Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[coolrok7]

Calmoriah, the doctrine that Lutherans believe in is Biblical/apostolic in our perspective. The name of the individual group is not necessarily the issue (unless the doctrine is not Biblical which then does become an issue of identity). The doctrine believed is what makes one a Christian.

[Anakin7]

    But.... But.... But.... Many of the other "Christian" Churches say the same exact thing about there church. And many state and teach that Lutheranism of which you are a part is not Biblical nor Christian. So whats the difference ?.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin

[danielwoods]

I call ignoring what is written in black and white "ignoring".

When you learn to take the entirety of the scriptures together, and not individual passages to stand by themselves, then you will begin to get the clear and true picture. Instead you have disjointed images that make up a jumbled mess.

If you want to know what the author was wanting to convey, then look at the gospel as a whole, not random individual statements that do not have to be consistent with what has been revealed.

If there's one thing I believe in, is taking the bible as a whole. I agree on this point. That is why I have been pointing out that in this passage and that passage and all passages in the Bible, there is not one case where the dead are actually saved after death. Not one instance where repentance is done after death. The fact is there are multiple places where death it taught as the end of all chances, and after death the judgment.

 

Paul is the one that asked the question - Why are they baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all? The indication is that why would one be true an not the other? Baptizing for the dead is true because resurrection is true.

True. It's called a rhetorical question. Both facts are in the affirmative. Some people (who ever Paul is referencing) are baptizing for the dead and the resurrection is true.

And to use the tactic you are using - Paul never said that he did not practice it.

And you are right. The ball was dropped. Plain and precious truths were lost. Truth needed to be restored.

So you agree with me that Baptism for the dead is not taught in the NT?

 

I don't accept your interpretation of Romans 1. Romans 1 is fine when placed in the context of gospel truth.

If it's fine please tell me what it means, when it says that men are without excuse?

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Notice that it states that what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

Notice also it doesn't say anything about baptism.

Christ taught Baptism. Baptism if for the remission of sin. Jesus was sinless and had no need of baptism but He stated: "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."(Matthew 3:15) This demonstrates that baptism is not optional - all must receive it.

Jesus taught Nicodemus about baptism in John 3:5 that it is required to enter into the kingdom of God.

Baptism by immersion is being born of water. Receiving the Holy Ghost is being born of the spirit.

Baptism is also a symbolic representation of burying the natural man and being resurrected with Christ to walk in newness of life.(Romans 6:4)

Jesus commissioned the Apostles in Mark 16:15&16 "5 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Notice that only those that believe and are baptized will be saved.

Jesus went to preach to the Spirits in prison - says so right in the bible. What did He preach? His gospel. First step of His gospel is Baptism.

No you tell me. In light of what actually IS taught in the Bible, how will those that lived and died without ever having a chance to hear the gospel, believe and be baptized be saved?

According to what you have put forth, they will have some sort of "general revelation" that consists of.... what? The gospel of Jesus Christ? - nope. That is not what is in the scriptures. So for them, no chance to hear the gospel. No chance to accept and believe. No chance to receive baptism.

In what we put forth, ALL will have the opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. ALL will have the opportunity to accept and believe it. ALL will have an opportunity to receive baptism.

First, God is judge not anyone else. Second, he states plaining that all are without excuse. Third, there is no example or teaching that shows that baptizing for the dead does anything at all. In fact, in the rich man and Lazarus story, the rich man doesn't plead with Abraham to have someone be baptized for him so he could repent. Nor does he state that someone could be baptized for his brothers. Instead he pleads that someone tell them before they die, so they will avoid that place.

If one was to read the bible as a whole, don't you think we should consider the fact that neither of these two concepts are taught anywhere at all?

[Storm Rider]

Calmoriah, the doctrine that Lutherans believe in is Biblical/apostolic in our perspective. The name of the individual group is not necessarily the issue (unless the doctrine is not Biblical which then does become an issue of identity). The doctrine believed is what makes one a Christian.

 

That which I bolded in red above is decidedly non-biblical.  Jesus never had a hurdle "you must believe this doctrine to be saved". Doctrine is the pursuit of truth; to live more fully in Christ, but it has nothing to do with being saved. 

