Biblical Keys For Discerning True And False Prophets

[Kevin Christensen]

I keep having stuff I wrote disappear after a quote.  That didn't use to happen so much.

 

The fact that I went to the trouble of collecting 28 Bible Tests for Discerning True and False Prophets ought to show that I do actually have a great love and respect for the Bible.

 

And in considering a range of Atheist writings that I have read, I notice that the Bible recommendations for seeing truth are far more interesting and useful than what they imagine.

 

See Kent P. Jackson's essay here, which involves putting the New Testament passages on the Apostasy and the state of the church at different times in Chronological order.  I find if powerfully revealing.

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1128&index=10

 

Earlier, I linked two articles by Margaret Barker, a non-LDS Bible scholar.  She makes the case in The Secret Tradition that there was more to the teachings of Jesus than is contained in the New Testament.  It's interesting for LDS to compare what we have with what she finds.  And in Text and Context, she writes on the transmission of the Hebrew scriptures.  I can compare that with the prophesies in 1 Nephi 13.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited March 16, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Bobbieaware]

Do you believe the tradition that says the early churches quickly started circulating copies of the epistles among themselves? What could they have gotten from the epistles that weren't written to them?

If we don't know what Gospel Paul preached to the Galatian church, then what Gospel was he talking about in Galatians 2-4? Since Paul was so adamant about believing in and following one, true Gospel, why would the Gospel he explains in chapters 2-4 be any different than the Gospel he first preached to them?

Paul's core message in his epistle to the Galatian saints is that' "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." And that is precisely the same message taught by the prophet Lehi in his masterful discourse found in 2 Nephi 2 of the Book of Mormon...

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. 2 Nephi 2

Edited March 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

Kevin, if you turn off the automatic formatting, the quote function should behave properly and you should be able to remove any faulty formatting.  Use the light switch icon in the upper left corning next to the eraser.

 

Once done correcting, turning on the light again hopefully won't cause problems.

[NotaMormon]

The one that he had preached to them.

 

 

Who is claiming it is different?

Since Galatians 2-4 is Paul reviewing the Gospel he preached to them, which is not a different Gospel, then that means we DO have the Gospel Paul preached to the Galatians. Romans 2-6 also gives us a good picture of the Gospel Paul taught. So why is it presumptuous to make a judgment about what Gospel Paul taught when we have so much scripture preaching and reviewing it?

 

NotaMormon asks:

 

The point of Paul writing to the Galatians about the test is that at that point in time, the Apostles and the original organizations structure of the church is intact.  He's simply telling them not to follow outside teachers who coming along preaching something else.  So if someone like Simon Magus comes along, asking to buy his way in, or someone else tries to talk his way in, who was not a part of the known organization, that is how that test could have been applied.

 

The problem we have in doing this today is Paul and the Apostles are long gone  And we have multiple competing interpretations of the New Testament.  Lots of churches.  And a range of approaches to the New Testament.  So presupposing that your or my starting point is the correct one, and anyone else must be wrong, is simply a demonstration of Position 2 of the Perry Scheme, rather than a viable application of the test.  

Paul's use of terms like "we" and "anyone" shows he wasn't just warning about 'outside teachers.' The warning about people adding to or changing the Gospel applied to all teachers.

 

"Position 2" is a misrepresentation of my point. I'm not saying my church or my narrow set of beliefs is the only TRUE church. There isn't one true church, but there are certainly false churches. Just because many churches disagree on issues, many of which are minor issues that don't effect the Gospel, doesn't mean we should reject all those churches and open ourselves to a Gospel that's not taught in the Bible.

 

That still doesn't answer why Paul worded the warning the way he did. Do those verses really sound like they're written by someone who knew the full gospel would be lost in a matter of years? Put yourself in Paul's shoes. If you're an apostle and you know the Gospel would be corrupted and apostles would be gone in a matter of years, why would teach people about a test that puts so much emphasis on the Gospel? Wouldn't you mention something about seeking a witness from the Spirit?

 

The fact that I went to the trouble of collecting 28 Bible Tests for Discerning True and False Prophets ought to show that I do actually have a great love and respect for the Bible.

Not necessarily. Most churches can list many verses that at least appear to support their position, but that doesn't make their position right. If someone approaches the Bible with a preconceived notion and a position to support, do they love and respect the Bible or do they love their preconceived notion?

 

And in considering a range of Atheist writings that I have read, I notice that the Bible recommendations for seeing truth are far more interesting and useful than what they imagine.

I'm sure they would disagree. They have a wide range of beliefs about what truth is and how it's found. I've talked with one atheist who considered himself a Christian because he was reading and following Christ's teachings, like 'love your neighbor as yourself.' They may use the Bible as a source of truth, however they define it, but they would say it's been too corrupted to make any real judgments about truth.

 

But my point about atheists isn't about how they find truth. The point is both atheism and Mormonism depends on the Bible not being a preserved, reliable source of truth. You don't see the irony?

Edited March 16, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Kevin Christensen]

We have some letters. We don't have everything that Paul and the other apostles and leaders said to the early Christians.

