Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Calm]

Not everyone is who they say they are...like a Presbyterian, never Mormon running an outfit called ExMormons for Jesus.

[coolrok7]

There are ex-Mormons in the ministry (ex-Mormons/concerned Christians together).

 

There are those (not in the ministry) who are Mormon in the MORMON CHURCH and say they are Christian in their doctrine and claim to be the only true church on earth.

Edited August 16, 2014 by coolrok7

[Anakin7]

 As I stated in post # 274 I probably got her church affiliation confused with someone else.  My work has me working a # of Saturdays and my free time I spend with my wife or doing Church responsibilities. I do not condone those who call and say those things to Charlotte, they need to have a serious come to Jesus talk. Repent and ask the Lord for forgiveness. Must go to work again soon.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[coolrok7]

Zak, I accept what Luther says when it is in accordance with what Scripture teaches. You misconstrue the Biblical teaching when you listen to Joseph Smith and his twisting of/adding to the Biblical record such as in "after all we can do" then teaching that eternal life is the result of our meriting it per General Authority teaching which is what I quoted from.. Salvation is by faith in the blood of Jesus for cleansing from our sin, our Justification.

 

Our good works which follow are the result of faith in Jesus, our Sanctification, which follows immediately upon being Justified. This is being set apart for works of service in which both are together, the one following the other (not separate but in sequence). Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura where the doctrine resides.

 

And yes, faith without works is dead per James.

[thesometimesaint]

Zak, I accept what Luther says when it is in accordance with what Scripture teaches. You misconstrue the Biblical teaching when you listen to Joseph Smith and his twisting of/adding to the Biblical record such as in "after all we can do" then teaching that eternal life is the result of our meriting it per General Authority teaching which is what I quoted from.. Salvation is by faith in the blood of Jesus for cleansing from our sin, our Justification.

 

Our good works which follow are the result of faith in Jesus, our Sanctification, which follows immediately upon being Justified. This is being set apart for works of service in which both are together, the one following the other (not separate but in sequence). Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura where the doctrine resides.

 

And yes, faith without works is dead per James.

 

SEE Deuteronomy 4:2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

 

SEE John 14:15

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

 

SEE Matthew 5

Sermon on the mount.

 

SEE James 2:18

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my work

 

Nowhere in the Bible does it claim Sola Scriptura. That is a Protestantism of Martin Luther.

[coolrok7]

The verses you quoted are a part of Sola Scriptura. This means that all doctrine are from Scripture, the Old/New Testaments. It doesn't include the Vedas, The Qu'ran, etc., etc..

[thesometimesaint]

The verses you quoted are a part of Sola Scriptura. This means that all doctrine are from Scripture, the Old/New Testaments. It doesn't include the Vedas, The Qu'ran, etc., etc..

 

So everything after Deuteronomy is not scripture.  

[coolrok7]

How did you arrive at that?

[halconero]

Hmmmmm, textual and archaeological findings point to a much higher reliance on travelling apostles and prophets than written word in the early days of Christianity. Given that much of our New Testament wasn't penned until many years after the establishment of the Church, the conclusion that the Church was built more on parchment than revelatory priesthood is simply not correct. Sola Scriptura is a reaction to the abuses perpetuated by the Catholic authorities in the Reformation era and is a fairly modern invention when compared to the more ancient and true doctrine of apostolic authority and succession.

[thesometimesaint]

How did you arrive at that?

 

Because that is what the Bible in Deuteronomy says.

[boblloyd91]

I would argue that it was sola scriptura that caused Joseph Smith to go into the sacred grove and pray. As important as the bible is, there are too many denominations that adhere to this principle, yet teach different things.....look at arminianism vs. Calvinism, continuationism vs. Cessationism, the rapture controversy, the health and wealth gospel, baptism either being important or unnecessary, and so on. I think it's interesting that one is far more likely to be condemned by an Evangelical Protestant, when in fact the movement has a far wider diversity of belief then Mormons or Catholics (the victims of said condemning).

[cdowis]

To be a Christian, you must accept the Nicene Creed.  The Father and Son are "one substance."  God is pervasive throughout all time and space, not confined by a physical body.

