Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Apostle Peter believed the Apostle Paul's pastoral letters to be scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I see no reason why the other letters, Revelation, and the gospels should not be considered scripture. Those documents were recognized as scripture by the church long before a formal church canon of scripture was written down.

Is that not what you are doing with TULIP? Wresting the scriptures to your distruction?

 

Teachings things such as irrisitable grace? I really don't want to disrispect you personally, I really detest Calvanism. 

 

It takes out our part in this world. The scriptures teach us that we must do things of our own will.

One of them is to accept Jesus as our saviour. And that salvation is open to all. Not just a few elect.

 

And what kind of God would set up a system were he creates "pots" that are evil and he is not going to provide a way for them to be saved because they are not elect. That is love? Sorry. That is not love. Besides that, this thology demands that God is the author of evil. After all he created them (the pots) evil.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

Yes, an appeal to the authority of the Bible. I was under the impression that the LDS believe in the Bible. Am I wrong?

 

Proof Text:  Joshua 24:15 - And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD

 

This certainly sounds like free will to me.

[Vance]

Indeed the JW's agree with you, however there is not one Scholar can be found that supports their view or yours. Have the LDS changed this passage to reflect your superior translation efforts?

Nah, they are not with us.  But they do have the translation correct.

 

We don't need to correct the translation because we know the truth and the translation as is, when properly understood, is just fine.

[teddyaware]

Proof Text:  Joshua 24:15 - And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD

 

This certainly sounds like free will to me.

 

It is also critically important to remember that the LDS doctrine of the pre-earth life of all the men and women who would ever live in mortality on earth adds a whole new fair on logical dimension to Paul's words. With this all-important fact in mind, from the LDS point of view, all Paul is saying is that we reap what we sow as free agents in the preexistence. Abraham well explains this doctrine when he taught:

 

 22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligencesthat were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3)

 

So with an awareness of the preexistence, the doctrine of election based on the foreknowledge of God makes a lot more sense and emerges as just, loving and fair rather that capricious, illogical and uncharitable.

Edited December 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

Nah, they are not with us.  But they do have the translation correct.

 

We don't need to correct the translation because we know the truth and the translation as is, when properly understood, is just fine.

 

Since you aren't going to interpret the other 282 passages that use the same greek construction the same way or retranslate them as well, this is simply a case of using the Biblical text in an attempt to validate a claim that isn't originated from the text alone, but from another source. Which is common. 

Edited December 29, 2014 by danielwoods

[ERayR]

Since you aren't going to interpret the other 282 passages that use the same greek construction the same way or retranslate them as well, this is simply a case of using the Biblical text in an attempt to validate a claim that isn't originated from the text alone, but from another source. Which is common. 

 

Enter something hear about a pot calling a kettle black.

[Vance]

It's hardly worth responding to this. One, it's not an LDS argument (they aren't going to rewrite the KJV as you are). And the JW (Jehovah Witnesses) have been long disproven in their arguments. They used no scholars to produce the NWT (New World Translation), that you are depending on here.

I will give you one quote from the linked site below.

"3. By asserting that the anarthrous theos should be rendered indefinite (“a god”), the JWs impose their own translational rule: anarthrous nouns = an indefinite meaning. But in fact, the anarthrous theos appears 282 times in the NT! Only at sixteen places does the NWT translate these 282 anarthrous occurrences of theos as indefinite.[6] Hence, the NWT was faithful to its translational rule only six-percent of the time![7] For example, the anarthrous theos appears in John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18, but yet the NWT did not follow its so-called translational rule at those passages. Only at John 1:1c did it do so—for obvious reasons."

http://www.christiandefense.org/NWT.John%201.1_article.htm

So?  That is not a valid argument against the translation of John 1:1.

 

I do like this part though.

One of the main reasons as to why the NWT renders John 1:1c as “and the Word was a god” is that in the Greek (see above), the first occurrence of “God” (theon, 1:1b) has the article “the” (ton), but the second occurrence of “God” (theos, 1:1c) does not (note: nouns without the article are called anarthrous).

