Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Vance]

Romans 1 is clear. All have a first and many chances I'm sure, in this life.

Your interpretation of Rom 1 has been refuted. Refusing to acknowledge said refutation doesn't further your cause.

Romans 10 is clear.

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!

People who have never heard about Jesus, have never heard about Jesus. Your continued denial of this fact says more about you than you realize.

[Vance]

Why would one expect it to say anything about repentance?

What does one expect was preached to the dead?

Let's see. We have;

1.Matt. 4:17 ¶ From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

2.Matt. 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

3.Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

4.Mark 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

5.Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

6.Luke 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

7.Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

8.Acts 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

Why would anyone think that repentance was not preached?

[danielwoods]

This is very vague and shallow...

I appreciate your statement, but would appreciate even more reasons behind your statement.

 

People don't learn of Christ and receive Gospel light through some sort of mysterious spiritual osmosis. The only way anyone can learn of Christ and receive Gospel light is through a duly authorized and empowered preacher who is sent by the Lord to preach the Gospel to the ignorant and lost by the power of God.

Of course this is false. Jesus visited the Nephites and Joseph Smith (in your belief) why don't you believe he could do the same today with anyone who is searching?

 

Paul said it best:

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

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! (Romans 14)

 

Keeping Romans in context, Paul says in Romans one that all are without excuse because of general revelation. Here he's emphasizing the value of special revelation. In no way does his emphasis negate his previous statement that all are without excuse. Notice, that special revelation brings glad tidings of good things, but that doesn't equal a wiping out of his previous statement. 

[Vance]

Keeping Romans in context, Paul says in Romans one that all are without excuse because of general revelation. Here he's emphasizing the value of special revelation. In no way does his emphasis negate his previous statement that all are without excuse. Notice, that special revelation brings glad tidings of good things, but that doesn't equal a wiping out of his previous statement.

Paul was writing to members of the church in Rome. Of course all of the members were without excuse because they had been taught the truth. Not because of some (ridiculous notion of) "general revelation", but rather because they had heard the word from dually authorized preachers that had been sent by the Apostles.

Like has been said several times. Your interpretation of Rom 1 is in error, OBVIOUSLY!!!!

[Vance]

Of course this is false.

Your error is easily demonstrated.

Jesus visited the Nephites and Joseph Smith (in your belief),

True.

. . . why don't you believe he could do the same today with anyone who is searching?

He could. But why should he when he can send authorized servants?

BTW, having a personal visit from Jesus to preach the gospel to an individual does not constitute a "general revelation".

[coolrok7]

What is Paul emphasizing then in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection from the dead or baptisms for the dead?

[Flyonthewall]

What is Paul emphasizing then in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection from the dead or baptisms for the dead?

Paul is referencing Baptism for the Dead as evidence of the Resurrection.

Essentially saying: "What good is baptism for the dead if the dead are not resurrected?".

It makes no sense if Baptism for the dead is not a valid practice.

[Flyonthewall]

Keeping Romans in context, Paul says in Romans one that all are without excuse because of general revelation. Here he's emphasizing the value of special revelation. In no way does his emphasis negate his previous statement that all are without excuse. Notice, that special revelation brings glad tidings of good things, but that doesn't equal a wiping out of his previous statement.

Let's see what Romans 1 says

13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

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.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in 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:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Paul states that he would not have anyone be ignorant...he is ready to preach the gospel to them at Rome.

Paul states that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of salvation unto all that believe it, and therein is the righteousness of God revealed. Wherein? The Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Verse 18 is key... To whom is the wrath of God revealed? To those that hold the TRUTH in unrighteousness.

How can one hold the truth in unrighteousness if the truth has not been preached to them?

Romans 10 states unequivocally - How can they hear without a preacher? and how can they preach if they have not been sent?

The whole context of Paul's epistle is preaching the Gospel, and those that have had the gospel have no excuse for holding it in unrighteousness.

