Theologically Uninformed Evangelicals and LDS Beliefs

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

You're proving yourself prolific here on page 6, mfbukowski.  And while I can't keep up with all of it--one or two things are worth addressing. 

Yes, the Bible is as you say, self-referential.  But Christians aren't oblivious to circular reference.  Christians don't read a text and believe because the parchment affirms itself.  Yes, there are "uniformed evangelicals"--as you remind us with the title of your thread.  But you do err to suppose everyone who claims Biblical inerrancy a naif. 

There's more to belief in the Bible than mere failure to perceive logical fallacy.  You've left out something important.  Consider--

But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself (John 16:13), but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word.  Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.  

--John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

Christians don't believe the Bible because of the Bible, mfbukowski.  One need barely peruse the New Testament to find adherents of the Hebrew Bible (Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees) who miss the person and work of Christ completely.  And not through lack of study or lack of discipline.  

It's the work of the Holy Spirit that seals the truth of the gospel, of the Bible on the minds of believers.  Alone.

--Erik 

But that is not the point and in fact MAKES MY point!  We believe the bible because of Moroni 10:4-5 - or direct revelation from God- not OF the writings of men in the "doctrine of the gospel" as formulated in Councils of the Catholic Church which the reformers still accepted hook line and sinker complete with unintelligible "doctrine" (Nicene Creed)

I have spent countless hours with Evangelicals condemning Mormons for belief in the Book of Mormon based on testimony while they do the same thing with the bible.  They ridicule our "burning in the bosom" while affirming that the Holy Ghost "seals the doctrine" in their hearts.

You really think that the Holy Ghost seals the doctrine of transubstantiation which is a flip of the coin away from the consubstantiality of the Trinity?   Notice the word "substance" is in both of those words??  That stuff is out of Aristotle, not the bible!! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

Evangelicals ACTUALLY accept the bible for the same reason we accept the BOM- AND the bible- because of the testimony of the spirit- which makes my point that those who do not understand "One substance with the Father", affirming that our beliefs are much like those Evangelicals who could not themselves explain the trinity- as we don't even try to explain the trinity. And "PROCEEDS" from the father and the son?  How precisely does the Holy Ghost "proceed" from that relationship?

Consubstantiality, as a example, is not found in the bible, neither is the Trinity.   Yes you can pull out proof texts which you will maintain - by your interpretation- which are in the bible, showing evidence for the Trinity, but of course those scriptures can be interpreted many other ways as well.

And how is the Holy Ghost the "giver of life"?

And where is the "one baptism" spoken of "in the gospel" of the Nicene Creed when Evangelicals dispute among themselves about the means of baptism?

So I agree with your post in most particulars, which just makes my point that most Evangelicals and Mormons are actually closer together in belief than Evangelical theology would lead one to believe.

I look at what you espouse here and yes it is filled with rhetoric, but scratch the surface with posts like this one- and dang it Erik if we are not closer than you would think.

You doth protest too much kind sir!

"The gospel" of the theologians is not the Bible- the theologians have distorted it beyond description

Edited October 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Five Solas]

You're a thoughtful man, mfbukowski.  And while I'm not agreeing/endorsing - the above merits a rep point, to be sure. 

:0)

--Erik

[Vance]

On 10/23/2016 at 6:56 PM, Five Solas said:

And where does the Bible get you, when you believe "Sola Scriptura" (the second of the Five Solas from whence I take my forum user name)?  Does it look like Mormonism?  Or does it look like the Protestant Reformation?  I submit history has already answered that one, Calm.

:0)

--Erik

The Bible gets you away from "Sola Scriptura".  "Sola Scriptura" is not found in the Bible and therefore "Sola Scriptura" is self contradictory.

 

The Protestant Reformation doesn't look like the Bible either.

[Vance]

On 10/25/2016 at 10:17 AM, danielwoods said:

They all walked with God. Christ is God. 

Are you saying that they literally walked with God?

Edited October 29, 2016 by Vance

[Vance]

On 10/26/2016 at 0:41 AM, Five Solas said:

It's the work of the Holy Spirit that seals the truth of the gospel, of the Bible on the minds of believers.  Alone.

--Erik 

So is it Sola Scriptura or is it the Holy Spirit that is preeminent as a source of truth?  (Note that "Sola" precludes it being both.)

