Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[coolrok7]

We'ere not talking with them are we?

What about your polemics, it's a two way street don't you think?

What I believe I can demonstrate from Scripture, as you should know from past discussions, the Bible which is sufficient to know/believe the Truth of God in Jesus Christ.

[Flyonthewall]

We'ere not talking with them are we?

What about your polemics, it's a two way street don't you think?

What I believe I can demonstrate from Scripture, as you should know from past discussions, the Bible which is sufficient to know/believe the Truth of God in Jesus Christ.

The bible(scripture) has never been sufficient, throughout "biblical times" there has always been a prophet to accompany scripture. Since the death of the Apostles and the ensuing apostasy, look what has happened with the Bible only - thousands, tens of thousands of different Christian sects have arisen, claiming to have the correct interpretation of the Bible, but rejecting the very pattern the Bible establishes for proper leadership structure.

If anything, "traditional" Christianity has proven that "Bible only" does not work.

[Anakin7]

       They would obviously would love to talk with you . I am just pointing out that to them [There polemic to you] you are a non Biblical Christian and heretic from there lights.  . And they can show from Biblical scripture your non Christian/Biblical beliefs from scripture is in error and faulty. Then there are those whom I know and know of who were Lutheran ministers/lay members [One of my ex Bishops from the past  was Lutheran] who joined the LDS Church/Faith and are filled with the Holy Ghost and are thrilled to be LDS with a Love for the restored Gospel. They and I believe that Lutherans/Lutheranism has much that is good to further the work of The Lord. May True Grace be with you.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited September 29, 2014 by Anakin7

[danielwoods]

You are right some do but most don't. That was my intent. I mis-spoke er typed. This guy should probably turn in his PHD. Oh well.

 

This is a terrible use of cherry picking. So if we use his logic it was the HG that went to prison to preach. Is the HG not God, in Trinitarian thought? And still what is the point of any preaching to spirits in prison? He never says.

he did acknowledge paradise but does not tell us what it is. What is prison? What is paradise?

 

 

Mathew 5 is Jesus teaching a sermon, to the people. It is directed to the general populace. It is applicable to all. Agree with thine adversary. We could be delivered unto prison if we do not try to make things right. What do you think "whiles thou art in the way with him" means? Jesus tells us that we will not be let out of prison until the utmost farthing is paid. Before these verse each one of them deal with the judgment and hell fire. Everything he is teaching is telling us what the consequence of our actions will be and how to avoid them.

 

 

So getting back to all of this, and your article doesn't even touch on it, what prison is Jesus talking about? You still have not offered anything more than just a blatant dismissal.

 

If we don't fix (If we even do them) what Jesus spoke of in those verses we will be delivered into prison. And we won't get out until we pay the price.

 

You might be surprised that I agree with you. 

 

There are three main interpretations of the 1 Peter 3 passage. (now I'm even surprising myself I agree with Mark Driscoll) http://pastormark.tv/2012/02/02/tough-text-thursday-1-peter-3-19

 

"Spirits in prison"

I think that Peter was taking specifically about those during Noah's time, who were righteous, but didn't follow Noah in the ark. Which would have placed them on the Sheol side of hades (place of the dead). The description of "preaching" or proclaiming is simply "announcing" in this context, and bringing them into what we call Heaven. 

 

That's my take on it. 

 

Observations. 

1) There's no indication that their sins were forgiven after death (as in the LDS second chance).

2) There is no indication that Jesus went to the bad side of hades as there would be no purpose in doing that. 

 

 

 

Matt. 5. 

 

The sermon on the mount. From verse 17 Jesus starts to talk about the Mosaic Law and contrasting his teachings with it.

 

21 "You shall not murder, but I say…" 

 

25 "Settle matters quickly...

 

31 Divorce

 

33 Oaths

 

38 Eye for an eye

 

43 Love your enemy 

 

 

Now, your contention is that v.25 is talking about God and our settling matters or being thrown into prison. 

