Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[danielwoods]

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

 

If that's the argument, then how come it needed to be restored, if revelation wouldn't succumb to the power of the devil, according to Jesus?

[Vance]

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.

So, clearly the "rock" is NOT the church.  And if you look at the Greek it is obvious that the "rock" is not Peter.  So what is the "rock"?

[Vance]

If that's the argument, then how come it needed to be restored, if revelation wouldn't succumb to the power of the devil, according to Jesus?

Missing the point.  The fact that the devil could not prevent the restoration of revelation and the church is prima facie evidence that he did NOT prevail.

[danielwoods]

Missing the point.  The fact that the devil could not prevent the restoration of revelation and the church is prima facie evidence that he did NOT prevail.

 

Funny, that is missing from the text. Jesus said that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail, period.

 

He didn't say it would be restored, THEN the gates of hell wouldn't prevail. 

[Freedom]

Funny, that is missing from the text. Jesus said that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail, period.

 

He didn't say it would be restored, THEN the gates of hell wouldn't prevail. 

Tell me danielwoods, what are the gates of hell? Who controls them and who resides behind them? Please use the bible only and not your own opinions. If you cannot define it, you can have no idea what the reference means. 

[danielwoods]

Tell me danielwoods, what are the gates of hell? Who controls them and who resides behind them? Please use the bible only and not your own opinions. If you cannot define it, you can have no idea what the reference means. 

 

Tell me what difference does it make? The fact remains that Jesus said that it won't prevail. 

[Vance]

Funny, that is missing from the text. Jesus said that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail, period.

And they haven't.  So what is your problem?

[Vance]

Tell me danielwoods, what are the gates of hell? Who controls them and who resides behind them? Please use the bible only and not your own opinions. If you cannot define it, you can have no idea what the reference means. 

I am not surprised he avoided answering  your questions.  He is afraid of the truth.

[Vance]

By having Jesus killed, did the devil prevail over Him?  Or did Jesus ultimately prevail?

Edited January 18, 2015 by Vance

[Freedom]

Tell me what difference does it make? The fact remains that Jesus said that it won't prevail. 

Well, if the gates of hell is the entrance to the spirit world where all go when they die, and it is governed by God, then what does this have to do with an earthly church? Death does not prevail against Gods kingdom, It has power here on earth and in the world to come. This does not preclude people from rejecting the gospel, it just means that it has power beyond the grave. 

 

Am I the only one who is a bit taken aback by the suggestion that it makes no difference what it means? WE might as well say that peanut butter will not prevail against it. 

[danielwoods]

And they haven't.  So what is your problem?

 

Jesus said the gates of hell wouldn't prevail, and now you agree that it hasn't.

[danielwoods]

Well, if the gates of hell is the entrance to the spirit world where all go when they die, and it is governed by God, then what does this have to do with an earthly church? Death does not prevail against Gods kingdom, It has power here on earth and in the world to come. This does not preclude people from rejecting the gospel, it just means that it has power beyond the grave. 

 

Am I the only one who is a bit taken aback by the suggestion that it makes no difference what it means? WE might as well say that peanut butter will not prevail against it. 

 

The claim of the LDS is that a restoration was needed. Jesus said he would build his church, and the gates of hell wouldn't prevail. 

 

It matters not who or what or where the gates of hell is. The fact is that no restoration is needed if Jesus is to be believed. 

[Freedom]

The claim of the LDS is that a restoration was needed. Jesus said he would build his church, and the gates of hell wouldn't prevail. 

 

It matters not who or what or where the gates of hell is. The fact is that no restoration is needed if Jesus is to be believed. 

Where in the bible does it say that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against a church? The passage states ;Thou art Peter and upon this rock (revelation) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (the rock)."

 

Since the gates of hell are not on this earth, it did not prevail against the rock. clearly, peoples choices can prevail against the church because they can refuse to follow it. This is apparent in the old testament. Since you cannot define what the gates of hell are, you would not know what it means not to prevail against the rock. You do not even seem to understand what 'rock' refers to. 

[danielwoods]

Where in the bible does it say that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against a church? The passage states ;Thou art Peter and upon this rock (revelation) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (the rock)."

 

Since the gates of hell are not on this earth, it did not prevail against the rock. clearly, peoples choices can prevail against the church because they can refuse to follow it. This is apparent in the old testament. Since you cannot define what the gates of hell are, you would not know what it means not to prevail against the rock. You do not even seem to understand what 'rock' refers to. 

 

It also doesn't matter if the "it" references revelation (as you argued) or the church (as I would contend). Either way it isn't overcome by the gates of hell. Either way a restoration isn't needed, if Jesus is to be believed, because he is building his church, and has continued to do so since he founded it! 

[Vance]

Jesus said the gates of hell wouldn't prevail, and now you agree that it hasn't.

Correct, the gates of hell have not prevailed.  Now to understand how, you need to do a little research and find out what the "gates of hell" really are and why "whatever it is that assaulted them" did prevail.

[Vance]

The claim of the LDS is that a restoration was needed.

The Bible is quite clear that there was going to be an apostasy and that it would be complete.  Even you must accept that an apostasy of some type occurred otherwise you should be Catholic or Orthodox.

 

  Jesus said he would build his church, . . .

True.

 

and the gates of hell wouldn't prevail.

