Vort Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Ah, thanks. By "fellowship", you and pendragon mean more than simple conversation and mutual support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 No, I believe "agree" is the correct term. If I'm understanding pendragon correctly, what he is saying is that if for some reason he is unable to attend a non-LDS Christian church, he would not be able to attend an LDS church on a regular basis because our differences are so great. As I thought about it, I agree with him as well. I can attend another denominations as a guest (and have done so). But to attend church on a regular basis, I believe that only the LDS church offers me the saving ordinances. Thus, I cannot see myself attending another church to obtain any full satisfaction that I am receiving the saving grace and ordinances that I find at the LDS denomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I am familiar with the Millet and Johnson connection and was in the Mormon Tabernacle during a joint meeting when Ravi Zacharia spoke. I am not a fan of this particular effort...IMV too much apologizing from the evangelicals and too much coat tailing from the Mormons. I have Mormon neighbors and agree that I have a responsibility to be friendly, compassionate and loving, treating them with the respect I would ask for myself. That said, my first responsibility as a believer is to fulfill The Great Commission....most positively through my actions...adding words as necessary. Have you seen some of the videos of "Christian witnesses" at LDS conferences, stomping on Books of Mormon, waving tattered sacred garments, like they were some kind of captured flag--yelling at the LDS kids that they are going to hell? I don't feel that it would be comprimising the gospel to say to LDS friends and neighbors, "Yeah, that's bad...they put my faith in a very poor light. You and your children should not have been subjected to that--certainly not in the name of Jesus."On the other hand, I understand that some Christians believe that such efforts (Greg Johnson and Craig Blomberg) have a subtle affirming tone to them, so I do not fault you for your non-approval. Personally, I find the efforts heartening. We'll only learn the right balance by trying. I give those that do credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendragon Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I have indeed seen those who "perform" outside LDS General Conference and can agree that their tactics are not performing any useful purpose...I reject their approach fully. However, IMV there is nothing compromising about the Gospel. As Jesus firmly demonstrated in his Sermon of Woes strong language is sometimes necessary especially when the devil comes tempting as an "angel of light". I disagree wholeheartedly with Mormon theology...but I can disagree agreeably and not compromise my beliefs and Biblical accuracy in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 No, I believe "agree" is the correct term.If I'm understanding pendragon correctly, what he is saying is that if for some reason he is unable to attend a non-LDS Christian church, he would not be able to attend an LDS church on a regular basis because our differences are so great.As I thought about it, I agree with him as well. I can attend another denominations as a guest (and have done so). But to attend church on a regular basis, I believe that only the LDS church offers me the saving ordinances. Thus, I cannot see myself attending another church to obtain any full satisfaction that I am receiving the saving grace and ordinances that I find at the LDS denomination. This is the right idea. I actually did have an LDS inmate attend my chapel while he was here. His stay was short (3-months), and he said he felt the Spirit. On the other hand, his decision was not the norm, and I would think most LDS would not feel comfortable making their spiritual home in an Evangelical church, even if no ward was available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendragon Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 beefche, you are correct in your interpretation. I would, however, disagree that ordinances have any "saving" merit. The Bible teaches that salvation is in Jesus only not through ordinances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 beefche, you are correct in your interpretation. I would, however, disagree that ordinances have any "saving" merit. The Bible teaches that salvation is in Jesus only not through ordinances.I know you disagree with that. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 This is the right idea. I actually did have an LDS inmate attend my chapel while he was here. His stay was short (3-months), and he said he felt the Spirit. On the other hand, his decision was not the norm, and I would think most LDS would not feel comfortable making their spiritual home in an Evangelical church, even if no ward was available.I, too, have felt the Spirit in a non-LDS service. The Holy Spirit testifies of truth no matter where that truth is found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 The Bible teaches that salvation is in Jesus only not through ordinances.No. Rather, your interpretation of the Bible so teaches.In the Bible, Jesus clearly states, "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." He taught this in the context of baptism. Now, you may wave away the clear and obvious implications of the necessity of ordinance in this quotation, but that is a reflection of your biases, not of the clear Biblical teaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendragon Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 My reading of the passage (John 3) tells me that the important context is rebirth and not baptism. I believe that baptsim is an important part of the Christian life...a physical demonstration of the saving grace that has already taken place in the believer through the new