 

Then, I notice that there is no scholarly attempt at refutation.  But rather they take the Danielwoods approach, which has been pointed out several times here.  Basically the argument is, "It can't mean what it says, because . . . ."

. .

 

. . .

wait for it.

. .

 

 . .

 

"they don't believe it."

 

Oh, and I do like this part.

But semantically, theos is *qualitative,*

That destroys their whole argument that it make Jesus the one true God.

[danielwoods]

Enter something hear about a pot calling a kettle black.

 

If you want to just throw darts, then so be it. 

 

My goal is to read and understand what the original writers intended. The JW's interpretation of that passage, along with Vance's isn't derived from the text but from another source. You disagree? Please demonstrate how it is correct? 

 

Here is the link I posted earlier that refutes Vance's take on John 1:1.

 

http://www.christiandefense.org/NWT.John%201.1_article.htm

Edited December 29, 2014 by danielwoods

[Vance]

The word grace means unmerited favor. 

That is one of its meanings.  BUT it is not the only one.

 

If salvation requires any works, then there is no room for grace.

That is a false statement.

 

This verse alone, refutes that notion.

 John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

 

If grace can only mean an "unmerited" favor, the it is IMPOSSIBLE to receive "grace for grace", as John claims.

[Vance]

 

Because the LDS God is limited to a physical body, he is not omnipresent. Brigham Young said, "Some would have us believe that God is present everywhere. It is not so" (Journal of Discourses6:345).

LDS Apostle James Talmage stated that neither God the Father, nor "any actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be physically present in more than one place at one time" (The Articles of Faith, pg. 39). The Mormon God's "omnipresence" is fulfilled through the Holy Spirit which, according to Mormon Apostle John Widtsoe, is not to be confused with the Holy Ghost (Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 76-77).

It is true that we reject the "omni" dejour man-made God.  You know, the one that is supposed to be "omni"potent but by the man-made definition He can't produce (or reproduce) a being like Himself.  

(You know that "infinite" thing and that creator/creature false dichotomy prevents it.)

Edited December 29, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Calvinists believe that human beings were chosen for salvation or not chosen for salvation before they were created. Human beings did not exist until they were either created (Adam and Eve) or procreated (everyone else).

So then there is nothing we can do to change the already determined outcome.  Then why are you even here?  Your efforts, according to your own belief change ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

By the way, a God that doesn't require anything from us, is the same as a non-existent God.

[Vance]

The best explanation I have heard is: The question is not why he does not save all, but why does he save any?

Really, according to Paul, it is God's will that all men be saved.

 

1 Tim 2:4 (God) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

 

So, if God, "who will have all men to be saved" wants it, why does it not happen?

[Vance]

People who are not chosen for salvation either do not believe in God or believe false things about God.

Only arrogant, sanctimonious Calvinist are saved then?

[Vance]

I do read the bible. Every thing I read in the bible supports what I am saying.

LOL!!!

 

Actually, it doesn't.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Really, according to Paul, it is God's will that all men be saved.

 

1 Tim 2:4 (God) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

 

So, if God, "who will have all men to be saved" wants it, why does it not happen?

Because he created some people evil and he chose not to save them. I mean if I just ignore what you quoted it works.

[ERayR]

If you want to just throw darts, then so be it. 

 

 

Throw darts.  What do you call this:  Since you aren't going to interpret the other 282 passages that use the same greek construction the same way or retranslate them as well, this is simply a case of using the Biblical text in an attempt to validate a claim that isn't originated from the text alone, but from another source. Which is common.

 

Again with the pots and kettles.

Edited December 29, 2014 by ERayR

[Vance]

Remember, I am a Calvinist. When I say that the Christian gospel is not preached at LDS churches, I mean the Christian gospel as understood by Calvinists is not preached in LDS churches.

Good thing that what the Calvinist understand to be the Christian gospel isn't really the Christian gospel.  It is simply a false interpretation of a "Pauline" gospel.  The Gospel taught by Jesus Christ is nothing like it.

