prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13959 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
93
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
What I find confusing is that most of my non-LDS Christian friends say that all I have to do to be saved is believe in Jesus/accept him as my Savior.
Oh, but I can't believe in living prophets.
And, I can't believe in new scripture.
Wait, I can't believe it's possible that other gods exist even if their existence/non-existence has nothing to do with my worship of God.
It just seems like one long list of addendums in addition to "accepting Jesus." I'm not really saying you're like that, I'm just saying that most non-LDS Christians really don't believe salvation comes by accepting Jesus; you have to not accept lots of other things. :) Just interesting to me.
AK, I've actually gone around this topic quite a bit, mostly dialoging with Snow. Here's some conclusions I've come up with:
1. Salvation is 100% by the grace of God. The forumula is much as you describe: ADMIT your a sinner, BELIEVE Jesus is Lord and Savior (the Lord part covers 'turning from wicked ways'), and CONFESS your sins. The thief on the cross did all of these things, and probably had very little theological understanding of the nature of God, prophecy, etc.
2. With salvation, believers begin walking with the Holy spirit, as they grow in knowledge and righteous living.
3. If, at some point, the believer is tempted by heresy, the Holy Spirit will 'check' him/her. There would be a sense of caution, or even warning. If the Holy Spirit is repeatedly ignored or resisted, a grievous sin is being committed. The believer may become an apostate--a heretic. At that point s/he has so hardened the heart against God's Spirit that it might be said s/he has blasphemed the Holy Spirit. This is the unpardonable sin.
4. So, it's not that there is a doctrinal test to gain salvation. It's that the believer is indeed expected to grow in truth, and to commune with God. If, instead s/he drifts into heresy, it is not through merely being innocently deceived. Willing resistance to God was part of the process. So, in essence, like Esau, the believer has sold his soul for a bowl of soup (be it spiritual pride, a new set of friends, or some other shadow of what God offers).
5. So, what teachings qualify as being so heterodox that the believer would lose their salvation? John makes it clear that Docetism qualifies--the belief that Jesus did not actually come in the flesh to suffer--but only appeared to do so. John said that a test of faith is that one confesses Jesus came in the flesh.
Beyond this, most churches, rather than listing damnable teachings, offer a set of statements that they unite around. In ancient days these were called creeds. Today, they're usually called Statements of Faith. I suppose it's a more positive approach--we won't condemn you--but if you want to unite with us in fellowship, these are the truths we consider basic.
There is no complete answer to you question, but my realization over the last few months is that when non-LDS Christians and LDS ones talk about doctrine and salvation, we're not talking about initial conversion, but about growing in truth. If we've strayed from the straight and narrow path, any efforts to get us back on track should be appreciated rather than reviled.
This is why Profs. Robinson (BYU) and Blomberg (Denver Seminary) state in their book, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon Evangelical Conversation, that both groups are not likely to share communions or pulpits any time soon, and they are likely to continue to evangelize one another. Their call is that we improve the tone and quality of our conversations, and to that I say "Amen."
-
If it is doctrine, I'd probably label it henotheistic, not polytheistic <he said as he kicked the semantic soccerball uselessly downfield>. :)
I'll accept that there is a distinction between henotheism and polytheism. However, I'm guessing that for most non-LDS Christians, henotheism would also be deemed heresy, based upon Deuteronomy 6:4, and numerous other verses.
The argument is already blaring--I can hear it: But, God only commanded that we not worship or put other gods before--not that we deny they exist.
Yet, there are passages in which God makes fun of false deities--gods made of wood, and precious metals, that have eyes but do not see, ears but do not hear, etc. Furthermore, Paul suggests that we can eat food sacrificed to idols, because those idols are not real, have no real power, and so cannot corrupt the food.
Just to provide contrast, the Jehovah's Witnesses also believe in other gods (Jesus being one of them), but contend that these gods are merely powerful created beings, not = with the one God, Jehovah.
-
No, I agree that that list is a list of “things”, but Yes, I am saying that “humans” don’t fit into that criteria.
Or in other words, “humans” are not “things”, and Paul wasn’t referring to “us”.
Really, I'm stunned. The passage is so intent on showing us Christ the Creator, and your answer is that Jesus created stuff, but not souls/spirits?Let's revisit the passage:
Colossians 1:16,17
Note that the first translation is from the Jehovah's Witnesses--a group that totally denies the deity of Christ, and thus would seek to minimize his supernatural powers.
NWT: because by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,
The Watchtower society knew that they had a problem with this verse, and so put in the explanatory [other].
NIV: For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
NASB: For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
KJV: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
A simple reading of this passage is that Jesus made everything. The JW's dealt with the problem by adding explanatory notes [within the text]. It's an incredibly strained reading to see that and say, "Yeah everyTHING, but not everyONE."
-
Perhaps you misunderstood. I believe you and I have come to somewhat of a understanding. I did not want you to think I was plowing in old dirt or attempting in any to be critical of things you have posted.
Okay, sorry about that. I'm not usually the sensitive type, but thought you might be suggesting that my comments were not needed on your post. Silly me.
Thanks for clarifying.Interesting. I used to live in Federal Way. Well not exactly Federal Way. We lived at Browns Point which is North East Tacoma but you almost have to go through Federal Way to get there.
