prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
The doctrine of convening a council to determine which religious books are inspired and which are not (or any doctrine for that matter); is not a doctrine, concept or example found in Biblical scripture. ... If G-d has told a council to convene to determine anything ever – why is such a revelation or example not in the Bible? Why is it not canon scripture?
They did so to find out who should replace Judas. They did so to determine what regulations Greek Christians would be under (Acts 15 for that one). The idea that church leaders would get together to discuss concerns is well established in both Scripture and human history.
The need as you say - “Yet, the need to do so seems so glaringly obvious” -is nothing more than human thinking – not divine thinking and this has been my point all along. It is not an idea G-d thought was needful enough to even hint to or mention in any scripture anywhere ever.
You seriously do not believe it is important, or that God had no interest, is Christians being able to quickly know whether a spiritual writing was to be considered Holy Scripture or not?
I submit that the natural flow you are holding such high esteem comes more from the convening councils with their own agenda and creating their own text, than from the sacred ancient manuscripts available. As in Luke 4, Satan can make the scriptures flow quite well with his agenda. I just wonder why we do not have any real translations from even one real single ancient manuscript in the Bible. I just do not understand the notion of thinking all the ancient documents are not to be considered sacred until some convening council(s) has had their chance pick just what they want from thousands of documents and pronounce their one worked-over output as canon.
You do not accept the canon that the LDS Church has? The Quad is not your base point for religious writings?
I see – What Jesus used for scripture is not good enough for you.
Traveler, you are better than this! You know full well that what I said was that whatever Jesus quoted--that quotation becomes Scripture. However, we cannot conclude that the entire book the passage came out of should likewise become Scripture. To repeat my example, most people know the "Power corrupts" quotation, but few know that Lord Acton said it, nor are they familiar with all his writings. Likewise, everytime you quote an individual, you are not, necessarily, endorsing everything that person ever said or published.
I find this very telling – Jesus did not speak to canonization but you believe in canon that he never spoke about but then you do not believe in canonizing the very scripture he and his apostles (and any other NT writer) used?
You've abandoned the normal practices of dialogue, and switched to a debating style. Jesus did not address canon, because people took canon for granted. It was well established. And, again, Jesus repeating a common saying or passage, is no indication that he endorsed everything the author of the passage wrote.
But if some convening convening council says “Believe this without any question and do not doubt anything we have done and doubt everything we do not do.” You swallow that hook line and sinker – even though G-d provides a preponderance of evidence to the contrary with such discoveries as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
You have a preponderance of evidence that 2 billion Christians are wrong? That your church is wrong?
WOW! your attitude is way different than mine – We know Jesus was literate, he could read which means that he could also write. Why do you doubt he ever wrote anything? Do you not remember that he once wrote in the sand?
OK, Traveler--of course Jesus wrote in the sand. It's possible he wrote other things too. However, he did not write anything he intended to be included in the Bible. There is nothing in the gospels, or other New Testament writings that even hints at Jesus having wrote down his thoughts for the church.
If there was only one chance in ten thousand, I would check it out and no way would I leave such a thing to so called scholars to evaluate and tell me if I should accept it or not. Jesus and what he says if far too important to me. Did you not say once that any real Christian could recognize the words (voce) of Jesus on their own without scholars telling them it is okay?
Why do you keep chasing after new things? Far better to master the old things that have stood for 2000+ years.
But if you are not interested – you are not interested. Sorry for all the distractions.
I will be traveling and away for a while.
I'm not sure how to respond.
Your tone has turned rather tense of late. I hope the journeying does you good. B) -
I don't think I would put it that way. Missionaries are called and ordained specifically to preach and convert, but members also preach and convert without being specifically called and ordained for that purpose. Other Christians also preach and maybe convert people to general Christianity. Even though not authorized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I wouldn't say that their efforts are worthless. The prophet (President Hinckley) says that we applaud the truth found in other faith traditions and invite all to obtain the fullness of truth found in Christ's restored Church. So to the extent that someone, you for example, is helping to bring others to an understanding of truth - that's a good thing, right?
To summarize:
1. Snow's approach to Mormonism and 'General Christianity' is somewhat akin to that of most Pentecostals towards non-Pentecostals: We wish you would avail yourselves of the added power and blessings we've received, but we bless you in what you have and are accomplishing, as well. One caveat--you probably agree with Blomberg/Robinson that we're not ready to share pulpits, communions, or baptisms.
2. Ray's approach is more akin to that of many fundamentalists towards Catholics: "Come out from among them and be ye separate."
I'm overstating the case a bit, but whereas Snow seems to believe he's got something really neat to show his Christian acquaintances, Ray gives the impression of trying to win souls.
You know, it's another topic, but I would wager that the Church is probably the single best organized large institution in the world outside the military. The president of the Chruch could issue an instruction that, say, Mormons are to congregate at whatever geograhpic locations, with whatever in hand, to be of which ever service to whatever population and 1 and 1/2 hours later millions of Mormons all over the world would be there, ready to roll.
If you're even half right then there is no need for you to qualify your statement with "outside the military."
-
In a way, Yes, but only when referring to people who say he was not a prophet of God.
But that is not what I was saying, in the statement I originally made.
I look forward to hearing your main point, since I thought I had restated it correctly.
And btw, I find it interesting that you proceeded to make several statements concerning what you thought I meant without first obtaining more clarification from me.
Please consider my statements an invitation for you to clarify.
