rehunter

a-train “So if I understand this right, you believe the Apostles had authority to preach the Gospel and build the fold of Christ, but had no authority to continue the direction of the church body after it was organized, or to direct church members in their Godly walk once they had come into the fold. This authority was left to the writings of the Apostles, not the Apostles themselves. The faithful converts could read those writings and would receive revelation from the Holy Ghost, but would NOT feel any burning in the bosom or in the heart from the Holy Ghost. Is all this right? If this is so, do we see all this in the scriptures?” That is correct in so much as I believe that the apostles’ writings were divinely inspired. That does not mean the apostles’ were finished with their job once they preached salvation, of course. Jesus instructed Peter to “tend My sheep” no less than three times in John chapter 21. I do not believe this tending included building an organization to pen in the sheep, but rather to look after the believers’ spiritual needs. So, yes, the apostles had a part in the body of Christ, but they themselves were under the authority of the Scriptures (by these I mean the Old Testament) and under the authority of Jesus to do that which He commanded them. As far as the “burning in the bosom” is concerned, it occurs only one instance in the Bible as far as I know, when Christ appeared to the disciples walking on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24. As this is the only appearance of something like this in the Bible I would have to really stretch it to apply to everybody who has ever read the Bible with the Holy Spirit guiding them. This same line of thinking is what leads modern religionists to speak in tongues inappropriately, to dance with snakes, etc. One could go so far as to say that since Balaam’s ###### spoke to him that God will allow all asses to speak so we should speak to them to hear the words of the LORD. When I first met Jesus, I attended a church that did a lot of strange things and used small bits of the Bible to explain their actions. When I matured in the faith, I started to question those acts and eventually left that church because of them. The Bible is clear that the words it contains are sufficient for the truths of salvation to first be understood and then believed. John 20:31 says, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” There is no mention of a “burning in the bosom” here, only that one must understand and then believe. It is my personal belief that if a person had just the Bible alone, they would be able to understand who God is, who we are as fallen men, what God did to save us, and what we have to do in response to be saved. As far as revelation by the Holy Spirit, I believe He can urge a person toward faith in God, perhaps by placing individuals in their lives to guide them, or perhaps by luring them to read God’s Word. The Holy Spirit is mainly involved in a person’s life once they are a believer, however. The Holy Spirit came to be a “helper” and to empower the believer with the ability to triumph over sin. As He indwells a believer, He seeks to point out areas that need improvement, to steer us from evil, and to rejoice within us in the good. “Do you realize this is a circular system? You believe the OT because the NT says Jesus quoted it, and since the NT (Heb 6:18) says that God cannot lie, then His statement must be true. Plus, both Testaments declare themselves to be true so you believe it. The Book of Mormon contains the words or Christ quoting the Old Testament and also declares itself to be true, is it therefore true also? Is there any other reason why you believe the Old and New Testament to be true?” Yes, I realize that it is a circular argument. Faith cannot be proven. Faith can be logical, which my argument was, but if one could prove faith, it would not be faith any longer. Thomas, for example, did not have to have faith in Christ’s resurrected body since he knew it to be true. The same could be said of those in the Book of Mormon who did likewise. Their faith was little, perhaps even nonexistent at that point. I do not base my belief in the Bible on an experience I had with it, as that is subjective in the extreme. I simply choose to believe it is true and have not been shown otherwise to date. While I view the Bible as true, I also have indications that it is not false. This relates to the historically accurate portrayals of events down to the smallest detail. I would never be able to believe the Book of Mormon is an accurate portrayal of events due to its issues with historical and geographical accuracy. As far as theology goes, the Book of Mormon does not differ radically from the Bible, although it does differ quite a bit from other LDS texts. In it, for example, we can learn that God is one God, that there are no other gods, and that the Father and the Son are one God. Biblically speaking, that is right on. “I thought you were here saying that the manifestation of the Holy Ghost with regard to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon cannot be trusted. Isn't that correct?" I am saying that I do not believe the source of that statement and find fault with the argument. If the proof of scriptural inspiration is related, either directly or indirectly, to an experience such as a bodily feeling like “burning in the bosom” then it becomes subjective. I believe that God is objective, and that His truths are self-evident and do not need a subjective experience to confirm their truthfulness. Any person with a desire to truly believe something hard enough will eventually come into some kind of physical duress over the issue, especially when that something is very important. This becomes important when the person is praying as to “whether these words are true” rather than by praying “if these words are false.” Just by placing a positive aspect in the prayer, one would be more inclined to want to believe the Book of Mormon is true, thus more likely to have a physical experience in relation to the truthfulness of it rather than the untruthfulness of it.