[Five Solas]

22 hours ago, Vance said:

So is it Sola Scriptura or is it the Holy Spirit that is preeminent as a source of truth?  (Note that "Sola" precludes it being both.)

Asked & answered, Vance.  God the Holy Spirit affirms and seals God's revelation through Scripture, the gospel, on the minds of believers.  There are spirits who will argue differently, of course (1 John 4:1-3).

--Erik

[boblloyd91]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Asked & answered, Vance.  God the Holy Spirit affirms and seals God's revelation through Scripture, the gospel, on the minds of believers.  There are spirits who will argue differently, of course (1 John 4:1-3).

--Erik

So I read that reference you gave, and I can't see how that can be taken to mean God will confirm the truth of Sola Scriptura, rather he will confirm the truth of the physical reality of Christ. If I recall this was in response to Docetism, the idea of Christ's ministry, death, etc. being an illusion. At the time of the writing the NT canon wasn't even formed yet. I'm not saying this to denigrate scripture at all, as I agree the scriptures are one of our most important tools to know God and Christ (1 John is one of my favorite books of scripture by the way). However the question of what makes the canon and what doesn't and is the canon closed are tricky questions. Has the canon always been the same? Even going back to Luther's time, it's well known there are books he wanted to get rid of (such as James and Revelation, though I believe there were a few more). In fact the Protestant bible did permanently take out books put in there by the Catholic Church when the canon was being put together.

Which I guess leads to another question, which is how did Luther, or the earlier church fathers know what needed to be put in and which ones didn't? 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Asked & answered, Vance.  God the Holy Spirit affirms and seals God's revelation through Scripture, the gospel, on the minds of believers.  There are spirits who will argue differently, of course (1 John 4:1-3).

--Erik

How did this work for believers who lived before the bible was compiled?  Or those who lived without access to it (as i'm assuming it was pretty rare to have access to much if any scripture for the first few hundred years after Christ's resurrection).

And of course the 'scriptures' back then were really different than they are today (with different books), so that makes me wonder how sola scriptura worked for people who's scriptures looked and read differently than your's do.  Does sola scriptura work regardless of what the books the bible actually contains?

Thanks!

[Five Solas]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

How did this work for believers who lived before the bible was compiled?  Or those who lived without access to it (as i'm assuming it was pretty rare to have access to much if any scripture for the first few hundred years after Christ's resurrection).

And of course the 'scriptures' back then were really different than they are today (with different books), so that makes me wonder how sola scriptura worked for people who's scriptures looked and read differently than your's do.  Does sola scriptura work regardless of what the books the bible actually contains?

Thanks!

To be sure, the Bible didn't always consist of 66 books.  But God's promise of redemption can be found from the very beginning, in what Christians refer to as the "Proto-Evangelium" in Genesis 3:15.  

That acknowledged, I don't think God requires a physical document to bring a person to a knowledge of Christ and thereby save him or her.  I think it's possible God could accomplish his purpose anywhere and with anyone, even in the last instant of life.  Perhaps God saved Joseph Smith in his last moment as he fell from the window to the ground (although his last words, seemingly a call out to Freemasonry, suggest Smith's faith lay elsewhere).

Make sense?

--Erik

[Vance]

22 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Asked & answered, Vance.  God the Holy Spirit affirms and seals God's revelation through Scripture, the gospel, on the minds of believers.  There are spirits who will argue differently, of course (1 John 4:1-3).

--Erik

I take it from your answer that it is the Holy Spirit that is preeminent.  If that isn't your position then plainly state what you position really is

 

This

  1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

  2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

  3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

  4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

 

doesn't really say what you are implying.

 

 

[Vance]

15 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

To be sure, the Bible didn't always consist of 66 books.  But God's promise of redemption can be found from the very beginning, in what Christians refer to as the "Proto-Evangelium" in Genesis 3:15.  

That acknowledged, I don't think God requires a physical document to bring a person to a knowledge of Christ and thereby save him or her.  I think it's possible God could accomplish his purpose anywhere and with anyone, even in the last instant of life.  Perhaps God saved Joseph Smith in his last moment as he fell from the window to the ground (although his last words, seemingly a call out to Freemasonry, suggest Smith's faith lay elsewhere).

Make sense?