And now to clarify what I originally meant, which is pretty much what I said. But in other words, if we know God, and God knows us, wouldn’t the fact that we know God not only help us to know God, but also help us to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, since we could then simply ask God about Joseph?
Okay, so, I at this point God has not shown me or led me in the direction of believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. So, where does my current understanding lead me?
In other words, does this mean I don't know God or doesn't it? To repeat my comparison, Pentecostals believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second blessing, subsequent to salvation. We also believe that this experience is accompanied by tongues-speech. So, does this mean that non-Pentecostal believers don't 'have the Spirit?' No. We use terms like fullness and empowerment. Yes, we wish everyone 'got it.' But, we do not break fellowship with our non-Pentecostal bretheren.
Or in other words, if we know God, and also want to know about Joseph Smith, if God knows Joseph it would be easy to find out about Joseph, by finding out what God knows about Joseph, by simply asking God. Or in other words, Joseph Smith was either a prophet of God or he wasn’t, and since nobody knows better than God about whether Joseph was one of God’s prophets, it is better to ask what God knows about Joseph than to ask anybody else… and I’m even including Joseph.
I don't disagree with you. However, as a growing Christian, willing to know more, but pleased with what God has and is doing through me, the issue of the veracity of Joseph Smith has not been high on my spiritual list. Such is the case for most Christians. Many of those who have queried God claim to have received a negative answer. Of course, 12 million Mormons claim the opposite. So, my question: Is there precedent for making the veracity of a mere messenger (no disrespect intended) a matter over which fellowship might be broken? In other words, has the messenger in this case become more important than the message, and Him who the message is about?
But if Joseph was God's messenger, then this Church is God's "institution", so instead of accepting some other "institution" we should accept the institution God established through Joseph. Or in other words, you cannot follow God if you refuse to follow God’s messengers and the messages God gives us through them, because whether knowledge comes from God or His messengers, the knowledge all comes from God and to follow God we must accept God's message(s).
Even Jesus did not reject the synagogue or the temple. He reacted against corrupt religious leaders, but never sought to establish a new sect, or religion. Yet, Joseph Smith starts out this way. "They're all wrong, all corrupt." Why wouldn't God hope to redeem the hundreds of millions of Christians in the established churches of his day, rather than brushing them all aside, to start anew. Note also, that Martin Luther was a most reluctant schismatic. He wanted reform, not spiritual revolution. Ironically, many theologians believe Luther's reformation actually saved the Catholic church, by forcing into to reform itself. Me thinks this pleased God.
As to your other point, we [LDS] do not “worship” Joseph Smith. We simply acknowledge that he was one of God's messengers who played a key role in restoring God's "institution" on Earth.
If faith in Joseph Smith is a prerequisite to knowledge of God, then Joseph Smith de facto becomes on par with Jesus (the one way to the Father, John 14:6).
And btw, if you never come to know from God that Joseph Smith was one of God's messengers, and what Joseph's role really was, you will forever be “damned” or limited in your progression because you did not obtain that knowledge from God. Or in other words, without knowing Joseph, there will always be some things you never learn about God, because you will never know the role that God gave Joseph nor the role of many of God's other messengers, aka prophets. And btw, while it is also important to know that President Hinckley is God’s prophet on Earth today, as well as others who came and will come after Joseph, even those prophets will tell you the importance of knowing Joseph because of the knowledge we all gained through him… which we all should know or at least can know to be true by confirming that knowledge with God.
And I would suggest that the prophets never ascribed such honor to themselves, never demanded that worshippers of God affirm their office as prophets. Likewise, while Paul defended his ministry, he was quick to point his listeners to Jesus, not himself.
-
The water in our city tastes nasty, and by all reports is full of yucky gunk that shouldn't be there. We go through bottles of distilled water at our house pretty quickly. I'm looking at buying a still so we can make our own distilled water. They range in price from $100 to $400 depending primarily on capacity and versitility (some plug into the wall, others can be used over any heat source from electric or gas range to a campfire). Since we spend at least $200 a year on distilled water, I figure it will pay for itself if it stands up to heavy use. Does anyone out there have any experience with these things? Any product recomendations?
We were using bottled spring water, but it got pricey ($6.50 per 5-gallon bottle). So, we switched to a company that uses top-grade commercial filters, and now pay $1.80 per 5-gallon bottle. We stick them on a water cooler/heater. Very convenient, and only costs us about $5.40 per month (vs. roughly $20 before).
Perhaps another option, is to get a nice water filtration system, minus the distilling. Cheap, but probably still a lot tastier and cleaner.
-
Prisonchapain said:
It's the so-called Christian nutjobs that we must continue to ostracize. Fortunately, what we do here, is let them speak, then laugh at them.
So, what I get from what you said here is that we should not let the 'Christian nutjobs' say what the wish? What do you propose we do - arrest them? Fortunately, we are all protected from this little thing called Free Speech!
I hope the clips from what I said answer your question. We don't outlaw them. We ostracize them (we being the churches, not the govt), and we laugh at them.
-
Well Ray, Lionheart and Maureen:
Im thinking of joining our brothers of Christianity, ....just as i was almost to do before I converted to mormonism....I have faith in Christ, but suddenly, not in Joseph Smith...
I'm in another post, discussing this issue with Ray. My question, why the near-idolatry of Joseph Smith. In Judaism, Moses is obviously the most important prophet, as the writer of the Torah. Nevertheless, Jews do not speak much about the Prophet Moses, but rather about the Law of God, and how to obey them. Likewise, Paul castigated the Corinthians in the first chapter, for bragging about who had baptized them--to the point of making factions.