FYI for those not knowing--Browns Point is one of those rare neighborhoods in S. King County (Seattle-Tacoma) where the
people live. Take Care PC. You live in one of the best places in the world. I would still live there buy my wife is a sun person and does not like overcast days - but I loved it there.
I'd say something about you being the man, the leader, the priest of your household, but I'm well aware that wise men, leaders, priests choose to live in places where the better 1/2 can be happy. B)
-
PS PC...you are from seattle area eh? So do you have an LDS relative that lives near Tacoma? An Engineer brother who possibly does or did work for Boeing?
We're in Federal Way now, but I grew up in southwest Seattle (near SSCC). No LDS relatives that I know of--not in Tacoma, and, while my mother is retired from Boeing, we had no engineers in the family.
-
If we are saying that gods have created god upon god, for infinity, please explain how we are able to make it to this point in time.
Since this is an excerpt from Dr. T's post--thus his summary--I want to know if he got this right. Does LDS theology say that gods have created god upon god for infinity? Is this doctrine or theological speculation? If it's doctrine, is it fair to say that we are discussing a polytheistic construct of creation?
-
As far as the "new" gospel the article cited talks about, I understand from one report that it is a gnostic text. If so, it's well to remember that the gnostics had a widely different view of Jesus than "traditional" Christians of his day. I'd also echo the point that Peter was chief apostle in authority if nothing else, and I'd have a hard time believing that Judas was more "elect" or special than him.
Gnosticism was and is considered a heresy by most Christians. I remember unwittingly citing the Gospel of Thomas as a source for how early Christians believed about a certain topic. Mercifully, the prof. only deducted a half-grade.
Of course, a mind is like a parachute: It only works if it's open. So I allow for the possibility of new light and truth when it comes up. I simply don't feel this new "gospel" contains much of it. Any document purporting to be genuine which begins with, "The secret revelation..." or "The secret words which Jesus spake to so-and-so..." send up a red flag.
The old joke about a mind being so open the brains start falling out, comes to mind.
I mean, if they really WERE supposed to be secret, then whoever wrote them down was defying the same type of sacred silence that prevents every temple-goer from just whipping out a tape-recorder and recording the endowment for posterity. So it's kind of a catch-22. If the words were spoken in secrecy, then whoever wrote them down was disobedient and hence their witness (and motive for "spilling the beans") is suspect. If the words weren't true, then whoever wrote them down was fabricating history and not very handily I might add.
While I agree that extra scrutiny may be in order when vows of secrecy are broken, whistle-blowers cannot automatically be dismissed.
But as far as this particular subject goes, I find it interesting that all four gospel writers of the Standard Works of our church agree on Judas' betrayal:
As does the Roman Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Orthodox, Evangelical, Fundamental, and just about every other strain of Christianity one can think of, sans modern-day Gnostics.
In the end, I find it hard to believe that Jesus HAD to have one of the twelve betray him, or HAD to instruct anyone to betray him because there were plenty of people who would have and if not Judas then someone would have. I think Judas, being in charge of the money purse of the Church so to speak, disagreed with how Jesus spent or didn't spend it, grew greedy, and thought thirty pieces of shiny sounded pretty good.
Just a thought.
Bottom Line: Apostleknight gets an A+ in my book for this post
-
Define Salvation. Salvation from what? Mortal death? If resurrection is to all then yes we are all saved by Christ. If others wish to define salvation and living with God and Christ in eternity not freely given to all.
Define salvation: Reconciliation with God.
Salvation from what: The wages of sin - an eternity not in reconcilation with God.
I would have thought true salvation would result in living with God and Christ in eternity. So, if it's not free, what does it cost?
(BTW, if the answer is that the candidate must "endure to the end," I would argue that salvation is free, and that once obtained at the moment of conversion, the labor we extend to maintain it is not payment, but gratitude).
Hello Traveler & P.C.,
So which of your faiths, with regard to salvation, is based 100% on the grace of God?
I'll answer for myself, and say that mine is. The Admit you're a sinner/Believe Jesus is Savior and Lord/Confess your sins roadmap is not a set of three works. Rather, it's akin to one holding the box containing the gift of salvation, and looking at the instructions on how to assemble it. The fact that you put it together does not detract fromt the fact that you have a gift, fully and freely given.
After all, the admission of sin comes through the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Even this awareness is a gift. The Believing in Jesus also comes via the witness of the Holy Spirit. Finally, the confession of sins, while heartwrenching, is hardly a work. Confession is the first step towards recovery. Hi, my name is Tom. I'm a sinner. (everyone choruses: Hi Tom!)...
-
And personally, I also think it's a little disappointing to see that manuscript getting so much attention when there are many others which do teach some truth.
Disappointing, but not surprising. You'd be amazed at how many requests I get in our chapel library for the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc. People always want to see the extrabiblical books, the 'lost' books, the books the Church supposedly suppressed, etc. Such a hunger to be on the inside of secret truths (the core of the Gnostic heresy), and to find out what "the system" is hiding. The simple gospel is too straightforward, too conventional, and quite frankly, it does not adaquately stroke the egos of those who would rather be part of a spiritual elite with the inside track.
-
Not intended for PC.
-
I liked this post and topic - Good going PC.