birth but Jesus isn't talking about baptism. He is clearly answering Nicodemus' stumbling response about re-entering his mother's womb which causes Jesus to say: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." Note the capital S and the small s.... No where in the passage does Jesus mention the physical process of water baptism. I like the modern translation of the passage by J. B. Phillips (I suspect this will be a problem to you since for some reason I know that Mormons only use the KJV which has real problems of modern versus Elizabethan language) Jesus speaking: "Believe me, a man cannot even see the Kingdom of God Without being born over again." "And how can a man who's getting old possibly be born?" Nicodemus replied. "How can he go back into his mother's womb a second time and be born?" "I assure you," said Jesus, "that unless a man is born from water and from spirit he cannot get into the Kingdom of God. Flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit gives birth to spirit." Clearly Jesus is talking of physical birth and the spiritual (renewing of the heart) that every believer must undergo. This is clearly shown by the thief on the cross to whom Jesus promised a place in his kingdom that very day...without baptims but a clear demonstration of faith in Jesus. Faith and trust in Jesus only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendragon Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 PS. I suppose we all have biases....but I base my belief on the interpretations of scholars who have taught this for more than 2,000 years...teachings which have stood the test of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 My reading of the passage (John 3)...As I said: It's just your interpretation. You are welcome to it, but don't suppose that your interpretation defines truth. It does not. Jesus was clearly speaking of water baptism, the same baptism that he himself underwent. That you don't interpret his words as such in no possible way means that the words don't mean that.PS. I suppose we all have biases....but I base my belief on the interpretations of scholars who have taught this for more than 2,000 years...teachings which have stood the test of time.I base my belief on the words of living prophets, not on the interpretation of the words of dead prophets forced on those words by men without Priesthood authority many hundred or thousand years ago. I realize that such things seem of great value to you, and to many others. I respect that, but I certainly do not agree. I much prefer to be guided by God through living prophets than by ancient misinterpretations of scriptural fragments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 PS. I suppose we all have biases....but I base my belief on the interpretations of scholars who have taught this for more than 2,000 years...teachings which have stood the test of time.Which is fine. And I'm not trying to be dismissive saying such. We all have doctrinal backgrounds that become so entwined into how we understand the scriptures that for all intents and purposes they become a part of them. Expecting a mainstream Christian to not include the body of Christian theology into his thought process when reading the Bible isn't any more reasonable then expecting someone who is LDS to not be influenced by the Book of Mormon when reading the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendragon Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 What body of Christian theology are you referring to? The Bible is the body of Christian theology.....a Bible which does make it quite clear that Jesus fulfilled "the law and the prophets". The underlying purpose of prophets and by extension the entire narrative of the Bible leads to one conclusion....the coming of Christ. In Christ we have the completeness of of all that God has for mankind....Emmanuel...God with us...the fullness and the living embodiment of God's grace. When you have Jesus what more can there be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendragon Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I notice that you did not refute my explanation of the first part of John 3 even though at that point in the narrative it is not talking about baptism at all as you said but about the new birth. The chapter does talk of baptisms taking place later but Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus is not about that but Jesus is getting to the heart of Nicodemus' problem which is shaped by his reliance on position and a strict adherence to the Law. Jesus gets to the core of the problem bringing up the subject of Nicodemus's need for heart change. How once can get a proof text for baptism out of that is puzzling to me no matter the legitimate place of baptism in the Christian life. Mankind is not saved by adherence to the Law be it the Law of Moses or any new branding of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) What body of Christian theology are you referring to?These:PS. I suppose we all have biases....but I base my belief on the interpretations of scholars who have taught this for more than 2,000 years...teachings which have stood the test of time.I suppose one could debate the exact phrasing you might prefer, but my main point is that I was agreeing with you that we all have our biases as to how we interpret the Bible. Edited February 10, 2012 by Dravin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendragon Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Of course, the foundational basis of Christian theology is supported by 2,000 years of scholarly study but the truth of all things is defined by the Holy Spirit and I believe that God does speak through his Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norah63 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 And as we each hear from the Scriptures, and are getting revelation, why should they be so diffrent? We know that there is only one truth. The lack