The one religion in which the prophet is so highly esteemed is Islam. And, if I'm not mistaken, some here accused them of idolatry.
So, even if Joseph Smith was absolutely right in what he said, saw, and did, would God not have been more pleased if the corrections and truths he brought had been successfully communicated to the Christian community, rather than a new denomination being created, and allegiance to church and messenger being demanded (I know that the church is true, and that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God--however it is worded). Just a thought.
-
<div class='quotemain'>The authority is in the gospel message--not the messenger.
In a way, that's true, but that's not in the way you mean it.
For instance, try imagining what will happen on the day of judgment when God will speak to everyone who now says that they were preaching the true “gospel”.
(hint: what Traveler said about “I never knew you”)
Do you have that image in your mind now?
Can you imagine what He would say to you?
Now try thinking about what it would mean for God to say He does know us, and for us to say we know God.
For instance, doesn't knowledge of God necessarily involve a personal relationship with God, with God revealing His knowledge to us, and us obtaining our knowledge of God from God, rather than simply by knowing other people who will tell you what they say God told them?
And wouldn’t us knowing God, with God knowing us, not only help us to know God, but also to know about people God has authorized… as we ask God about those people?
Or in other words, wouldn’t us knowing God, with God knowing us, not only help us to know God, but also to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, by simply asking God about him? I say Yes.
If I'm reading you correctly here, then anyone who does not have a testimony that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, does not know God. Ray, is this your bottom-line?
How interesting. I'm not sure any other Jewish prophet ever required such allegiance. I can think of only one who did: Mohammed. And I seem to recall another string in which Muslims were accused to idolatry for so elevating the importance of belief in the prophet, that it superceded belief in God.
Ray, if you (not the LDS, and not other posters at ldstalk--since you're the only saying this)--demand allegiance to Joseph Smith as a PREREQUISITE to knowledge of God, then you are idolizing a mere messenger. Jesus aid He is the Way, Truth, and Life--and that no one comes to the Father, but by Him. You dare not put Joseph on the level as Jesus.
I do have a testimony of what Jesus will say to me. It will be "Well done good and faithful servant, enter into my kingdom." Because, I faithfully preached Christ, and him crucified.
So, to sum it up, I say that without us knowing God, with God knowing us, we cannot know the truth about God, and we also can’t know the people God knows in all the ways God truly knows them. Or in other words, while you may not know Joseph Smith was prophet of God, we [LDS] know that he was, and we also know that you can know that, once you know more about who God truly knows.I understand your point. But guard your zeal, Ray. We Pentecostals often must tame some of our bretheren who get excited about the fullness of Holy Spirit baptism, and start, erroneously, teaching that any True Christian would want this, seek this, and gain this. Such is not the teaching of our churches. Power tools are great. They are useful. They are not required.
My question: Even if all that Joseph Smith said and experienced was as he said it was, do you not think that God would rather see all Christians come into the truths that his messenger explicated, rather than requiring allegiance to the man and the institution he fostered? It hasn't played out that way, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't have. Just a thought.
-
I would disagree with you about Mormons and calling in the big guns. Certainly when someone is ready to serioiusly consider joining the Church, the missionaries are called, however my experience has been that Mormon rank and file members are more involved in spreading the good word than any other denomination I have run across, period.
You may well be right. I based my comment on responses here to strings where the issue of authority has come up. Repeatedly I have been told that only those authorized have authority to preach the gospel. Now that I think about it, most Mormon men are ordained into priestly orders. So, the real issue is not one's office in the church, but one's membership in THE CHURCH.
So, to carry your side of the argument a little further, since the LDS has a tight reign on membership, placement in roles, and doctrine, loose canons never find fertile ground to develop self-promoting "ministries." Did I capture your argument here?
And again about authority... The bible tells us that we must all be baptised. I just can't imagine that it's all just as good for God if the baptizer is, say, an ordained priesthood holder, duly called and set apart, or some flim flam man off the street looking to get rich through religion.
Again, I would argue that the importance of baptism is WHO one is being baptized into, not which church, or the rank of the one doing the officiating. Recall in 1 Corinthians 1, how disgusted Paul was with the people for breaking into factions because of who had baptized them.
-
My sister ( the only nice one of the bunch) fell today and broke her leg in three places, she is going into surgery to have it all pinned back together, she is also a sever diabetic and she has had problems with healing before, she is only 45 and i am worried to death! please pray for her her name is Sandy. I couldnt bare to loose another sibling again, Thanks everyone!
Love Lisa
Father, I (and we) pray for Lisajo's sister, Sandy. You know her pain, her brokeness, her need for physical healing. You also know her mind and heart. We pray that you would relieve pain, bring comfort and peace, and that you would bring quick healing. Destroy whatever dangerous sickness or affliction that threatens her. Give her doctors and other medical staff divine sight--to see what they would not ordinarily see. And, we pray that your would do the miraculous, that the family and loved ones would see that it was you who made it all come together for good. Give Lisajo, our friend, you perfect peace, in the mean time. Comfort, by your Holy Spirit. In Jesus' name. Amen.
-
In the sense that you describe, preaching is like sharing and even one has the right to share. I don't think any authority is required to share the gospel.
True enough. However, my sense is that most Mormons would quickly call in the missionaries or other authority figures to do any training, and perhaps even to say a prayer of initiation.