--Erik

No.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

  14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

 

It appears that the scriptures alone are not God's plan for saving souls.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

To be sure, the Bible didn't always consist of 66 books.  But God's promise of redemption can be found from the very beginning, in what Christians refer to as the "Proto-Evangelium" in Genesis 3:15.  

That acknowledged, I don't think God requires a physical document to bring a person to a knowledge of Christ and thereby save him or her.  I think it's possible God could accomplish his purpose anywhere and with anyone, even in the last instant of life.  Perhaps God saved Joseph Smith in his last moment as he fell from the window to the ground (although his last words, seemingly a call out to Freemasonry, suggest Smith's faith lay elsewhere).

Make sense?

--Erik

So if I understand right, a person doesn't need the scriptures to be saved. And there's nothing special about the books in the Bible right now. The Bible could have different books and still be God's word. 

[Five Solas]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So if I understand right, a person doesn't need the scriptures to be saved. And there's nothing special about the books in the Bible right now. The Bible could have different books and still be God's word. 

Your three sentences, in order--

1. Good.  A person doesn't need access to a document to be saved.  God can bring someone to a knowledge of Christ and thereby save him or her without paper, parchment or electronic medium.

2. Bad.  The 66 books that constitute the Bible are more than "special"--they are the Word of God.  You're very wrong in this assertion.  

3.  Weird.  Accepting the Bible is God's revelation to His creation, to His image-bearers, let us now ask: Could God have made a different revelation from the ones He chose?  It's a bit like asking whether he could have made us able to breath in water, like fish.  I don't see any ground for limiting God's ability to have done something different (be it with books or fish gills), but your hypothetical isn't worth a lot of time--because that's clearly not what He did.

--Erik

PS.  Your post has left me wanting to revisit a bit of Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood tonight...

;0)

[boblloyd91]

27 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

 

PS.  Your post has left me wanting to revisit a bit of Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood tonight...

;0)

Are you thinking of the Mexican stand off scene? 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

To be sure, the Bible didn't always consist of 66 books.  But God's promise of redemption can be found from the very beginning, in what Christians refer to as the "Proto-Evangelium" in Genesis 3:15.  

That acknowledged, I don't think God requires a physical document to bring a person to a knowledge of Christ and thereby save him or her.  I think it's possible God could accomplish his purpose anywhere and with anyone, even in the last instant of life.  Perhaps God saved Joseph Smith in his last moment as he fell from the window to the ground (although his last words, seemingly a call out to Freemasonry, suggest Smith's faith lay elsewhere).

Make sense?

--Erik

Seriously?

If someone read this Genesis verse, that was the equivalent to "confessing Christ as your savior"?

But if you lived in China in 3000 BC, then what?  Roastie toasties?

 

Quote

 

“I will put enmity between you and the woman; and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15).

- Genesis 3:14-15

 

 

[rodheadlee]

On 10/29/2016 at 5:51 PM, Five Solas said:

Asked & answered, Vance.  God the Holy Spirit affirms and seals God's revelation through Scripture, the gospel, on the minds of believers.  There are spirits who will argue differently, of course (1 John 4:1-3).

--Erik

Verse 2 says:   2 Hereby ^aknow ye the ^bSpirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the ^cflesh is of God:

This exactly what the Book of Mormon confesses. So what is the problem? I have a little anecdote to tell you. When I was Born Again I was studying with EVs, I was watching a TV preacher talk on the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel, the legend of Teia Tephi and Jeremiah, the promises God made to Abraham, Jacob and Joseph and then i read the 4 Gospels of the NT this went on for at least a year.  I decided I needed to be baptized. I went up to the mountains and prayed to God what church should I join. When I got home the next day the LDS missionaries came to my door and handed me a BoM  the Spirit testified to me that this was another witness of Jesus Christ, that He had come in the flesh and was resurrected.  So I have to ask you are you saying this verse 2 of I John 4 is not true? I naively thought EV preachers would read this book and entire congregations would be converted and baptized into Christ's Church of Latter-day Saints.. 