[Flyonthewall]

If there's one thing I believe in, is taking the bible as a whole. I agree on this point. That is why I have been pointing out that in this passage and that passage and all passages in the Bible, there is not one case where the dead are actually saved after death. Not one instance where repentance is done after death. The fact is there are multiple places where death it taught as the end of all chances, and after death the judgment.

The gospel being preached to the dead, and being ministered to - those in prison and captives being set free - has many references... some are in the OT veiled in prophetic prose as in Isaiah 24:22, Isaiah 49:9, Isaiah 69:1, Malachi 4:5-6. Some are in the NT - very plain and straight forward but denied by many - Luke 4:18, John 5:25, 1 Corinthians 15:29, 1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Peter 4:6. You cannot get any plainer than 1 Peter 3 & 4.

If the gospel is being preached, repentance and baptism is part of the gospel... or do you disagree that repentance and baptism are part of the gospel?

 

True. It's called a rhetorical question. Both facts are in the affirmative. Some people (who ever Paul is referencing) are baptizing for the dead and the resurrection is true.

So you agree with me that Baptism for the dead is not taught in the NT?

I agree that the ball was dropped and many plain and precious truths were lost as a part of the apostacy.

 

If it's fine please tell me what it means, when it says that men are without excuse?

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Notice that it states that what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

Notice also it doesn't say anything about baptism.

Notice that it is prefaced in verses 16 & 17

"16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

What is revealed? The gospel of Jesus Christ. Who will it be revealed to? Every single person that ever lived, is living, and will ever live. How will it be revealed? By preaching just like the scriptures say it will - to the living and dead.

 

First, God is judge not anyone else. Second, he states plaining that all are without excuse. Third, there is no example or teaching that shows that baptizing for the dead does anything at all. In fact, in the rich man and Lazarus story, the rich man doesn't plead with Abraham to have someone be baptized for him so he could repent. Nor does he state that someone could be baptized for his brothers. Instead he pleads that someone tell them before they die, so they will avoid that place.

If one was to read the bible as a whole, don't you think we should consider the fact that neither of these two concepts are taught anywhere at all?

Those pesky trees keep getting in the way and the forest remains unseen.

These concepts are taught all through the bible. You simply do not recognize them as such.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Flyonthewall

[coolrok7]

Storm Rider, Biblical doctrine (teaching) concerning salvation is to believe in Jesus to be saved as per the Philippian Jailers question to Paul which Paul answered very clearly. The rest of the doctrine goes to explaining the many questions people have. The Mormon answer which didn't exist at the time is incorrect which is being demonstrated but of course debated by Mormons who disagree.

 

All doctrine purported to be Biblical must be demonstrated by all, myself in included which is what I'm attempting to do. I don't mind the questioning but some distort what I say and put words in my mouth, misconstrue what I say, even after correcting them.

 

There is also false doctrine of which makes Mormonism not Christian but Mormon. Mormonism has the another Jesus, Spirit and Gospel than the Biblical one (our perspective), the topic under discussion: Can a Mormon be a Christian? What must Mormons do?

 

Our answer is for them to give up their false doctrine and believe in true Biblical doctrine instead of twisting it and adding their own to the already established cannon way before Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker eddy, etc. came along.

 

It's obvious that you and the others don't accept this but we (Evangelical) were asked the question. When Mormons give up trying to convert people then I guess we'll stop trying to explain why people shouldn't convert to false belief, part of the instructions given to Christians until Jesus returns or we go to be with Him.

 

I've been trying to elaborate/explain things but catch a lot of flack that interrupts the process.

 

Missionaries (JW's) occasionally show up at my door so. Get invited to public dialogues etc. . . . . .the dialogue continues.

[danielwoods]

The gospel being preached to the dead, and being ministered to - those in prison and captives being set free - has many references... some are in the OT veiled in prophetic prose as in Isaiah 24:22, Isaiah 49:9, Isaiah 69:1, Malachi 4:5-6. Some are in the NT - very plain and straight forward but denied by many - Luke 4:18, John 5:25, 1 Corinthians 15:29, 1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Peter 4:6. You cannot get any plainer than 1 Peter 3 & 4.

If the gospel is being preached, repentance and baptism is part of the gospel... or do you disagree that repentance and baptism are part of the gospel?