In the case of Jimmy Swaggart, it doesn't matter if his fellowship sanctioned him or not, according to your way of thinking, because whether he is Pentecostal or Baptist or Greek Orthodox or independent he is part of the general body of believers so it's all good... and in this case, a serial sex offender can set up shop, ordain himself, preach the gospel, baptise believers and collect offering and earn a $200,000-1,000,000/year salary and it all good.
In a sense, what you say is true. We might well recognize--and in fact do recognize--the ministries of some of those independents as legitimate. God will judge those who are corrupt. On the other hand, it is quite possible that a person could be preaching because "it's a good gig," and while s/he might personally end up in hell for their sins and lack of faith, the followers would still receive their blessings. Why? The authority is in the gospel message--not the messenger.
BTW, God can use people with rough pasts. Matthew the tax collector (they were collaboraters with occupation governments), the woman at the well (5X divorcee, shacking up with boyfriend), etc. However, you do make my case that denominations do provide a greater level of unity and spiritual safety than do independent movements, though the latter are definitely experiencing the greater growth these days.
-
Christianity 88%
Islam 42%
Judaism 42%
Buddhism 38%
Hinduism 17%
agnosticism 13%
Satanism 4%
Paganism 4%
atheism 0%
Well, I got a B+ in Christianity, and failed everything else. I guess I know which mansion I'm going to. B)
LOL i did the test and mine was way off I got judaism must of been that question is Jesus God LOL
Islam 67%
Christianity 58%
I've noticed a similarity between Islam and Mormonism. A young man goes to a cave and encounters a messenger of God. New Scripture and a new religion come out of the experience. There is initial violent rejection, but afterwards tremendous growth.
BTW, if Homeland security comes by to ask some questions, it wasn't me that tipped them off.
-
<div class='quotemain'>
True. Christians should not act like Muslims.
I wonder ... over the last couple thousand years ago, who has been the source of more violence and evil, Christians or Muslims?
I believe the correct answer would be Communists. They did more damage in 70 years or so the Christians and Muslims combined, if I'm not mistaken.
Whoa, back up. Snow has an excellent point. The Dark Ages comes to mind. However, we have become more enlightened, more civilized, if you will in that we don't publicly behead people and start a fracas over a freakin'cartoon. SO, I think it is still the Muslims that are ahead in this race. Tis a shame. I know a few Muslim people in my limited sphere who are the most wonderful people. It is the extremists we need to be wary of, up to and including Christian extremists. B)
Sorry to play with words here, but I'm all for extreme and radical Christianity--the kind that got 11 disciples killed, and caused the Roman government to take notice of a tiny Jewish sect.
It's the so-called Christian nutjobs that we must continue to ostracize. Fortunately, what we do here, is let them speak, then laugh at them. In the Islamic world, moderates are far too "moderate," in saying, "Well, yes, we condemn that our Hamas bretheren got a little carried away...BUT YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE ATROCITIES OF THE ZIONIST ENTITY AND THE WESTERN COLONIALISTS..." Note which gets spoken louder. The Catholic Church is paying big bucks for protecting their criminals. Muslims will do the same, if they continue to tread softly around the gangsters in their fold.
-
When I said all believers are called to spread the gospel, I did not mean that all believers are called to become ordained ministers. In fact, that was part of my post--not all are called to teach, preach, etc.--yet all are to bare testimony to the greatness of God and his salvation.Well that's a major difference between Protestant relgion and us. We believe that God is a god of order and part of that order includes passing on of authority by those who have the keys to do so to those that are, in some way prepared to recieve it. In our tradition, one can't hang a shingle outside the door and say, "hey, I represent God, let me baptise you, and collect your tithes."
My own fellowship, like most Protestant churches, has stringent processes for those who would become ministers, missionaries, or even evangelists. Yet, we regularly remind our people to share truth with their neighbors, coworkers, etc. Every believer should be able to lead a soul to faith, and to begin the process of discipleship (training).
Can you think of a single instance in scripture where man took upon himself authority to officiate in a sacred ordinance and was acknowledged of the Lord is such administration? No, of course not as there is no such instance. On the other hand the scriptures are full of condemnation for unauthorized ministrations...Korah, Miriam, Uzza - Saul who rather than waiting for Samuel who had authority, thought his kingship good enough but was rejected by God when he made the offerings -Uzziah, The seven sons of Sceva, etc. And, is not the bible, Old Testament and New alike, not replete of instance after instance of authority being conferred God or by one in authority to do so? Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Peter, Andrew, James, John, Barnabas and Saul. Paul specifically tells us that no man takes the honor upon himself, only he who is called of God as was Aaron and Aaron was called though one who had authority to do so - Moses. We believe that God, through an orderly process does the calling, men do not call themselves nor can they buy authority as Simon tried.
The "priesthood of all believers" generally does not extend to officiating over the ordinances of the church. The focus is primarily "evangelism." In most of the instances you mention, nonbelievers, or pride-filled leaders tried to shortcut God's work. Again, we're comparing evangelism to ordinances--apples and oranges.
It is no surprize to anyone that when you get people calling themselves you wind up with hundreds of sects and denominations, each with their own spin on doctrine. Some enriching themselves on offerings meant for the Lord, and others so full of themselves and their assumed power that they think themselves beyond the mores of society and religion. You get Robert Tilden. Ted Armstrong, Peter Popov, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Paul Crouch, Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, Reinhold Bonke, ad naseum, when people purport to take for themselves God's sanction. In my opinion it's a bloody mess. God wouldn't run any organization so devoid of order.