[Five Solas]

6 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Verse 2 says:   2 Hereby ^aknow ye the ^bSpirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the ^cflesh is of God:

This exactly what the Book of Mormon confesses. So what is the problem? I have a little anecdote to tell you. When I was Born Again I was studying with EVs, I was watching a TV preacher talk on the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel, the legend of Teia Tephi and Jeremiah, the promises God made to Abraham, Jacob and Joseph and then i read the 4 Gospels of the NT this went on for at least a year.  I decided I needed to be baptized. I went up to the mountains and prayed to God what church should I join. When I got home the next day the LDS missionaries came to my door and handed me a BoM  the Spirit testified to me that this was another witness of Jesus Christ, that He had come in the flesh and was resurrected.  So I have to ask you are you saying this verse 2 of I John 4 is not true? I naively thought EV preachers would read this book and entire congregations would be converted and baptized into Christ's Church of Latter-day Saints.. 

The Incarnation (taken from John 1:14) isn't spoken much of in Mormonism, rodheadlee (do a search on lds.org and yes, you'll find a few odd scraps, dated).  "So what is the problem?"--you'll continue to insist. Why does it matter if Jesus is the second member of the Trinity, God come into human history as a man (the Incarnation), as Christians believe?  Or if he's a deity who "treads in the tracks of his father and inherits what God did before..." as Joseph Smith claimed.  Or for that matter, if Jesus is your neighbor down the street who runs a lawn care business?  Let's not be making offenders for a word.  Book of Mormon?  King Follett?  New Testament?  Mitt Romney's foibles with lawn care?   There's no need for a fuss--you just gotta believe in a Jesus.

That's what the spirits say... 

;0)

--Erik

[boblloyd91]

7 hours ago, Five Solas said:

The Incarnation (taken from John 1:14) isn't spoken much of in Mormonism, rodheadlee (do a search on lds.org and yes, you'll find a few odd scraps, dated).  "So what is the problem?"--you'll continue to insist. Why does it matter if Jesus is the second member of the Trinity, God come into human history as a man (the Incarnation), as Christians believe?  Or if he's a deity who "treads in the tracks of his father and inherits what God did before..." as Joseph Smith claimed.  Or for that matter, if Jesus is your neighbor down the street who runs a lawn care business?  Let's not be making offenders for a word.  Book of Mormon?  King Follett?  New Testament?  Mitt Romney's foibles with lawn care?   There's no need for a fuss--you just gotta believe in a Jesus.

That's what the spirits say... 

;0)

--Erik

So what does Mitt Romney's behavior, Dan Peterson's book, and Hispanic boy names have to do with Rod Headlee's salvation? I guess I can't figure out what you're getting at. For that matter, how on earth is he supposed to be saved, when he is studying all he can, and sincerely wanting to know God's will for him, and then (as is being implied) he receives messengers and a spirit that deceives him? I get that the Mormon concept of God isn't the same as the Nicene or Athanasian creeds, but good grief does one get punished for simply praying for guidance after seeking God with all your heart? 

[boblloyd91]

8 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Verse 2 says:   2 Hereby ^aknow ye the ^bSpirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the ^cflesh is of God:

This exactly what the Book of Mormon confesses. So what is the problem? I have a little anecdote to tell you. When I was Born Again I was studying with EVs, I was watching a TV preacher talk on the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel, the legend of Teia Tephi and Jeremiah, the promises God made to Abraham, Jacob and Joseph and then i read the 4 Gospels of the NT this went on for at least a year.  I decided I needed to be baptized. I went up to the mountains and prayed to God what church should I join. When I got home the next day the LDS missionaries came to my door and handed me a BoM  the Spirit testified to me that this was another witness of Jesus Christ, that He had come in the flesh and was resurrected.  So I have to ask you are you saying this verse 2 of I John 4 is not true? I naively thought EV preachers would read this book and entire congregations would be converted and baptized into Christ's Church of Latter-day Saints.. 

I always love hearing your story. If you get a chance look up F. Enzio Busche's biography, it's pretty amazing and has some interesting parallels to your own!

[danielwoods]

On October 28, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Vance said:

Are you saying that they literally walked with God?

Yes. 

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Your three sentences, in order--

2. Bad.  The 66 books that constitute the Bible are more than "special"--they are the Word of God.  You're very wrong in this assertion.  

3.  Weird.  Accepting the Bible is God's revelation to His creation, to His image-bearers, let us now ask: Could God have made a different revelation from the ones He chose?  It's a bit like asking whether he could have made us able to breath in water, like fish.  I don't see any ground for limiting God's ability to have done something different (be it with books or fish gills), but your hypothetical isn't worth a lot of time--because that's clearly not what He did.