Your interpretation of Romans 1 does not hold water in the context of the scriptures.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Flyonthewall

[danielwoods]

You are becoming down right silly - First you do not believe scripture because it does not have specific wording about repentance, now you say the absence of specific wording proves the absence of the practice.

In fact, the opposite is stated, there is no chance to repent after death. It's not just about missing a word, but the teaching of concepts. What did Jesus say, we will be like angels after we die. Are angles able to repent? No evidence of that either.

 

The scriptures you referenced do not spell out what happens after death - all they say is judgment comes after death. Using the Football reference, that is like saying the game is over after halftime... which is true but there is still much of the game left after half-time. There are other scriptures that say there will be preaching done - but you have a vested interest in that not happening.

I have no vested interest in anything. I'm only interested in the truth. You claim that preaching and repenting are going on. The text doesn't bear that out. You mention vested interest. If anyone has a vested interest it's the LDS church.

 

The NT testament references the practice of Baptism for the Dead and uses that reference to prove the truth of resurrection. You, however say, no - the Apostles use a reference to a false practice to prove the truth of resurrection. I suppose that works you your realm of belief.

Actually what I say is that Paul (alone) used a culturally known practice to support the validity of the concept of the resurrection. Paul doesn't comment on the practice one way or the other. He doesn't teach it, nor condemn it, no comment at all. His focus is on the resurrection. He did a similar thing when he referenced a statue to the "unknown god". Should we be making statues to the "unknown god" now too?

My only point is that the teaching of proxy baptisms doesn't come from the NT.

 

 

According to your interpretation, this "general revelation" is another gospel. The Scriptures say there is no other name under heaven whereby man may be saved, but you say Nobody even has to have heard of Jesus Christ and still be saved. The scripture referenced by Vance and Teddyaware completely and totally refute your interpretation(Romans 14:12-15). But... you have a vested interest in that scripture not meaning what it states specifically so you will come up with an interpretation that says it doesn't mean that.

Okay. That must work for you.

 

There are many other versions that translate it the same way so it is not only the KJV.

Simply because scripture says there is no other name, doesn't mean that people who haven't ever heard his name can't know God and be saved. It simply means that even though people don't know all the details, Jesus is still the one doing the saving, in his name.

There are other versions that don't translate it as preach as well. Context is always the determinative factor.

Edited October 17, 2014 by danielwoods

[Anakin7]

  From my LDS Kryptonian Archives -   http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Baptism_for_the_Dead

Edited October 18, 2014 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

     Great discussions everyone !.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited October 18, 2014 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

      Lets keep this going !.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited October 18, 2014 by Anakin7

[Flyonthewall]

In fact, the opposite is stated, there is no chance to repent after death. It's not just about missing a word, but the teaching of concepts. What did Jesus say, we will be like angels after we die. Are angles able to repent? No evidence of that either.

 

I have no vested interest in anything. I'm only interested in the truth. You claim that preaching and repenting are going on. The text doesn't bear that out. You mention vested interest. If anyone has a vested interest it's the LDS church.

 

Actually what I say is that Paul (alone) used a culturally known practice to support the validity of the concept of the resurrection. Paul doesn't comment on the practice one way or the other. He doesn't teach it, nor condemn it, no comment at all. His focus is on the resurrection. He did a similar thing when he referenced a statue to the "unknown god". Should we be making statues to the "unknown god" now too?

My only point is that the teaching of proxy baptisms doesn't come from the NT.

I will give you that the NT does not instruct in the Baptism for the Dead, but it does reference the practice to validate the belief in a resurrection. If Baptism for the Dead is not a valid practice, how can it validate a valid belief?

The NT does, beyond any shadow of doubt, teach baptism. It also teaches preaching the gospel to everyone.

 

Simply because scripture says there is no other name, doesn't mean that people who haven't ever heard his name can't know God and be saved. It simply means that even though people don't know all the details, Jesus is still the one doing the saving, in his name.

There are other versions that don't translate it as preach as well. Context is always the determinative factor.

Context is the determining factor as long as it is based on truth.