The question isn't whether or not repentance and baptism are apart of the gospel, because surely they are. The question is whether or not the physically dead have a chance to repent and can receive proxy baptisms (since they have no body)?

Let's analyze these verses you mentioned and see.

Is 24:21 - "In that day the Lord will punish

the powers in the heavens above

and the kings on the earth below.

22 They will be herded together

like prisoners bound in a dungeon;

they will be shut up in prison

and be punished after many days."

 

Hmmm... nope. No mention of people being able to repent after death here. 

Is 49:8,9 - “In the time of my favor I will answer you,

and in the day of salvation I will help you;

I will keep you and will make you

to be a covenant for the people,

to restore the land

and to reassign its desolate inheritances,

9 to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’

and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’

“They will feed beside the roads

and find pasture on every barren hill."

 

To restore the land, and the captives will come out and feed beside the roads. Nope. Not dead yet. A prophecy for the restoration of the land of Israel.

Is 69:1 - Reference doesn't exist.

Malachi 4:5-6 -  “5 See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.”

 

Hmm... nope, not talking about dead people. 

Luke 4:17-19 - "17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because he has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners

and recovery of sight for the blind,

to set the oppressed free,

19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

 

Again, nope, not talking about physically dead people. 

 

John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned."

 

This is close, but notice that there is no mention of repentance. The dead will hear his voice and rise to live or rise to be condemned. No matter how many times it's referenced or read, it still contains no reference to repentance for the physically dead. 

 

1 Cor. 15:29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

 

What will those do who are baptized for the dead? A rhetorical question about the ressurection. Not a teaching about baptizing for the dead. There are other examples of Paul using the culture to make his point. At one point he referenced the "unknown God." Not that he was unknown to himself, but to others. A mere mention of a practice by other people is all this is. Paul doesn't say the dead even realize what is supposedly done for them. 

 

 

1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

 

Do you see the word repentance in this passage? You claim it's the most plain. He went and proclaimed his victory, after he was raised, to those who died before. It says nothing about repentance, but rather that the righteous were brought to heaven with him. 

 

 

1 Peter 4:3 "For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. 5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

 

This is an interesting passage. It starts out talking about physical things that pagans do, then God will judge them, "Even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regards to the body..." That is key. They still have a body, and a spirit. The gospel is preached to them who are now dead spiritually, not physically. If the gospel was preached to them after they were already dead physically, they wouldn't have a body now would they? And the distinction between body and spirit wouldn't be made. Since they have a body, they are still alive. 

 

So, each of your passages actually don't talk about repentance after we die. 

 

 

I agree that the ball was dropped and many plain and precious truths were lost as a part of the apostacy.

Then we agree that these LDS doctrines don't come from the Bible?

 

Notice that it is prefaced in verses 16 & 17

"16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

What is revealed? The gospel of Jesus Christ. Who will it be revealed to? Every single person that ever lived, is living, and will ever live. How will it be revealed? By preaching just like the scriptures say it will - to the living and dead.

Actually, it doesn't say that everyone will have preaching. Nor does it mention that there is repentance after death. What it does say is that all are without excuse.

 

Those pesky trees keep getting in the way and the forest remains unseen.

These concepts are taught all through the bible. You simply do not recognize them as such.

I wish it was. Too bad it simply isn't there. If it was you wouldn't have to believe in a restoration.

Edited October 14, 2014 by danielwoods

[Storm Rider]

Storm Rider, Biblical doctrine (teaching) concerning salvation is to believe in Jesus to be saved as per the Philippian Jailers question to Paul which Paul answered very clearly. The rest of the doctrine goes to explaining the many questions people have. The Mormon answer which didn't exist at the time is incorrect which is being demonstrated but of course debated by Mormons who disagree.

 

All doctrine purported to be Biblical must be demonstrated by all, myself in included which is what I'm attempting to do. I don't mind the questioning but some distort what I say and put words in my mouth, misconstrue what I say, even after correcting them.

 

There is also false doctrine of which makes Mormonism not Christian but Mormon. Mormonism has the another Jesus, Spirit and Gospel than the Biblical one (our perspective), the topic under discussion: Can a Mormon be a Christian? What must Mormons do?

