Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Silhouette]

In Genesis, paraphrased: "If thou cursest me for doing the same thing which has been done on other worlds [...]

-----Lucifer to God in the Garden of Eden

"Worlds" is plural.

[danielwoods]

I think I asked this before, but please tell us how many times you have completely read the NT, and how many times in the Greek.

I have read it ten time, including twice in Greek.

Not sure the relevance of the question. If I've read it 3.5 millions times, you still have faith in the word of a prophet over anything anyone else would say.

I honestly have no idea how many times I've read either of them. I don't claim to be able to read Greek well enough to read through my Greek NT.

 

 

If a prophet states that there is more than one kingdom, and the NT clearly teaches that there is but one, who do you believe?

 

I think we have been there before.  "The NT clearly teaches" is actually  "my interpretation and understanding of the NT".

Which of course is true to a point. For example, the question of how many kingdoms of Heaven are taught in the NT is a pretty straight forward topic. Not a whole lot of interpretation is required there. We can all look and study the NT and see what it "clearly" teaches and what it does not. Like I said to Vance, if you want to say that 1 out of 77 occurrences of that word is the NT teaching the plural of Kingdoms, then go ahead, I don't feel comfortable saying that. At that point our goals are different.  I'm interested in the Truth, I really don't care where it leads.

 

Again, as I have pointed out to you, Paul disagrees with you, and Peter has given you a warning about giving a "private interpretation" of the scriptures.  That is the responsibility of the prophets.

 

So my choice is whether I should follow the admonition of Peter and believe your private interpretation of the scriptures (the Saul/ Pharasee model), or the words of a prophet that was called by the Lord in our day (the Paul model).  

What is interesting is that it is the LDS who are teaching and believing a "private interpretation" of scripture. I have no agenda here. I'm simply looking and studying the NT as it is, as anyone can do. I ask myself what does it actually teach? Does it actually teach multiple kingdoms? What other christian organization teaches that as well? If none, then who is it that is actually holding to a private interpretation?

 

Which one -- Saul the Pharasee or Paul the prophet?

 

I'm really tired of repeating myself, so let's simply agree to disagree.  I think you will agree that there is no need in continuing this discussion.

No worries. For me it's been very interesting.

[danielwoods]

In Genesis, paraphrased: "If thou cursest me for doing the same thing which has been done on other worlds [...]

-----Lucifer to God in the Garden of Eden

"Worlds" is plural.

 

Please cite where in Genesis this is found? 

[coolrok7]

In a nutshell Anakin7, the same way the early Christians did. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. They were Justified by grace through faith having believed in Jesus unto salvation.

 

Being Sanctified or set apart for works of service, beginning with the command of baptism (a one time event); maintaining this through the Sacrament (multiple times throughout ones life) of the Lord's Supper.

 

Continuing on in the doctrine delivered to the Biblical saints by the apostles chosen by Jesus. This was sufficient then as it is now. All the other things such as good works in a Christian's life flows from this.

[Silhouette]

Please cite where in Genesis this is found?

Well slap me. It ain't in there. I posted that it was because I honestly thought I had read it in Genesis where God tells the serpent, "Upon thy belly shalt thou go [...]

I'm sorry for the confusion. I'll just uh...crawl back under my rock now...please excuse me while I go die of embarrassment.

[coolrok7]

Silhouette, a lesson learned. You don't have to go anywhere.

[Anakin7]

       Thank you coolrok7  so do you believe that True Grace [charis] must be Accepted/Accessed/Activated by True Faith [Faithfulness/Fidelity/Loyalty/Obedience/Trust/ to the person of Jesus Christ ?. Believing in Jesus Christ is the work calls for, the one that leads to eternal life ?. Is one once saved Always saved ?.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

            Anakin7

Edited October 31, 2014 by Anakin7

[Silhouette]

Silhouette, a lesson learned. You don't have to go anywhere.

Bless you for your kind comment. I'm still red!

