Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[danielwoods]

Sigh...this goes back to our previous discussion regarding the Bible.

 

Assuming that the Bible is inerrant, where do you find an inerrant interpretation of the Bible?  Are you that source for inerrancy?  Should all Christians come to you for interpreting the Bible, or is it some brilliant theologian, philosopher, scholar? 

 

Please share this source with us and your fellow Christians.

 

(PS  I asked you this before.  Will you, once again, refuse to answer?)

 

One doesn't have to assume that the Bible is inerrant to see that it doesn't teach certain things.

 

But since you've accused me of refusing to answer let me see if I can answer each question specifically.

 

"Assuming that the Bible is inerrant, where do you find an inerrant interpretation of the Bible?"

 

I don't ever claim to have an inerrant interpretation of the Bible. What I have claimed to be doing (and it's an on going process) is seeking the truth. 

 

 "Are you that source for inerrancy?"

 

 No. 

 

 "Should all Christians come to you for interpreting the Bible, or is it some brilliant theologian, philosopher, scholar?"

 

My opinion is, that all who seek the truth should go to Christ first, and study the Bible directly. 

Edited October 28, 2014 by danielwoods

[cdowis]

OK, you are saying there is no inerrant interpretation, that the Bible leaves itself open for discussion and debate on what it teaches.  

 

May I assume you agree with me that the historic Christian church has replaced the prophets and apostles with theologians and scholars, who teach scripture mingled with philosophy.

Edited October 28, 2014 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

OK, you are saying there is no inerrant interpretation, that the Bible leaves itself open for discussion and debate on what it teaches.  

 

May I assume you agree with me that the historic Christian church has replaced the prophets and apostles with theologians and scholars, who teach scripture mingled with philosophy.

 

Right, there is no inerrant interpretation that I know of. 

 

However, your statement is loaded with LDS baggage. I don't agree with the LDS point of view of the need for a restoration. Which is one reason why I trust the Bible. 

 

I do agree that many theologians and scholars aren't to be trusted, and don't agree with many of their conclusions. But, I think it has more to do with a lack of trust in God and his word, than mingled with philosophy in general. I mean even theism is a philosophy. 

[cdowis]

Right, there is no inerrant interpretation that I know of. 

 

However, your statement is loaded with LDS baggage. I don't agree with the LDS point of view of the need for a restoration. Which is one reason why I trust the Bible. 

 

I do agree that many theologians and scholars aren't to be trusted, and don't agree with many of their conclusions. But, I think it has more to do with a lack of trust in God and his word, than mingled with philosophy in general. I mean even theism is a philosophy. 

 

"Which is one reason why I trust the Bible. "

 

I would re-phrase this, "which is one reason why I trust my interpretation of the Bible."  It appears that you then place your ability to correctly interpret the Bible over the need for a modern prophet.

 

Peter disagrees with you. 2 Peter 1:20

 

For example, the scribes and Pharasees were learned, scholars on the Bible and they came to their interpretation that Christians were teaching heresy.  And Saul the Pharasee became Paul the prophet, not by interpretation of the Bible, but by means of a direct vision of Christ.  The Restoration would not happen by someone who is smarter than every else in their knowledge of the  Bible, but by revelation.

 

Christians disagree among themselves even on a basic doctrine on whether water baptism is necessary fo salvation.

Edited October 28, 2014 by cdowis

[coolrok7]

Where does the Bible teach the telestial, terestrial, and celestail kingdoms?

[cdowis]

Where does the Bible teach the telestial, terestrial, and celestail kingdoms?

 

Just curious whether you have actually read the entire NT  ==  ten times, five, once, less than one time?

[Tacenda]

Just curious whether you have actually read the entire NT == ten times, five, once, less than one time?

Definitely didn't teach telestial.

[teddyaware]

Where does the Bible teach the telestial, terestrial, and celestail kingdoms?