 

Problems. One is that the context isn't about God and the afterlife, rather, earthly matters of the law. Second, there is no "court" after we die. It's a judgement, that's all. Third, there is no "settling matters" with an adversary rather, all of our sin is on Jesus. If it isn't we are still condemned. 

 

In Luke 12:58 a parallel passage, the context is similar. Advice about earthly situations. 

[coolrok7]

Whether or not they want to talk with me is their business but they're not here. Evangelicals were asked a question.

I'm not attacking your person here Anakin7 as far as the motes and beam comments all the time. If I was then you would have a valid point. I'm not so enough of it please.

[Anakin7]

    Coolrok pray tell  you do attack/criticize me because of my Faith/Belief within my person that which I hold Holy and Sacred.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[danielwoods]

This is a link to a non-LDS source that says Revelation uses Sheol: http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Hell/Sheol_Hades.pdf

 

And those 2 places are before the final judgment - Spirit Prison/Paradise

 

 

That certainly is an explanation, but one that is forced to uphold a certain pre-conceived idea.

There is no getting away from 1 Peter 3 & 4 that States specifically that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison. The link you provide contradicts it in a very contrived manner.

 

What is interesting is you asked if it was Sheol or Gehenna, both Hebrew words. Revelation is written in Greek, so the only way to determine which it is, is by the context. 

 

The fact that Sheol is "paradise" to the Hebrew mind, indicates that it can't be that. So it has to be Gehenna. 

 

We agree then that there are only 2 places one goes, according to the NT? 

 

Since Peter is the only one to use the term "spirits in Prison" it isn't clear what he is talking about. It's my opinion that he's most likely talking about those in Sheol or Paradise, where preaching simply means to proclaim victory!

[danielwoods]

I believe that Paul in both first and second Corinthians refers to multiple levels of heaven and the resurrection.  You misinterpret those scriptures to mean something entirely different, but modern revelation clarifies their meaning (without contradicting anything).  Just that simple.  And since we can't convince you your interpretations are wrong, we arrive back at our starting point where your acceptance of truth is limited to your established false interpretation of the New Testament, only one of 5 books of scripture that Mormons accept, and only one of probable many that actually contain the word of God.

 

I've asked repeatedly where this or that LDS concept is located in the NT. It simply isn't there. Not even a hint of it. Oh sure, Paul uses the terms, but the meaning isn't what the LDS ascribe to those terms. For example, the idea that some in Heaven will be separate from the Father is simply 100% contradictory to the rest of the NT. 

 

I agree with you that it's found in "further revelation" not in the NT at all. 

[danielwoods]

This link you provide is a good example of taking the scriptures and assigning a meaning that just isn't there. Not only is the meaning not there, but it is in total contradiction to what is written. In order to get there, the scriptures must be twisted and perverted.

The scripture states Jesus went to prison and preached the Gospel... that link says "no he didn't". A direct contradiction.

If you are looking for the "truth", one of the best things to do is avoid that which is in direct contradiction to the scriptures.

 

After taking more time to look at it, I actually don't agree with his interp. 

 

http://pastormark.tv...ay-1-peter-3-19

 

Mark details three of the major views, and I agree with him that it's more likely that Jesus proclaimed victory to those in paradise. Peter's use of "spirits in prison" isn't explained in detail, so it will forever be unclear. What is dangerous is making a theology based on shaky foundations (such as this one scripture). 

[Flyonthewall]

What is interesting is you asked if it was Sheol or Gehenna, both Hebrew words. Revelation is written in Greek, so the only way to determine which it is, is by the context.

Sheol and Gehenna are both translated as "hades" and then into "hell". One is the place of the dead, the other is the lake of fire context.

 

The fact that Sheol is "paradise" to the Hebrew mind, indicates that it can't be that. So it has to be Gehenna.

Sheol is simply the place of the dead - can be paradise or Spirit prison, just like the parable of Lazarus indicates.