1 Peter 3:19, and 1 Peter 4:6, referencing the same activity of preaching the gospel(not proclaiming victory), cannot be taken in any other way. When the translation uses "proclaim" it says "proclaim the gospel" or "proclaim the good news".

From the context of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, the gospel is preached to those that are dead - in the grave/hades/hell/prison/paradise/spirit world.

And if the Gospel is preached, then it can also be accepted or rejected. Baptism is the first step of acceptance.

Here is a list of other translations:

Parallel Verses

New International Version

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.

New Living Translation

That is why the Good News was preached to those who are now dead--so although they were destined to die like all people, they now live forever with God in the Spirit.

English Standard Version

For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

New American Standard Bible

For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.

King James Bible

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.

Holman Christian Standard Bible

For this reason the gospel was also preached to those who are now dead, so that, although they might be judged by men in the fleshly realm, they might live by God in the spiritual realm.

International Standard Version

Indeed, this is why the gospel was proclaimed even to those who have died, so that they could be judged in their mortal flesh like all humans and live in the spiritual realm like God.

NET Bible

Now it was for this very purpose that the gospel was preached to those who are now dead, so that though they were judged in the flesh by human standards they may live spiritually by God's standards.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

For because of this, The Good News was proclaimed also to the dead that they would be judged as children of men in the flesh and they would live in God by The Spirit.

GOD'S WORD® Translation

After all, the Good News was told to people like that, although they are now dead. It was told to them so that they could be judged like humans in their earthly lives and live like God in their spiritual lives.

Jubilee Bible 2000

Because for this cause was the gospel preached also to those that are dead, that they might be judged in flesh according to men, but live in spirit according to God.

King James 2000 Bible

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.

American King James Version

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.

American Standard Version

For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Douay-Rheims Bible

For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit.

Darby Bible Translation

For to this [end] were the glad tidings preached to [the] dead also, that they might be judged, as regards men, after [the] flesh, but live, as regards God, after [the] Spirit.

English Revised Version

For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Webster's Bible Translation

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.

Weymouth New Testament

For it is with this end in view that the Good News was proclaimed even to some who were dead, that they may be judged, as all mankind will be judged, in the body, but may be living a godly life in the spirit.

World English Bible

For to this end the Good News was preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed as men in the flesh, but live as to God in the spirit.

Young's Literal Translation

for for this also to dead men was good news proclaimed, that they may be judged, indeed, according to men in the flesh, and may live according to God in the spirit.

[danielwoods]

Paul is referencing Baptism for the Dead as evidence of the Resurrection.

Essentially saying: "What good is baptism for the dead if the dead are not resurrected?".

It makes no sense if Baptism for the dead is not a valid practice.

 

Valid in the minds of his intended audience, yes. Valid in reality, no evidence of that.

Let's look at it from another perspective. I know the LDS here will simply wave their hand and dismiss what I am saying because the bible isn't the source of this teaching, but the concept of death is used throughout the scriptures. What does it signify each time? If it signifies anything it is finality. When Jesus died on the cross he said "It is finished." When something dies it's no longer alive and useful. The concept of death is used to simulate our being dead to our old self, and born anew to life. "Take your cross..." the symbol of death and finality.

Now, if death doesn't really carry a connotation of finality as is argued by the LDS with proxy baptisms, then the meaning of dying with Christ also loses it's meaning. If we haven't really died to ourselves (because death isn't final), then how can we really be raised with him? The logical flow of that argument is based on the finality of death.

 

Let's see what Romans 1 says

Paul states that he would not have anyone be ignorant...he is ready to preach the gospel to them at Rome.

Paul states that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of salvation unto all that believe it, and therein is the righteousness of God revealed. Wherein? The Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Verse 18 is key... To whom is the wrath of God revealed? To those that hold the TRUTH in unrighteousness.

How can one hold the truth in unrighteousness if the truth has not been preached to them?

Because as verse 19 states, "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."

God has revealed it to them by what was made (not preaching). A reference to all of creation, which displays his glory which everyone on the planet can see.