 

Our answer is for them to give up their false doctrine and believe in true Biblical doctrine instead of twisting it and adding their own to the already established cannon way before Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker eddy, etc. came along.

 

It's obvious that you and the others don't accept this but we (Evangelical) were asked the question. When Mormons give up trying to convert people then I guess we'll stop trying to explain why people shouldn't convert to false belief, part of the instructions given to Christians until Jesus returns or we go to be with Him.

 

I've been trying to elaborate/explain things but catch a lot of flack that interrupts the process.

 

Missionaries (JW's) occasionally show up at my door so. Get invited to public dialogues etc. . . . . .the dialogue continues.

 

Cool, I don't underestimate the value and importance of truth in the life of discipleship; however, I cannot support creating doctrine to support a concept.  Jesus and the Apostles were clear in teaching of truth and not one of them felt true doctrine led to salvation.  Salvation comes in and through Christ.  The disciple responds to his call and seeks to fulfill all righteousness in his name.

 

You catch flack because we disagree with you.  I think you are wrong in your understanding of scripture because you take scripture out of context and you refuse to understand scripture as a whole.  You can certainly know the Savior, but your access to truth is limited and highly strained by the teachings of men.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Storm Rider

[Storm Rider]

The question isn't whether or not repentance and baptism are apart of the gospel, because surely they are. The question is whether or not the physically dead have a chance to repent and can receive proxy baptisms (since they have no body)?

Let's analyze these verses you mentioned and see.

Is 24:21 - "In that day the Lord will punish

the powers in the heavens above

and the kings on the earth below.

22 They will be herded together

like prisoners bound in a dungeon;

they will be shut up in prison

and be punished after many days."

 

Hmmm... nope. No mention of people being able to repent after death here. 

Is 49:8,9 - “In the time of my favor I will answer you,

and in the day of salvation I will help you;

I will keep you and will make you

to be a covenant for the people,

to restore the land

and to reassign its desolate inheritances,

9 to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’

and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’

“They will feed beside the roads

and find pasture on every barren hill."

 

To restore the land, and the captives will come out and feed beside the roads. Nope. Not dead yet. A prophecy for the restoration of the land of Israel.

Is 69:1 - Reference doesn't exist.

Malachi 4:5-6 -  “5 See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.”

 

Hmm... nope, not talking about dead people. 

Luke 4:17-19 - "17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because he has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners

and recovery of sight for the blind,

to set the oppressed free,

19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

 

Again, nope, not talking about physically dead people. 

 

John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned."

 

This is close, but notice that there is no mention of repentance. The dead will hear his voice and rise to live or rise to be condemned. No matter how many times it's referenced or read, it still contains no reference to repentance for the physically dead. 

 

1 Cor. 15:29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

 

What will those do who are baptized for the dead? A rhetorical question about the ressurection. Not a teaching about baptizing for the dead. There are other examples of Paul using the culture to make his point. At one point he referenced the "unknown God." Not that he was unknown to himself, but to others. A mere mention of a practice by other people is all this is. Paul doesn't say the dead even realize what is supposedly done for them. 

 

 

1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

 

Do you see the word repentance in this passage? You claim it's the most plain. He went and proclaimed his victory, after he was raised, to those who died before. It says nothing about repentance, but rather that the righteous were brought to heaven with him. 

 

 

1 Peter 4:3 "For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. 5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

 

This is an interesting passage. It starts out talking about physical things that pagans do, then God will judge them, "Even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regards to the body..." That is key. They still have a body, and a spirit. The gospel is preached to them who are now dead spiritually, not physically. If the gospel was preached to them after they were already dead physically, they wouldn't have a body now would they? And the distinction between body and spirit wouldn't be made. Since they have a body, they are still alive. 

 

So, each of your passages actually don't talk about repentance after we die. 

 

 

Then we agree that these LDS doctrines don't come from the Bible?

 

Actually, it doesn't say that everyone will have preaching. Nor does it mention that there is repentance after death. What it does say is that all are without excuse.

 

I wish it was. Too bad it simply isn't there. If it was you wouldn't have to believe in a restoration.

 

As long as you put your head in the sand, cover your ears, and refuse to see it is hard to be surprised that you do not see.  The great part is is that it is your choice and only you, just like me, directly suffer the consequences of our actions.  