“I am now officially uncertain of your position. Did the Apostles have authority in the Primitive Church or not?” I understand how that could seem contradictory. It must be because two different types of authority are being talked about, not one. When I said the apostles had authority, I meant that they had the authority to preach the Gospel after Christ rose from the dead and to heal and cast out demons, etc. during his earthly ministry and after. When I said there was no central authority, I mean that the local churches in each region were not subject entirely to the dictates of the church in Jerusalem and were more or less autonomous. We find that some of the Jewish members of the Jerusalem fold tried putting undo burden onto the Gentiles in Acts, and we also find that Paul rejected that idea. The body of Christ in Jerusalem was by no means more important than any other gathering of the faithful. This changed when the authority was centralized in Rome, according to Catholics. I am not certain if I can go along with that since nothing was special about Rome other than it was the capital of a pagan society of the time. “Again, I am now unable to perceive your postition. Can a man read the scriptures and then receive personal revelation from the Holy Ghost or not?” I see no reason why not; although my answer depends on what scriptures you are referring to. I do not believe that scriptures other than the Bible are divinely inspired, thus I do not see God using them to lead one to salvation. We know from 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Since at the time “scripture” consisted of the Old Testament and perhaps a few copies of the Gospels floating around, we can easily narrow down Timothy’s statement to referring to the Bible alone. As Timothy put it, the scripture is valuable for doctrine. What doctrine? The correct teaching of how one can be saved. If then, one could know how to be saved, I believe God could then speak to the heart of the individual and lead them to salvation. “Are you saying that no man can have the 'authority' to proclaim the gospel to another anymore?” No, I said what I said. I have just as much a right and responsibility to preach the Gospel as does any other man. The authority of preaching the Gospel comes from Christ to His followers. If God only wanted a select few to preach the Gospel, it would seem to me that He would be allowing others to invariably go to Hell since they might not have heard the Gospel from somebody with the right credentials. God isn’t interested in pedigree, He is interested in salvation to be proclaimed. “Now, How do you personally know the OLD Testament is true? Did a man tell you its true? Did the Holy Ghost tell it? What witness did you receive that you have not just totally called into question?” I know the Old Testament is true because it is the book Jesus Christ taught from and believed in. If, hypothetically, the Old Testament was false, the Christ would be teaching from a fallible document. If that is true, it is possible He could have told an untruth. Since the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, and that God cannot lie, that would mean that it is impossible for Christ to lie. If then, He could not lie, He could not quote from an erroneous text that might lend itself to false teaching. If that argument weren’t enough, the Old Testament itself declares that it is true, and the New Testament echoes this. Most importantly to my faith, if the Old Testament is untrue, my faith is in vain. Moreover, I would have no hope of salvation since salvation was first preached in the Old Testament. If I have no hope, my life is worthless along with the rest of humanity. We might as well live like there is no tomorrow and live like the heathen. “Now, if no man can 'tell others what to do', and if trusting direct revelation from the Holy Ghost is 'dangerous' and 'cannot be trusted', then how do men receive the Gospel?” First, you are putting words into my mouth. I never said the Holy Ghost cannot be trusted, that would be blasphemy of the worst kind. I said that emotions cannot be trusted as a proof that something is true. By linking direct revelation from the Holy Ghost to your emotions, you have proven my case in point. God calls us to respond to His truth by rejoicing, not experiencing joy as confirmation of that truth. The truth is the truth, regardless of feelings.

