would accept this interpretation. Nowhere does the passage mention the church, so you are assuming this is the interpretation in order to justify your doctrine. The bible is not clear, and this is why modern revelation is required. You are welcome to have your own interpretation but you cannot prove that your point of view is correct. Of course, if the bible where inerrant, there would be no disputations. 

[Flyonthewall]

I'd say the topic of that phrase is about how Jesus will build his church.

 

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

He will build His church upon the rock of revelation.... revelation being the topic of what is being said.

Actually no, the Greek word used here is "ekklasia" which means "assembly" or "called out". It is literally referring to the His church that He is establishing on earth and this is the first time "church" is referred to in the NT. It does allude to His resurrection as well, which I assume is what you mean by revelation. However quite literally it refers to the actual church as well with the gates of hell being the power of evil.

By revelation I mean the means by which Peter understood that Jesus was the Son of God. This was knowledge that was "revealed" by God to Peter.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Flyonthewall

[danielwoods]

He will build His church upon the rock of revelation.... revelation being the topic of what is being said.

By revelation I mean the means by which Peter understood that Jesus was the Son of God. This was knowledge that was "revealed" by God to Peter.

 

So your argument is that Jesus was saying that, the gates of hell won't prevail or over power God's revelation? 

[Vance]

The period of time when the true Church no longer

existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy".  This LDS version depicts the scenario where

"even the gates of heaven would not prevail against the devil".

 

How so?  The church was taken from the earth, not destroyed.   The restoration of the Church was and is the ultimate victory over the devil.

[Vance]

So your argument is that Jesus was saying that, the gates of hell won't prevail or over power God's revelation? 

Basically.  Revelation has been restored, thus it is victorious over the powers of the devil.