Well, with your lack of tolerance for "controlled chaos" you're in the right fellowship, then. On the other hand, Protestantism still works. Both Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart WERE ordained ministers in my fellowship. Swaggart, in particular, had been counseled by authorities about his pride. Here's how his 'fall' played out.
1. When the allegations of sexual misconduct became known, Swaggart was offered the standard program of rehabilitation for ordained ministers--a minimum of one year out of the pulpit and public ministry, accompanied by intensive religious counseling. The period could extend up to two years, depending on how church authorities evaluate the offender's progress. Ultimately a decision to reinstate or withdraw credentials is made.
2. Swaggart attempted to negotiate a four-month rehabilitation with his local district office. His ministry was pumping in 50% of the district's missionary support.
3. The national office stepped in, and said, your district has no authority to negotiate any rehabilitation. You will take the standard offer, or leave it.
4. He left it, and became independent.
Yes, he's still preaching. However, the message was clear. He no longer had the approval of his peers.
Many of the others you list are indeed independent. So, perhaps your concerns are mostly directed at independent ministries.
For an example of apparent diversity that works, however, I look to Promise Keepers. We had a great diversity of Christian fellowships--we disagreed on some fairly serious doctrinal issues. Yet, we were united enough on the essentials, that we gathered to build Christian men up to be better husbands, fathers, and churchmen. We led a great day of repentence in 1997--one that I am convinced probably held back some things we will never know about until the second coming.
I'm sorry that the universal church of believers is a rather hodge-podge, sometimes chaotic grouping. Yet, my reading of the New Testament leads me to contend that the more things change the more they remain the same. I much prefer a diversity I can see and engage, to a congregation full of people who only "say the right things."
-
Sorry I missed your special day...but trust you'll have many more of them. Blessings upon blessings to you!
-
On the issue of what to talk about in Sacrament meetings, I’m going to go in a slightly different direction here and say that you will always give your best talks when everything you say is prompted by the power of the Holy Ghost. Which means that it doesn’t really matter from which books you get your information, as long as the Holy Ghost prompts you to say what you are saying about the information you are presenting.
Or in other words, instead of “preparing” a talk, by figuring out “who” to quote and “what you are going to say “when”, I think it’s better to give a talk as prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost.
Or in other words, I think it’s better to speak about what “you” think, about what you “feel”, as you are prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost, rather than simply trying to quote what some other people have said as they were prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost.
Heh, but if you really must have some notes, to direct you in what you are saying, I would then say that it’s better to quote people who spoke by the power of the Holy Ghost, instead of just quoting some information from some books.
And btw, I never heard anything about the “right-hand issue” until I read something here, and to me it sounds like superstition. And since my wife and I sit on the right side of the chapel, with me toward inside toward the aisle, I take the tray with my left hand, passing it to my right hand between me and my wife, and then take the emblems with my left hand so that we can take them together.
Or in other words, I’m not going to start trying to contort myself so that I can take everything with my right hand, for no reason other than superstition.
You all realize, by now, that Ray isn't really Mormon. He's a closet Pentecostal. Or, maybe he's a sleeper-agent that I'm waiting to activate.
Seriously, though, this issue of anointing vs. preparation is big in the Pentecostal movement. In African-American churches, and in India, I'm told the ministers do not prepare sermon outlines, but rather get up and read a passage, and begin speaking as the Holy Spirit leads. This can be powerful, to the moment, and insightful--IF that speaker is thoroughly immersed in the word of God. On the other hand, why can't the Holy Ghost anoint sermon/lesson preparation? Why can't my detailed points/subpoints have the same anointing as impromptu gospel presentation? The real difference is that with preparation, the lesson can be delivered in 15-30 minutes, while the impromptu type usually goes for an hour or more.
-
I am concerned where this doctrine of canonizing is defined in scripture. Is it a doctrine from G-d or one made convenient by man? Is it possible that the Bible does not contain all doctrines given to man from G-d? If the doctrine of canonization is scripture then what is the scripture? Where exactly did you get the idea that canonization should be the way it was done? Or the way you say it ought to be done? If the doctrine of canonizing is not scripture (from G-d) then the Bible is missing at least one doctrine that you teach is both important and necessary. Is it possible that since G-d did not tell anyone to consider canonization that maybe it is not his will?
Okay, let's get to the bottom-line. There is no verse that says, "Thou shalt convene councils to determine which religious books are inspired by me, your Creator, and which are not." Yet, the need to do so seems so glaringly obvious. So, who would God use to dilineate what is and is not Scripture. The Old Testament stems from the Books of Moses. The spiritual leaders were judges early on, then prophets, priests and teachers (who became rabbis). That God would use these leaders to pray over and discern which writings are anointed of God, and succeed in explicating God's plan and how his people should carry out the Law. In the New Testament, we have the original disciples, then Paul, then those appointed as bishops and deacons. Once again, God primarily used the original apostles (plus Paul) to produce the New Testament, and church leaders to discern what fits and does not fit in.
If you need a didactic verse to justify canon, you'll not find it. But, so many of the processes and practices we take for granted developed, rather than being specifically, in a single passage of Scripture, perscribed.
What is claimed to be canon has changed in place and time and there is no consistency. The other interesting thing to me is there is not a single book in any Bible that came from a single manuscript source. In other words what we now call the Bible has never existed in any of its parts or as a whole – by anyone within hundreds of years of when they were really written.