First, please forgive me for not responding sooner. The last several days at work have been extremely hectic and I haven’t had a chance to sit and think about much other than work. This will be my formal response to a-train. Let me first say that I do not speak for all other Christians. I speak my beliefs as I understand the Holy Bible. If others agree with me, then credit that to the work of the Holy Spirit. Now, I never said the apostles had no authority. To do so would be to deny what the Bible says about them and their ministry. The apostles were sent to preach the Good News to all men around the world, which they did to great extent. Their job was to proclaim Christ and His atonement, not to rule over men. What I meant to communicate is that the one absolute authority that rules over all else is God’s Word in the Bible. If any authority contradicts the statements and truths therein, they are the ones who are fallible, not God. That is why I say I put the institutions of men far behind the Bible. Not that churches cannot be right doctrinally speaking, but that I look first to the Bible and then to any church for theological understanding. Though the New Testament is derived largely from the Apostles (namely Paul, but others as well) it is the orthodox Christian view that the words in those letters were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, in a way, one could say that though the hand of the apostles wrote the New Testament, they were merely dictating God’s messages (that is dictating as in recording, not as in telling God what He thinks). The message they preached was based on God’s revealed truth, and this is reflected in their writings. And occasionally we see in the New Testament and the Old that the personalities of the writers shine through, notably in Paul’s letters but also in the book of Daniel and other prophets. However, we know that the New Testament is true not because we merely think it is, but because it falls in line with what God spoke of concerning the new covenant. I, too, would say to you that feelings cannot be trusted in and of themselves. As I’m leading a Bible study about the LDS faith at the moment, I am discussing the difference between believing God’s Word is true and having an emotional experience because of that belief, and the LDS concept of a “burning in the bosom.” On the one hand, Christians hold that God’s Word is true regardless of how we feel about it. Some passages might be hard to understand, even troubling to some, but Christians believe it is true anyway. Based on that truth, we rejoice in the Lord and praise Him. In effect, we experience an emotion or feeling as a result of what we know to be true. A “burning in the bosom” on the other hand is the exact opposite. I have two copies of the Book of Mormon given to me by LDS I was speaking with at the time about what the Bible says about God. Each of them gave me a signed Book of Mormon in which they both said, to various degrees, that God will confirm it is true by experiencing an emotion called “burning in the bosom” and directed me to the passage in Moroni that talks about it. This is the exact opposite of what Christians do when understanding God’s Word. It is saying “if you feel it is true” God is telling you it is true. The heart is not to be trusted, as the Bible says, and thus this is a very dangerous way to comprehend theology. Some Christians practice this same thing in certain Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. They will do things as an emotional outpouring of the Spirit, so it is said, regardless of how it lines up with the Bible (such as “barking in the Spirit” or “laughing in the Spirit”). I do not condone such practices for the above stated reasons. Of course, none of that relates to how Christians feel about the apostasy claimed by the LDS but I am answering the question you posed to me. We could go on about this in another thread if you are so inclined.

Not surprisingly, I agree with Dr. T on this one. I have Scripture back the claim, and it is found in the Old Testament when God was still using prophets to instruct His people. The prophet Jeremiah heard these words from the LORD in Jer. 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. There are several key aspects of this new covenant that are crucial to our understanding of our relationship with God through Jesus Christ. First, the new covenant is substantially different than the first. The old covenant was obedience to the Law, which men could not do. The new covenant is salvation through faith in Christ and His atonement having washed away the iniquity of those who believe. Second, the new covenant is such that God will enable men to follow Him and His righteousness without others telling them what to do. What a liberation! To know that I can follow God with all my heart without somebody else telling me how to live. That I can read God's Word and have His Spirit indwell me such that I can understand the messages He communicates to me directly. So, yes, I do believe we are living in a time substantially different than the way the Israelites lived. Scripture indicates that this time would come and it did so with the death and resurrection of our Lord. Of course, Jews today can experience the same liberation in Christ if they choose to believe in Him as their Messiah. The new covenant is open to all, just as the old covenant was. I'm off to Bible study, have a wonderful afternoon all and God bless each and every one of you.

"All of my questions are the same single question. Can a man argue with the LORD's word through His servants and yet align himself with the Gospel?" In most cases I would say no. However, God's servants are not always in line with Scripture themselves, and so in some cases it might be better to "align oneself" with Scripture over God's servants. It is my belief that the Bible takes precedence over any human being, regardless of his or her station within the body of Christ. God's Word is infallible, unshakable, and ultimately more reliable than any fallen human being. Take Peter, for example. Though Peter was a great man of God, there were times in Peter's ministry that it would have been great folly to follow his example over the Scriptures. The most notable time being when he denied Jesus three times. Now, a person removed from the immediate circle of Christ and His followers, given the choice between following Peter and following the Messiah would have been a fool to follow Peter even though such an action would put himself outside of Peter's authority. There were also times in the early church that certain members of the body in Jerusalem were prone to taking an anti-Gentile approach to the spreading of the Gospel in favor of proselytizing Gentiles to make them Jews under the Law. This stance was anti-Biblical and not at all what was intended for the New Covenant. So the church compromised on the issue and decided that only very basic aspects of the Law needed to be complied with while the rest was considered to be liberated under Christ. This is all recorded in the book of Acts. These are reasons why I follow the Bible first, and follow the institutions of men at a distant second. The church itself, as the body of Christ, is made by God, true; but the institutions called "churches" with their regulations that supersede the Bible are made by men. I follow God, not men.