What we have is good and valuable for many reasons, but it is not everything. And that means, inevitably, that deciding who is adding or taking away

is a bit tricky. What assumptions are we making about Paul and the Gospel?

Did you read Jackson's article? Trying to evaluate the possibility of an apostasy while focusing on a single verse means neglecting many other verses and sources.

I remain convinced that I love and respect the Bible, and that I find great inspiration and insight within. When I set about collecting the passages I list in my essay, I had more

questions that preconceptions. I remain impressed by the answers I found.

It helps to understand the nature of the apostasy. What plain and precious things were lost? What covenants were done away with?

Barker's essay on the Secret Tradition shows that much of what was lost centered on the Temple. For the decline of covenant, see

Noel Reynolds, "The Decline of Covenant in Early Christian Thought."

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1100&index=11

I'm probably thinking of a different set of atheist writings. Sagan and Betrand Russell and Hutchins and such folks don't

imagine that the Bible encourages people to

Be interested

Listen with Purposeful Intent: Seeking Knowledge of God

Study with Open Minds and with Faith (where faith is hope for that which is not seen)

Examine the works

Listen to all the witnesses (not selecting to justify a desired result)

Consider the credentials and motives of the authorities and witnesses involved

Be as concerned with measuring yourself as with measuring the prophets

Receive the prophets and their followers for what they are, not requiring them to be something else

Pray

Persist whatever the cost

The kinds of people I'm thinking of don't imagine that believers apply any critical thought at all. We're just supersticious dupes, accepting without inquiry.

And Paul does ask people to consider the manifestations of the Holy Spirit: Gal. 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

The Plenary view of scripture is that the Bible is complete, inerrant, and sufficient. It's very difficult to defend such a view

based on the evidence of the manuscripts, and the Biblical text itself. If one's faith in God depends on such a view, one is vulnerable to

evidence on that point. On the other hand, if the Bible is seen as of great worth, despite being not complete, not inerrant, and not sufficient

to bestow authority or to provide anything beyond it's own contents, then, an investigator is much less likely to suffer shattering

disillusion and more able to benefit from what it actually does provide. Imperfections are no longer decisive. The Book of Mormon

makes of claims of Plenary content either.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[NotaMormon]

Did you read Jackson's article? Trying to evaluate the possibility of an apostasy while focusing on a single verse means neglecting many other verses and sources.

Of course, there's more to my position than just 2 verses in Galatians. My bible study group recently did a study in Judges. I wasn't expecting this topic to come up in the study, but I couldn't help but see it. Judges is an amazing picture of God's faithfulness despite our unfaithfulness and even rebellion. Samson's story shows us how far God is willing to go to preserve His people, even if it means subverting human free will. The behavior and character of God in Judges does not sound like the god the Great Apostasy describes.

 

I'm about halfway through Jackson's article and it's the same confusing interpretations I've heard before. He quotes verses that say "many" and "some" people would follow false teachers, yet we're supposed to believe those verses mean the WHOLE church would follow the false teachers? Why should we read "some" and think that's talking about the whole church? That would be like me finding stories about "some" former LDS members joining Protestant churches and claiming that means the whole LDS church is rejecting Joseph Smith. That wouldn't make sense for me to claim, so why should we make claims like that about the early church?

 

Jackson's reading of 2 Thess 2 doesn't make sense. We all agree that Paul was writing the book to assure people that the "day of Christ" hadn't happened yet. So why would he comfort them by mentioning an event that would happen at least 1800 years before the day of Christ? If Jackson's reading of the verse is right, then some of the younger members of the Thessalonian church would have been alive after the falling away happened, so they would have been back dealing with the same problem that Paul was responding to. How does that make sense? Wouldn't Paul have mentioned an event that was actually going to happen a lot closer to the day of Christ?

 

Plus, he claims the "man of sin" in the verse is Satan. I think that's a valid interpretation, but it doesn't make sense that he was "revealed" when the early church fell into apostasy. If Satan took over the early church, he would have been disguising himself. They didn't fall into Satan worship. They still believed they were following God. If the LDS claim of the early church is true, then Satan did the exact opposite of revealing himself.

Edited March 18, 2015 by NotaMormon

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

If what you're saying is true and the New Testament doesn't give us a clear picture of the Gospel Paul taught, then Paul's test in Gal 1:8-9 is useless. If the Gospel in the Bible is that corrupted and incomplete, then those verses do more harm then good. Why would Paul put such a strong emphasis on a test that he knew would soon become useless? Do those verses really sound like they're written by someone who knew the full gospel would be lost in a matter of years. He would have to be pretty reckless to put so much emphasis on something so unreliable. Or is that passage another example of corrupt or incomplete verses?

 

Do you see the irony in the idea that God's true church would defend itself by using the same types of arguments against the Bible that atheists use against it? It feels so odd to think that having faith in God's true church means having so little faith in the reliability of the Bible.