Actually, this lack of a single author and single manuscript help me to embrace the Bible, verses the writings of other religions. It would be fairly easy for one person to develop a spiritual system, and write a cogent book about it. That the Bible developed over 1500 years, by 40+ writers, and that they come together to tell a single story that flows naturally, actually confirms that it was ultimately God who was behind it.
My next question is why is the scripture most quoted by Christ is not accepted as Biblical cannon scripture by you? Why is it not in the cannon? I would think if Jesus himself used a scripture more than any other single scripture it ought to be accepted by Christians. (This is not a voce question – if Jesus used it he accepted it what more compelling reason to accept any scripture is there? Also I would note that the Book of Enoch is the most quoted scripture by all the writers used to compile the New Testament) How is it that the only manuscripts of this book are incomplete and corrupted?
If Jesus quotes a passage in the New Testament, that passage becomes part of the canon. Jesus was not speaking to canonization when he sites a passage. How many of us have cited the "Power corrupts absolutely," citation, without having any notion of all the writings that Lord Acton produced--or even that he was the author? In the end, we accept what the Jewish leaders of old, and the church leaders of the patristic area formulated, as God's will for us to have a Scripture.
Another question concerns the Nestorian Christians that have a scripture called the epistle of Christ that is claimed to be written by Jesus himself. Testing of this document indicates it was written on material from Jerusalem during the life time of Jesus (far more validation than any scripture currently canonized in the Bible). At least the cannon types ought to say why they do not accept (or at least read) a document that was likely personally written by Christ.
Personally, I doubt Jesus wrote anything. If he did, who would read anything else? We'd have the words of the Savior. However, it is not impossible that scholars will continue to evaluate it, and ultimately accept it. If so, praise God for the addition. My guess is that this writing probably contains little that is revolutionary to church practice.
-
How do you know that? And if so, what’s to stop someone else from writing more scripture while under the inspiration of God?
Ultimately, my faith in the veracity of the Bible stems from my faith in God. It is writing that He commissioned. 66 books written over 1500 years, by 40+ authors, all coming together to present God's love relationship with his creation. The books mesh, they flow together, and yes, part of my faith stems from what Mormons call "testimony"--by the Holy Ghost--and partly through authority--in that we Protestant do not disown the 1500 years of the church that were almost exclusively Catholic.
But you are claiming to know that what Paul wrote was scripture, and without Faith you can’t know that. Or in other words, without Faith, you’re liable to believe anything that other people have told you.
And btw, do you really believe scripture can no longer be written simply because some other people bound a collection of books under the title “Holy Bible” and then said, “Okay, that’s it”.???
I concur with Prof. Blomberg (How Wide the Divide: A Mormon Evangelical Conversation)--he's the evangelical representative--that the canon cannot be declared definitively closed, soley by use of Scripture. Nevertheless, the Bible does seem to be a complete presentation of the story of God, his people, Jesus, his Church, and the end of times--with final redemption. The Sacred Works--or more specifically, the Triad, present a different stream--one to which I'm not qualified to comment too deeply, not having completely read, much less studied them.
Yes, but that says nothing about whether or not you truly understand what those prophets have written. And it also says nothing about whether or not all the scribes and translators accurately understood and reflected all of the thoughts the original writers had in mind when writing their words… even despite the best of intentions. For instance, the people who translated the Holy Bible for King James made a few mistakes in their translation, and if you know something about that translation process you should be able to see the complications with the task of translation and how they could easily make those mistakes… yet if you don’t know about those mistakes, and how they could easily happen, you could decide to believe everything they wrote based upon a belief or understanding of them as being perfect and infallible translators.
And btw, if you don’t know it, millions of people have relied and continue to rely on the KJV of the Bible.
Ultimately, I am convinced that if God declared his written word to be of such import to the biblical generation, and he says his word shall not pass away, then He would have kept it preserved for our generation. The KJV, and indeed all translations, might have occasional misprints. There may be subtle nuances that could not be precisely translated. This is why God has also raised up teachers, scholars, bishops, etc. to explicate the word to his people. However, YES, I have confidence in modern translations. The more manuscripts archeaologists dig up, the more we find confirmation of what is already done. The areas of dispute amongst translators are so few and so insignficant, that we can confidently say that with our KJV, NIV, NASB, etc. we have the word of the God, preserved.
I’ll second that thought while saying that God is not completely silent about the Bible, and if you really want to know that God thinks about it, all you have to do is Ask Him, with a sincere desire to know Him better.
Ultimately, the word of God is a spiritual book (inspired by the Holy Ghost), so it is understood fully, only by the anointing of the Spirit. My one caution--beware the excitement or passion of the flesh. Sometimes, our desire to be "on fire for God," can be misdirected. I recall a very sad period for the church from about 1990 to 1992, when there was a widespread heresy spreading that Jesus would return in Oct. 1992. A lot of well-meaning believers got caught up in the fervor, claiming to have "heard from God." We need spiritual testimonies, but we must also use reason, and yes, rely on our spiritual authorities to guide us.
As I said, God is not silent, and He will reveal Himself and His will to everyone who truly wants to know Him… whether or not they have ever read the "Bible"
Heh, the silly insolence of people who think the King of the Universe should make a public physical appearance to each and every person before He can truly reveal Himself.
I'm a little confused here. The second-coming will be for judgement. Those who are ready will rejoice. Those who are not, will mourn. Nevertheless, whether in joy or terror, the Bible says every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! Amen.