I may differ a little but I am not sure because of our different background. It is true that the commandments of the Old Testament are fulfilled but they relate to a covenant. The covenant Jesus brought goes beyond the old commandments. For example: Do not commit adultery becomes do not look upon another to lust. Do not kill becomes do not be angry. Instead of sacrificing animals we sacrifice ourselves (broken heart and contrite spirit).
If we cannot keep the old covenant what makes anyone think they are ready for the new covenant?
The Traveler
Your response reminds of another outline I have concerning how Christians observe the 10 Commandments. I'll post it as a new topic, and you can see if it fleshes out your thoughts here (or muddies the waters
).Well PC (you don't mind if I call you that do you? call me AK if you want, haha), I have to say, you've done your homework. I enjoy delving into Jewish studies (Hebrew is the coolest language in my opinion) and relating them to the restoration and what not.
To sum it up I submit the following:
The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed;
The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.
That's a clever and useful couplet. I'm wondering if you'd carry further, by adding the Triad into the equation?
-
Introduction: All of the great religions that proclaim belief in one God submit to the 10 Commandments. Yet, how do we, as Christians, understand and obey these so-called Jewish commandments?
Scripture: Exodus 20:1-17
Proposition: For the Christian, the 10 Commandments are more stringent, yet more achievable, than Jewish practice demanded.
Interrogative: How is the Christian understanding of the 10 Commandments more stringent, and why can we more easily achieve them?
Transition: We shall first consider the stringency of Christian obedience to the Commandments.
I. How Christians understand and interpret the 10 Commandments.
A. YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME.
1. The ancient Jews understood this to mean they must worship the God of Israel, and no other.
2. Likewise, modern Judaism’s mission is to protect the spiritual life and practice of Jewish people. There is no mandate to reconcile non-Jews to the one true living God.
3. Jesus also says to worship no other gods. But he goes further, calling his followers to a rigorous mission of proclaiming the Good News to all peoples.
a. No other way–John 14:6
b. The Great Commission.
B. YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF AN IDOL.
1. Ancient Israel focused on the literal making of idols, because false idolatrous religion was so common then.
2. Still, one could be certain to find prohibitions against religious statues and the like.
3. Jesus took this one step further.
a. Don’t let your family become an idol–you had better be willing to hate–or abandon–your parents and sibling rather than compromise your love for me.
b. Don’t let your possessions become an idol–you cannot serve God and money.
C. YOU SHALL NOT MISUSE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD.
1. Ancient Israel hesitated to use the name of God at all. This is why you so often see GOD and LORD in the Bible, rather than YAHWEH.
2. Today, the more conservative Jews even hesitate to use the title God. In their writings they write G-d instead.
3. Jesus teaches that we can use the name of God–in power. He still insist that the name be revered however.
a. In my name you shall heal the sick, cast out devils, and do works greater than I have done.
b. Many shall say, “Did we not do great works in your name?” And Jesus will respond saying, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”
c. The seven sons of Sceba used the name of Jesus to deliver a man from demons. Yet, they did not know Jesus. The demons left the man–but attacked those who would disrespect Jesus name by using it in ignorance.
D. REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY BY KEEPING IT HOLY.
1. Ancient Jews had numerous rules about what could and could not be done on the Sabbath.
2. Modern Jews have those same rules and volumes of commentary on how they can be applied with today’s technology. Example: Elevators in condos in Miami Beach.
3. Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
a. It is okay to heal on the Sabbath.
b. It is okay to work at getting food, so as not to go hungry, on the Sabbath.
c. It is okay to have special days or to treat every day the same, so long as the glory and honor go to God.
E. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.
1. Ancient Israel had specific laws about how you were to honor your parents. So long as your treatment towards them complied with the laws, you were okay.
2. Modern Jews continue to pay general homage to the need to honor parents, and comply with religious guidelines on how to do so.
3. Jesus said we have to honor our parents with our hearts and spirits, as well as our mere compliance.
a. Corban meant you could give money to the Church (Temple) that should have gone to your parents.
b. Jesus says you must not use the Church as an excuse not to care for your parents.
c. Jesus also says that parents must not drive their children to anger through harsh treatment.
F. YOU SHALL NOT MURDER.
1. Ancient and modern Jewish practice would take this literally. You should not kill people.
2. Jesus said that to angrily denounce someone is a murderous act. He said we are to love our enemies.
G. YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
1. Ancient and modern Jews would take this literally–you must not have sex with somebody other than your spouse.
2. Jesus said that to even lust after another woman is adultery.
H. YOU SHALL NOT STEAL.
1. Ancient and modern Jews would take this to mean that we must not take what is not ours.
2. Jesus said that we must obey our bosses–even when they are unreasonable. Otherwise, we “steal” what belongs to them.
I. YOU SHALL NOT GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR.
1. Ancient and modern Jews said that it is wrong to lie with the purpose of hurting a neighbor. But, they tolerated promises that were sometimes less than fully honest.
2. Jesus said, “Let your yes be yes, and your no no.”
J. YOU SHALL NOT COVET.
1. Ancient and modern Jews say it is wrong to try to get what belongs to your neighbor.
2. Jesus said we should not worry about money or “the cares of this world.”
3. Paul said we are to be content whether we are wealthy or poor.
Transition: Compliance with these Commandments seems all but impossible. How can we obey them?