[danielwoods]

As long as you put your head in the sand, cover your ears, and refuse to see it is hard to be surprised that you do not see.  The great part is is that it is your choice and only you, just like me, directly suffer the consequences of our actions.  

 

This is the third time in this thread that I've been accused of this. Which I guess is what people resort to when they have no scripture to point to that supports their position. This is also one of the reasons I have gone through each passage mentioned. If there's anything I am doing, "ignoring" or "head in the sand" is not an accurate description of what I am doing. 

 

Here's a little test. Find any non-LDS group or scholars that agrees with the LDS interpretation of these passages, because it seems to me that it's the LDS who are alone in this point of view. 

[Storm Rider]

This is the third time in this thread that I've been accused of this. Which I guess is what people resort to when they have no scripture to point to that supports their position. This is also one of the reasons I have gone through each passage mentioned. If there's anything I am doing, "ignoring" or "head in the sand" is not an accurate description of what I am doing. 

 

Here's a little test. Find any non-LDS group or scholars that agrees with the LDS interpretation of these passages, because it seems to me that it's the LDS who are alone in this point of view. 

 

Oh come on, Daniel. You can do better than that. If you want to debate scripture you won't win because I won't play the stupid game. I have shown you multiple scriptures and you simply disagree for whatever reason. That's okay.  

 

Here's a little test.  Find a Catholic that agrees with your interpretation of scripture.  Seems to me that you would be on the outside looking in.  Was anything proved that this little test?  Nope - you will still believe what you believe; the Catholic will still believe what he will believe; and I will believe what I believe.  

 

This is like hitting your head up against a wall and each time expecting a different outcome.  It is just simple - I don't agree with you and vice versa.  Does that make either one of us a better disciple of Christ?  Does it assist anyone in finding a stronger relationship with Jesus?  Have either of us become a source of peace in the world?  Have we helped the poor?  The obvious answer is no to each one of them.  Then what in the heck are we doing?

[danielwoods]

Oh come on, Daniel. You can do better than that. If you want to debate scripture you won't win because I won't play the stupid game. I have shown you multiple scriptures and you simply disagree for whatever reason. That's okay.  

 

Here's a little test.  Find a Catholic that agrees with your interpretation of scripture.  Seems to me that you would be on the outside looking in.  Was anything proved that this little test?  Nope - you will still believe what you believe; the Catholic will still believe what he will believe; and I will believe what I believe.  

 

This is like hitting your head up against a wall and each time expecting a different outcome.  It is just simple - I don't agree with you and vice versa.  Does that make either one of us a better disciple of Christ?  Does it assist anyone in finding a stronger relationship with Jesus?  Have either of us become a source of peace in the world?  Have we helped the poor?  The obvious answer is no to each one of them.  Then what in the heck are we doing?

 

Disagreement based on ideas that are thought out, researched and reasoned is quite different from the accusation that one has their head in the sand, wouldn't you agree? 

 

The LDS have reasons why they interpret these passages the way they do. They are their reasons. I disagree with them, for reasons I have stated. This type of disagreement has nothing to do with ignoring difficult passages or interpretations that don't agree with my viewpoint. 

 

As for what are we doing? I will say again, that I don't look at any of these issues as making the LDS "non-Christian" not at all. Rather, my only point is that these doctrines aren't derived from the NT. I would say the same about many other beliefs that many evangelicals hold. 

 

So what are we doing? I know for myself that I am always learning. I enjoy learning. And have enjoyed learning new viewpoints and reading passages that I haven't studied in a while. One of my favorites comes to mind:

Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron,

so one person sharpens another.

[Vance]

Romans 1&2 explains the Mormon attempt to solve the dilemma of explaining how ones that never heard of Jesus can have the opportunity of being saved (baptism for the dead teaching). They never stay long enough with the Bible to learn it has already given the answer.

Romans 1 rejection of general revelation leaves them without excuse. Romans 2, those that respond to general revelation is the same result for those who respond to specific revelation concerning Jesus.

Either way results in justice being served by Jesus the just Judge.

What a bunch of bovine excrement.

1) Romans was written to members of the Church who had been taught the truth.