Atheists find fault in the scriptures for the purpose of disbelieving it as a whole.  LDS point out flaws in the scriptures not to discredit but simply to be honest that the scriptures are not perfect writings.  Pretending that the New Testament is not corrupted in anyway or making illegitimate claims that it is complete does not address the reality of how things actually are.  It also creates a target for atheists to attack.   My wife has many flaws just as I have many flaws.  The fact that I admit and declare that my wife has flaws does not mean I don't love her nor is my statement an attack on her.  She knows she is far from perfect.  Me declaring that she is perfect does not suddenly make her perfect.

 

We are all aware that there are errors in the Bible due to faulty translations and ignorance on the part of the translators, but the hand of the Lord has been over this volume of Scripture nevertheless, and it is remarkable that it has come down to us in the excellent condition in which we find it." (Joseph Fielding Smith, "Doctrines of Salvation" Vol. 3, p. 191)

 

"We are not called to teach the errors of translators but the truth of God's word. It is our mission to develop faith in the revelations from God in the hearts of the children, and "How can that best be done?" is the question that confronts us. Certainly not by emphasizing doubts, creating difficulties or teaching negations...The clause in the Articles of Faith regarding mistakes in the translation of the Bible was never intended to encourage us to spend our time in searching out and studying those errors, but to emphasize the idea that it is the truth and the truth only that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts, no matter where it is found." (George Q. Cannon, "Gospel Truth" Vol. 2, p. 249)

[teddyaware]

Of course, there's more to my position than just 2 verses in Galatians. My bible study group recently did a study in Judges. I wasn't expecting this topic to come up in the study, but I couldn't help but see it. Judges is an amazing picture of God's faithfulness despite our unfaithfulness and even rebellion. Samson's story shows us how far God is willing to go to preserve His people, even if it means subverting human free will. The behavior and character of God in Judges does not sound like the god the Great Apostasy describes.

 

I'm about halfway through Jackson's article and it's the same confusing interpretations I've heard before. He quotes verses that say "many" and "some" people would follow false teachers, yet we're supposed to believe those verses mean the WHOLE church would follow the false teachers? Why should we read "some" and think that's talking about the whole church? That would be like me finding stories about "some" former LDS members joining Protestant churches and claiming that means the whole LDS church is rejecting Joseph Smith. That wouldn't make sense for me to claim, so why should we make claims like that about the early church?

 

Jackson's reading of 2 Thess 2 doesn't make sense. We all agree that Paul was writing the book to assure people that the "day of Christ" hadn't happened yet. So why would he comfort them by mentioning an event that would happen at least 1800 years before the day of Christ? If Jackson's reading of the verse is right, then some of the younger members of the Thessalonian church would have been alive after the falling away happened, so they would have been back dealing with the same problem that Paul was responding to. How does that make sense? Wouldn't Paul have mentioned an event that was actually going to happen a lot closer to the day of Christ?

 

I have a simple question for you: In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul declares he preached the gospel of Christ to the Galatian saints prior to ever composing his now famous epistle. So I'm quite curious to know if there are any existing records that accurately chronicle the complete gospel message Paul taught the Galatians when he visited them prior to the time they eventually received his brief epistle?  

 

Paul's epistle speaks of the Galatians saints having been beguiled to believe a hybrid gospel based on elements of defunct Mosaic legalism; but as far as I'm aware, there is no record of what Paul actually taught the Galatians in the first place. Prior to the epistle, Paul had many days to preach a complete and all-inclusive gospel message before he ever sent a letter that could be read over a Galatian church congregation's pulpit in 20 minutes. 

 

Beyond the information found in Paul's epistle, it would be most helpful to know -- specifically and completely -- the doctrines and principles he first taught the Galatians during the days of his visit. But by possessing the epistle to the Galatians, non-LDS Christians act as if possession of that brief letter is enough to obtain a complete, definitive knowledge of the gospel message Paul preached to the Galatians. But this seems very unlikely. There could be many important elements of gospel teaching Paul originally taught to the Galatians that are not even touched on in the epistle. But one thing is for certain, Paul's epistle to the Galatians clearly demonstrates the necessity that Christ's Church have living apostles and prophets who stand at the head, that the saints be not carried about by every wind of doctrine promulgated by deceivers. 

 

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians 4)

 

The necessity of the Church of Christ having living apostles and prophets presiding at the head is also a critical element of the gospel Paul taught. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by teddyaware

[williamsmith]

I should also point out, that it's been said we "diss" the Bible some, but not really.

We only diss what's not there, and who did what to the Bible, and even compilled it in the first place, which there are many versions, many revisions, adding and removing books etc.

 

But, my point is, is we have no "list" of all that's wrong with the Bible.

We teach no classes of all that's wrong with the Bible.

We teach from and teach the Bible as it is, the King James Version.

We officially study from it for two years, and then two more years our other scriptures.

 

Recognizing "scripture" as being in the hands of men, and much missing, lost, changed, removed from the Gospel of Christ, and no actual "Church" existing anymore is not somehow "dissing" the Bible.

It's recognizing and being realistic with mans hands in things.

