Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Anakin7]

       Salvation Is Absolutely Free but it costs us our very lives. Luke 14:26-34

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[Vance]

<SNIP>

Just more of the "works salvation" drivel.

[Vance]

The "Angel of light" of 2 Corinthians 11:14 is identified as Satan being transformed in his appearance as stated by Paul. Angels can have the appearance of men but are not. Their origin is before the creation of mankind in the Garden. When the sons of God shouted for joy, these are the angelic beings being referred to.

I have debated this with you before and you lost.

Angels are men according to the Bible. Get used to it.

[Vance]

Men and angels are identified as sons of God.

That supports our claim and defeats yours! Nuff said.

 

Men can be messengers as well but they are human, angelic beings are spirit, not human. Angels can be transformed to look like humans but they're not.

The Bible clearly and plainly teaches that John the Baptist was an angel. That alone defeats your whole argument.

Time to move on.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Where did you come up with the idea that "Angels are humans"?

The Bible teaches it.

Oh, wait, I remember now. If you don't believe it that means the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Got it.

[Vance]

The details matter, at least when it comes down to wanting to know the truth.

Oh please. You quys have clearly demonstrated that you are willing to throw the Bible under the bus to maintain your beliefs.

 

In 1 Cor. 15, the analogy of different glories are equal to different intensity or beauty if you will. Some shine brighter than others. However, the difference between this analogy and the LDS view is that all these different bodies mentioned in 1 Corinthians are in the same space.

Another example of you adding something that is not there.

In the LDS view the three different kingdoms are not in the same space, in that there is a barrier or separation between them.

And nothing in that separation requires it to be a different physical location, although it most likely is.

Further, the difference in glories equates to brightness or intensity or beauty, not location.

See above. 

 

You say that "All have glory from God so are in "fellowship" to one degree or another. This glosses over the LDS teaching that the Father doesn't "reside" with those in the lower kingdoms, which seems to me to be a large point, not just a small detail.

Whatever.

[Vance]

Where in the Bible does it say that angels are humans?

The Bible calls John the Baptist an angel. Are you saying that you reject his humanness? Well, we don't.

[Vance]

But you are simply assuming that they are the same yet the Bible never says that they are.

And you are simply ASSUMING that they are different, yet the Bible never says that they are.

 

 

You said that this idea comes from the Bible--do you have any references for this?

Among others, the fact that the Bible calls John the Baptist an angel is sufficient to believe that angels and men are the same ontologically.

Edited to add,

See this post.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64192-mormons-getting-their-own-planet/page-8#entry1209419822

Edited September 22, 2014 by Vance

[danielwoods]

"Different intensity or beauty" - we could use that same language to describe the lower kingdoms within the kingdom of heaven. 1 Corinthians says nothing about being in the same space.

And seeing that you would cast all those in the lower kingdom into hell for an eternity, since that is where you would draw the line, which is the more loving and merciful?

The passage is written from a human perspective. As in standing on Earth and looking at the different "glories" of this or that… and given that context, yes it does indicate that they are all in the same space. The opposite isn't indicated at all. Or even hinted at. 

 

It's not in the NT, the idea of different levels of heaven that are separate. What is in the NT is the concept of hell or lake of fire for eternity. 

[JLHPROF]

Somehow I don't think this debate is getting solved anytime soon.  Neither side seems interested in what the other REALLY believes.  Personal interpretation of scripture is rampant (instead of reading what is actually written).  And we are all convinced we hold the superior position. 

 

I'm just grateful for the things I know to be true and wouldn't choose an alternative for the world.

[Canadaigua]

And you are simply ASSUMING that they are different, yet the Bible never says that they are.

 

If I were to make the claim that pink floating elephants are the same as angels and try to support my case by saying that the the Bible never says that they are different.  Would you consider that a good argument?

[Canadaigua]

Somehow I don't think this debate is getting solved anytime soon.  Neither side seems interested in what the other REALLY believes.  Personal interpretation of scripture is rampant (instead of reading what is actually written).  And we are all convinced we hold the superior position. 

 

I'm just grateful for the things I know to be true and wouldn't choose an alternative for the world.

In order to claim that there has been "Personal interpretation" issues with scripture you need to give scripture.  I didn't see that you provided any verses in the Bible that says that angels are humans.

[danielwoods]

You have failed to show where "all" believers are called his sheep. You failed because it doesn't. There are many believers of Jesus that are not his sheep.

 

CFR Where it states in the Bible that many believers of Jesus are called, "Not his sheep."

[JLHPROF]

If I were to make the claim that pink floating elephants are the same as angels and try to support my case by saying that the the Bible never says that they are different.  Would you consider that a good argument?

 

Actually, it's more like claiming that even though the Bible never says so, I will assume that angels have wings, halo's and are not of the same species as humans.

 

You are asking me to prove 100% that angels (a word that merely means messenger) are men.  I am asking you to stop assuming that angels are not men without evidence.

 

We're talking basic probability here - when you hear hoofbeats assume horses, not zebras. 

[JLHPROF]

In order to claim that there has been "Personal interpretation" issues with scripture you need to give scripture.  I didn't see that you provided any verses in the Bible that says that angels are humans.

 

That was more about faith vs works....

[Vance]

If I were to make the claim that pink floating elephants are the same as angels and try to support my case by saying that the the Bible never says that they are different.  Would you consider that a good argument?