Which they didn't.  So, what are "the gates of hell"?

 

It matters not who or what or where the gates of hell is.

Ok, so you admit that it doesn't matter what you are talking about?

 

Really?

 

The fact is that no restoration is needed if Jesus is to be believed.

A false conclusion based upon false presumptions based upon false interpretations.

[Vance]

It also doesn't matter if the "it" references revelation (as you argued) or the church (as I would contend). Either way it isn't overcome by the gates of hell.

Go back and read it again.  Gates are defensive in nature, so "gates" would NOT be on the offense.  It is "revelation" or "the church" that is assaulting the "gates".  And the "gates" have not prevailed.  For both "revelation" and "the church" have penetrated the gates of hell. 

 

Either way a restoration isn't needed,

Yes, a restoration was needed, but not for this reason.

 

if Jesus is to be believed, because he is building his church,

Yes, he is building his restored church.

 

and has continued to do so since he founded it!

Again, a presumption not based on fact or scripture.

 

[danielwoods]

Go back and read it again.  Gates are defensive in nature, so "gates" would NOT be on the offense.  It is "revelation" or "the church" that is assaulting the "gates".  And the "gates" have not prevailed.  For both "revelation" and "the church" have penetrated the gates of hell. 

 

 

 

Yes, a restoration was needed, but not for this reason.

 

 

 

Yes, he is building his restored church.

 

 

 

Again, a presumption not based on fact or scripture.

 

 

Again, your words "restored" are missing from the text in the bible. And again, the plain statement that Jesus would build his church, and has done so from the beginning is exactly what the scripture said. 

[Freedom]

It also doesn't matter if the "it" references revelation (as you argued) or the church (as I would contend). Either way it isn't overcome by the gates of hell. Either way a restoration isn't needed, if Jesus is to be believed, because he is building his church, and has continued to do so since he founded it! 

What does the gates of hell have to do with no need for a restoration? You contention is based on poor grammar. I do not see the connection between the gates of hell and the church on earth. Please make the connection for me through the bible.

[danielwoods]

What does the gates of hell have to do with no need for a restoration? You contention is based on poor grammar. I do not see the connection between the gates of hell and the church on earth. Please make the connection for me through the bible.

 

Jesus was talking to Peter. On the Earth. About building his church, on the Earth. Jesus said, that the gates of hell won't prevail against it. On Earth. There is no reference to a "non-earth" location, because Jesus doesn't build his church anywhere else. Nor is revelation needed anywhere else, but on Earth.

[Vance]

Again, your words "restored" are missing from the text in the bible.

So?  There are a lot of things missing from the text.  Among them is the doctrine of the trinity.

 

 

 

And again, the plain statement that Jesus would build his church,

Jesus does say he will build his church.  And he has. 

 

 

 

and has done so from the beginning is exactly what the scripture said.

Now look who is putting forth stuff that is missing from the text.

 

Edited January 19, 2015 by Vance

[Vance]

 About building his church, on the Earth.

More stuff missing from the text.

 

Jesus said, that the gates of hell won't prevail against it. On Earth.

You OBVIOUSLY do not know what "the gates of hell" are.

 

There is no reference to a "non-earth" location,

You OBVIOUSLY do not know what "the gates of hell" are.

 

because Jesus doesn't build his church anywhere else.

You OBVIOUSLY do not know what nor where "the church of the firstborn" is.

 

Nor is revelation needed anywhere else, but on Earth.

Irrelevant.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Vance

[Calm]

Jesus was talking to Peter. On the Earth. About building his church, on the Earth. 

 

When Protestants make this argument, I always wonder why they aren't Catholic or another faith whose church claims to have been to been around since the very beginning (as in organized, I have a problem with talking about a church as if it exists without any organization).

Edited January 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[Flyonthewall]

Again, your words "restored" are missing from the text in the bible. And again, the plain statement that Jesus would build his church, and has done so from the beginning is exactly what the scripture said.

If there is an apostacy, then there must be a restoration.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-22-the-apostasy?lang=eng&query=falling+away

A great apostasy from the Savior’s Church was foretold.

1. Old Testament prophets predicted an apostasy (see Isaiah 24:5–6; Amos 8:11–12).

2. New Testament prophets warned that mankind would turn away from the gospel (see Acts 20:29–30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1–4; 2 Timothy 4:3–4; 2 Peter 2:1–3).

C.

A universal apostasy occurred after the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.

1. Early Apostles warned of growing apostasy within the Church (see Galatians 1:6–8; 2 Peter 2:1–3; 1 Corinthians 1:10–12; 11:18–19; 2 Timothy 1:15; Revelation 3:14–16).

2. Latter-day revelation confirms the reality of the Apostasy as foretold by Christ and His Apostles (see Joseph Smith—History 1:19).

[danielwoods]

When Protestants make this argument, I always wonder why they aren't Catholic or another faith whose church claims to have been to been around since the very beginning (as in organized, I have a problem with talking about a church as if it exists without any organization).

 

I understand. The "church" is literally, "the called out ones" with one head, that is Christ himself. If a person is accustomed to being apart of an earthly organization, that is highly organized and controlled, then I can see how it would sound strange. 

 

As to why I'm not Catholic or Orthodox. In general it has to do with my general distrust of people with lots of power and authority over other people.