2) Paul clearly identified who he was talking about by describing them to be those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness". Clearly meaning people who knew the truth but disregarded it by living in sin.

Your anti-Mormon mind set has blinded you so severely that you can't maintain reason.

Edited to add.

You have become so ridiculous that it is a total waste of time to even attempt to dialogue with you.

Don't be surprised if I don't respond to you as often as I used to.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 Then what in the heck are we doing?

Not really sure what we are doing anymore. Some people will maintain beliefs in things for a whole host of reason, even when we have shown them that they are wrong in certain beliefs.

 

[Vance]

Rather, my only point is that these doctrines aren't derived from the NT.

So?

The doctrines Jesus taught weren't derived from the NT.

The doctrines Peter taught weren't derived from the NT.

The doctrines Paul taught weren't derived from the NT.

The doctrines James taught weren't derived from the NT.

The doctrines John taught weren't derived from the NT.

Your "point" has no point to it.

[Vance]

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Notice that it states that what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

Let's look at a different translation. From the JST.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who love not the truth, but remain in unrighteousness.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in (within, among) them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

BTW,

Why did Jesus give this command?

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Matt 28:19 ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

If everyone already knows the truth.

[Flyonthewall]

The question isn't whether or not repentance and baptism are apart of the gospel, because surely they are. The question is whether or not the physically dead have a chance to repent and can receive proxy baptisms (since they have no body)?

Let's analyze these verses you mentioned and see.

Sigh. Your analysis doesn't even scratch the surface. You are looking for specific wording. Isaiah is difficult to follow and I do not blame you for not wanting to look deeper. There is a reason Jesus taught in parables. The scriptures are much deeper than you allow.

Then we agree that these LDS doctrines don't come from the Bible?

We do not agree because they are there. The problem is that you subscribe to the belief things do not work a certain way so when the scriptures say they do, you make great efforts to say "that's not what they mean".

 

Actually, it doesn't say that everyone will have preaching. Nor does it mention that there is repentance after death. What it does say is that all are without excuse.

I wish it was. Too bad it simply isn't there. If it was you wouldn't have to believe in a restoration.

Jeremiah 5:21, Ezekiel 12:2.

[danielwoods]

So?

The doctrines Jesus taught weren't derived from the NT.

The doctrines Peter taught weren't derived from the NT.

The doctrines Paul taught weren't derived from the NT.

The doctrines James taught weren't derived from the NT.

The doctrines John taught weren't derived from the NT.

Your "point" has no point to it.

 

If they claimed, as the LDS does, that their doctrines are based on or derived from the NT, then you would have a valid point. 

 

Let's look at a different translation. From the JST.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who love not the truth, but remain in unrighteousness.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in (within, among) them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

BTW,

Why did Jesus give this command?

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Matt 28:19 ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

If everyone already knows the truth.

 

Even the JST agrees with the other translations. Great. 

 

Why the great commission? Simple. Because the truth sets us free. 

General revelation is enough, but special revelation is better. 

[danielwoods]

Sigh. Your analysis doesn't even scratch the surface. You are looking for specific wording. Isaiah is difficult to follow and I do not blame you for not wanting to look deeper. There is a reason Jesus taught in parables. The scriptures are much deeper than you allow.

Your statement could be used to teach absolutely anything from the bible.

"You can't see it because it's hidden so deep in the scriptures." (implied is that you'll have to come to me or my church to learn where it's hidden)

I think I recall the Gnostics making the same argument.

To which I reply with "yeah right". Jesus spoke plainly and in parables. These LDS concepts aren't taught in the NT anywhere.

We do not agree because they are there. The problem is that you subscribe to the belief things do not work a certain way so when the scriptures say they do, you make great efforts to say "that's not what they mean".

 

Jeremiah 5:21, Ezekiel 12:2.

I subscribe to a search for truth. It's a deep conviction that I hold that truth can be found if one searches for it. I have no fear, no do I make great efforts to avoid anything. I believe if it's true, one can study and see it. I am more than willing to look as deep as necessary. What I don't fear is the truth. I have no church to defend so for me it's simple. What is the truth?

You are correct on one point about me though. I am a rebel. I don't just believe something because someone says so.