Speaking of the three states of resurrected glory, the Bible likens the first of these resurrected states to the brightness or glory of the sun. The second state is likened to the brightness or glory of the moon (bright, but not as bright as the sun). And the third resurrected state of glory is likened to the brightness or glory of the stars (not nearly as bright as the moon). So the Bible does speak of three distinct realms of glory in the resurrection. Joseph Smith was simply inspired to give each of these three degrees of resurrected glory a name. The concept of three degrees of heavenly glory is not new with Mormonism, as the teaching was first found in the pages of the Bible...

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (1 Cor 15)

and,

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. (2 Cor 12)

 

Edited October 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

"Which is one reason why I trust the Bible. "

 

I would re-phrase this, "which is one reason why I trust my interpretation of the Bible."  It appears that you then place your ability to correctly interpret the Bible over the need for a modern prophet.

 

Peter disagrees with you. 2 Peter 1:20

 

For example, the scribes and Pharasees were learned, scholars on the Bible and they came to their interpretation that Christians were teaching heresy.  And Saul the Pharasee became Paul the prophet, not by interpretation of the Bible, but by means of a direct vision of Christ.  The Restoration would not happen by someone who is smarter than every else in their knowledge of the  Bible, but by revelation.

 

Christians disagree among themselves even on a basic doctrine on whether water baptism is necessary fo salvation.

 

So talking about "my" interpretation of the Bible, verses that of the "LDS" interpretation. The main difference isn't the biblical text alone, but what is believed beyond it or not. I take what the text says at face value, and in context (both cultural and historical as well). The LDS interpretation says that a modern prophet's word is to be believed over what the text plainly teaches (or doesn't teach as the case may be). 

 

So, when I say, "I trust the Bible" that is what I mean. What is worth pointing out is the LDS interpretation is theirs alone. No where in history do we find three separate levels to heaven, or baptizing for the dead among bible believing people, because those concepts simply aren't taught in the text. So, referencing Peter's teaching about a "private" interpretation is interesting, because it's the LDS who are violating that principle. 

[Gervin]

For example, the scribes and Pharasees were learned, scholars on the Bible and they came to their interpretation that Christians were teaching heresy.  And Saul the Pharasee became Paul the prophet, not by interpretation of the Bible, but by means of a direct vision of Christ.  The Restoration would not happen by someone who is smarter than every else in their knowledge of the  Bible, but by revelation.

 

 

 

Paul wouldn't have been a prophet until he started prophesying, but the process of becoming a prophet was only begun by his encounter.  Isn't there some time frame where he's not heard from - out roaming 'round.  And he actually was incredibly book and Book smart which served him well; if you wanted personal testimony, he had a story to tell you.  If you wanted to argue the Way by means of philosophical thought (see Bereans (sp) in the agora, et al) then he would hold court.  

[coolrok7]

At critical points of doctrine what this all boils down to), Mormonism is almost always at odds with Christianity which should tell you something. The Biblical warnings are there for a reason. It usually comes in the form of misinterpreting what is there and adding to it with other so-called "Scripture" which is what all others do. Peter warns about this with people twisting things as they do also with the rest of Scripture/Paul's writings which are also Scripture.

 

Mohammad's, Baha'u'llah, Joseph Smith's, Russell's, Mary Baker Eddy's etc., etc. writings are not. They all meet the Bible's pronouncement of the coming of false prophets/teachers coming in Jesus' name. It is the false teaching we necessarily would object to.

 

There is no telestial (a made up term and in which as I typed term it was red underlined) there in 1 Corinthians 15 as well as "after all you can do" in Ephesians 2 to name a few. The argument in Corinthians is comparing the glory of the mortal and immortal bodies Christians (believers) will have at the resurrection which is the case being argued for by Paul.

 

The glory between the two being contrasted with the sun, moon, stars, where the glories are different is not talking about where eternal life is lived out so to speak (a recreated earth more than likely I would think). The sheep and the goats (two places) is what is taught (sheep- resurrection to eternal life; goats- eternal punishment in hell (Gehenna)).

[cdowis]

You ask where do we find the "telestial kingdom" in the Bible.  My friend, in the same place where we find  "homoousia" (one substance).

 

And perhaps we can agree that is the basic difference between our two religions ==>>

the uninspired creeds of man (Nicene Creed) vs  "false prophets".  