 

Romans 10 states unequivocally - How can they hear without a preacher? and how can they preach if they have not been sent?

The whole context of Paul's epistle is preaching the Gospel, and those that have had the gospel have no excuse for holding it in unrighteousness.

Your interpretation of Romans 1 does not hold water in the context of the scriptures.

I guess you are right, if you ignore verse 19 and 20. I don't understand how one can seek the truth and ignore that part of the scripture? It isn't talking only about those who have the gospel in that section.

Remember, the rocks will cry out if we keep silent. God doesn't need preaching, when he has the whole universe to testify to his glory. Preaching and teaching of the gospel is great, and helps free people from bondage, but the lack of it certainly won't stop a person from finding God if they are seeking the truth.

[danielwoods]

I will give you that the NT does not instruct in the Baptism for the Dead, but it does reference the practice to validate the belief in a resurrection. If Baptism for the Dead is not a valid practice, how can it validate a valid belief?

The NT does, beyond any shadow of doubt, teach baptism. It also teaches preaching the gospel to everyone.

 

Context is the determining factor as long as it is based on truth.

1 Peter 3:19, and 1 Peter 4:6, referencing the same activity of preaching the gospel(not proclaiming victory), cannot be taken in any other way. When the translation uses "proclaim" it says "proclaim the gospel" or "proclaim the good news".

From the context of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, the gospel is preached to those that are dead - in the grave/hades/hell/prison/paradise/spirit world.

And if the Gospel is preached, then it can also be accepted or rejected. Baptism is the first step of acceptance.

Here is a list of other translations:

Parallel Verses

New International Version

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.

New Living Translation

That is why the Good News was preached to those who are now dead--so although they were destined to die like all people, they now live forever with God in the Spirit.

English Standard Version

For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

New American Standard Bible

For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.

King James Bible

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.

Holman Christian Standard Bible

For this reason the gospel was also preached to those who are now dead, so that, although they might be judged by men in the fleshly realm, they might live by God in the spiritual realm.

International Standard Version

Indeed, this is why the gospel was proclaimed even to those who have died, so that they could be judged in their mortal flesh like all humans and live in the spiritual realm like God.

NET Bible

Now it was for this very purpose that the gospel was preached to those who are now dead, so that though they were judged in the flesh by human standards they may live spiritually by God's standards.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

For because of this, The Good News was proclaimed also to the dead that they would be judged as children of men in the flesh and they would live in God by The Spirit.

GOD'S WORD® Translation

After all, the Good News was told to people like that, although they are now dead. It was told to them so that they could be judged like humans in their earthly lives and live like God in their spiritual lives.

Jubilee Bible 2000

Because for this cause was the gospel preached also to those that are dead, that they might be judged in flesh according to men, but live in spirit according to God.

King James 2000 Bible

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.

American King James Version

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.

American Standard Version

For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Douay-Rheims Bible

For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit.

Darby Bible Translation

For to this [end] were the glad tidings preached to [the] dead also, that they might be judged, as regards men, after [the] flesh, but live, as regards God, after [the] Spirit.

English Revised Version

For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Webster's Bible Translation

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.

Weymouth New Testament

For it is with this end in view that the Good News was proclaimed even to some who were dead, that they may be judged, as all mankind will be judged, in the body, but may be living a godly life in the spirit.

World English Bible

For to this end the Good News was preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed as men in the flesh, but live as to God in the spirit.

Young's Literal Translation

for for this also to dead men was good news proclaimed, that they may be judged, indeed, according to men in the flesh, and may live according to God in the spirit.

 

Let's look at 1 Peter 4:6 again in context. The first point is the 4:6 and 3:19 aren't the same at all. 

 

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."

Notice the context is people living, and they are surprised that you don't join them in their wickedness and verse 5, "but they will have to give an account [implication is at death]... and 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached" [to them while they were living] even to those who now have already died and are gone. Notice also, that these people have a body, because God is judging them in regards to the body. If they were dead (without body) this couldn't be said of them.