 

Now that gets confusing when Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones.  After the resurrection Christ told Mary that he had not ascended to the Father -- even though He is pervasive through all places.  Stephen saw Christ on the right hand of the Father.

 

Christ said that his disciples would be "one" with the Father, even as Christ and the Father are one (John 17:19-23)  We obviously will be one substance with them, I suppose.

 

Christ said "not my will, but thine be done", implying that his will and the Father's will were different.

 

I realize this is confusing and contradictory, but that is the price you must pay to be called a "Christian".

Edited August 17, 2014 by cdowis

[Anakin7]

    Coolrok what are your thoughts on tedaware's post # 271 ?.  May True Grace be with you this day.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[Flyonthewall]

Zak, I accept what Luther says when it is in accordance with what Scripture teaches. You misconstrue the Biblical teaching when you listen to Joseph Smith and his twisting of/adding to the Biblical record such as in "after all we can do" then teaching that eternal life is the result of our meriting it per General Authority teaching which is what I quoted from.. Salvation is by faith in the blood of Jesus for cleansing from our sin, our Justification.

 

Our good works which follow are the result of faith in Jesus, our Sanctification, which follows immediately upon being Justified. This is being set apart for works of service in which both are together, the one following the other (not separate but in sequence). Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura where the doctrine resides.

 

And yes, faith without works is dead per James.

How can works follow faith when the scriptures say that faith without works are dead? You cannot break them apart as you do. You say they are sequential. Scriptures say faith is not complete without works - not sequential, but con-current.

Please explain what you believe the judgment of all men is based upon. What is the result of that judgment?

[cdowis]

I think it is interesting that every reference to the judgement that I am familiar with says that it is based on works.  I see no reference that it is based on whether we have faith.

 

Perhaps you can find one for me.

[Vance]

The verses you quoted are a part of Sola Scriptura. This means that all doctrine are from Scripture, the Old/New Testaments. It doesn't include the Vedas, The Qu'ran, etc., etc..

Sola Scriptura is an extra-biblical doctrine, Thus self contradictory.

 

LOL!!!!

[Anakin7]

    Coolrok7 make an appointment to got out to breakfast,lunch,dinner with a extreme KJV Only advocate and they will be more that happy to show you any/all additions/subtractions/errors/translation problems/mistakes as found in modern Bible versions of today. They will come visit you and Charlotte at ex mormons for jesus where you volunteer to help convert you to the KJV Only Club. .

 

In His Debt/Grace

      Anakin7

[coolrok7]

I've already had conversations on the matter. Not persuaded.

Edited August 18, 2014 by coolrok7

[Anakin7]

    As are the KJV Only with conversations with non KJV Only Defenders.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[coolrok7]

The same can be said for the position you take so what's the point? I'm obligated to believe the Truth of the Word of God.

[thesometimesaint]

The same can be said for the position you take so what's the point? I'm obligated to believe the Truth of the Word of God.

 

So are we. We just have more of the word of God than you do.

[cdowis]

 I'm obligated to believe the Truth of the Word of God.

 

The LDS church accepts all of the word of God, including the Bible.

 

You misconstrue the Biblical teaching when you listen to Joseph Smith

 

 

That brings up a question.  Assuming that the Bible is inerrant, that leaves the question, where do we get an inerrant interpretation of the Bible?  

 

I would suppose that an inerrant bible is rather moot without an inerrant interpretation.

 

Are you able to furnish that inerrant interpretation, since you criticize us for listening to the prophet Joseph Smith.  Which theologian or philosopher do you recommend?

Edited August 18, 2014 by cdowis

[ERayR]

The same can be said for the position you take so what's the point? I'm obligated to believe the Truth of the Word of God.

 

The only problem is deciding on whose interpretation is the truth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Don't you guys know? The bible interprets it's self. 

[Vance]

The LDS church accepts all of the word of God, including the Bible.

 

 

That brings up a question.  Assuming that the Bible is inerrant, that leaves the question, where do we get an inerrant interpretation of the Bible?  

 

I would suppose that an inerrant bible is rather moot without an inerrant interpretation.

 

Are you able to furnish that inerrant interpretation, since you criticize us for listening to the prophet Joseph Smith.  Which theologian or philosopher do you recommend?

It makes me wonder. Was the decision to declare the Bible inerrant an inerrant decision? And who made it?