ErikJohnson

My advice is the same to you, JMS, as it was to Hemidakota. I think you’ve gotten so hung up on the trees and their individual differences and imperfections—that you missed seeing the forest altogether. There’s a lot of people out there, Christians, who are in full agreement that Jesus is the Eternal God, and they worship Him accordingly. And they take the Bible for what it is—the infallible Word of God. That’s an amazing fact, when you stop and think about it. And it demonstrates the Holy Spirit is at work in our world. But the question, “Which church is true?” is a non-starter. All Christian churches are made up of fallen corrupted sinners who, “See through a glass darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). That is the root cause of the differences and arguments we see. You didn’t escape this fact by joining the LDS Church. And ironically, for someone so troubled by inconsistencies, you picked an organization whose theology and doctrines are so conflicted as to be nearly incoherent. (Just try reconciling the Trinitarian statements in the Book of Mormon with what Joseph Smith taught about God(s) in his later years—the Book of Abraham and the King Follett Discourse, for example.) And regarding your last sentence, JMS, I would submit that Scripture is sufficient for you. Scripture is the revealed Word of God. Scripture is sufficient for you because God is sufficient for you. Suggesting that you need God + Joseph Smith & latter-day prophets diminishes God. If you prayed and got the answer that Joseph Smith’s “restoration” was the solution to denominational differences, a man who taught “Gods” and not God… Please forgive my bluntness, but you dialed the wrong number. And please accept my apology, as I realize my previous post came across as condescending, especially in light of your history. I often word things poorly and cause needless offense. In Christ, --Erik

I submit that two of your three (one Church, one God) already exist, and your remaining desire (one culture) is un-Biblical. That last one makes me cringe a bit, suspecting that your cultural reference point may be LDS Utah (white shirts, white faces, organ music, caffeine-free Coca-cola).Again, I’d encourage you to take a broader, Biblical view of the Church as being the body of Christ to which all Bible-believing Christians belong. See Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:24, and 1 Corinthians 12:27. Is there disunity, disagreement, and division in the Christian Church? Certainly. When you read some of Paul's letters--you'll see it's been that way since the beginning. But don’t let the trees block your view of the forest God has created. ;0) --Erik

I can't speak for all Baptists, obviously, but I think that view is pretty common. And we wouldn't use the word "convert" to describe a believing Christian who was raised Lutheran and subsequently became a member at Mars Hill Church. You convert to the Christian faith, not to Mars Hill. Where you choose to gather and collectively worship as a Christian is, I think, largely a matter of individual conscience. Keep in mind there's no disagreement in the validity of the baptism when the Lutheran Church baptizes an adult (which was my original point, although I didn't qualify it). Afraid I've knocked the thread a bit off track by not being clear on this originally.

Sorry, didn't mean to be ambiguous. I should have clarified that Baptists accept baptisms performed by Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. when those baptisms were performed on adults (or children old enough to articulate their beliefs) as happens in the case of converts. If someone was baptized as an infant and goes to a Baptist Church, they may still recognize the baptism if that person's parents were believers (and not just going through the motions out of some misguided sense of tradition) and the person feels that by being "re-baptized” they would be dishonoring their parents. --Erik

I think you’re mistaken here, JMS. Do you know many Christians? I’ve never heard anyone suggest the intent of Christ and the Apostles was for Christians to divide over matters of doctrine. If you happen to be in (or near) Seattle, I can introduce you to some and you can broaden your perspective, if you’d like. Good question. The short answer is that we are corrupted by the Fall, sinful in thought, word and deed, and as the KJV put it so well—“we see through a glass, darkly.” The one that isn’t made up of corrupted, sinful people—of course! Was Joseph Smith able to start such a church?;0) Another good question. A doctrine is heretical when it contradicts the revealed Word of God. For example, in the 4th century Christians faced dissention regarding the person of Jesus Christ. Some argued that since Jesus was the Son of God and that all sons necessarily have a beginning— Jesus was not Eternal God, but was instead a created being. Despite the seeming logic of these dissenters, their belief was incompatible with Scripture (e.g., John 1). So Christian leaders called a council, reviewed the arguments, weighed them against the Bible, and issued a statement. The statement (creed) served to officially repudiate the heresy and clarify the doctrine that faithful Christians have held before and since. Now that’s a pretty big and obvious example. All Christians (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) are united on the Trinity. The issues that divide denominations in the Protestant world are much less significant than that. For example, Baptists espouse believer baptism. Lutherans, Presbyterians, and others espouse infant baptism. Both make strong, Biblical arguments for their position. And yet at least one of them must be wrong. But does that make them heretics to one another? I think that’s much too strong a term for the disagreement. Despite the difference--they recognize each other’s baptisms. The Presbyterians don’t send missionaries out to convert the Baptists (and vice-versa). They don’t dispute each others membership in the broader Christian Church. I’m a member at a non-denominational church in Seattle (Mars Hill Church) that is theologically Reformed Baptist. But we view questions like “The Five Points of Calvinism” in an open-handed manner. Prospective members need not subscribe to the Five Points, they only need to be aware of the position of our pastors and agree not to be divisive. Debate and discussion is encouraged. I think that’s a healthy way to look at many of the issues that divide Christians. Some issues are close-handed (e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity) and other issues are open for discussion and study. Does this make sense? --Erik