So, yes 4:6 is talking about preaching the gospel to those who are now dead. But, the reference to when the preaching took place was while they were still alive on the Earth, and had a body, not after they were dead and have no body.

1 Peter 3:19 is completely different.

19 "After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits-"

A couple of key differences. One is there is no reference to dead in 3:19, rather they are "imprisoned spirits" and two the word for preach is different as well. In 4:6 the word includes preaching the good news, and 3:19 is just preach or proclaim.

[Flyonthewall]

Valid in the minds of his intended audience, yes. Valid in reality, no evidence of that.

Let's look at it from another perspective. I know the LDS here will simply wave their hand and dismiss what I am saying because the bible isn't the source of this teaching, but the concept of death is used throughout the scriptures. What does it signify each time? If it signifies anything it is finality. When Jesus died on the cross he said "It is finished." When something dies it's no longer alive and useful. The concept of death is used to simulate our being dead to our old self, and born anew to life. "Take your cross..." the symbol of death and finality.

As in "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"... Is this the type of finality you are speaking of?

Now, if death doesn't really carry a connotation of finality as is argued by the LDS with proxy baptisms, then the meaning of dying with Christ also loses it's meaning. If we haven't really died to ourselves (because death isn't final), then how can we really be raised with him? The logical flow of that argument is based on the finality of death.

Resurrection was common knowledge and taught vehemently, so it was well known that physical death was only temporary. It was known in the OT so it was not a new concept.

It is baptism that is the symbol of dying with Christ and being reborn anew to walk in newness of life in the resurrection.

If death is permanent in you belief, then how does the resurrection fit in?

Because as verse 19 states, "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."

God has revealed it to them by what was made (not preaching). A reference to all of creation, which displays his glory which everyone on the planet can see.

I guess you are right, if you ignore verse 19 and 20. I don't understand how one can seek the truth and ignore that part of the scripture? It isn't talking only about those who have the gospel in that section.

I am not ignoring verses 19 or 20 at all. Who is the "them" that is being referred to? Those that have had the gospel preached to them as in verses 15-18 points out.

For someone who wants to keep the context intact, you sure violently rip things out of context of everything that surrounds it.

Remember, the rocks will cry out if we keep silent. God doesn't need preaching, when he has the whole universe to testify to his glory. Preaching and teaching of the gospel is great, and helps free people from bondage, but the lack of it certainly won't stop a person from finding God if they are seeking the truth.

You are right. The gospel of Jesus Christ is great, but is not needed. Do you even hear what you say?

You have completely made the following scripture irrelevant:

Romans 10

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (What does this say about those that do not even know the name of the Lord?)

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? (Nice, but not needed?)

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!(Nice, but not needed?)

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.(Wait, hearing the Word of God is not needed, so faith is not needed...Is this what you really want to say?)

[Flyonthewall]

Let's look at 1 Peter 4:6 again in context. The first point is the 4:6 and 3:19 aren't the same at all. 

 

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."

Notice the context is people living, and they are surprised that you don't join them in their wickedness and verse 5, "but they will have to give an account [implication is at death]... and 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached" [to them while they were living] even to those who now have already died and are gone. Notice also, that these people have a body, because God is judging them in regards to the body. If they were dead (without body) this couldn't be said of them.

So, yes 4:6 is talking about preaching the gospel to those who are now dead. But, the reference to when the preaching took place was while they were still alive on the Earth, and had a body, not after they were dead and have no body.

1 Peter 3:19 is completely different.

19 "After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits-"

A couple of key differences. One is there is no reference to dead in 3:19, rather they are "imprisoned spirits" and two the word for preach is different as well. In 4:6 the word includes preaching the good news, and 3:19 is just preach or proclaim.

You do realize that what is now 1 Peter was not originally written in Chapter form? It was simply one letter. 1 Peter 3:19 & 20 was just a few sentences before 1 Peter 4:6 - Same train of thought.