II. The power source that allows Christians to obey the 10 Commandments.
A. Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit says the Lord. (Zecharia 6:4)
B. You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. (Acts 1:8)
C. Be perfect as I am perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
D. Love is the answer
1. The two laws of love
2. Love that God provides–the Fruit of the Spirit.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Jesus did do away with some of the superficial, man-made customs surrounding the 10 Commandments.
2. However, he strongly endorsed the spirit of the Commandments–even raising the standards his disciples were to obey.
3. It is possible to live in obedience to the Commandments–If the Spirit of God empowers you!
-
I used to think so too. But baptism and conversion are required for salvation. Believing the couplet that "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become," is NOT required for salvation. Now if one of the temple recommend questions was, "Do you believe God was once a man like you and me?" and you couldn't gain access to the temple unless you believed that, yes, God WAS once a mortal man...then I'd wholeheartedly insist that investigators be taught the doctrine prior to baptism. As it stands, it's not a requirement, but a mystery and deep doctrine which has done more harm than good in my experience. Do I believe the couplet? In my own limited way, yes. Does my salvation hinge on whether it's true or not? Nope.
I can at least understand your reasoning here. Prof. Robinson (BYU) explains to his evangelical friends that this famous quote is NOT official doctrine, nor is it directly based on Scripture. Nevertheless, he admits that it might as well be, as oft as it is quoted, and as readily as most LDS accept it (regardless of how deeply they've contemplated it). So, your reminder that the couplet is pervasive, but not essential does help.
I HATE those network marketing meetings! :) "As you guests now are, us Platinum Sellers once were; as we Platinum Sellers now are, you guests may become." Hahahaha
You're beautiful, man! B)
-
There are two views of God's purpose for the Old Testament Law.
I. Jewish view: The law is God's covenant between him and the Jewish people.
A. It's a special covenant--one that is possible to obey.
B. In fact, the whole focus of Jewish interpretation of Scripture is: What guidelines does the passage give me for obeying God's law?
C. Christians and other non-Jews are not expected to obey the 613 commandments of the Books of Moses, nor even the Ten Commandments.
D. Instead they are to obey The Seven Noahide Laws: Judaism regards any non-Jew who keeps these laws as a righteous person who is guaranteed a place in the world to come.
1. Not to deny God.
2. Not to blaspheme God.
3. Not to murder.
4. Not to engage in incestuous, adulterous, bestial or homosexual relationships.
5. Not to steal.
6. Not to eat a limb torn from a living animal.
7. To set up courts to ensure obedience to the other six laws.
II. Christian view: The law is a mirror that reflects our need of Jesus.
A. We cannot fulfill the law by our imperfect human attempts to obey the commands.
1. (Romans 3:23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
2. (Romans 3:10) As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
B. The Law was meant to prepare the way for Jesus. Since we now have Jesus, the burden of the law is gone!
1. (Galatians 3:19) What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. (NIV)
2. (Ephesians 2:15) by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, (NIV)
III. How to reconcile the Jewish vs. the Christian view.
A. If the Jewish view is correct--that we are able, by our own willpower, to obey them adaquately, then we should either convert to Judaism and obey the 613 commandments, or we should simply observe the 7 Noahide laws.
B. If the Christian view is correct we should believe Jesus and confess our sins to him.
1. (John 3:16) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV)
2. (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (NIV)
C. So, how do Christians please God if they do not obey the Old Testament Commandments? We obey the law of love.
1. (Matthew 22:35-40) One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' {37 Deut. 6:5} This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' {39 Lev. 19:18} All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (NIV)
2. (1 Corinthians 13:13) And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (NIV)
D. We equip ourselves to love by being filled with God's Spirit, rather than relying on our own willpower.
1. (Galatians 5:22-23) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (NIV)
2. Note that Love is the product of the Spirit in us--not our own efforts.
3. Note also, that some interpret this passage to say that the fruit of the Spirit is Love, and that that love is explained as joy, peace, patience, etc.
E. We do good works, not to satisfy a demanding God, but to lead unbelievers to a loving God.
1. (1 Peter 2:12) Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. (NIV)
2. (Ga 6:9) Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. (NIV)
F. We tell of the goodness of God, so that others may know and believe.
1. Jesus told us to do this in the Great Commision: (Matthew 28:19-20) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (NIV)
2. We even send Christians whever we can to tell the news that God is loving and good to whoever will hear and believe. (Romans 10:13-15) for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." {13 Joel 2:32} How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" {15 Isaiah 52:7} (NIV)
IV. How can we know that the Christian view of the Law is correct--that obedience to the Old Testament law is impossible, and that we should believe Jesus and obey the law of love instead?
A. Those that clung to law when Jesus came rejected him--and even supported his execution. Their pride would not allow them to submit to God's Son.
B. The Law is so oppressive that only 5% of Jewish people are "Torah-observant." 10% follow some principles of the Law, saying literal observance is unrealistic. 85% have abandoned Jewish faith all together.
V. The Jewish faith was intended to bring God to the world.
A. (Isaiah 55:5) Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor." (NIV) So, God would make himself known to non-Jewish nations through the blessings he gives to the Jewish people.
B. (Ezekiel 36:15) No longer will I make you hear the taunts of the nations, and no longer will you suffer the scorn of the peoples or cause your nation to fall, declares the Sovereign LORD.'" (NIV) God's protection of Israel served the non-Jewish nations notice that He alone is God.
B. (Micah 4:2) Many nations will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. (NIV) This is a direct prophecy that the God of Israel intended to become the God of all peoples!