Hi jms.mills-- Regarding who I would consider to be "in the category of believers in Christ" as you put it, I would answer all Christians. And a Christian is someone who worships Jesus as God. You can come up with a million what-if scenarios and ask me whether such a person is really a believer in the God of the Bible. I don't think it's worth time to play that game. We can judge bad fruit, of course, including theology that openly contradicts Scripture. But ultimately only God can discern the human heart. --Erik

Are you objecting to my post, jms.mills? Do you disagree the church is the body of Christ and that all believers are a part of it? Kindly explain where I am in error, with any definitions you choose--if this is your intent.

Yes, exactly! And has it somehow escaped your notice that the Bible makes this point many times over? "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." --Romans 8:7-8. See how Paul uses the same word, rameumptom--"cannot"--the same word you attribute to the doctrine of original sin. Perhaps you'll reconsider now. Or perhaps you don't find Paul persuasive. If the latter, then please consider the word of Christ in the Gospel of John: "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). Slaves aren't free, rameumptom. Slaves to sin cannot, of their own free-will initiative, choose the good. If they possessed such freedom, the word “slave” would make no sense in the context. And btw, who among men is without sin? Not happy with Jesus and Paul's views on the matter? Then consider the words we find in the Old Testament. The Prophet Jeremiah--"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil" (13:23). Same theme, isn’t it rameumptom? Once again, we find ourselves powerless, from our own initiative, to do anything good. But perhaps the most telling statement to this effect comes from the Prophet Isaiah, "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags" (64:6). And when you read the footnote on that last passage, you'll see the reference is actually "menstrual rags.” Pretty disgusting, isn’t it? That’s how God sees our “good works”—apart from the righteousness of Christ. No, rameumptom, there is no righteousness apart from Christ. I think Paul says it best, “I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.” (1 Corinthians 15:10). When Christians do works that are good in God’s eyes—it’s not due to any innate goodness of which they can boast. Rather, it’s the grace of God working within them. --Erik

First off, bytor2112, what Christian can accept a "holy spirit" who teaches "truths... apart from Scripture?" Seems to me the Bible warns of such spirits, and there's nothing "holy"about them. I think John Calvin says it well-- 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. --Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 9 And don't you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable suggesting that anyone who leaves the LDS Church as been, "Blinded by the crafiness of men?" Could it not be that some of them found the Word of God (the Bible) compelling? And could this not be attributed, at least in some cases, to God the Holy Spirit sealing on their minds the doctrines found therein? --Erik

This I'd like to hear from LDS-- 1. If LDS are immune to original sin and it's effects, why don't we see perfection in at least a few of them? If it's all up to their own free will/fee agency--it seems like one or two of them might get it right each generation. And yet the failure rate is 100%. If not due to original sin--what is it then? 2. If LDS infants are born innocent, as they claim, do LDS children need the atonement/propitiation of Christ? And if so, why? I look forward to the responses. --Erik

Hey Justice-- I did see your post and your appeal to authority--the authority of the Book of Mormon (Alma 42 to be specific). For me, nothing in that book is authoritative. Yes, I understand it's premise--that if I have a "sincere heart," "real intent," and "faith in Christ"--its truthfulness will be made manifest. And yes, I understand the logic of LDS--that if anyone has read the book, prayed, and didn't get such affirmation--then by definition they lacked the sincerity, real intent, etc., and they need to try again and keep trying until they get the "right answer." Been there, done that, and yes--I even got a T-shirt out of the deal (printed up for a service project). But by God's grace I got out of that loop a few years back. So your admonition that I pray some more about the BoM and specifically Alma 42--it falls a bit flat with me. I trust you'll understand why I didn't initially respond to your post. Hopefully you didn't invest too much time on it. --Erik