1 Peter 3:19 references the preaching to the spirits in prison. These are the people who are dead, as is referenced by the mention of those who were not in the ark with Noah... or are you saying those that were not on the ark with Noah are still alive?

Verse 18 says Christ was put to death but quickened by the Spirit. During the 3 days His body laid in the tomb, He was not yet resurrected so was a Spirit. He was the only one that could lay down His own life and pick it up again. It is by the power of His spirit that he went and preached to those imprisoned spirits.

1 Peter 4:5 mentions the quick AND the dead will be judged by Christ, then verse 6 states that this is why the gospel is preached to those that are dead. At the time this was written, very few, relatively speaking, had the opportunity to hear the gospel preached, that were dead at that time, so it does not fit that this is addressing extremely few people regarding a universal event.

Two places in the same train of thought that mentions preaching the gospel to those that are dead.

There are too many things that simply do not mesh in how you interpret the scriptures.

[danielwoods]

As in "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"... Is this the type of finality you are speaking of?

I'm a little bit unclear what you are asking. I made the point that the finality of death was used as an example.

 

Resurrection was common knowledge and taught vehemently, so it was well known that physical death was only temporary. It was known in the OT so it was not a new concept.

It is baptism that is the symbol of dying with Christ and being reborn anew to walk in newness of life in the resurrection.

If death is permanent in you belief, then how does the resurrection fit in?

You must be misunderstanding what I am saying. I never said that the resurrection doesn't happen. Rather, what my point was that in the LDS theology death isn't the end of opportunity to repent and be saved. Indicating the lack of finality of death. However, in the bible it is.

 

I am not ignoring verses 19 or 20 at all. Who is the "them" that is being referred to? Those that have had the gospel preached to them as in verses 15-18 points out.

For someone who wants to keep the context intact, you sure violently rip things out of context of everything that surrounds it.

Who is "Them" in verse 19? Verse 18 states that "they suppress the truth by their wickedness." That God has shown himself to them by his creation. It does not say that they have heard the gospel preached as you claim. Rather, that they know about the invisible qualities of God because of what God has shown them, through creation, not preaching as stated in verse 20.

So, who is "Them"? It's anyone who does wickedness, and thereby suppresses the truth.

 

You are right. The gospel of Jesus Christ is great, but is not needed. Do you even hear what you say?

You have completely made the following scripture irrelevant:

Romans 10

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (What does this say about those that do not even know the name of the Lord?)

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? (Nice, but not needed?)

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!(Nice, but not needed?)

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.(Wait, hearing the Word of God is not needed, so faith is not needed...Is this what you really want to say?)

I guess if you ignore what I wrote, sure. "but the lack of it [preaching] certainly won't stop a person from finding God if they are seeking the truth."

Have I made these scriptures irrelevant? Only if you don't take what I am saying in the context I am saying it.

Your point is that a person who hasn't ever heard the gospel preached *must* have that opportunity after death otherwise God is not just.

My point is that all are without excuse, because God has displayed his glory for all to see (General revelation), and that is enough to lead a person who is truly seeking, to God.

Does my position make the above scriptures irrelevant? Not at all. It's sort of like discovering that oranges (vitamin C) helps with colds, compared to learning that anti-biotics or cold meds do even better. One is a general knowledge from experience, the other is specific knowledge one gains from instruction by experts.

 

[danielwoods]

You do realize that what is now 1 Peter was not originally written in Chapter form? It was simply one letter. 1 Peter 3:19 & 20 was just a few sentences before 1 Peter 4:6 - Same train of thought.

Sure, Peter is carrying the same train of thought through his letter. In chapter 3 he states that Christ suffered and was made alive in the spirit. After being made alive he proclaimed to the spirits in prison (no gospel, no evangel, just proclaimed). Then chapter 4 he states that those who suffer are done with sin, and in verse 2 the context is not living "their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God."

Note the context is earthly lives. Then 5 God will judge the living and dead (quick and dead) and 6 "For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead."

The NIV translates it correctly because the word *preached* is in the past tense or more specifically, "Aorist Indicative Passive

"In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense."