No. But then again, having seen an elephant and knowing how angels are described in the Bible, it is rather obvious that they are ontologically different.

But putting forth ridiculous analogies is YOUR forte, not mine.

[Vance]

In order to claim that there has been "Personal interpretation" issues with scripture you need to give scripture.  I didn't see that you provided any verses in the Bible that says that angels are humans.

And when they are provided you won't believe them. So what is the point?

[Flyonthewall]

The passage is written from a human perspective. As in standing on Earth and looking at the different "glories" of this or that… and given that context, yes it does indicate that they are all in the same space. The opposite isn't indicated at all. Or even hinted at. 

 

It's not in the NT, the idea of different levels of heaven that are separate. What is in the NT is the concept of hell or lake of fire for eternity.

When you give it an artificial context, then I guess you can make it say whatever you want it to say.

No, the context of the scripture in 1 Corinthians is that of comparison and contrast of the states of the resurrection. Not everyone is the same. It is not a one size fits all. There will be differing degrees of glory within the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus states: "In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you". Or in other words, within heaven are multiple separate dwelling places. It is there, in the NT, for those that have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

Now what about this hell you speak of... who goes there?

[Vance]

CFR Where it states in the Bible that many believers of Jesus are called, "Not his sheep."

Duh! It is right next to the verse that says that all of the believers of Christ are his sheep. Judas was a believer, was he one of Christ's sheep? The devils are believers, are they His sheep also?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If I were to make the claim that pink floating elephants are the same as angels and try to support my case by saying that the the Bible never says that they are different.  Would you consider that a good argument?

I would if they said that John the Baptist was a pink floating elephant.

[Vance]

One more time for the slow of mind.

And you are simply ASSUMING that they are different, yet the Bible never says that they are.

Among others, the fact that the Bible calls John the Baptist an angel is sufficient to believe that angels and men are the same ontologically.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64192-mormons-getting-their-own-planet/page-8#entry1209419822

[Flyonthewall]

In order to claim that there has been "Personal interpretation" issues with scripture you need to give scripture.  I didn't see that you provided any verses in the Bible that says that angels are humans.

Post #944.

Revelation 22:8,9

[danielwoods]

When you give it an artificial context, then I guess you can make it say whatever you want it to say.

No, the context of the scripture in 1 Corinthians is that of comparison and contrast of the states of the resurrection. Not everyone is the same. It is not a one size fits all. There will be differing degrees of glory within the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus states: "In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you". Or in other words, within heaven are multiple separate dwelling places. It is there, in the NT, for those that have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

Now what about this hell you speak of... who goes there?

 

I guess I'm confused again. Help me out here. Who is talking and making this comparison? And to whom is he talking to? And what are they looking at, and where are those things they are looking at to discuss different glories? 

 

I agree with you that we all don't have the same glory, so to speak, however, where we disagree is the idea of different locations and some sort of separation between some believers. I haven't ever claimed it's a "one size fits all" type of situation. Nor have I claimed that everyone is the same. 

 

Who goes to hell? The NT describes those who don't have their names written in the Lambs book of life, as those who will be going there. 

[Flyonthewall]

I guess I'm confused again. Help me out here. Who is talking and making this comparison? And to whom is he talking to? And what are they looking at, and where are those things they are looking at to discuss different glories?

Paul is talking to the church in Corinth, just as it says in chapter 1. They most likely are looking that the letter Paul wrote to them, or the inside of the temple. Everyone knows the difference between the sun, moon, and stars - there is no need to be looking at them to understand the description of different resurrected glories.

 

I agree with you that we all don't have the same glory, so to speak, however, where we disagree is the idea of different locations and some sort of separation between some believers. I haven't ever claimed it's a "one size fits all" type of situation. Nor have I claimed that everyone is the same.

Okay, we agree on the concept of heaven and not heaven, now we simply need to find the alignment. In your belief, only believers are in heaven in the presence of the Father. In our belief that is only the Celestial kingdom. In your belief, all those not in the presence of the Father are in Hell - an eternity in the lake of fire and brimstone.

We have a saying that salvation without exaltation is damnation. Damnation being separation from the Father.

So you see, our beliefs are NOT completely different. The difference is that in your belief those not in the presence of the Father stay in hell.

[danielwoods]

Paul is talking to the church in Corinth, just as it says in chapter 1. They most likely are looking that the letter Paul wrote to them, or the inside of the temple. Everyone knows the difference between the sun, moon, and stars - there is no need to be looking at them to understand the description of different resurrected glories.

 

Okay, we agree on the concept of heaven and not heaven, now we simply need to find the alignment. In your belief, only believers are in heaven in the presence of the Father. In our belief that is only the Celestial kingdom. In your belief, all those not in the presence of the Father are in Hell - an eternity in the lake of fire and brimstone.

We have a saying that salvation without exaltation is damnation. Damnation being separation from the Father.

So you see, our beliefs are NOT completely different. The difference is that in your belief those not in the presence of the Father stay in hell.

 

Right, so it appears that you agree with me that the context is humans looking at the sun, moon, and stars - in a location where we can all see and experience those things. Hence, in the same space as us. 

 

You have a saying, that I haven't ever heard an LDS person use. Salvation without exaltation is damnation. 

 

I am curious, what is your interpretation of this passage with respect to the LDS view of heaven? Luke 16:19-31