He didn't make much effort toward even-handedness, did he Hemidakota? (BTW, I love the name, makes me think of a Dodge Dakota pickup w/ a Hemi V8 engine, consuming prodigious quantities of gasoline and filling the environment with noxious emissions as it speeds down the street--but I digress). "No end of anguish," "mental distress," and we haven't even made it out of the first paragraph! And by the third paragraph, he makes the astonishing claim that some Christian denominations "reject baptism altogether." Obviously Mr. Peterson isn't here to defend his work--so perhaps you'll rise to the occasion, Hemidakota. Call for References. What Christian denominations "reject baptism?" Mind you, believing that water baptism is not necessary for salvation is NOT the same thing as "rejecting baptism." Baptism is clearly commanded of believers. But the Bible makes plain that salvation is by grace through faith--alone. It does not say salvation is by grace + water baptism. I'm not aware of any Protestant denominations that believe baptism is a "saving ordinance"--as Mormons do. Next he says of Presbyterians and Methodists that both "allow baptism"--as though they didn't really approve and found the practice distasteful. Misleading in the extreme! Presbyterians and Methodists strongly encourage baptism for believers. But again, they don’t teach salvation is by grace + baptism--it's by grace alone. Anyway, I couldn't keep going after that. A little too rich for my taste. But I did scroll to the bottom and I noticed this little citation attributed to President Smith: "Whom are you going to believe, the Lord, or men?" Amen! --Erik

Hello again, applepansy-- It might appear to the casual reader that you're following BYU professor Robert Millet's admonition to LDS when confronted with a difficult question: "Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked." But maybe that's not your intent, so let's give it one more go. But before I begin, let me try to dispense with your repeated insistence on ongoing revelation. You and I actually AGREE on this point--God speaks, God reveals, here and now! Where you and I disagree is whether God's ongoing revelation implies an open canon--but let's please save that for another thread. The question was whether you think the Articles of Faith supersede the Bible. Recall that Nappaljarri said they did. Recall that richlittel said they did not. You sidestepped the question and said they were "companions." Now I'd like you to provide a direct answer for the benefit of this excellent board and its many fine readers. Do you agree with Nappaljarri (it does)? Or do you agree with richlittel (it does not). Choose you this day, applepansy... ;0) I then asked you if you believed the Apostle Paul was wrong when he labeled Adam's transgression in the Garden a "sin." You said Paul was not wrong, but then you suggested his words might have been the result of some mistranslation made by "monks" working in "candlelight." So while Paul might not have been wrong (in the original autograph), my translation (ESV) could be wrong. Perhaps Paul wrote Adam's transgression was “not sin” and the ancient scribes accidently deleted the preceding "not." In light of the ambiguity you introduced in your response, please permit me a follow-up. Do you think the language attributed to Paul in Romans 5:16--wherein he unambiguously identifies Adam's transgression as "sin"--do you think this word is erroneous? Do you think our Bibles are simply wrong (or at least unreliable) in this passage? Thanks again, applepansy --Erik

Maybe it's not surprising, but it's none-the-less disappointing that the LDS Church won't actively support legislative efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. Gay marriage--It's a travesty! We must pull out all the stops to prevent legislation recognizing homosexual marriage, separation of church and state can go hang. Murder of the unborn--Yeah, that's not good, but it would be worse if we trampled on anyone's "free agency." Makes no sense, IMHO. Perhaps someone here can explain it... --Erik

Hi again, applepansy-- I don't wish to be argumentative, but it seems you punted on the question I asked you (how do you insist Adam's transgression was not a sin--when Paul called it exactly that in Romans 5:16?). Also, regarding the "wonderful job" by Nappaljarri, richlittel, et al.--did you not notice they made contradictory statements? According to Nappaljarri, "We believe the articles of faith do supersede the bible." But richlittel tells us, "Neither one or the other of our Standard Works supersede the other but have equal weight..." I'd appreciate your opinion on both points, applepansy. Do you think the Articles of Faith supersede the Bible? And do you think the Apostle Paul was wrong when he labeled Adam's transgression, "sin?" --Erik

I have thought about it, Justice. And more importantly, I've looked to Scripture. Infants are not "innocent"--according to the Bible. The Psalmist writes, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (51:5). And, "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies" (58:3). There's no escaping this fact, Justice. Paul writes--"All have sinned" (Romans 3:23). There's no exception for newborn infants and/or children under age eight. Indeed, if what you propose were the case--the infant would have no need of the atonement of Jesus Christ! --Erik PS. I gladly take correction on the question of the Articles of Faith being canonical for LDS. According BYU Studies, the letter was canonized in 1880. Apparently I could have held my ground in 1879, but times change... ;0)