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

This is key, the gospel was preached to those who are now dead. It doesn't read, preached to the dead now.

 

1 Peter 3:19 references the preaching to the spirits in prison. These are the people who are dead, as is referenced by the mention of those who were not in the ark with Noah... or are you saying those that were not on the ark with Noah are still alive?

 

What I am saying is that "spirits in prison" is a reference that is unclear. It does not say people who are dead. When the bible uses the word "spirits" it is usually talking about angels. Is that what he means here? I don't know, it's unclear.

 

Verse 18 says Christ was put to death but quickened by the Spirit. During the 3 days His body laid in the tomb, He was not yet resurrected so was a Spirit. He was the only one that could lay down His own life and pick it up again. It is by the power of His spirit that he went and preached to those imprisoned spirits.

What is clear is that the preaching (as you like to translate it), doesn't contain any repentance. Nor does it support the LDS concept of repentance after death.

 

1 Peter 4:5 mentions the quick AND the dead will be judged by Christ, then verse 6 states that this is why the gospel is preached to those that are dead. At the time this was written, very few, relatively speaking, had the opportunity to hear the gospel preached, that were dead at that time, so it does not fit that this is addressing extremely few people regarding a universal event.

This is just your opinion. I trust what is written. Peter doesn't use the correct words to say that the gospel was preached to dead people, after their death. So, if he meant that, he wrote it incorrectly.

 

Two places in the same train of thought that mentions preaching the gospel to those that are dead.

There are too many things that simply do not mesh in how you interpret the scriptures.

Like saying that the gospel is preached in both verses? 1 Peter 3:19 contains no such wording.

 

[Flyonthewall]

I'm a little bit unclear what you are asking. I made the point that the finality of death was used as an example.

 

You must be misunderstanding what I am saying. I never said that the resurrection doesn't happen. Rather, what my point was that in the LDS theology death isn't the end of opportunity to repent and be saved. Indicating the lack of finality of death. However, in the bible it is.

Perhaps I did misunderstand what you were referring to as temporary.

For all those that have had the gospel preached to them, death is the end of their chance.

In LDS theology this mortal life is the time to repent see Alma 34:33

"33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed."

But this is directed at those that have been taught the gospel.

Those that have had no chance to hear the gospel do not even know there is a need for repentance.

 

Who is "Them" in verse 19? Verse 18 states that "they suppress the truth by their wickedness." That God has shown himself to them by his creation. It does not say that they have heard the gospel preached as you claim. Rather, that they know about the invisible qualities of God because of what God has shown them, through creation, not preaching as stated in verse 20.

So, who is "Them"? It's anyone who does wickedness, and thereby suppresses the truth.

"Them" in verse 19 refers back to "they who hold the truth in unrighteousness" in verse 18. The "truth" in verse 18 refers to the "righteousness of God" in verse 17, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ announced in verse 16.

As you can plainly see it is not referring to "anyone" in general, but anyone who has heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I guess if you ignore what I wrote, sure. "but the lack of it [preaching] certainly won't stop a person from finding God if they are seeking the truth."

Have I made these scriptures irrelevant? Only if you don't take what I am saying in the context I am saying it.

Your point is that a person who hasn't ever heard the gospel preached *must* have that opportunity after death otherwise God is not just.

My point is that all are without excuse, because God has displayed his glory for all to see (General revelation), and that is enough to lead a person who is truly seeking, to God.

Does my position make the above scriptures irrelevant? Not at all. It's sort of like discovering that oranges (vitamin C) helps with colds, compared to learning that anti-biotics or cold meds do even better. One is a general knowledge from experience, the other is specific knowledge one gains from instruction by experts.

I believe I understand what you are trying to say, but according to Romans 10, what other way does faith come? How can one have faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ, if they have never heard of it? The atonement is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is this what is revealed to a Buddhist? or a Shintoist? or a Pagan? or an Animist? or Hindu? or an Atheist? People who have never heard of Jesus Christ? A general belief in God is not enough. Someone who believes Vishnu is God, or Buddha or a tree, or some other name cannot be saved in the name of Jesus Christ because they do not know it. How can one have faith in Jesus if they do not know the name? Can faith in some other name save?