 

Did you even know that some scripture isn't in the Bible, that still exists (and was once in the Bible), that Christ and the Apostles even quoted from, teachings thereof?

Of course, we don't either, we have our own official cannon which restores most concepts lost, but our cannon however isn't closed, for we can look for and except truth from where-ever it comes.

The point however, is that man's hands, not God's had been directing "truth" for sometime.  "The Church" no longer existed, and needed to be restored.

 

One thing that is interesting is how similar Mormonism is to the more authoritative Churches in organization, practices, and doctrines (especially the Catholic and Orthodox churches where are direct linked remnants of the original Church Christ himself and the Apostles established), yet basically everyone involved in the restoration of the Church were from non-authoritative, Evangelical/Protestant religions that are vastly different in organization, practices, and doctrines.  This is one of thousands of signs that divinity was central to the founding of the Church.

 

Men founding churches, tend to have a lot in common with where-ever they came from.  The LDS Church however is completely original.

[Vance]

Since Galatians 2-4 is Paul reviewing the Gospel he preached to them, which is not a different Gospel, then that means we DO have the Gospel Paul preached to the Galatians.

Paul isn't reviewing the Gospel he preached.  He is addressing the apostasies that were occurring in Galatia, specifically the heresy perpetrated by the Judaizers.

 

Romans 2-6 also gives us a good picture of the Gospel Paul taught.

No, it doesn't.  What Jesus taught gives us a good picture of the Gospel that Paul taught.  Again, what Paul wrote to the Romans was to address the heresy of the Judaizers. 

 

So why is it presumptuous to make a judgment about what Gospel Paul taught when we have so much scripture preaching and reviewing it?

The only reasonable presumption to make is that the Gospel that Paul taught is the same as the Gospel that Jesus taught.  Any perceived differences must be erroneous.  Paul taught that Jesus was preeminent in ALL things.  That must include His teachings as well.  The problem is when people disregard what Jesus taught and presume that what they misunderstand about Paul's small amount of writings take preeminence over what Jesus taught.  They misunderstand Paul's written words to counter the Judaizers to counteract or supercede large portions of what Jesus taught.  They do not, but MUST be subordinate to what Jesus taught.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Vance

[Anakin7]

     From a non LDS Christian on The Gospel as Taught by Jesus Christ which I believe no True Knowledgable LDS would argue with -

     http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/gospel-of-jesus.html Please read the whole work before commenting.

 

     In His Debt/Grace

            Anakin7

Edited March 17, 2015 by Anakin7

[NotaMormon]

I have a simple question for you: In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul declares he preached the gospel of Christ to the Galatian saints prior to ever composing his now famous epistle. So I'm quite curious to know if there are any existing records that accurately chronicle the complete gospel message Paul taught the Galatians when he visited them prior to the time they eventually received his brief epistle?  

 

Paul's epistle speaks of the Galatians saints having been beguiled to believe a hybrid gospel based on elements of defunct Mosaic legalism; but as far as I'm aware, there is no record of what Paul actually taught the Galatians in the first place. Prior to the epistle, Paul had many days to preach a complete and all-inclusive gospel message before he ever sent a letter that could be read over a Galatian church congregation's pulpit in 20 minutes.

Anything is possible. Yes, it's possible that the many NT passages we have that talk about the Gospel don't have the whole gospel Paul taught. But it's rarely useful to conduct wild speculation about what's possible. We should focus on what's probable.

 

It's one thing to say some verses and even books in the Bible have been corrupted or lost. It's a very different thing to claim many fundamental, core doctrines in the gospel have been completely eliminated from the Bible. Just look at how the apostles taught the gospel in Acts. It was a fairly simple message of 'Christ died and rose again. Repent and follow Him.' There's no mention of 3 separate kingdoms in heaven, premortal existence, marriage sealing in a temple, the purpose of the fall, etc. Paul again reviews the gospel in Galatians and Romans and doesn't mention any of that (1 Cor. 15:35-44 is talking about heavenly and earth bodies. There's no indication the passage is talking about kingdoms at all). John gives an overview of the gospel in 1 John and doesn't mention any of them either. The term "gospel" appears in at least 15 other NT books without any mention of those fundamental doctrines.

 

The idea that all those doctrines were completely lost while the rest of the gospel is remarkably well preserved requires a lot of faith in Joseph Smith.

 

Another possibility for those lost doctrines is that there was some massive conspiracy by the church to remove doctrines they didn't like, but that doesn't make sense either. Many of those doctrines give the church a lot of influence over people, which the Catholic church obviously wanted. It doesn't make sense that they would eliminate verses that would help them.

 

Again, the LDS claims take a tremendous amount of faith in Joseph Smith.

 

The necessity of the Church of Christ having living apostles and prophets presiding at the head is also a critical element of the gospel Paul taught.