C. (Romans 16:26) but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him-- (NIV) God's intent has always been that Jews would lead all peoples back to him. (Consider this as the Tower of Babel in reverse --confusing people by giving them different languages, so they would separate, but now uniting them by faith in Jesus--!)
D. (Galatians 3:8) The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." {8 Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18} (NIV)
-
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. (This is our Lord Jesus Christ who is speaking)
Jesus was addressing those He was sending out on a specific traveling mission. If you are suggesting that the instructions Jesus gives in this passage are meant for all church workers for all times, then even LDS missionaries miss the mark. You would require the following:
1. Take no money with.
2. Take no extra clothes.
3. Wherever you go, find the house of a worthy person to stay with.
These were faith evangelists Jesus was sending out. He was teaching them to rely on God. He was not establishing a permenent set of guidelines for leaders of established churches to live by. Note particularly, that the context of this passage is Jesus sending out workers for an evangelistic trip--not the normal day to day providing of church leaders.
Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. (This is His apostle named Paul who is speaking)
Yes, it's well-known that Paul was a gifted tentmaker, and that he personally chose not to receive support from the churches, and made it clear (as I'll point out in another Scripture reference) that he had the right to be paid, but that he gave up that right--something the church should appreciate, not expect.
Okay, here is 1 Corinthians 9:18:
What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. (also from the apostle Paul)
Again, Paul chose to be a volunteer leader for the Corinthians. Yet, in the same passage he says:
Do we have a right to food and drink? ... Or is it only I and Barnabus who must work for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? For is it not written in the Law of Moses: 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threses, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more? 1 Corinthians 9:4-12a, NIV
Paul says that most of the spiritual overseers, apostles, leaders were indeed getting support--as they should, both biblically and humanly. He then uses the fact that he chose not to receive monies from them as leverage to get them to appreciate him and his message.
Bottom-line: The norm was for the leaders to be fully supported by the churches--again a practice that was proper both biblically and in accordance with common sense.
Once again, I have no issues with the LDS practice of relying on volunteers for its congregational leadership. It is not anti-Christian to do so. On the other hand, I disagree with the insinuation that it is improper for churches to fully provide for their leaders, so they might be set aside for fulltime spiritual labor.
-
As to the doctrine in question, it is well known and frequently spoken of in Church. It is not a secret. It is not something to cover up or be ashamed of. Rather, it is a doctrine which makes so much sense! So many people ask "how did God become God?" Well, here you go - here's your answer.
"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement -- a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'" (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 - p.431, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)
Thank you for getting into this teaching, MOM! I believe some have labeled this "Eternal Progression," though some aspects of this line of teaching are said to be speculative. You are correct that the teaching that God may have changed in his nature--progressed--causes theological fireworks, at least amongst evangelicals and Reform theologians. I'm guessing Catholics are scandalized as well. My understanding is that the justification goes back to a rejection of all doctrinal formation from about 100AD up to the time of JS. So, the understandings of time, God's nature, and many other philosophical issues are quite different from what non-LDS Christians take for granted. This teaching may indeed be a doctrinal line in the sand--a right/wrong question for which there is no compromise. God is either eternal beyond time, or He is only eternal and unchangeable since time began ticking with the formation of the world described in Gen. 1.
As is mentioned in the above quote, the LDS Church and its members have taken a lot of hits from our fellow Christians for this. Although we believe it and teach it and even rejoice in the implications of this knowledge, it's not the sort of thing we go around waving in people's faces like a red flag in front of a bull. It's not the first point of doctrine an investigator is usually taught. Nor will you find it among a missionary's talking points. But I certainly knew and understood this point before I joined the Church. In fact, to me, it's part of what makes the LDS version of the Gospel so much more vital and believable than other sects'. President Hinckley may well have been trying to sidestep the issue so as not to start up a new round of persecutions, and just not done so gracefully enough.
While it's understandable not to begin doctrinal training with this issue, due to the complexity and controversial nature of it, my own view is that it should be brought up fairly early--certainly prior to baptism. Not to do so raises the spector of non-LDS saying, "Why are the hiding this? Why are they springing it on converts only after they are already committed?" Some might even suggest it's like those nondescript "networking" meetings you get invited to, only to find out your in for a 2-hour AMWAY pitch. Openness might drive a few away, but those who stay will be more committed, imho.
-
PC - I don't think it has been clarified yet the differences in how you and the LDS view callings in the Church. LDS don't feel called personally by God - independent of any one else, and then go and become Bishops, Apostles, Teachers, Missionaries, etc. MrsS goes on to explain the process of those who have a need for workers seeking God's direction, then giving a list to overseers (bishopric) for further spiritual direction, who then go to the individuals with their calling. The individuals then can except or reject the offer brought to them, without fear of condemnation. (I hope I got that right--wanted to shorten it up a bit).
When it comes to seeking out church workers for Sunday school, midweek family programs, deacons, etc. our process is quite similar. However, for evangelists, ministers, missionaries the process is reversed. God speaks directly to the heart of the candidate, often during private devotions, or during a religious program. The individual will usually share his/her sense of calling with a trusted senior (often a pastor or trusted deacon). After gaining a sense of confirmation that the call is authentic, and after finding concurrence from church leaders, the candidate will begin a vetting process with the district office. An application is filled out, interviews are held, written tests are given, and often, the candidate is encouraged to engage in some formal studies. The successful candidate will eventually be credentialed, but must then serve for two years, before s/he is again vetted, and ordained.