 

In any case we can respect our differences and affirm that we are both Christians.

Edited October 29, 2014 by cdowis

[Anakin7]

 As with some non LDS Christians who see the same defective/false/heretical doctrines/teachings of Lutheranism and its problems coolrok of which you a member of that protesting room. May True Grace be with you.

 

in His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[Vance]

Paul wouldn't have been a prophet until he started prophesying, but the process of becoming a prophet was only begun by his encounter.  Isn't there some time frame where he's not heard from - out roaming 'round.  And he actually was incredibly book and Book smart which served him well; if you wanted personal testimony, he had a story to tell you.  If you wanted to argue the Way by means of philosophical thought (see Bereans (sp) in the agora, et al) then he would hold court.

It is interesting that Paul never claimed that scripture (the Old Testament) was his source for the gospel he preached.

He actually claimed the same source which we claim.

Interesting indeed.

It is also interesting that the scripture, which the Bereans studied with Paul, was the Old Testament. Paul gave new meaning and interpretation of OT scripture to support his arguments. The Bereans, unlike Evangelicals, were open to these new interpretations/meanings.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

At critical points of doctrine what this all boils down to), Mormonism is almost always at odds with Christianity <SHIP> rection to eternal life; goats- eternal punishment in hell (Gehenna)).

Repeating the same drivel doesn't move the discussion forward. You have been shown to be in error so many times that you have no credibility here.

True Christianity is FAR more than your shallow/vacuous interpretation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Definitely didn't teach telestial.

yeah it does. It teaches all 3 rather plainly.

 

Tell me Tracenda, what does this phrase mean in relation to learning that different bodies have different glories?

 

Paul even uses the words, "celestial"  and "terrestrial" in relation to these glories. He then goes on to mention the Sun (celestial) the moon (terrestrial) and the stars (telestial is implied because of the mention of the stars) 

 

So also is the resurrection of the dead

Edited October 29, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

. The main difference isn't the biblical text alone, but what is believed beyond it or not. I take what the text says at face value, and in context (both cultural and historical as well).

Actually you don't do this at all. You think you do but you don't. Accepting Christ in to you heart is not all that is required for salvation. Yet you say that is all you need to do. That is not even in the bible. The only time faith alone is mentioned in the bible is when it says that faith is dead being alone. All you do is quote some other part of the bible while ignoring these verses. And no, you don't take things in context (both cultural and historical as well). What is faith? It is more than a belief. That is what you have reduced it to. I just need to believe (trust) that Christ is my savior and he does the rest. Sorry but that is not in scripture either.

 

Historically faith was a deep commitment that required you to show it and live not just perform a lip service.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Anakin7]

       coolrok one/you must accept/access/activate True Grace [charis] By way Of True Faith - [ pistis = allegience/commitment/confidence/devotion/faithfulness/fidelity/loyalty/obedience/trust]  to Christ Jesus as was integrated into the Hearts/Minds of the True "Biblical" Saints. coolrok7 I say unto you - You need True Grace !. Out of Love for you .

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7 

Edited October 29, 2014 by Anakin7

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

At critical points of doctrine what this all boils down to), Mormonism is almost always at odds with Christianity which should tell you something.

You are essentially arguing that because "a lot of people believe this it must be true". That is a logical fallacy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You ask where do we find the "telestial kingdom" in the Bible.  My friend, in the same place where we find  "homoousia" (one substance).

I disagree. We have at the very least a valid interpretation of Paul's words and if that doesn't work we at least claim to have scripture that supports it. What do the other mainstream Christians have?  Nothing. They just assert it.

[coolrok7]

Cdowis, a big difference in the argument being made. The discussion of the nature of God is different in a major way (the substance so to speak) is the distinction between spirit and flesh of which we are made, so like substance or same substance is where the distinction is being made for God in light of Arius' false argument concerning Jesus having a beginning,

hence not eternal Deity.

An inconsistency in Mormonism is the use of the term, "very God" in the BofM which comes from the Nicene Creed defending against Arius and what he was teaching.