An LDS friend of mine gave me this book to read, http://www.amazon.com/Saints-sinners-Christian-history-contradictions/dp/0960409009/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8. It's an LDS view of Christian history. It does a great job of showing how the Catholic church shouldn't be trusted, like the fact that the church in Rome had very little influence "until the last quarter of the fourth century." If the apostles taught about the need for apostolic succession, why did the early church wait so long? It doesn't look like they were expecting another prophet. It makes more sense that the Catholic church invented the idea of apostolic succession around the fifth century.

 

Paul isn't reviewing the Gospel he preached.  He is addressing the apostasies that were occurring in Galatia, specifically the heresy perpetrated by the Judaizers.

 

No, it doesn't.  What Jesus taught gives us a good picture of the Gospel that Paul taught.  Again, what Paul wrote to the Romans was to address the heresy of the Judaizers. 

 

The only reasonable presumption to make is that the Gospel that Paul taught is the same as the Gospel that Jesus taught.  Any perceived differences must be erroneous.  Paul taught that Jesus was preeminent in ALL things.  That must include His teachings as well.  The problem is when people disregard what Jesus taught and presume that what they misunderstand about Paul's small amount of writings take preeminence over what Jesus taught.  They misunderstand Paul's written words to counter the Judaizers to counteract or supercede large portions of what Jesus taught.  They do not, but MUST be subordinate to what Jesus taught.

Yes, Paul's gospel was Christ's gospel. I never claimed otherwise. What's your point?

 

To your other point, see above responses to teddy.

 

     From a non LDS Christian on The Gospel as Taught by Jesus Christ which I believe no True Knowledgable LDS would argue with -

     http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/gospel-of-jesus.html Please read the whole work before commenting.

 

     In His Debt/Grace

            Anakin7

Wouldn't a True Knowledgable LDS argue that the gospel also includes 3 separate kingdoms in heaven, premortal existence, marriage sealing in a temple, the purpose of the fall, etc? They aren't mentioned in the Bible at all (1 Cor. 15:35-44 is talking about heavenly and earth bodies. There's no indication the passage is talking about kingdoms at all).

Edited March 18, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Anakin7]

       NaM, I see no response from you in connection to my link from a non LDS Christian [ Which agrees with LDS ] that I posted regarding True Salvation [How One is Saved/Exhalted] as found in True LDS Doctrine/Teaching/Walk. The other appendeges are seperate topics of themselves. Do True LDS have The Salvation formula correct ?.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited March 18, 2015 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

    NaM see -  http://en.fairmormon.org/Plan_of_salvation/Three_degrees_of_glory/Not_biblical

                      

                       http://en.fairmormon.org/images/d/d6/PreExistenceBibleBarney.pdf

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Edited March 18, 2015 by Anakin7

[Vance]

The gospel that Jesus taught was much more than the gospel that modern American Protestant Evangelicals claim that Paul taught.

 

Jesus taught the importance of obedience, repentance, baptism, good works, and endurance to the end.  All things that are not mentioned in the few verses in Gal and Rom that modern American Protestant Evangelicals claim are the whole gospel taught by Paul.

[Anakin7]

    Hebrews 5:9 comes to my mind Vance. May True Grace be with You Vance.

[NotaMormon]

       NaM, I see no response from you in connection to my link from a non LDS Christian [ Which agrees with LDS ] that I posted regarding True Salvation [How One is Saved/Exhalted] as found in True LDS Doctrine/Teaching/Walk. The other appendeges are seperate topics of themselves. Do True LDS have The Salvation formula correct ?.

 

In His Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

But they don't agree. You both use terms like 'salvation,' 'grace' and 'heaven,' but you define them very differently. They would certainly disagree with the LDS doctrine of exaltation and 3 separate kingdoms in heaven, and there's no indication those doctrines are taught in the Bible.

 

Even if there are parts that you do agree on, what does that prove? Any false teacher can "agree" with true doctrine all day long, but then add in their own twist or "extra revelation" to support their goals. Agreeing with true doctrines doesn't make their false teachings any less false. The issue isn't with doctrines LDS teach that are in the Bible. The problem is with doctrines that LDS teach that have been mysteriously erased from all gospel related passages while the rest of the doctrines are remarkably well preserved.

 

The gospel that Jesus taught was much more than the gospel that modern American Protestant Evangelicals claim that Paul taught.

 

Jesus taught the importance of obedience, repentance, baptism, good works, and endurance to the end.  All things that are not mentioned in the few verses in Gal and Rom that modern American Protestant Evangelicals claim are the whole gospel taught by Paul.

You know that not all Protestants are Evangelicals, right?

 

If a church teaches a gospel different than the one Jesus and Paul taught, then they're false teachers, regardless of what denomination they claim to be a part of. But that doesn't mean we should reject all Protestant churches because some of them are false teachers. That would be like me finding some false teaching in an LDS splinter group and saying all LDS groups should be rejected because of that false teaching.