 

We agree then that there are only 2 places one goes, according to the NT?

There are only 2 places the dead go to await judgment. After the final judgment comes whatever place each will dwell.

 

Since Peter is the only one to use the term "spirits in Prison" it isn't clear what he is talking about. It's my opinion that he's most likely talking about those in Sheol or Paradise, where preaching simply means to proclaim victory!

From the context, Peter is talking about the spirits of the dead, and "preaching" still means "preaching". Teaching them the gospel of Jesus Christ - not a second chance but the chance they did not have in mortality.

Mark details three of the major views, and I agree with him that it's more likely that Jesus proclaimed victory to those in paradise. Peter's use of "spirits in prison" isn't explained in detail, so it will forever be unclear. What is dangerous is making a theology based on shaky foundations (such as this one scripture).

"Spirits in Prison" has been clarified by a prophet of God. LDS theology is not based on one scripture but there are many, many scriptures that re-enforce our belief.

The main point of the thread is whether or not we can be called Christian.

Our theology is found in the Bible and supported by it. You also claim to get your theology from it.

We both have our beliefs founded in the Bible, believe in the same God(Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), yet we are excluded from the category of Christian. The variety of belief within the "traditional" Christian view vary just as radically from each other as LDS belief does to traditional Christianity.

[boblloyd91]

As I have followed this thread, it has become apparent to me that no amount of talking on either side will change the mind of the other. The fact of the matter is that for the most part evangelicals here on the board feel our doctrine is false, though some are willing to believe individual Mormons can be Christian. To echo another poster why should we care? Are we afraid of being wrong? Do we want to fit in the American religious mainstream? Christ decides ultimately who is a Christian.

[danielwoods]

Sheol and Gehenna are both translated as "hades" and then into "hell". One is the place of the dead, the other is the lake of fire context.

 

Sheol is simply the place of the dead - can be paradise or Spirit prison, just like the parable of Lazarus indicates.

 

There are only 2 places the dead go to await judgment. After the final judgment comes whatever place each will dwell.

 

From the context, Peter is talking about the spirits of the dead, and "preaching" still means "preaching". Teaching them the gospel of Jesus Christ - not a second chance but the chance they did not have in mortality.

"Spirits in Prison" has been clarified by a prophet of God. LDS theology is not based on one scripture but there are many, many scriptures that re-enforce our belief.

The main point of the thread is whether or not we can be called Christian.

Our theology is found in the Bible and supported by it. You also claim to get your theology from it.

We both have our beliefs founded in the Bible, believe in the same God(Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), yet we are excluded from the category of Christian. The variety of belief within the "traditional" Christian view vary just as radically from each other as LDS belief does to traditional Christianity.

 

The parable of Lazarus indicates that judgement occurs at death, just as Hebrews also states, "after death the judgement." 

 

Those in the "bad" place continue to another bad place. One leads to another, just as the "good" place leads to Heaven. Never in the NT are there more than two places, it's always a dichotomy. This doesn't match up well with LDS theology. 

 

I agree that Peter is talking about people who have died. Where we disagree is whether or not they are being taught or not. I don't think it is necessary. One main reason is that all are without excuse, as Paul said, and the analogy of Lazarus makes clear, just after death is the judgement. There is no waiting for an all knowing God to determine what will be done. It's already known. 

 

The preaching to the spirits in prison is talked about only here in Peter (unless I'm unaware of other spots in the NT?) so as such, no it's not based on many NT scriptures. Of course the LDS have many scriptures that support their theology, I don't doubt that. The question is does it expound on a NT teaching, or contradict a NT teaching? In this case it contradicts. 

 

 

The idea of expounding or contradicting is the same principle the LDS use to determine whether something is true or not. I am simply applying that principle using only NT as a guide. 

 

 

You see, if Paul or Peter or whomever, would have said, "We have many more things to say about spirits in prison and baptizing for the dead and different levels of Heaven, etc., but we just don't have time right now, so you'll have to wait for another prophet." Then there might be a case for some of these LDS teachings. 