Jesus, Who is God in the flesh is unique (Phillipines 2 where He took on our form in order to suffer death where the spirit departs the body at death per James. Also Hebrews 2 addresses this as well.

So when the term external to the text is used to make a distinction of which is in the Bible it is a different animal altogether.

In the resurrection we will have a glorified form as Jesus had (1 John 3) where we become like Him, not His Deity, but the type of glorified form He now has.

Joseph's insertion of a term which is not there in the text is what is not justified in light of the rest of what Paul is arguing for.

The context is the resurrection of the dead in which the glorified body has a glory greater than the mortal one is not justification for what Joseph Smith ended up teaching.

Edited October 29, 2014 by coolrok7

[cdowis]

I disagree. We have at the very least a valid interpretation of Paul's words and if that doesn't work we at least claim to have scripture that supports it. What do the other mainstream Christians have?  Nothing. They just assert it.

 

I wasn't speaking to an LDS audience.   I guess you have difficulty seeing things from their point of view and speaking in their language.

 

It's so much easier to just argue, isn't it.

Edited October 29, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Cdowis, a big difference in the argument being made. 

 

 

If you go back to my posts, I am talking about the source of your teachings vs the LDS church.  I feel comfortable having a living prophet as a source, as this is supported by "my interpretation" of the Bible.  

 

I feel very uncomfortable with the Pharasee model of truth -- teaching the philosophy of man mingled with scripture.  The scribes and Pharasees rejected the Christian prophets as heretics, and preferred to follow the light of their own wisdom.

 

I understand you would prefer to deflect the discussion with an argument over specific doctrines, otherwise known as Bible bashing.  I prefer to stick with the basics.

Edited October 29, 2014 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

yeah it does. It teaches all 3 rather plainly.

 

Tell me Tracenda, what does this phrase mean in relation to learning that different bodies have different glories?

 

Paul even uses the words, "celestial"  and "terrestrial" in relation to these glories. He then goes on to mention the Sun (celestial) the moon (terrestrial) and the stars (telestial is implied because of the mention of the stars) 

 

Note that the idea or concept of separate kingdoms (celestial, terrestrial, etc.) are not taught by Paul. "Different glories" is not talking about kingdoms. The contextual reference is from one person looking at the different brightnesses of the sun, moon, stars, while on Earth. Separate kingdoms is a completely foreign concept to what Paul is teaching. No where does the NT teach that Heaven is separated into different parts or kingdoms. 

There is but one King, and one kingdom, praise God! 

 

Actually you don't do this at all. You think you do but you don't. Accepting Christ in to you heart is not all that is required for salvation. Yet you say that is all you need to do. That is not even in the bible. The only time faith alone is mentioned in the bible is when it says that faith is dead being alone. All you do is quote some other part of the bible while ignoring these verses. And no, you don't take things in context (both cultural and historical as well). What is faith? It is more than a belief. That is what you have reduced it to. I just need to believe (trust) that Christ is my savior and he does the rest. Sorry but that is not in scripture either.

 

Historically faith was a deep commitment that required you to show it and live not just perform a lip service.

 

If that is what you think I've been saying then I'm sorry I haven't done a better job at communicating. I have never said to "just perform a lip service" and you're saved. 

Edited October 29, 2014 by danielwoods

[Vance]

Note that the idea or concept of separate kingdoms (celestial, terrestrial, etc.) are not taught by Paul. "Different glories" is not talking about kingdoms. The contextual reference is from one person looking at the different brightnesses of the sun, moon, stars, while on Earth. Separate kingdoms is a completely foreign concept to what Paul is teaching. No where does the NT teach that Heaven is separated into different parts or kingdoms. 

There is but one King, and one kingdom, praise God!

Your whole argument is based upon the separation of "kingdom" from "glory". Of course, Biblically, this is a ridiculous and silly word game. Especially in light of these verses.

1.Matt. 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

2.Matt. 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

3.1 Thes. 2:12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

Both Matthew and Paul connect "kingdom" with "glory". So, what is your beef?

Edited October 29, 2014 by Vance