[coolrok7]

Storm Rider, an example of out of context? Also your point on doctrine (or teaching which can be true or false) is all over the New testament, both good and bad examples illustrate. Do a term search for doctrine in Bible Gateway and see. Your point then concerning doctrine is not a valid point to make to make.

 

Also, the Mormon Church claims what it teaches is Biblical and doctrinally sound which is not the case which can be demonstrated which is not to say that all doctrine is false but at critical points it is.

 

Vance, Jesus said to watch out for false prophets who come in His name which is what Joseph Smith did. Your choice as to who to listen to but you don't have to falsely accuse me of things I'm not guilty of unless you can demonstrate it.

[Storm Rider]

 

Disagreement based on ideas that are thought out, researched and reasoned is quite different from the accusation that one has their head in the sand, wouldn't you agree? 

 

The LDS have reasons why they interpret these passages the way they do. They are their reasons. I disagree with them, for reasons I have stated. This type of disagreement has nothing to do with ignoring difficult passages or interpretations that don't agree with my viewpoint. 

 

As for what are we doing? I will say again, that I don't look at any of these issues as making the LDS "non-Christian" not at all. Rather, my only point is that these doctrines aren't derived from the NT. I would say the same about many other beliefs that many evangelicals hold. 

 

So what are we doing? I know for myself that I am always learning. I enjoy learning. And have enjoyed learning new viewpoints and reading passages that I haven't studied in a while. One of my favorites comes to mind:

Proverbs 27:17 As iron sharpens iron,

so one person sharpens another.

 

Daniel, what I have not done is play the game. Jesus goes and teaches the spirits in prison - prison turns into paradise for you, but hat is irrelevant - why would he teach SPIRITS in prison?  You have no answer except that there could not have been repentance and certainly not baptism because they are not mentioned specifically.  WHY TEACH SPIRITS?  Particularly of those who lived previously to the life of Jesus?  All you can say is there is no specific mention of repentance.  It is logical and absolutely clear in the gospel of Christ that repentance plays a role.  Why teach someone that cannot repent?  In fact, why teach them at all just let them cook with everyone else that has never and will never hear of Christ.

 

You are just not logical in your arguments - you close your mind to anything that contradicts your position.  Why wouldn't other people accuse you of being close minded?  

Edited October 15, 2014 by Storm Rider

[teddyaware]

Daniel, what I have not done is play the game. Jesus goes and teaches the spirits in prison - prison turns into paradise for you, but hat is irrelevant - why would he teach SPIRITS in prison?  You have no answer except that there could not have been repentance and certainly not baptism because they are not mentioned specifically.  WHY TEACH SPIRITS?  Particularly of those who lived previously to the life of Jesus?  All you can say is there is no specific mention of repentance.  It is logical and absolutely clear in the gospel of Christ that repentance plays a role.  Why teach someone that cannot repent?  In fact, why teach them at all just let them cook with everyone else that has never and will never hear of Christ.

 

You are just not logical in your arguments - you close your mind to anything that contradicts your position.  Why wouldn't other people accuse you of being close minded?

I honestly don't get it. When I first heard the LDS missionary discussions, way back in the summer of 1970, I was thrilled beyond all measure when I learned God really does love His children and proves it by making sure everybody who has ever lived will have ample opportunity to hear the Gospel, believe in Christ and repent prior to the final judgment. I was so excited at the news that I kept on shouting, "This is it!, This is it! This is it! I was utterly electrified at the good news! I rejoiced beyond measure as I learned God really is just, fair and merciful.

 

What made my rejoicings even more pronounced is that Elders Coleman and Leek (the missionaries who taught me the Restored Gospel) were able to show me right from the Bible that it was all true. And from the moment I first read those verses in Second Peter, I knew and understood by the Spirit that the Gospel really is offered to the dead who had no opportunity to receive it on earth. And to demonstrate He was even more merciful, I learned the Lord makes sure the Gospel is also taught to those who at first rejected it (like Paul) on earth and then died before the spirit of repentance won out in their lives.

 

Why anyone would recoil at these marvelous teachings and hesitate to joyously accept them is beyond me. Who would want to believe that a God of supposed perfect love would send countless millions of His children to an endless hell of unimaginable pain and suffering, all because He seems to be impatient and can't be bothered to extend His arm of mercy to them beyond the few years they spend on earth before death. It's all beyond me.