 

As far as who is a Christian or not, I don't know that it really matters to me one way or the other, God determines that. There is plenty of error in the evangelical group alone. I work with and fellowship with many LDS, doesn't matter to me. 

[JLHPROF]

The parable of Lazarus indicates that judgement occurs at death, just as Hebrews also states, "after death the judgement." 

 

After is not at.  After is some point in the future.  As Peter describes the judgment of those in hell at some future time.

 

Those in the "bad" place continue to another bad place. One leads to another, just as the "good" place leads to Heaven. Never in the NT are there more than two places, it's always a dichotomy. This doesn't match up well with LDS theology. 

 

Agreed that it doesn't match LDS theology.   Thank goodness.

 

I agree that Peter is talking about people who have died. Where we disagree is whether or not they are being taught or not. I don't think it is necessary. One main reason is that all are without excuse, as Paul said, and the analogy of Lazarus makes clear, just after death is the judgement. There is no waiting for an all knowing God to determine what will be done. It's already known. 

 

The preaching to the spirits in prison is talked about only here in Peter (unless I'm unaware of other spots in the NT?) so as such, no it's not based on many NT scriptures. Of course the LDS have many scriptures that support their theology, I don't doubt that. The question is does it expound on a NT teaching, or contradict a NT teaching? In this case it contradicts. 

 

Christ is ministering to the spirits in prison can only serve one purpose - the purpose of ministry - to help lead souls to Christ.  Why bother with those already in hell?

And I love how when you are shown that Peter did teach that, that you then dismiss this part of the perfect bible as contradictory to the gospel.

 

The idea of expounding or contradicting is the same principle the LDS use to determine whether something is true or not. I am simply applying that principle using only NT as a guide. 

 

You see, if Paul or Peter or whomever, would have said, "We have many more things to say about spirits in prison and baptizing for the dead and different levels of Heaven, etc., but we just don't have time right now, so you'll have to wait for another prophet." Then there might be a case for some of these LDS teachings. 

 

Paul said he knew a man caught up to the third heaven.  He said that their would be bodies resurrected to various levels of glory -  terrestrially and some celestially.  Peter said that Christ ministered to those souls from the time of Noah who died without knowledge of him and couldn't move forward (prison symbol).  Peter taught that those in hell now would have judgement in the future.  Christ says that his fathers house consists of many mansions - I don't think this refers to houses.

 

You choose to pick these apart individually when they are all part of the same doctrine - the description of the afterlife as more than a singular heaven\hell division made at death.  The big picture is so much better to look at.

[danielwoods]

After is not at.  After is some point in the future.  As Peter describes the judgment of those in hell at some future time.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried.(Luke 16)

Notice the NT teaches there is no time gap. Once you die, then your place is determined. We call it judgement.

 

Agreed that it doesn't match LDS theology.   Thank goodness.

We agree on this!

 

Christ is ministering to the spirits in prison can only serve one purpose - the purpose of ministry - to help lead souls to Christ.  Why bother with those already in hell?

And I love how when you are shown that Peter did teach that, that you then dismiss this part of the perfect bible as contradictory to the gospel.

There is no indication in the text that the people were in torment. Which would indicate that they were already in paradise. Mistering in that context is simply rejoicing together in the knowledge that "it is finished."

 

Paul said he knew a man caught up to the third heaven.  He said that their would be bodies resurrected to various levels of glory -  terrestrially and some celestially.  Peter said that Christ ministered to those souls from the time of Noah who died without knowledge of him and couldn't move forward (prison symbol).  Peter taught that those in hell now would have judgement in the future.  Christ says that his fathers house consists of many mansions - I don't think this refers to houses.

 

You choose to pick these apart individually when they are all part of the same doctrine - the description of the afterlife as more than a singular heaven\hell division made at death.  The big picture is so much better to look at.

The question is what does the NT teach?