To be fair, I have personal copies of the BoM, D&C, and the PGP. Have I read them cover to cover? No. But tell of all the LDS you know, just how many have read all of the Quad? I have read the Bible cover to cover for what it’s worth. I am willing to engage LDS on LDS topics regarding the LDS holy writ. However, as an “apostate” I cannot be expected to accept those teachings as truth when in my heart I do not believe them to be so. The topic of this particular discussion was asking non-LDS or “traditional Christians” what they believed about the great apostasy. As a non-LDS I gave my best answer given the constraints of the question and my reliance on the Bible as the only text God used men to write. Given another discussion, I would happily engage in any esoteric bit of theology you might choose to drum up; but again, I can only give an account of what I believe as a Christian. To do otherwise would be to speak untruthfully. I might also add that I am not here to pollute the waters so to speak. I am here because unlike some other LDS sites, this particular interface does not fear the unbeliever but engages with him or her without fear of reprisals to either party. That is where true spirituality exists. God cannot be contained in any box of our imagination and to shelter ourselves from the thoughts and ideas of others is to have small faith in the Gods either party worships. So please, engage me on another topic and I will give account of my faith and you can give account of yours and let us each make up our own minds about what we believe. I look forward to further discussion :). God bless you.

“Would persons or sects expressing a belief in Christ, but rejecting revelation through Peter during his lifetime be considered members of the Church?” Yes, I believe they would. Paul did not preach Peter and his status to the various Gentile groups he came across. Instead, he preached Christ and His crucifixion, death and resurrection. Again, in the early days of the church, there was no real central authority to speak of. Yes, there were Jews in Jerusalem who were trying to exert authority over the various groups of people, but it is my understanding that these groups were more or less autonomous. ”Could I, living in the time of the Apostles, reject their admonition to abandon certain Mosiac Laws or scorn their adherents for their belief in the Apostles teaching of a bodily resurrection of Christ and still be part of the Church only by virtue of an acceptance of the divinity of Jesus?” There is only one source of salvation, according to the Bible; believe in your heart that Jesus Christ died for your sins bringing you to righteousness, and confess with your mouth that He is Lord for salvation. There are a lot of Christians today that believe some pretty, shall I say, unique ideas regarding how they are to be saved. Regardless of people’s personal views, the Bible is quite clear in this matter. “Could I have organized my own congregation excluding these doctrines and denying them on grounds that the Apostle's assertion of such were not authoritative and binding, but still be considered part of the Church?” One must remember that the Bible did not exist in its current form during the very early church. Instead, the local congregations relied heavily on the Old Testament and might have had the first copies of the Gospels available to them. The true believer knew and understood who the Messiah was because that was what the Old Testament proclaimed, regardless of what the Apostles taught. The Apostles were in the business of proclaiming the Gospel to those who would hear, not to run a manmade institution. “Do traditional Christian's see the Church as diversely divided into various denominations who dispute the various principles of the gospel but are somehow of the same body through acceptance of the divinity of Jesus even though that acceptance can vary in it's meaning? The Catholics certainly don't see it that way.” There is a very definite distinction between those of us Christians who are non-sectarian and those of us that are. No Christian sect views any other as being completely correct. That would make sense. If the Lutherans and the Episcopalians agreed on all things, one would think they would merge into a new, larger sect. Unfortunately, as with any other manmade institution, sects are flawed through and through with pride and arrogance. That is the reason I will say “I am a Christian who attends a Baptist church” and not say “I am a Baptist.” I follow Christ, not some institution. Despite all this, all Christians who truly believe the message of Christ and His salvation are part of the body of Christ. That is what makes God glorious and wonderful. He looks past the flaws found in His human worshipers and accepts us not on our merits, but on His love and grace. “The Catholics view the whole spectrum of Protestantism to be apostate and heretical. Therefore, can they be considered part of the unified 'body' whose parts cannot reject one another? If they are to be rejected by the body for their rejection of other parts, should that body be rejected also?” When you say “The Catholics” are you speaking of that Church’s official stance, or the members of the organization? I know of Catholics who love and accept their Protestant brothers as equals and I know Protestants who view Catholics likewise. Our grafting into the body of Christ has very little to do with how we view one another and very much to do with how God views our hearts. God knows who is devout and who is not, and just as He is able to graft some into the body, He can certainly prune away those who did not know Him. As for what parts should be rejected, that goes without saying: All of us! We are all fallen, and not worthy of the grace and forgiveness of our Heavenly Father. When we as believers recognize that basic truth, we will be more able to accept the flaws of others and love them despite those flaws. We will be able to look past the sectarian divide and, though not agreeing on all points, worship the same holy God that created us all. I hope this was inoffensive, I am just trying to explain my view as an orthodox Christian.