-
I’m just trying to understand how you use the scriptures to come up with the doctrines you do and then explain how I use scriptures. First: The Bible is written to all believers?? You told me earlier that Amos 3 was not written to all believers and that scripture must be understood in the context of who is talking and to who?? But with this scripture you take a different stand??? Why??? I am inclined to think because if fits the evangelical agenda.
In Amos 3 God explains to the Israelites that judgment is coming and the prophets have been told, and are compelled to reveal them to the people. So, the message today might well be that God will warn his church when judgment is coming, and that the prophets (whether those who exercise the gift of prophecy, or those who prophecy (or proclaim), will certainly warn the members. It seemed to me that you carried the Amos passage too far when you suggested that it not only justified the modern Mormon church office of prophet, but the passage required it. The main message of Amos is not the importance for the church of the office of prophets, but that God warns his people of judgment--they are without excuse.
By the way, as to your inclination of why I interpret the passages the way I do: I'm not necessarily trying to convince you to change your theology here. I simply want you understand where I and many evangelical/pentecostal types are coming from. It's not an agenda I'm explaining, it's our beliefs. B)
Second: the scripture you quoted in Matt 28:20 is not understood correctly unless you remember what happened before (Mark 3:14-15) Jesus said “And he ordained twelve that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach. And to have power to heal sickness, and to cast out devils. Now look at Matt 28:16. This refers to the 11 disciples. In case you missed it there were 12 at the point of Mark 3 but because of Judas there were only 11 in Matt 28. If the Bible scriptures can be trusted the “Authority” of the apostles did not come through scripture but by “Ordination” by Jesus himself. If you believe in Jesus why do you not believe in authority by ordination???
Yes, and these 12 (or 11) were told to make disciples, who obviously would also make disciples, etc. etc. There's even a denomination called the Disciples of Christ. In Acts 1 Jesus said this good news was to be spread to the uttermost parts of the earth. Clearly, more than 12 were needed.
My concern is when I am told that the Bible holds all truth that comes from G-d. I believe that the scriptures have a lot to say about truth, seeking truth and who is the spirit of truth and where truth comes from. My point is simply that the Bible lacks a great deal of truth. If there is another source of truth other than G-d I would be very interested on your opinion about such truth and what source is better than G-d. Or do you agree that the Bible does not hold all of G-d's truth that he has given to man???
My understanding is that the Holy Bible contains all the truth God wants us to have in writing. Yes, there are prophecies given. Yes, teachers, preachers, evangelists, missionaries explicate truths and applications daily. And yes, there are truths that are not found in the Bible. However, the Bible is complete--it is what God wants it to be for us.
No - I think you are misusing this scripture. It does not say Bible scripture nor does it say standard or cannon scripture. If fact it specifically avoids in any limiting the meaning to any specific scripture or grouping of scripture. I do not understand why you think this refers only to Bible scripture and as much as I have asked you must not understand the question because you never do answer it.
I quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 because you asked me if Scripture was complete, useful or some such inquiry. The passage explains how Scripture is useful. No, it does not refer to the Bible we have today, because the Bible was not yet complete.
Again all I am seeking is truth concerning authority. Often (as with the magicians that opposed Moses) there are false claims that work out (turning staffs to snakes). If someone claims authority, and uses scripture but disagrees with someone else that claims authority and uses scripture - How are we to know which is authority based on scripture???
The first test--which we both would pass--is that truth-tellers recognize Jesus as the Truth, and as Lord. Beyond that, yes, this is why the Lord gave some to be teachers, some to be pastors (overseers, bishops)--why he granted some the gift of discernment. And, ultimately, most Christians do look to their church leaders for protection and direction.
I was lead to believe (by Biblical scripture) if you are not one you are not Christ’s???
I'm afraid I lost the context of your response. Are you suggesting that there can be only one human organization (i.e. denomination) that represents Christ, and that all others would be false? Scripture calls us to be united, not lock-step. Even within Mormon churches, some stakes run differently than others on secondary matters, I'm sure.
I disagree with both the Protestants and Catholics - I believe all things must submit Christ. If something is done in a way different from his example - I'm not too accepting of the idea. I believe him and his example if you what to change how he has shown concerning those that should teach through out the world, you have to come up with something much better than you have.
I'm a little confused here. Yes, it's a cute pat answer to say, "I submit to Christ, not writings, not a church organization." Yet, you seem to have been driving at the argument that ultimately authority comes through apostolic succession--through Joseph Smith to the priestly orders, etc., not through mere Scripture interpretation by any believer who has a thought.
prisonchaplain,
To try to put it simply, you seem to believe you can receive authority from God simply by knowing and doing what God has authorized other people to do, without actually receiving authority from God or others whom God has authorized, while we [LDS] believe we can receive authority from God only by actually receiving authority from God or others whom God has authorized.
To reword what you've surmized: Yes, I believe that God has given his general authority (POWER) for all Christians to "make disciples" to "be witnesses," etc. Not all are pastors, teachers, prophets etc. But all believers have the authority to present the good news to those in their circle of influence--the authority and the obligation, for that matter.
And by analogy, your belief is like believing someone can become a lawyer in America simply by knowing the laws of America and then doing what lawyers do, without receiving authority from those who can authorize others to become lawyers in America.
It's more like saying anyone can do simple household repairs. Yes, professional contractors can do the tasks more efficiently and effectively. Nevertheless, many choose to do minor jobs themselves. Likewise, professionally trained clergy, or missionaries, or evangelists etc. can more correctly, completely, and perhaps powerfully preach the good news than laity. On the other hand, many nonbelievers will not have or seek access to the professionals. Thus, all believers are called to bear witness to the truth they know, and to proclaim God's greatness in word and deed.