 

What exactly do you think happened? Did Jesus and the Apostles teach the LDS gospel, including 3 separate kingdoms in heaven, premortal existence, marriage sealing in a temple, the purpose of the fall, etc.? Then those doctrines must have been erased from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the many gospel sermons in Acts and all of the epistles. Then all those passages would have had to be rewritten to disguise any obvious holes in the text. That's far too complicated to just be an accident. It would have taken a massive conspiracy to erase so much doctrine from history and then reconstruct such a large chunk of scripture. It doesn't make sense for the Catholic church to be behind it because many of those doctrines would give the church more influence over people, so they would have no reason to erase them.

 

Believing that kind of conspiracy theory takes an extreme amount of faith in Joseph Smith.

[JLHPROF]

If a church teaches a gospel different than the one Jesus and Paul taught, then they're false teachers,

 

 

"If a church teaches a gospel different than the one Jesus and Paul taught, then they're false teachers"

 

Fixed it.

Why is Paul so infallible?

Edited March 18, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

What exactly do you think happened? Did Jesus and the Apostles teach the LDS gospel, including 3 separate kingdoms in heaven, premortal existence, marriage sealing in a temple, the purpose of the fall, etc.? Then those doctrines must have been erased from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the many gospel sermons in Acts and all of the epistles.

 

Yep.  That's what happened (sort of).

 

There are ample evidences, hints, allusions etc left to let you know what was once there.

 

See:

John 21:25

Acts 1:3

 

What do you think all this missing teaching was?  A rehash of stuff they'd already covered in the recorded gospels?  (Not to mention the purpose of what happened in Matthew 17, and there was a purpose)

 

EVERYTHING in Mormonism is alluded to in the New Testament.  It is the manipulations of men that make them to mean something that appears different from Mormonism.  Like it or not, Paul DID teach the three degrees of glory and Baptism for the dead.  Like it or not  Christ did perform/receive certain temple ordinances.  Like it or not Christ did bestow keys to seal eternal marriages on the apostles.  Like it or not Christ did refer to premortal existence.

 

All these things and more are in the New Testament, but I will admit the meanings are sometimes veiled and traditional Christianity has long since come up with their own incorrect explanations for those verses.

Edited March 18, 2015 by JLHPROF

[NotaMormon]

"If a church teaches a gospel different than the one Jesus and Paul taught, then they're false teachers"

 

Fixed it.

Why is Paul so infallible?

So Jesus and His teaching was infallible, but Paul's wasn't? Paul got the gospel he taught directly from Jesus, so Paul was teaching the same infallible gospel Jesus was. Why is it unreasonable to believe Paul's teaching was infallible?

 

2 Peter

 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

The Greek term for 'carried along' was the same Greek term used in passages like Acts 27 when Paul's ship was caught in a storm. Verse 15, And when the ship was caught and could not face the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along.

 

Yes, Paul's will was not perfect, but his doctrinal teaching was not produced by his will. He was carried/driven along is his teaching by the Holy Spirit. If Paul was fallible in his teaching, then that makes the Holy Spirit fallible.

 

That brings up an interesting question. Is your personal witness from the Spirit infallible? Is it possible to get a false positive from the Spirit on an answer? If the Spirit's witness to you is fallible, then what higher source of truth do you look to when you have questions? If your witness from the Spirit really is infallible, then why couldn't Paul have the same infallible witness while he was studying and teaching?

 

Yep.  That's what happened (sort of).

You skipped over the most important part of the question. If all those doctrines were just ripped out of the texts, then Acts and many epistles would be a big, disjointed mess. If the LDS claims are true, then there must have been a massive conspiracy to erase the doctrine from history and then rewrite large chunks of the New Testament. Who rewrote it all? Why did they erase all those doctrines and leave the rest? What was their motivation?

 

There are ample evidences, hints, allusions etc left to let you know what was once there.

 

See:

John 21:25

Acts 1:3

 

What do you think all this missing teaching was?  A rehash of stuff they'd already covered in the recorded gospels?  (Not to mention the purpose of what happened in Matthew 17, and there was a purpose)

John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

 

Why do you assume the teaching was written down at all? The text certainly doesn't suggest they were. It simply says 'If they were written . . .' If those missing teachings from Jesus are so important, why hasn't an LDS prophet restored them?

 

Does the LDS church have transcripts of all Joseph Smith's sermons, speeches and anything else he taught? If not, does that mean the LDS gospel is incomplete and needs to be restored?

 

 

EVERYTHING in Mormonism is alluded to in the New Testament.  It is the manipulations of men that make them to mean something that appears different from Mormonism.  Like it or not, Paul DID teach the three degrees of glory and Baptism for the dead.  Like it or not  Christ did perform/receive certain temple ordinances.  Like it or not Christ did bestow keys to seal eternal marriages on the apostles.  Like it or not Christ did refer to premortal existence.

 

All these things and more are in the New Testament, but I will admit the meanings are sometimes veiled and traditional Christianity has long since come up with their own incorrect explanations for those verses.

Why do you believe 1 Cor. 15:35-44 is teaching three separate kingdoms in heaven when 'kingdom' and 'heaven' aren't mentioned at all? So the only passage to support three separate heavenly kingdoms doesn't actually mention the doctrine. Paul never taught the doctrine.