And happy recent birthday, by the way! Hope it was great.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Silhouette

[coolrok7]

Thank you Silhouette and your welcome. I know the feeling (not fun).

It was a great day at Disneyland (one of my daughters works there and signed us in) with some of the family and my first grandaughter. She is such a cutie!

Edited October 31, 2014 by coolrok7

[coolrok7]

Anakin7, it's more a Baptist thing.

I'm an advocate of eternal security in which Jesus is faithful in keeping watch over those who have faith in Him, Who is the author and finisher of our faith.

In Him are we eternally secure!

[Vance]

Well, in 76 other occurrences of that exact word usage in the NT, it's translated singular. Even in Revelation 1:9, the exact same word is used, and it's translated singular. Why they translated 11:15 as plural is beyond me. However, to take that one verse and pit it against the other 76, and say there are multiple kingdoms based on that one isn't something I would feel comfortable doing.

http://biblehub.com/greek/basileia_932.htm

Apparently, it is a word like "sheep", "elk", "quail", "fish" and "deer", in that it can be either plural or singular.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/basileia.html

So, your attack is neutered.

 

There's nothing to refute. What evidence is there that there are other planets that are inhabited?

Arguing from the absence of evidence is as fool hardy as trying to prove a negative.

And yet that is what you are doing. You have no evidence that there aren't other populated worlds.

Apparently "worlds" is a legitimate rendition of the Greek words used.

So, again, your attack is neutered.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/aion.html

[Vance]

In a nutshell Anakin7, the same way the early Christians did. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. They were Justified by grace through faith having believed in Jesus unto salvation.

 

Being Sanctified or set apart for works of service, beginning with the command of baptism (a one time event); maintaining this through the Sacrament (multiple times throughout ones life) of the Lord's Supper.

 

Continuing on in the doctrine delivered to the Biblical saints by the apostles chosen by Jesus. This was sufficient then as it is now. All the other things such as good works in a Christian's life flows from this.

I can agree with all of that. As long as you use the original meanings of the words in the Christian context. NOT the Modern, American, Protestant, Evangelical context.

[Storm Rider]

In your mind you think you have Vance,demonstrated things to me, but you operate on a different standard than me so I'm not persuaded as you are not persuaded by me.

It's your prerogative of course to disagree but I'm persuaded by Biblical teaching which was here way before Joseph Smith or you and others here came along.

It does not teach what Mormonism says it does.

Before you twist my words again as usual, ...

 

This goes from pedantic to just plain silliness.  Your theology is no more bible based than that of Catholicism or Mormonism.  You have your interpretation and Catholics have another, which I might add condemns/rejects yours.  The fact that LDS have a different interpretation is not surprising nor should it be.   All you have proved is your interpretation is different.  If you have something else to add, bring it forward, if not, this entire conversation is moot.  

 

The Bible teachings the majority of LDS concepts; not the Book of Mormon.  The fact that you reject such an interpretation does not indicate it is not biblical; it means you simply refuse to see it or believe it.  The fact is that there are many Biblical verses that are very problematical for you and for your interpretation.  What you have chosen to do is bury your head in the sand and say they are not there.  That objective does not mean they are not there; it means that your head is in the sand.  

Edited November 1, 2014 by Storm Rider

[danielwoods]

Apparently, it is a word like "sheep", "elk", "quail", "fish" and "deer", in that it can be either plural or singular.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/basileia.html

So, your attack is neutered.

 

And yet that is what you are doing. You have no evidence that there aren't other populated worlds.

Apparently "worlds" is a legitimate rendition of the Greek words used.

So, again, your attack is neutered.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/aion.html

First, I'm not attacking anyone or anything. I'm simply analyzing what the NT teaches.

Second, the usage of that word in each case is clear that there is but one kingdom, especially if you look at all 77 verses and their context. It's quite overwhelming in fact. Jesus said repeatedly, "in the kingdom of heaven…" he never said in the "kingdoms" of heaven.