-
Or in other words, along with being called by God, you must also be ordained by God or others who have His authority to ordain you, and that ordination always comes by the laying on of hands. Or in other words, either our Lord must lay His hands upon your head, or other people who have had our Lord lay His hands upon their head must lay their hands upon your head, or other people who have had other people who have had our Lord lay His hands upon their head must lay their hands upon your head, (or in short, you must be ordained by someone who has at least one of the keys of the kingdom), and to simply receive a “feeling” or assurance from God does not in itself confer any keys.
Great. Yes, that happened to me. The bretheren laid hands on me and commisioned me for the work. This happened when my missionary work was recognized, when I was ordained, and again when I was commissioned as a chaplain. At the last one, our General Superintendent (similar to your President) laid hands on me. Of course, the ordination by God was most important, but having the concurrence of fellow ministers was and is a great encouragement.Yes, but not every church or group of people claiming to be a church of Christ is actually a church of Christ.
Okay, here's a sidebar. A sociological definition of faith groups.
1. If you see a different church and say, "Most of those people are my brothers and sisters in the faith," you belong to a denomination.
2. If you say, "There may be a few believers in that bunch," you belong to a sect.
3. If you say, "Those heathen will all burn in hell," you belong to a cult.
Not a totally accurate criteria, but somewhat useful. I have some disagreements with the teachings of many churches outside my own particular fellowship. Nevertheless, I generally go with the #1 response. Most churches that say they are Christian, mostly are. A few are on unstable ground, and a very few are dangerous imposters.
Or in other words, people who simply believe they are following Christ while calling themselves Christians and trying helping to help Him establish His kingdom does not mean that those people are actually following Christ or helping to establish His church.
Perhaps. But, I'd argue that most of them are indeed Christians helping to establish Christ's kingdom. A few aren't doing a very good job, and a very few are actually countering Christ's work. But, most are yielding harvest.
Or in other words, all of us can’t be right if we are teaching conflicting doctrines, and the only ones of us who have the right or authority to speak for God are those who are authorized by God to teach and share the truth.
This isn't Scripturally supported, so, like Paul, this particular teaching is "of me, not necessarily of the LORD." I'd argue that 90% of Christian agree with 90% of other Christians 90% of the time. We sometimes get bound up on that 10% that we think makes us more right than the others. I'll simply suggest that unless a church is NOT truly Christian, then it does have authority. If JS' restored gospel teaching is correct, then the LDS alone holds the authority. I'm guessing that is the matter you are driving at.
-
You are assuming that Christ was promising salvation to the thief. I don't think that is clear. Later, after the resurrection, Christ said that he had not yet accended to heaven. So, where ever the thief went that day, it wasn't heaven.
Suffice to say I am indeed assuming that Christ offered the thief salvation. While the thief might not have gone to heaven that day, I'm convinced that those who were in what Jesus called paradise will end up in heaven.
Prisonchaplain says: Salvation can be lost. One way to lose it is apostasy--forsaking the simple and true way of Jesus for something else. Snow responds: That's another example of how fractured Christianity is. Other Christians disagree.
We still see through that glass dimly...however, what you call "fractured" I'd call a disagreement. The LDS faith may have a unified organization, but if I took the top 12 LDS posters at this sight and analyzed their beliefs and opinions, me thinks I'd find incredible--well, what should I call it, disagreement or fracture? B)
Well okay but if you ever figure out what beliefs are essential to or antithetical to salvation, let me know.
The kernel from the husk? Sounds easier than it is, that's for sure.
-
It does appear to me that you and I agree that G-d does not do for man what man can do for themselves and that G-d does do for man what man cannot do for himself.
I clarify the bottom-line evangelical view: Humanity can do NOTHING with regard to salvation. It is a free gift, given by the grace of God to "whosoever will." On the other hand, believers are called to "work out their salvation daily, with fear and trembling." So, concerning the life of salvation, God certainly does call upon us to 'take up our cross.' Then again, Jesus promises that his yoke is easy, his burden is light. And yes, He's there with us the whole way.
I stressed the "we can do nothing" part, because this is where evangelicals and LDS usually run into a huge miscommunication problem. Whenever LDS discuss salvation, you almost always mean the life of salvation and enduring to the end. Whenever evangelicals discuss salvation we almost always mean the moment of conversion. The life of salvation is something we distinguish as progressive sanctification (becoming more like Christ).
So, our beliefs about salvation are not so different, but the language we use to discuss them lead to much misunderstanding. BTW, I would again refer interested readers to the chapter on salvation in the book How Wide the Divide: A Mormon Evangelical Discussion, by Profs. Robinson and Blomberg (BYU & Denver Seminary, respectively).
-
I believe that every Christian should "dedicate themselves to study, prayer, counseling and tending to God's people"
In a sense you are right. I tell the chapel every week that each of them is the only Jesus many of their fellow inmates will see. They won't come to me. But the believing inmates live with them, and are going through what the others are going through. If the Christian inmate lives in peace, with confidence, and with honesty and integrity, that's the best teaching an unbeliever can see.