 

Paul mentions baptism for the dead. He doesn't even endorse it in the verse, let alone teach it. Paul also alludes to many other doctrines of the time he was dealing with, but that doesn't mean he taught them all. What makes baptism for the dead any different? Why is it a doctrine that he taught instead of something he just mentioned?

 

Where did Christ refer to premortal existence?

Edited March 19, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Anakin7]

   NaM Perhaps we should start at the Beggining [ First Things] - Grace What is it ?, do we agree on that or not  ?.

   No anaylisis by you of the substance of my links to my posts #s 136/139

   Where do you Worship ? [Church Denomination] Thank you.

 

In His Debt/Grace

        Anakin7

Edited March 19, 2015 by Anakin7

[Bobbieaware]

So Jesus and His teaching was infallible, but Paul's wasn't? Paul got the gospel he taught directly from Jesus, so Paul was teaching the same infallible gospel Jesus was. Why is it unreasonable to believe Paul's teaching was infallible?

2 Peter

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The Greek term for 'carried along' was the same Greek term used in passages like Acts 27 when Paul's ship was caught in a storm. Verse 15, And when the ship was caught and could not face the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along.

Yes, Paul's will was not perfect, but his doctrinal teaching was not produced by his will. He was carried/driven along is his teaching by the Holy Spirit. If Paul was fallible in his teaching, then that makes the Holy Spirit fallible.

That brings up an interesting question. Is your personal witness from the Spirit infallible? Is it possible to get a false positive from the Spirit on an answer? If the Spirit's witness to you is fallible, then what higher source of truth do you look to when you have questions? If your witness from the Spirit really is infallible, then why couldn't Paul have the same infallible witness while he was studying and teaching?

You skipped over the most important part of the question. If all those doctrines were just ripped out of the texts, then Acts and many epistles would be a big, disjointed mess. If the LDS claims are true, then there must have been a massive conspiracy to erase the doctrine from history and then rewrite large chunks of the New Testament. Who rewrote it all? Why did they erase all those doctrines and leave the rest? What was their motivation?

John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Why do you assume the teaching was written down at all? The text certainly doesn't suggest they were. It simply says 'If they were written . . .' If those missing teachings from Jesus are so important, why hasn't an LDS prophet restored them?

Does the LDS church have transcripts of all Joseph Smith's sermons, speeches and anything else he taught? If not, does that mean the LDS gospel is incomplete and needs to be restored?

Why do you believe 1 Cor. 15:35-44 is teaching three separate kingdoms in heaven when 'kingdom' and 'heaven' aren't mentioned at all? So the only passage to support three separate heavenly kingdoms doesn't actually mention the doctrine. Paul never taught the doctrine.

Paul mentions baptism for the dead. He doesn't even endorse it in the verse, let alone teach it. Paul also alludes to many other doctrines of the time he was dealing with, but that doesn't mean he taught them all. What makes baptism for the dead any different? Why is it a doctrine that he taught instead of something he just mentioned?

Where did Christ refer to premortal existence?

I think what JLHPROF is meaning to say is that Paul's presentation of the gospel must be compared to and harmonized with the extent Biblical teachings of Jesus if one is going to get a a more complete understanding of the gospel presented in the New Testament.

I must also add that in the church of his own day Paul's gospel perspective was considered controversial, difficult to understand and potentially spiritually hazardous! So before coming to any conclusion as to what the gospel actually is, it's essential Paul's teachings be squared and harmonized with the teachings of the Savior and every New Testament author.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

So Jesus and His teaching was infallible, but Paul's wasn't? Paul got the gospel he taught directly from Jesus, so Paul was teaching the same infallible gospel Jesus was. Why is it unreasonable to believe Paul's teaching was infallible?

 

2 Peter

 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

The Greek term for 'carried along' was the same Greek term used in passages like Acts 27 when Paul's ship was caught in a storm. Verse 15, And when the ship was caught and could not face the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along.

 

Yes, Paul's will was not perfect, but his doctrinal teaching was not produced by his will. He was carried/driven along is his teaching by the Holy Spirit. If Paul was fallible in his teaching, then that makes the Holy Spirit fallible.

 

That brings up an interesting question. Is your personal witness from the Spirit infallible? Is it possible to get a false positive from the Spirit on an answer? If the Spirit's witness to you is fallible, then what higher source of truth do you look to when you have questions? If your witness from the Spirit really is infallible, then why couldn't Paul have the same infallible witness while he was studying and teaching?

 

You skipped over the most important part of the question. If all those doctrines were just ripped out of the texts, then Acts and many epistles would be a big, disjointed mess. If the LDS claims are true, then there must have been a massive conspiracy to erase the doctrine from history and then rewrite large chunks of the New Testament. Who rewrote it all? Why did they erase all those doctrines and leave the rest? What was their motivation?

 

John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

 

Why do you assume the teaching was written down at all? The text certainly doesn't suggest they were. It simply says 'If they were written . . .' If those missing teachings from Jesus are so important, why hasn't an LDS prophet restored them?