Jesus was all about preaching and missionary work to the entire world...If preaching is so irrelevant, why would Jesus command the preaching of His Gospel, when "general revelation" is good enough? Such a waste of time and effort to do missionary work when God will do it Himself(and since the bulk of all who have lived on earth have never heard of Jesus Christ, God is the one that had to have done it).

There are too many things about the scriptures that have to be ignored or outright opposed in your version.

[Flyonthewall]

Sure, Peter is carrying the same train of thought through his letter. In chapter 3 he states that Christ suffered and was made alive in the spirit. After being made alive he proclaimed to the spirits in prison (no gospel, no evangel, just proclaimed). Then chapter 4 he states that those who suffer are done with sin, and in verse 2 the context is not living "their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God."

Note the context is earthly lives. Then 5 God will judge the living and dead (quick and dead) and 6 "For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead."

The NIV translates it correctly because the word *preached* is in the past tense or more specifically, "Aorist Indicative Passive

"In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense."

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

This is key, the gospel was preached to those who are now dead. It doesn't read, preached to the dead now.

Of course it is in the past tense because this is referring to what Jesus did before his resurrection.

 

What I am saying is that "spirits in prison" is a reference that is unclear. It does not say people who are dead. When the bible uses the word "spirits" it is usually talking about angels. Is that what he means here? I don't know, it's unclear.

What are angels but messengers sent from God? The angel that gave to John the revelations in the Book of Revelation was a human. Why would angels be anything else? Spirits in prison are nothing more that spirits of the dead.

 

What is clear is that the preaching (as you like to translate it), doesn't contain any repentance. Nor does it support the LDS concept of repentance after death.

 

This is just your opinion. I trust what is written. Peter doesn't use the correct words to say that the gospel was preached to dead people, after their death. So, if he meant that, he wrote it incorrectly.

 

Like saying that the gospel is preached in both verses? 1 Peter 3:19 contains no such wording.

Refer to all the translations in my previous post - most of them translate to "preach" and those that use "proclaim" state the gospel or good news is proclaimed, which is different than proclaiming victory. So are you saying that Repentance is not a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

BTW - I love how you state that Peter wrote the scripture incorrectly. Perhaps it is just your interpretation that is incorrect?

[Bobbieaware]

Of course it is in the past tense because this is referring to what Jesus did before his resurrection. What are angels but messengers sent from God? The angel that gave to John the revelations in the Book of Revelation was a human. Why would angels be anything else? Spirits in prison are nothing more that spirits of the dead. Refer to all the translations in my previous post - most of them translate to "preach" and those that use "proclaim" state the gospel or good news is proclaimed, which is different than proclaiming victory. So are you saying that Repentance is not a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?BTW - I love how you state that Peter wrote the scripture incorrectly. Perhaps it is just your interpretation that is incorrect?

It''s amazing to see the mental gymnastics our friend has to go through in order to refute the obvious -- amazing and painful.

[dberrie2000]

Not a gratuitous swipe as it is a teaching of Joseph Smith. Once again to explain my point of view based on Biblical teaching.

I'm saying the English is based on what is in the Hebrew.

The plural allows for the three in the Godhead and yet still the one God of monotheism.

 

The Biblical NT writers never attributed the "one God" to Jesus Christ:

 

1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)

⁶ But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

 

How does that fit the faith alone theology?

[dberrie2000]

What are angels but messengers sent from God? The angel that gave to John the revelations in the Book of Revelation was a human. Why would angels be anything else?

 

Perhaps you could explain that to us:

 

Genesis 48:16---King James Version (KJV)

¹⁶ The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

[Flyonthewall]

Perhaps you could explain that to us:

 

Genesis 48:16---King James Version (KJV)

¹⁶ The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

Reference Genesis 32...? Not sure what you are asking here.