On the other hand, God has called some to teach, some to lead, etc. These churches should empower to do as well as they possibly can. And, in many instances, that means setting individuals aside for fulltime service.
and that such matters are not to be left to those that do it for money
I know what you mean by this, but the underlying insinuation is wrong. It is not only possible, it is the historic norm that fulltime church workers are fully provided for by the church. It's not that the workers are doing it for the money--it's that the church is equipping the workers for fulltime service.
If any one Christian has a right to be supported in their faith and for their efforts then all have that same right (in my view). I do not believe in classes of priviledged Christians.
Ministers traing the people to minister in their communities and circles of influence. Everyone is a teacher, but some are fulltime teachers. Everyone can share the gospel, but some are fulltime evangelists, missionaries, overseers, etc. I seriously doubt that anyone who had not been drilled with this idea that churches should not fully support their workers, would begrudge, for example, the Salvation Army Officer (i.e. minister/bishop), who gets "paid" in the mid-20Ks, I believe.
And to state it simply: What should we do for free, and what should we expect to be paid for... with money?
We don't have to speculate, Ray. We have 2000 years of church history. Churches generally set aside roughly 1-2% for fulltime ministry. The overseer, an assistant (secretary), and in larger churches, a few assistant overseers (pastors/ministers/bishops). They are supported because they provide leadership, training, and spiritual counsel as their fulltime calling. Many people, including the leaders volunteer time. There hasn't been a clamoring for everyone to get paid. A good many ministers could probably sue for violation of minimum wage laws, if their pay was looked at on an hourly basis. That's not the mindset. Very few church members begrudge the leaders being provided for. Most wish they could do more.
-
First, it is not good for a person to receive money for sharing the gospel or helping our God with His work… although it is "good" for other people to want to help provide for the necessities (food, clothing and shelter) of others if they cannot provide those things for themselves.
Why is it not good that churches fully provide for those who lead congregations? Is it not wise to have in leadership those trained extensively in the Scriptures, in counseling, in leadership, in management? Yes, there are situations where congregations cannot fully do so, but would this not be the ideal?
Or in other words, people can and should do all that they can to provide for their own needs and necessities, and that even includes the people who know God and are authorized to help Him with His work, and if for some reason some people cannot provide for their own needs, then other people should give them some assistance.
Again, I ask why? Why would congregations NOT want their leadership to concentrate their full efforts to the work of the gospel? Even the most dedicated LDS bishop--who might give 40+ hours to his secular work, and another 40+ to the church work, would then very likely be shorting his own family (the LDS' highest calling, if I read right in a previous post by someone else).
And btw, you cited some cases in which God told some people to give some things to people to help provide for their necessities, and those people received those revelations from God, so your belief that ALL people who choose and claim to work for God should not work at a “regular job” is simply based on an assumption and your “interpretation” of the scriptures.
Ray, the priests worked full-time in the Temple, and God ordered that the people pay them with food, shelter etc. (they didn't use salaries in the OT, so your repeated linguistic gymnastics that insinuate they were given basic necessities because of some inability on their part just won't do).
Secondly, people can know just as much if not more about God and His gospel whether or not they have money or the things money can buy.
Assuming teachers are called of God, those that are commissioned to dedicate themselves to fulltime ministry will be more proficient than those who do so on the side. You'd much rather have a fulltime physician than someone who dabbles in medicine on the side. Note that in 2 Timothy 3, Paul charges young Timothy to treat Scripture study as work--study to show yourself a workman, that needeth not be ashamed...
Some volunteers are better than some full-time teachers, but as a rule of thumb, those the church equips for fulltime labor will be more proficient than those required to "work fulltime to support their ministry habit."
Or in other words, someone’s ability to know God and His gospel is not determined by how much money they have so they don’t have to “work” at a “regular job” anymore, because even if that meant they could then spend ALL of their time “studying”, that alone would not help them to know God.
Ray, any teacher called by God will become a more able instructor if the church provides for them to do so fulltime. The call of God is basic. Learning how to study effectively takes both effort and practice. So, all other things being equal (sincerity, true calling, devotion to God, etc.) the fulltime leader, in most cases, will be more proficient at the skills overseers exercise.
Or in other words, the fact that some people may have all their time in this world to study and learn about God without having to work at a “regular job” does not give them an advantage over other people who choose to work at a regular job to “earn their living” while learning about God on their “spare” time, because the knowledge God gives to all of those who want to know Him does not come by “study” alone.
Knowledge of God does not come by study alone, but study is integral. The more time one is able to dedicate to study, the better s/he will be. I'm not comparing Fulltime leaderA with Parttime leaderB--I'm comparing A & A. You, Ray, will be a better leader, if you can fully dedicate yourself to the work.
Paul was so strong on the idea of fulltime dedication, he even suggested it might be better for leaders to be single, so they would not be hindered by family considerations.
Or in other words, the way to know God is by having a personal relationship with Him, in which you speak to Him and listen while He speaks to you, and not only does God speak by what He has revealed to others, but He speaks by what He reveals personally to you.
To harken back to the 1980s, "Quality time doesn't cut it. True quality time requires quantity." I'm not saying part-timers or volunteers cannot do a wonderful job--Paul did. On the other hand, churches who invest in their overseers, allowing them to commit fulltime to the work reap great spiritual rewards, imho.