 

Does the LDS church have transcripts of all Joseph Smith's sermons, speeches and anything else he taught? If not, does that mean the LDS gospel is incomplete and needs to be restored?

 

 

Why do you believe 1 Cor. 15:35-44 is teaching three separate kingdoms in heaven when 'kingdom' and 'heaven' aren't mentioned at all? So the only passage to support three separate heavenly kingdoms doesn't actually mention the doctrine. Paul never taught the doctrine.

 

Paul mentions baptism for the dead. He doesn't even endorse it in the verse, let alone teach it. Paul also alludes to many other doctrines of the time he was dealing with, but that doesn't mean he taught them all. What makes baptism for the dead any different? Why is it a doctrine that he taught instead of something he just mentioned?

 

Where did Christ refer to premortal existence?

 

I refuse to get bogged down in another 300 page Christianity debate.  It serves absolutely no purpose.

The scriptures in the New Testament teach the doctrines of Mormonism.  Sectarian Christianity has blinded themselves to the truths contained therein.  I cannot force you to see them.

And Paul did not get the gospel directly from Jesus.  They never met.  Jesus called Paul to the ministry.  Peter got the gospel directly from Christ and he and Paul disagreed on doctrine at times.

 

As for NT pre-existence, the apostles understood it as evidenced in John 9:2.  Christ corrected their error on sins, but did not correct any premortal notions.

[Bobbieaware]

Paul mentions baptism for the dead. He doesn't even endorse it in the verse, let alone teach it. Paul also alludes to many other doctrines of the time he was dealing with, but that doesn't mean he taught them all. What makes baptism for the dead any different? Why is it a doctrine that he taught instead of something he just mentioned?

With all the ammunition in his rhetorical arsenal, why in the world would Paul cite a 'false and apostate' (according to you) practice in order to prove to the saints there is going to be a bodily resurrection of the dead? Go back and read the verse in context: Here we see Paul engaged in a most solemn and critically important endeavor to prover to the saints that those among them who say there is no physical resurrection believe in a spiritually fatal doctrinal error. So what does the great Paul do in the midst of this incredibly intense polemical battle (as with baited-breath the saints awaited Paul's monumentally important rejoinder)? Well he says -- "Just look at those apostates over there who practice the heretical and ineffectual ordinance of baptism for the dead. Why do these apostates (who are going to hell if they don't repent) believe in being baptized for the dead if there is no bodily resurrection?" Really??? In this

all-important doctrinal battle of such great consequence, this is the best the great prophet and theologian named Paul could come up with? He points to damned apostates and says, "Look at those heretics over there. The false practices of these apostates prove beyond doubt that there is going to be a bodily resurrection of the dead." Ridiculous and totally unworthy of a mind as great as Paul's. To think he couldn't do better than this is to think that which is not possible.

Without living apostles and prophets, the people are doomed to be carried about and tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Tacenda]

Started listening to this podcast!  I think it's just what the LDS need to listen to, and think it's what danielwoods etc. has been trying to say the majority of the time.    

 

http://mormonmatters.org/2015/03/16/272-pauls-theology-of-grace/

 

#272:  "Paul's Theology of Grace"

 

Intro:

 

The Apostle Paul’s theology can be difficult to grasp–and, in a few ways, especially so for Mormons. Some challenges arise from Latter-day Saints’ primary use of the King James Translation of the Bible, which has often very beautiful language but also contains archaic expressions that sometimes confuse English readers and obscure key connections between ideas. Another factor has been Mormonism’s attempts to differentiate itself from mainline and evangelical Christianity, which has caused it to de-emphasize Paul’s writings since they are so pivotal in shaping the understandings in these other traditions. One huge cost of this shying away from things that sound “too Protestant” has been a Mormon de-emphasis on–and huge misunderstanding of–the central theological tenet of grace, especially as it relates to sin and “the law.” In the past two decades, however, several popular Mormon theologians have begun to rescue Grace and Paul’s central messaging from their background positions. This episode’s guests, Adam S. Miller and Joseph Spencer, are two of these theologians who have done a great deal of important thinking, writing, and speaking about Grace and its relationship to other familiar but often misunderstood and misjudged elements of Paul’s theology.

In this discussion, and through his an aptly titled book, Grace Is Not God’s Backup Plan: An Urgent Paraphrase of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Miller gets to the heart of LDS misunderstandings of Grace. As he understands Paul teaching, grace is not a response to sin, a kind of divine approval that bridges the performance gap that always will remain even “after all we can do” (a common misreading of what is being taught in 2 Nephi 25:23). Miller writes: “Grace is not God’s backup plan. Jesus is not plan B. God’s boundless grace comes first and sin is what follows. Grace is not God’s response to sin. Sin is our embarrassed, improvised, rebellious rejection of God’s original grace.” Besides on grace, Miller and Spencer also lead us in wonderful explications of Paul’s views on sin, the law, death, and faith. In so doing, they help reveal the “underlying logic” of Paul’s brilliant theology, presenting it in a very compelling way.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Tacenda