Again, what does the NT teach? It certainly doesn't contain any teaching about different kingdoms of heaven.

The greek word for world is Cosmos, which is the same word we use for Universe. It was a description of all there is. The Cosmos. Carl Sagan used it in the same sense.

 

I also have no evidence that poka dotted pink elephants fly on the other side of Jupiter just out of sight, so using your logic that must also be true! 

 

[Tacenda]

This goes from pedantic to just plain silliness. You are no more bible based than Catholicism or Mormonism. You have your interpretation and Catholics have another, which I might add condemns yours. The fact that LDS interpretation is not surprising/ nor should it be. All you have proved is yours interpretation is different. If you have something else to add, bring it forward, if not, this entire conversation is moot.

The Bible teachings the majority of LDS concepts; not the Book of Mormon. The fact that you reject such interpretation does not indicate it is not biblical; it means you simply refuse to see it or believe it. The fact is that there are many Biblical verses that are very problematical for you and your interpretation. What you have chosen to do is bury your head in the sand and say they are not there. That objective does not mean they are not there; it means that your head is in the sand.

You've got to wonder though...if you take Christ out of either the Catholic or LDS or other Christian churches no problem, but when you take Christ out of the EV that's a problem. The churches can function, but the individual cannot. No offense to these churches though. But if we're being honest about functionality.

ETA: But I guess the individual can function but are they where Christ would want them, if this makes any sense at all.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Tacenda

[Anakin7]

       coolrok7 thank you, your response was a little vague. A Baptist Thing ?, humm within the Protestant House [ 25,000.00 + Denominations] they are at odds/war over this OSAS issue. We must live in True Grace [charis] to be Saved and prove/show/strive we want to stay there. There are a # of Do's/Do not's once one is initially come to Jesus Christ to be Saved and stay Saved by His Awesome Atoning Sacrifice.  http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/security.htm

 

May True Grace Be With You and those you Love

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[coolrok7]

I have never stated osas. Evangelicals like any other groupings of people have some differences.

I believe the warnings are there because of the possibility of falling away from the truth which is apostasy. The Holy Spirit according to Paul says that "some will"

In general though Evangelicals use Biblical teaching (exegesis) from what is there.

Anyone that that teaches differently than what it teaches is of course on a possible path to put themselves in danger of not having Biblical salvation when it comes to the essentials.

[Vance]

First, I'm not attacking anyone or anything. I'm simply analyzing what the NT teaches.

Yeah, right.

Second, the usage of that word in each case is clear that there is but one kingdom, especially if you look at all 77 verses and their context. It's quite overwhelming in fact. Jesus said repeatedly, "in the kingdom of heaven…" he never said in the "kingdoms" of heaven.

And yet it talks about many places in heaven. It talks about the third heaven, which makes no sense unless there is a first and second heaven. And it talks about different glories. And it associates glories and heaven.

SOOOOOO

I am very comfortable with the teachings and concepts of multiple kingdoms and multiple heavens and multiple glories.

Again, what does the NT teach? It certainly doesn't contain any teaching about different kingdoms of heaven.

See above.

The greek word for world is Cosmos, which is the same word we use for Universe. It was a description of all there is. The Cosmos. Carl Sagan used it in the same sense.

So, there is no possibility of other peopled worlds in the cosmos? And if there were do you think God would reveal their existence to the NT Saints?

 

I also have no evidence that poka dotted pink elephants fly on the other side of Jupiter just out of sight, so using your logic that must also be true!

You have no evidence that God really exists either. So, using your logic He must not.

[Vance]

You've got to wonder though...if you take Christ out of either the Catholic or LDS or other Christian churches no problem, but when you take Christ out of the EV that's a problem.

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen. Edited October 31, 2014 by Vance

[danielwoods]

Yeah, right.