 

When I pray to my God, I'm comfortable doing so because I know He really is just, perfectly loving, compassionate and fair. I don't have to wonder how a God who is at once a God of perfect charity is also the author of a wasteful plan of salvation that needlessly wastes millions upon millions of souls to a useless and futile existence of endless suffering in hell. Why? What's it for? What logical sense does it make? None.

 

Here is the true God of love:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (2 Peter 2)

and,

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (2 Peter 4)

 

Others may twist and turn these words any way they wish, but I know these verses teach us God really is loving, longsuffering, merciful and compassionate to the His beloved children. 

Edited October 15, 2014 by teddyaware

[Flyonthewall]

Your statement could be used to teach absolutely anything from the bible.

Except that what I have shown you is internally consistent - from the OT prophets stating that the prisoners and captives will go free, to the NT Apostles that state unequivocally that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison. This is not even hidden.

"You can't see it because it's hidden so deep in the scriptures." (implied is that you'll have to come to me or my church to learn where it's hidden)

What I have shown you is not even hidden. You simply have closed your understanding to it by saying it doesn't mean what it says.

I think I recall the Gnostics making the same argument.

To which I reply with "yeah right". Jesus spoke plainly and in parables. These LDS concepts aren't taught in the NT anywhere.

Jesus is the one that stated he taught with hidden messages so that those that were not ready to hear the message would not see it.

I subscribe to a search for truth. It's a deep conviction that I hold that truth can be found if one searches for it. I have no fear, no do I make great efforts to avoid anything. I believe if it's true, one can study and see it. I am more than willing to look as deep as necessary. What I don't fear is the truth. I have no church to defend so for me it's simple. What is the truth?

You are correct on one point about me though. I am a rebel. I don't just believe something because someone says so.

Your search reminds me of an old joke:

There was a man that was a devout God fearing person. And one day there was a flood warning announced, and all residents were told to evacuate. The man stood firm and said: "I believe in God and He will save me!". As the waters started to rise and was knee deep, someone in a canoe came by and offered him a ride out. The man stated: "I believe in God and He will save me". Later as the waters rose and were chest deep, a row boat came by and offered him a ride. The man stated: "I believe God will save me!". Later as the waters were roof high, the man was sitting on his roof, and a helicopter came and offered him a ride. The man stated: "I believe God will save me!".

The man drowned in the flood and as he stood in front of God, the man asked: "Lord, I believed in you all my life and had faith that you would save me, but you did nothing and I died!". God said to him: "I sent you a canoe, a rowboat, and a helicopter, what more did you expect?".

Good luck in your search. Perhaps at some future time what has been shown to you will have some meaning.

[Vance]

If they claimed, as the LDS does, that their doctrines are based on or derived from the NT, then you would have a valid point.

Where have you been? We do NOT claim our doctrines are derived from the NT. We do claim that our doctrines come from the same source Paul claimed, that is REVELATION!!

 

Even the JST agrees with the other translations. Great.

WOW! You really do have a reading comprehension problem.

 

Why the great commission? Simple. Because the truth sets us free.

True.

 

General revelation is enough,

OBVIOUSLY NOT!

but special revelation is better.

Revelation is always better, special or otherwise.

And now, a few verses that totally destroy your argument. Verses found IN THE SAME EPISTLE from which you claim your support. Oh, the irony.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

[Vance]

Also, the Mormon Church claims what it teaches is Biblical and doctrinally sound which is not the case which can be demonstrated which is not to say that all doctrine is false but at critical points it is.

This is something that you have not and can not show.

Your incorrect interpretation of scripture is not a firm foundation for your attack.

 

Vance, Jesus said to watch out for false prophets who come in His name

A warning which makes no sense UNLESS HE WOULD ALSO SEND TRUE PROPHETS. A fact which continues to elude you.

. . . which is what Joseph Smith did.

False. Again, your misinterpretation of scripture is NOT a good foundation for your claims. I have proven to you several times already that you have things wrong.

So given the fact that you have been proven unreliable, why should anyone believe anything you claim?

Your choice as to who to listen to but you don't have to falsely accuse me of things I'm not guilty of unless you can demonstrate it.

Been there, done that.

You have no credibility here.