It never teaches that there are different levels of heaven (where some are restricted by their location).

It never teaches that after this life, we have a chance to repent.

It never teaches that those in torment (Hell) will ever be relieved of their torment.

I'm not really interested in what's better to look at, rather what is the truth, and near as I can tell, the LDS teach things that are contradictory to what the NT teaches.

Edited September 30, 2014 by danielwoods

[Vance]

Notice the NT teaches there is no time gap. Once you die, then your place is determined. We call it judgement.

Well, what do you say about Judgment Day?

You know, that day which God has appointed for His judgment of the world?

(Serious back pedaling in the works.)

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Oh, and what about this?

Matt 25:31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Matt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

So, the judgment of Israel shall be done AFTER Christ sits upon his throne of glory which occurs AFTER his glorious return.

And we have this,

1 Jn 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

Plus we have this,

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Oh, and just for fun,

http://www.openbible.info/topics/judgment_day

Edited to add,

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/judgment-day-of.html

Edited September 30, 2014 by Vance

[danielwoods]

Well, what do you say about Judgment Day?

You know, that day which God has appointed for His judgment of the world?

(Serious back pedaling in the works.)

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Oh, and what about this?

Matt 25:31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Matt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

So, the judgment of Israel shall be done AFTER Christ sits upon his throne of glory which occurs AFTER his glorious return.

And we have this,

1 Jn 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

Plus we have this,

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Oh, and just for fun,

http://www.openbible.info/topics/judgment_day

Edited to add,

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/judgment-day-of.html

Just for fun address the reference in Luke.

[Vance]

Just for fun address the reference in Luke.

What about Luke?

And what does it have to do with the Judgment Day that occurs AFTER Christ returns?

[Vance]

You honestly think that Matt. 5:26 is about paying your way out of hell? The context doesn't support that interpretation in my view. (unless God is your adversary and he accepts payment along the way?)

 

25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny."

Interesting.

You are accusing Mola of doing the same thing this Evangelical is accusing Jesus of doing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-ways-jesus-read-the-bib_b_5902534.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

1. Jesus didn't stick to what "the Bible says," but read it with a creative flare that had little if any connection to what the biblical writer actually meant to say.

Evangelicals are told to respect the Bible by "sticking to the text" and not go beyond it. Jesus did the opposite.

For example, in the book of Exodus (chapter 3), God speaks to Moses from a burning bush. This being the first encounter, God introduces himself (verse 6): "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." In other words, "The one speaking to you, Moses, is none other than the God of your ancestors, and I've got a very big job for you: go down to Egypt and bring my people out of slavery."

Enter Jesus. We find him in Luke's Gospel (chapter 20) debating a religious party known as the Sadducees. One of their beliefs is that after you die, you're worm food. Other Jews, including Jesus, were of the Pharisee party. They believed that God will one day raise the dead.

So to prove his point--that the Sadducees were wrong and God does indeed raise the dead--Jesus recites the verse from Exodus above, where God introduces himself to Moses.

There isn't a "deeper meaning" to Exodus 3:6. God is just introducing himself to Moses. It's not code for "I will raise the dead."

What Jesus is doing here wouldn't sit well with most Christians if, say, their pastor got up and preached like this. They'd ask him or her to try and stick to the text better and if not to start looking for another line of work.

But what Jesus does here in Luke's Gospel, however strange it seems to us, was par for the course in early Judaism. Luke tells us some of the scribes were very impressed with Jesus's ability to handle the Bible so well!

For Jesus, as for his fellow Jews, the Bible was ready and willing to be handled in creative ways to yield new and unexpected meanings that go far beyond what those words mean when they were first written.

It is rather obvious that Jesus is teaching the extent to which justice is carried. To the last penny or utmost farthing. Is God a God of justice? Is mercy to be extended in a way that justice is denied? Does God require something from us before He extends mercy? If so, what is it.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

IF God were to come down and say to the LDS Prophet, that God the Father hasn't a physical body, like you've been taught in the past. And this Prophet then proclaimed this message to you. Would you accept it as true?