[Vance]

The Apostle Peter believed the Apostle Paul's pastoral letters to be scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So, what Paul wrote is easy to misunderstand.

 

Sounds to me like you should start by studying everything except what Paul wrote FIRST, and then interpret Paul's writings based on what others wrote.  And not the other way around.

[Vance]

Yes, an appeal to the authority of the Bible.

You are not really appealing to the Bible, but only to your (or Calvins) private interpretation of it.

 

You seem to think that your interpretation is the only valid or reasonable one.  And so you think that when you quote a scripture it is some sort of silver bullet.  But it isn't.  Your interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's.

[Vance]

Since you aren't going to interpret the other 282 passages that use the same greek construction the same way or retranslate them as well, this is simply a case of using the Biblical text in an attempt to validate a claim that isn't originated from the text alone, but from another source. Which is common. 

The problem you have is that translating those other 282 passages the way you seem to imply that we need to, won't change the basic meaning of them.

 

When you understand the divine, it doesn't matter whether "God" sent someone or whether the "Divine" sent someone.  The point is the same.

[Vance]

If you want to just throw darts, then so be it. 

 

My goal is to read and understand what the original writers intended. The JW's interpretation of that passage, along with Vance's isn't derived from the text but from another source. You disagree? Please demonstrate how it is correct? 

 

Here is the link I posted earlier that refutes Vance's take on John 1:1.

 

http://www.christiandefense.org/NWT.John%201.1_article.htm

The source you quoted TOTALLY agreed with the following translations that I provided.

 

The Bible - An American Translation

1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)

Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)

"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)

"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"

 

NOW

 

Go back and read my original post,

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63727-dear-evangelical-friends-can-a-mormon-be-a-christian/?p=1209448609

 

And compare it with this,

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63727-dear-evangelical-friends-can-a-mormon-be-a-christian/?p=1209449558

 

And keep in mind that your article said,

"But semantically, theos is *qualitative,*"

 

Meaning the Word was, divine, or god-like sort or of a divine kind (meaning a god).

 

The Word, according to your article was "qualitatively" god or a god.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Because he created some people evil and he chose not to save them. I mean if I just ignore what you quoted it works.

Drats!!!

 

I keep forgetting that old, if I don't believe it, then it doesn't mean what it says.  This whole "sola scriptura", except for the parts that they don't believe is so confusing for me.

[Vance]

The Mormon God is finite.

WOW!!!

 

You really have no clue about what we really believe.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Vance

[danielwoods]

The problem you have is that translating those other 282 passages the way you seem to imply that we need to, won't change the basic meaning of them.

 

When you understand the divine, it doesn't matter whether "God" sent someone or whether the "Divine" sent someone.  The point is the same.

 

Then your argument is that I don't understand the divine. 

 

The source you quoted TOTALLY agreed with the following translations that I provided.

 

The Bible - An American Translation

1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)

Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)

"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)

"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"

 

NOW

 

Go back and read my original post,

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63727-dear-evangelical-friends-can-a-mormon-be-a-christian/?p=1209448609

 

And compare it with this,

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63727-dear-evangelical-friends-can-a-mormon-be-a-christian/?p=1209449558

 

And keep in mind that your article said,

"But semantically, theos is *qualitative,*"

 

Meaning the Word was, divine, or god-like sort or of a divine kind (meaning a god).

 

The Word, according to your article was "qualitatively" god or a god.

 

If I understand your argument, you are trying to use this passage to say that Jesus was of the "divine kind"? 

 

The JW's use it to say that Jesus is "a god" not equal to God the Father, but equal to a lessor god of some sort. 

 

I've read your post many times, and it's clear you're trying to use an interlinear to make the greek say something, what that is exactly is not clear. 

[Flyonthewall]

Yes.

So... in your concept of god, he creates people for no other reason than to damn them... and if they express an interest in truth, he will actively prevent them from learning lest they thwart his purpose for creating them.

I'm just trying to remember what being is it that desires the damnation of people and actively works towards their damnation...