Part of the problems of this conversation is that non-LDS do not believe that the "church" is an institution whereas LDS believe the church is such. Non-LDS view the church as the universal body of Christ that is composed of worldwide believers, those who confess Christ and believe in His atonement and resurrection. For LDS, this is something hard to conceive since they view the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the only church and all other representations of "Christianity" as "apostate." Thus, for the LDS, it is very crucial to believe that a certain group holds the authority whereas for non-LDS it is not so. As a non-sectarian Christian, I believe that the church exists regardless of any institution calling itself such. I am a member of fellow believers, part of Christ's body on earth. I attend a Baptist church, my best friend attends a Lutheran church, and still other friends attend Calvary Chapel, etc. I view all of us as part of the same church, and their understanding of church services is just as valid as my own. What is important is that we believe in the same God, and have fellowship with Him through His Son, Jesus Christ. I hope that details out why I do not believe the "keys of the kingdom" are crucial to my walk as a Christian. Seek him first! : )

"1. How does your church understand the apostasy spoken of by Paul and others as having to happen before Christ comes again?" First, though I attend a Baptist Church (Immanuel Baptist Church of Ridgecrest, CA if you wanted to look it up), I do not lean on my church to give me understanding on the Holy Bible. As a follower of Christ, my understanding of His Word is as valid as that of my church’s, but not necessarily representative or unrepresentative of my church. I do not think that Paul wrote so much concerning an apostasy in the churches of his day in general, as he did concerning local apostasies occurring from place to place. An example of one such apostasy is mentioned in Galatians 1:6-10 and reads: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ into another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. This local apostasy seems to be something that was occurring in the Galatian church at the time of Paul’s writing, and must have occurred after Paul first preached to them. Two questions arise from this passage. First, what was the gospel that Paul first preached to the Galatians and second, what was the false gospel that was being presented to them. For the first question, we have to answer it with the understanding that Paul did not preach different gospels to different people. His gospel was the true Gospel presented to him by Jesus Christ Himself. We can find this Gospel throughout Paul’s writings but one of the best presentations is found in the “Romans Road” and is as follows: Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed to all man, for that all have sinned. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ It is clearly presently in these short passages what Paul’s gospel entailed. Then, to answer the second question we would have to say that any gospel that deviates from this presentation, according to Paul, is “accursed.” So yes, there were apostasies in Paul’s day, and there has continued to be apostasy throughout the history of Christianity, but to say that one great apostasy occurred is without merit in terms of Paul’s presentation of the gospel and the fact that it exists in the same form almost 2000 years later. "2. Why your church wasn't touched by that apostasy, or how did your church survive it if it already occurred?" Since I do not believe that a great apostasy has ever occurred, this second question is without an answer. As I said before, I do not follow the teachings of any manmade institution over the authority of God’s Word as found in the Holy Bible. "3. Do your churches have Priesthood authority? Do they feel it is necessary?" Priesthood authority, according to Hebrews, is given completely over to Jesus Christ. He is our high priest as He is our mediator with God (1 Timothy 2:5). The purpose of the priesthood in the Old Testament was to mediate between a holy God and a sinful nation of Israel. Only through the priests could a man approach God since God cannot abide in sin’s presence. When Jesus died once for all, He became the only mediator necessary to approach God. That is why, for the most part, priesthood does not exist among Protestant churches and part of the fallacy of the Roman Catholic system. My pastor does not have any more authority under God to preach the Gospel than I do, although I submit myself to his temporal authority since our church has seen fit to appoint him to his current position. I will not always agree with the pastor, but since I have a direct line to God through my relationship with Jesus Christ, I do not have to rely on my pastor for complete guidance in my life. I hope I was able to answer your questions in a clear and positive manner. I hope I did not inspire any hard feelings on your part, as it was not my intention. As a follower of Christ, it is my intention only to give an account for that which I believe, and to love you as a fellow human being. God bless you and have a wonderful day.