And yet it talks about many places in heaven. It talks about the third heaven, which makes no sense unless there is a first and second heaven. And it talks about different glories. And it associates glories and heaven.

SOOOOOO

I am very comfortable with the teachings and concepts of multiple kingdoms and multiple heavens and multiple glories.

See above.

It appears that you are confusing two concepts. What is being taught, and what is mentioned.

There a lot of things mentioned in the NT and the Bible as a whole, that are not taught by way of instruction.

There is no teaching of multiple kingdoms, heavens, etc. What is taught is that there is but one king and one kingdom of heaven.

 

So, there is no possibility of other peopled worlds in the cosmos? And if there were do you think God would reveal their existence to the NT Saints?

 

You have no evidence that God really exists either. So, using your logic He must not.

There is always a possibility. There just isn't any evidence for it.

There is a lot of evidence for the existence of God, but that's another topic.

[Tacenda]

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever seen.

I guess I should have worded it a little differently. I just wonder how many don't rely on a relationship with Christ in some churches. I know it's where I struggled, I didn't "know" Him at all, but yet showed up for church each Sunday. I take blame though. And the EV doesn't hold to any specific religion or church, just their relationship with Christ. Edited November 1, 2014 by Tacenda

[Storm Rider]

You've got to wonder though...if you take Christ out of either the Catholic or LDS or other Christian churches no problem, but when you take Christ out of the EV that's a problem. The churches can function, but the individual cannot. No offense to these churches though. But if we're being honest about functionality.

ETA: But I guess the individual can function but are they where Christ would want them, if this makes any sense at all.

 

Tacenda, if there is no Christ there is no church; there is no purpose for being; there is no purpose to this mortal existence.  I don't see how we as Latter-day Saints can deal with that projection than a Catholic or a Protestant of whatever stripe.  

 

We have an organization, but it is meaningless without Jesus.  The Catholics have an organization, but I think it also is meaningless without the Savior at its core.  

 

You should have had the opportunity to spend time with Evangelicals from your youth.  I have and they are not what you have come to think they are.

 

We each, all Christians, seek a relationship with Christ.  If someone will read scriptures and pray; follow the teachings of the Church; I find it impossible for them to avoid coming to know Christ at some point in their life.  Granted, we can be pretty hardheaded, but eventually we open the door and let him in.  

[Tacenda]

SR, maybe the EV's (some) need Christ more then those that try to be perfect. They keep telling themselves they are sinners, not us usually. They seem to really emphasize it and show they need Christ more. But what do I know!?!?

[Calm]

I guess I should have worded it a little differently. I just wonder how many don't rely on a relationship with Christ in some churches. I know it's where I struggled, I didn't "know" Him at all, but yet showed up for church each Sunday. I take blame though. And the EV doesn't hold to any specific religion or church, just their relationship with Christ.

How many Evangelical churches have you attended on a regular basis? How many Catholic? How many Protestant? How many Orthodox?

I don't think you realize what an Evangelical is. The group includes a wide variation of practices with some very tied to a particular church or faith system in addition to developing a relationship with Christ. Some groups form around a charismatic leader with whom they have a strong connection to, perhaps even with some leaving them with no need to personally seek out Christ.

[Calm]

"They keep telling themselves they are sinners, not us usually"

Do you mean we don't focus on the fact we sin? If so, please explain how we are taught to pray for forgiveness daily, exercise repentance, each week we take the sacrament...not to show that we were good at keeping the commandments but because we recognize we need Christ's redemption in our lives constantly.

We don't focus on the negative side of existence, instead we focus on how Christ changes us, we believe Christ can change us, we believe in his forgiveness. While I have respect for many Evangelicals, I find the obsession some have with insisting they are worthless an insult to the Creator and the constant refrain of being a sinner even after seeking out redemption an insult to the changing power of the Atonement. Thankfully in my experience I've only encountered a few who hold this version of EV teachings. I do not know how widespread it is.

Edited November 1, 2014 by calmoriah