And btw, the authority does not come from passing a test, but by actually receiving authority from those who can authorize others to act with authority.
When it comes to presenting the good news, all believers have the authority--or power--to witness--via the Holy Ghost. Acts 1:8
-
<div class='quotemain'>
So what do you think?
The voice of the Father was heard.
The Son was getting baptised.
Was the Holy Ghost there? Or was it just the other two?
Possible opinion? I think Jesus was baptised by immersion by John. Probably no audible voice. Dove was an attempt to win over pagan converts who were accustomed to worshipping a goddess, and whereas the Dove is a symbol of the femine goddesses of the Roman Empire, it worked well. This also helps us understand the oft debated notion that the Holy Ghost is actually a female deity (aka Holy Mother).
I've got a book coming from Amazon that may shed some light. I'll let you know.
Matthew 3:16: ...the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.
Two notes: 1. The passage says the Spirit descended like a dove, so there was likely no actual dove. 2. Matthew was written primarily to a Jewish audience, and any hint of pandering to pagans would have backfired. 3. In the parallel passage, Mark 1:10, the phrase is also "like a dove." Mark was geared towards the Greek, but also only pictures a dove-likelanding.
Conclusion: The Holy Ghost was there, but probably landed in the fashion of a dove, rather than in appearance as one.
-
Occasionally I have found it beneficial to read a passage from the KJV new testament and then to compare it with a version written in modern english. Our church leaders have said that the version of the Bible that LDS use is the KJV.
In a different string Snow indicated to me that Mormons are not limited to the KJV. He said that it is true that the church only publishes the KJV, and so it has an unofficial favor, but that other translations are not officially any less canonical.
At the official site's section on the Holy Bible, there is no reference to translation.
http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1091-1,00.html
So, how comfortable would you be using a more modern translation?
My two-cents: The New International Version is most popular amongst evangelicals. Those who prefer a more literal, word for word translation, favor the New American Standard Bible. And, for a really down-to-earth colloquial translation, try The Message. Most biblical scholars believe the the more modern translations are actually somewhat more accurate, in that they rely on a much larger collection of manuscripts that date back much closer to the original writings.
-
Chap,
From the title, I thought maybe one of the men you're working with propositioned you...
So did my tawdry little 'false advertising' work? Did you take a peak?
-
I know this is very un-PC in today's society but why the heck can't airlines charge more for people who are overweight? At least allow those of us who are lighter in proportion to our height to have more carry-on and luggage weight.
Non-PC it may be, but if someone is clearly too "substantial" to fit in an airline seat, the airlines will charge them for two seats.
-
On several strings, relating to the issue of AUTHORITY, I have made reference to the priesthood of all believers. In a nutshell, it is an understanding that the commands Jesus gave to the disciples, now fall to all believers--not just clergy, or ordinates (such as official priests or other church leaders). Interestingly, according to the below referenced article, even the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches interpret the Bible as commanding all believers to carry out the non-liturgical work of the kingdom.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers
-
Sometimes we cannot see forest for the trees. In our modern society we are so filled with things of man that we do not recognize life and nature outside those things. Having spent 40 days in the southwest desseret without anything from civilization but a knief and a blanket - I learned of natures great treasures. Many times I have wanted to return to simple things and have done so from time to time for extended weekends but for the most part I have not the time with obligations to family.
Rich or poor is nothing but a temporary state of mind.
It sounds to me as though you have definitely learned to be content when in want. In some ways it may be easier. Things tend to be more black and white, right and wrong, good and bad. For example, during the Communist reign in the Soviet Union, the Christians there would pray for Americans. They knew that we must be mightily tempted by wealth, the false sense of self-sufficiency, and the lack of outright opposition.
Paul offers the following ideal in Philippians:
4:11: Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. (12) I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
My sense is that we are more in danger of becoming like Lot, in Sodom & Gomorrah. He had gotten so comfortable, had learned to fit in so well, that he was indistinguishable from his ungodly neighbors. Or, perhaps, like the Church of Laodicea (see Revelation 3). We're not "hot"--not excited, not passionate about our God or our faith. We're not "cold"--we offer no refreshing, no healing, no satiating power to a lost and dying world. Instead we're lukewarm--good for nothing, other than to bolster our churches' membership claims.
But, the answer is not poverty of means--but poverty of Spirit. We must once again realize our desperate need for God. We must, as Jesus said, hunger and thirst after righteousness.
(Sorry folks--it's Sunday--and I'm in a preaching mentality.
)
Your tone has turned rather tense of late. I hope the journeying does you good. B)
)
Church Politics
in General Discussion
Posted
In response--this is one teaching in which evangelicals and Mormons are probably a lot closer than we think. The difference is in focus. When evangelicals speak of salvation, we're referring to the moment of conversion. We come to Jesus "Just as we are, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me." It's all grace, and no works.
Mormons, when speaking of salvation, are actually referring to sanctification, and to our need to "endure to the end." Any salvation experience that is true will result in good works. Jesus said that if we really loved him we would obey his commands. The fruit of the Spirit (Galations 5) includes many difficult attributes, like long-suffering. The characteristics of love in 1 Corinthians 13 include many laborious attributes.
So, all Christians agree that faith, resulting in works, guarded to the day of Christ's return, or until our own home-going, results in a blessed day as we meet our Master. Amen?