Even though that is a rather ridiculous analogy, I will play your game. Did Jesus teach things that contradicted what had been taught before?

This evangelical seems to say so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/3-ways-jesus-read-the-bib_b_5902534.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

2. Jesus felt he could "pick and choose" what parts of the Old Testament were valid and which weren't.

Evangelicals are taught in no uncertain terms that the Bible is a package deal. Believing what the Bible says isn't like being on a buffet line where you "pick and choose" what you like. Yet, that's what Jesus did.

For example, we have the famous Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Gospel. Jesus on a mountain speaking to those gathered around him. Several times he quotes something from the Law of Moses and then contrasts what the Law says ("you have heard it said) with a teaching of his own ("but I say to you").

We shouldn't lose sight of the larger idea here: Jesus is acting like Moses. He is on a mountain declaring to the people what God commands of them. The "Sermon on the Mount" isn't really a sermon at all. For one thing no one was bored listening to it. Jesus's words were a public declaration that, now that he was here, there were going to be a few changes made.

At some points in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus simply expands what his Bible said--like murder being more than not just physical but also emotional (anger) and verbal (insults). But Jesus also claims that some parts of the Bible over and done and it's time to head in a new direction.

Moses may have allowed for divorce for all sorts of reasons, but Jesus said divorce was only allowed in the case of unfaithfulness.

God told Moses that Israelites were to make solemn oaths to one another (sort of a binding contract), but Jesus said the true people of God shouldn't make any oaths. "Let your word be 'Yes, Yes or 'No, no'; anything more than this comes from the evil one."

God told Moses that crimes were punished an "eye for an eye" (to insure the punishment fit the crime) but Jesus said to turn the other cheek rather than seek restitution. In doing so, they would be truly following the will of God.

Jesus taught that some of what God said in the Old Testament was inadequate, and real obedience to God mean it was time to move on. If evangelical pastors or professors pulled moves like this, they'd be working second shift at Target before the week was out.

[Flyonthewall]

The parable of Lazarus indicates that judgement occurs at death, just as Hebrews also states, "after death the judgement."

The final judgment, the one referenced in Revelation, does not happen at death. There is an initial judgment that happens at death that determines Spirit Prison or Paradise.

 

Those in the "bad" place continue to another bad place. One leads to another, just as the "good" place leads to Heaven. Never in the NT are there more than two places, it's always a dichotomy. This doesn't match up well with LDS theology.

LDS theology can be divided into 2 places - glory and non-glory. Our theology accommodates the glories described in the scriptures, so it matches our theology very well.

 

I agree that Peter is talking about people who have died. Where we disagree is whether or not they are being taught or not. I don't think it is necessary. One main reason is that all are without excuse, as Paul said, and the analogy of Lazarus makes clear, just after death is the judgement. There is no waiting for an all knowing God to determine what will be done. It's already known.

All are without excuse so you say. Even the billions of people who lived and died without every hearing of Jesus Christ? What of them? How can they be a "believer" without ever hearing of Jesus Christ? 

 

The preaching to the spirits in prison is talked about only here in Peter (unless I'm unaware of other spots in the NT?) so as such, no it's not based on many NT scriptures. Of course the LDS have many scriptures that support their theology, I don't doubt that. The question is does it expound on a NT teaching, or contradict a NT teaching? In this case it contradicts.

No where does it contradict, it goes hand in hand with the scriptures. It does contradict your understanding.

 

 

The idea of expounding or contradicting is the same principle the LDS use to determine whether something is true or not. I am simply applying that principle using only NT as a guide.

Expounding and contradicting are the same principle? I beg to differ. Expounding is to fill in the details. Contradicting is to simply go against what has been said. Not the same at all.

 

 

You see, if Paul or Peter or whomever, would have said, "We have many more things to say about spirits in prison and baptizing for the dead and different levels of Heaven, etc., but we just don't have time right now, so you'll have to wait for another prophet." Then there might be a case for some of these LDS teachings.