--Erik

PS.  Your post has left me wanting to revisit a bit of Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood tonight...

;0)

2-You've confused me.  A few hundred years ago, the bible contained books that most bibles now don't contain.  If those old-day Christians believed in sola scriptura as you do (if it was true then as you believe it's true now), then wouldn't that mean that, according to them, modern day Christians have removed some of the Word of God out of the bible?

If the only books that can be considered the Word of God are the 66 books of the bible, then doesn't that mean that the olden-day Christians were heretics for believing in authority outside of the true word of God?

3-My question isn't a hypothetical since Christians a few hundred years ago DID have a bible that contained different books and yet believed those books to be the Word of God just as much as you believe the bible today is.  If the Word of God could exist outside of the 66 books of the current bible back then, then why can't it exist outside of them today or in the future?

 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Five Solas said:

The Incarnation (taken from John 1:14) isn't spoken much of in Mormonism, rodheadlee (do a search on lds.org and yes, you'll find a few odd scraps, dated).  "So what is the problem?"--you'll continue to insist. Why does it matter if Jesus is the second member of the Trinity, God come into human history as a man (the Incarnation), as Christians believe?  Or if he's a deity who "treads in the tracks of his father and inherits what God did before..." as Joseph Smith claimed.  Or for that matter, if Jesus is your neighbor down the street who runs a lawn care business?  Let's not be making offenders for a word.  Book of Mormon?  King Follett?  New Testament?  Mitt Romney's foibles with lawn care?   There's no need for a fuss--you just gotta believe in a Jesus.

That's what the spirits say... 

;0)

--Erik

Huh?

[boblloyd91]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

2-You've confused me.  A few hundred years ago, the bible contained books that most bibles now don't contain.  If those old-day Christians believed in sola scriptura as you do (if it was true then as you believe it's true now), then wouldn't that mean that, according to them, modern day Christians have removed some of the Word of God out of the bible?

If the only books that can be considered the Word of God are the 66 books of the bible, then doesn't that mean that the olden-day Christians were heretics for believing in authority outside of the true word of God?

3-My question isn't a hypothetical since Christians a few hundred years ago DID have a bible that contained different books and yet believed those books to be the Word of God just as much as you believe the bible today is.  If the Word of God could exist outside of the 66 books of the current bible back then, then why can't it exist outside of them today or in the future?

 

To add to that, it seems to me that while Evangelicals skewer us for relying on Joseph Smith's spiritual experiences, all of Protestantism is reliant on the spiritual judgment and discernment of Martin Luther. I feel this is definitely a big leap of faith. This doesn't mean that I don't think Luther or Calvin (or Zwingli etc.) weren't sincere or intelligent or well read. It just seems to me that when one reads the Bible, it is impossible to not have more than one opinion, which is why we see the Denominational differences we do. I am learning to have more and more respect for the Reformers, because their spiritual struggles and questions are so similar to mine, I'm trying to not judge their conclusions as harshly as I have in the past. However, it seems that Sola Scriptura can be cyclical, in that divisions tend to happen. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said:

To add to that, it seems to me that while Evangelicals skewer us for relying on Joseph Smith's spiritual experiences, all of Protestantism is reliant on the spiritual judgment and discernment of Martin Luther. I feel this is definitely a big leap of faith. This doesn't mean that I don't think Luther or Calvin (or Zwingli etc.) weren't sincere or intelligent or well read. It just seems to me that when one reads the Bible, it is impossible to not have more than one opinion, which is why we see the Denominational differences we do. I am learning to have more and more respect for the Reformers, because their spiritual struggles and questions are so similar to mine, I'm trying to not judge their conclusions as harshly as I have in the past. However, it seems that Sola Scriptura can be cyclical, in that divisions tend to happen. 

And I do not recall Joseph saying anything like “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.”

Yes, we believe that we are forgiven by the atonement, but the notion that we should not be concerned about sin is ..... not exactly a Mormon position.

Quote

 

 7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

 8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he willjustify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

 9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

 10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.

 11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.

 

2 Nephi 28

[Vance]

8 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Yes. 

So God has legs ergo a body.  Got it.