Hi applepansy--I don't see where the Bible makes any such distinction. Perhaps you can show me. And in Romans 5:16, Paul explicitly refers to Adam's transgression as "sin." Not sure how you would escape this fact. Also, you seem to put a lot of stock in the 2nd Article of Faith. Do you think it supersedes what Paul wrote (the words I cited in my post) in Romans 5? If you do—you might find yourself in the minority of LDS. As I understood the Articles of Faith, they are simply a summary of doctrines found in the LDS canon (Joseph Smith wrote them in response to a letter of inquiry). Basically the Articles of Faith are a creed—important (to LDS), but not, strictly speaking, canonical. You could reasonably compare (and contrast) it with the Christian creeds. Please correct me if I am wrong about the LDS view of the Articles of Faith and whether LDS consider the Articles of Faith to supersede the Bible. Thanks applepansy, --Erik

According to the Apostle Paul (in his Epistle to the Romans), it appears we do. Regarding Adam, Paul writes, "The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (5:18) and he adds in the next verse, "By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners." I think this is generally what Bible-believing Christians mean when they speak of original sin and its effects. Through Adam, sin and death entered the world. And we see the undeniable result of original sin in our own desires (the sin nature we've inherited) and in everything around us. The Good News, of course, is that the story doesn't end with sin and death. Through the righteousness of Christ comes justification and eternal life--for those who believe. --Erik

This is not a case of debatable translation, Islander, you're simply citing the preceding verse. Go to the next one. Your KJV reads, "thou hatest all workers of iniquity"--which is saying the same thing as the passage I cited from the ESV. You have to be a little careful because sometimes the numbering of Psalm verses can be off by 1, depending on the translation. --Erik

What I find striking about this thread is that no one seems interested in critiquing Reverend Phelps vis-à-vis what the Bible says on these matters. What exactly is the objection of this thread’s author? As I read her post, it seemed to me that her objections were not really about Reverend Phelps per se. Rather, her true objections are against what the Bible itself reveals to us concerning the nature of God. Does God not hate the wicked? Psalm 5:5 answers, "You hate all evildoers." Does God not punish nations? Does God not take life? Does God not send people to hell to experience His wrath and punishment—for eternity? And are Christians directed to keep their mouths shut about such things on certain occasions (e.g., military funerals)? It often comes as a surprise to folks who haven't actually read the Bible, whose understanding of God is informed by popular culture, to learn that there are considerably more verses that speak of God's wrath, His anger, His hate—than there are of verses that speak of His love. God clearly possesses both attributes, according to the Bible. And yet this truth seems difficult for many to accept. No, I'm not defending Reverend Phelps, his followers and their tactics. I see no Biblical foundation whatever that God kills our service men and women to express His displeasure with homosexual activity in the United States. The wages of sin is undisputedly death—but I think it's outrageous and profoundly un-Biblical to suggest homosexual sin is somehow worse in God's eyes than sin committed by heterosexuals. The Bible makes clear that all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is sin. And the Bible explicitly states, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10). Anyone who feels righteous or smug that he (or she) doesn’t have homosexual inclinations, and feels he can point his finger at a particular group of sinners without first pointing it at himself—is a raving hypocrite. And that, I think, troubles me most about Reverend Phelps. Other thoughts? It’s an old thread, but I think the issues raised in it merit further consideration. --Erik

Now if that doesn't definitively answer the original post--it's difficult to imagine what would... --Erik

The negative consequences are also readily apparent--to anyone who's ever ordered a mixed drink in that state. You pretty much have to stick to ordering bottled beer and neat whiskey (they can't water those down). Order a Gin & Tonic and you'll get a glass of tonic water nearly undefiled by the presense of actual gin. And if you think their consciences or their regard for ethics would prevent them from demanding the full price of a proper beverage--think again. I'm not arguing for addiction, drunk-driving, excess or sin of any sort. But holding Utah up as some sort of standard for the rest of the nation to emulate... Suffice it to say I'm glad Romney didn't make it any further than he did. --Erik

Perhaps the definition of "church" is too narrow. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:24). All believers are a part of it (1 Corinthians 12:27). Salvation doesn't hinge on one's association with the Reformed or the Charismatic, the Presbyterian or the Pentecostal...

Perhaps there should be some discussion of the purpose of the law... Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe... --Romans 3:20-22 (NIV)

My pastor once suggested the existence of a demon named "Allah" who has decieved millions of Muslims that Jesus was not God. I don't think Christians can really feel "united" with non-Christians. Christians are part of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), united with other Christians... --Erik