Or in other words, to put all of this in a nutshell for you, nobody should be trying to figure out who or which group of people has spent the most time studying all of “the good books” or "good things inspired by God and written in books" which are available on this planet and then trying to learn from “them”. Instead, we should all seek our own knowledge of God, and we should all share the knowledge we receive from God without charging anybody any money.
You stress so much the importance of authority, and how Scriptures do not grant authority, and now you tell me that each one should simply discern the Scriptures for themselves, and not rely on "some are called to be teachers."
Heh, but if you wish, you may send your contributions to me and I will promise to pay tithing on all of it. :)
I should consider, since you are already supporting me with you tax $
And btw, FYI, Moses, Abram, Isaac. Jacob and Joseph actually were all prophets of God, despite any notions you have to the contrary.
I suppose Moses might be called a Prophet-Leader-Judge. Muslims would agree with you on that. Abraham? Did he write anything? He did receive a call from God--but it was basically to go to a land God would show him. Isaac and Jacob? I don't think they would be considered prophets by most Bible scholars. Leaders, yes. Joseph, too. I suppose if your definition of prophet is quite loose--i.e., anyone who's heard from God, then perhaps yes. But, not by the traditional understanding--those called of God to speak his words to the people, often against political leadership.
-
…because it seems to have been a while since we have devoted a thread just to Him.
Beautiful idea, and nice work, Ray! Here's my favorite line about Jesus:
Jesus is Creator of Heaven and Earth, lover of my soul!
I love the paradox between the transcedence and the imminence of my Lord.
-
Traveler's main point is that the Law (be it the U.S. Constitution or the Scriptures) is not authority in itself. Rather, God or government, grants authority to agents who interpret the written word.
I see this as a good argument for honoring the teachers, overseers, bishops, etc. that God has called to serve us through leadership and instruction. Additionally, your point might be a good argument for denominations vs. independent works (I'll discuss this more further down--you ask about competing organizations). However, your argument does not necessarily prove the superiority of strongly hierarchical church governments, such as your own and the Roman Catholic Church.
The agents of Christ do not take that honor unto themselves but they are called of G-d as was the apostles or as the apostles (they did not choose to be agents of Christ but were chosen to be his agenst by him)
This is what I meant when I said they were ordained of God. We call this "being called." For example, I sensed my calling to the ministry while I was doing volunteer work in Korea. God opened my spiritual eyes to see that I was to move beyond helping out, and to take on the greater burden of ordained ministry.
or called the agents that were ordered under them. Believeing in Christ does not an agent make (see Matt7:21-23) BTW many scholars believe that the word "knew" in verse 23 is better translated as "authorized".
Okay, we both agree. Becoming a minister, bishop, or other "fulltime" church worker is not a career decision, nor is it something believers can just decide to do. God must call them. My understanding is that most Christian churches operate with this understanding, and the vetting process helps both the Church and the candidate "test" their calling.
It is not a human organization that is authorized by G-d. The other point is that G-d's organization is one. It is my belief that G-d does not create chaos in his organization(s) by having competing agents and orders of authority. I believe Jesus said "if you are not one - you are not mine." This is in fact my point - that there is only one order of authority. Any human organization that is not authoritized by G-d has no authority. Perhaps you can help me here. Why do you believe that G-d authoritizes conflicting human organizations with no means (or order) for settelling disputes so that they can be "one"?
So, what does it mean to be one? Does it mean there must be one human organization that all Christians belong to? Or, perhaps, that Christian churches must cooperate with each other to further the gospel? I see tremendous cooperation between most churches. Promise Keepers, Billy Graham crusades, local Christian radio stations, bookstores, etc.--all these are interdenominational. Even our Bibles--the NIV was translated by a committee of scholars from Christian traditions that vary from Catholic to mainline to Pentecostal to Baptist. For a New Testament example, just look at the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3, or at Paul's various letters to different churches. There are clear indications of different worship styles, personalities, struggles, and doctrinal issues. We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord. Our salvation is in Christ, not in the label on our church buildings.
Really, I'm stunned. The passage is so intent on showing us Christ the Creator, and your answer is that Jesus created stuff, but not souls/spirits?
Thanks for clarifying.
people live. 
).
Great. Yes, that happened to me. The bretheren laid hands on me and commisioned me for the work. This happened when my missionary work was recognized, when I was ordained, and again when I was commissioned as a chaplain. At the last one, our General Superintendent (similar to your President) laid hands on me. Of course, the ordination by God was most important, but having the concurrence of fellow ministers was and is a great encouragement.
Money & Religion: A Whole New Can Of Worms!
in General Discussion
Posted
It's one thing to be a full-time Christian, and another for the church to set one aside for full-time labor WITHIN the church. Those who work for the church should receive the support of the church--including funds. Again, we have the model of Israel. All Israelites were to be in full-time observance of the Law, but the Levites were set aside for full-time temple work. As such, they were paid in food, shelter--provisions of the day. Today, that gets translated into salary.
Churches do not HAVE to function with fulltime clergy, but historically they have done so. They did so in the Old Testament, and mostly so in the New Testament. When churches provided for their leaders, they did so not out of pity or sympathy, but out of appropriateness--the worker should be paid for his/her labor.
As for the suggestion that the NT church lived communally, my sense is that that was true only in certain locations, like Jerusalem, due to the heavy persecution there. The problems in the Corinthian church and others, lead me to believe they were not living ocmmunally.