The epistles were written to those that would already have an understanding of those things, so why would they say anything like that? They were simply referencing what was already known to make a point.

The sad part is that understanding has been lost and covered up by those that did and do not understand. Because it is not spelled out then it must not be there.

[coolrok7]

I'll begin my elaboration I mentioned the other day in light of the "Evangelical" quote offered by Vance above, you can quote these types of things all day but it doesn't change what the Bible actually teaches in its historical/cultural setting. This is what the discussion hinges on in light of the thread question which has led the discussion along many topics.

 

The basic premise I follow as a Christian/Evangelical/Missouri Synod Lutheran is that the Bible, both Old/New Testament, go hand in hand in arriving at the Scriptural teaching as it sets the parameters as what is considered to be the true doctrine one needs to have to be "saved" in the kingdom of God, not only now but in eternity. "delivered to the saints" in the first century:

 

 

These things have I written unto you that believe. . .that ye may know that ye have eternal life. . . . (1 John 5:13)

 

 

"It is appointed once for man to die and then the judgment'. Eternal life for the sheep, eternal punishment for the goats. Its late, more tomorrow.

 

[Anakin7]

    Thanks coolrok7, the Lutheran Church Doctrine from my understanding does teach non eternal security is that correct ?, No Once Saved Always Saved ?. One must stay in True Grace ?. Thanks. Have a Blessed day.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[coolrok7]

Eternal security applies only to those who have truly believed and will not depart from the faith.

The One Who promises this to us is faithful and Just!

This will only be known by all at the Judgment Day.

[Anakin7]

    Thank you cookrok7, still is a little cloudy. Lutheranism also from my understanding teaches predestination of the individual as to who goes to Heaven or hell, so those that truly believe are predestined to believe and go to Heaven and those who do depart/divorce from the faith enter another unpleasant realm and those sheep and goats will find this out on judgement day if they were predetined to Heaven or hell. Yes the one who promised this is Faithfull and Just - Christ Jesus. I believe there have been  and are now and will be those that truly have Belief and faith that fell/fall away.Thank you.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited October 1, 2014 by Anakin7

[danielwoods]

The final judgment, the one referenced in Revelation, does not happen at death. There is an initial judgment that happens at death that determines Spirit Prison or Paradise.

Thank you.

 

LDS theology can be divided into 2 places - glory and non-glory. Our theology accommodates the glories described in the scriptures, so it matches our theology very well.

Sure, I guess if you ignore the separation in Heaven.

 

All are without excuse so you say. Even the billions of people who lived and died without every hearing of Jesus Christ? What of them? How can they be a "believer" without ever hearing of Jesus Christ?

God is the one who says all are without excuse. Since he is judge, he works it out. I can speculate that God Judges the heart, based on the amount of light or knowledge they have. He makes a righteous judgement, this I know.

 

No where does it contradict, it goes hand in hand with the scriptures. It does contradict your understanding.

If there were other NT scriptures to back up the LDS position I'm sure they'd be referenced, given that they are not, then it's safe to conclude that Peter wasn't stating a new doctrine. As Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." Jesus never went to the bad part of hades/hell, only the place described as Paradise. Proclaiming the good news. As you said above, just at death there is an initial judgement, where people go where they belong. It isn't supported by any NT teaching that once people are there, they somehow are able to get out. Even the Rich man begged to have Lazarus sent back to his brothers. The rich man didn't expect he would get out.

 

 

 

The epistles were written to those that would already have an understanding of those things, so why would they say anything like that? They were simply referencing what was already known to make a point.

The sad part is that understanding has been lost and covered up by those that did and do not understand. Because it is not spelled out then it must not be there.

Right. The argument from silence. Since it's not there, it must have been there in some form or another… Sorry, that might work if the LDS concepts weren't contradicting the NT teaching we already know.