of agreement comes from our side not the Holy Spirit. There was compitition in the early church just as now. Yet the power still flowed out to an unsaved world. When did the early church start to lose the great miracles? Was it after the divisions got to a point where the Jewish believers and the gentile believers came to odds? So does the Evangelical church have a diffrent approach to wittness to a Jewish person than a Mormon does? Some religions don't wittness because they think the Jewish or Israel people will get that in the thousand year reign. Can't see it that way myself, today is the day of salvation in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendragon Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I am not sure I am fully understanding your post. I agree that there is only one truth and I believe that truth can be discerned by prayerful study of the Word, allowing the Spirit to reveal its truthfulness. I think that too often we come to scripture with preconceived ideas, the interpretation of others, and read it to find what we have already decided or have been conditioned to understand. I think there might be somewhat of a difference in the way an evangelical might witness to a Jew as opposed to how a Mormon might. Not so much in method but perhaps in content. The evangelical preaches Jesus only and a saving relationship with him...where the potential convert takes his Christian walk, what church, is of less importance. Mormons as I understand it preach joining a church and rarely suggest that someone found Christ but that they "joined the church". I think there is a difference there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome1232 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) The evangelical preaches Jesus only and a saving relationship with him...where the potential convert takes his Christian walk, what church, is of less importance. Mormons as I understand it preach joining a church and rarely suggest that someone found Christ but that they "joined the church". I think there is a difference there.I think it's inconsiquential, we are teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, to us "joining the church" is synomynus with coming to know Jesus. I feel there is a misconception that we don't focus on Christ and I feel it is at play with your logic, since that is what you continulay seem to suggest as a major difference between Mormons and mainstream christanity. Either baptism is a saving ordiance or it isn't, you can't eat your cake and have it to. As I interpret it baptism is the new birth. If baptism is not a saving ordinance as you claim then why do Christian churches baptize? Why was Jesus baptized? Edited February 10, 2012 by jerome1232 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendragon Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I guess the question is, who saves you? Does a church save you or does Jesus save you? The Bible clearly distinguishes Jesus as the Savior and the church as the body of believers or "called out ones". Jesus in his discussion with Nicodemus talks of being "born again" a process where the Holy Spirit enters the individual and he becomes a new person in Christ. That is the saving experience...baptism is the public demonstration of what has already taken place in the heart. Baptism does not confer remission of sin, Christ entering the repentant heart changes it to make willful sin a thing of the past and confers forgiveness. Christ, who needed no baptism, submitted to it as an example for all who follow him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I guess the question is, who saves you? Does a church save you or does Jesus save you?Christ saves you. And the first step in the process by which he saves you is that he invites you into his kingdom, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Christ, who needed no baptism, submitted to it as an example for all who follow him.Then why do you insist that baptism is unnecessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted February 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) I guess the question is, who saves you? Does a church save you or does Jesus save you? The Bible clearly distinguishes Jesus as the Savior and the church as the body of believers or "called out ones". Jesus in his discussion with Nicodemus talks of being "born again" a process where the Holy Spirit enters the individual and he becomes a new person in Christ. That is the saving experience...baptism is the public demonstration of what has already taken place in the heart. Baptism does not confer remission of sin, Christ entering the repentant heart changes it to make willful sin a thing of the past and confers forgiveness. Christ, who needed no baptism, submitted to it as an example for all who follow him.Salvation is in Christ. That said, apostasy began even while Christ was among HIS disciples. You may recall, many followed Christ, but wouldn't accept pure doctrine. Christ asked the twelve, " Will ye also go away?" to which Peter replied, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of Eternal Life." Within a very short time after the Savior's death and Resurrection, various competing Christian groups had already appeared. Gnostics, Elkesaites, Archontics, Millenarianists and on and on. Paul warned of apostasy when to the Corinth Christians he said, "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”Christ established his church to Light the Path that HE had forged, so..."That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"Alas, HIS church has been restored to the Earth in preparation for HIS return and we invite all to Come unto Christ and find in HIM Eternal Life. There is no salvation in believing false doctrine, sectarian notions or imagined theologies. Edited February 11, 2012 by bytor2112 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendragon Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 Pure fantasy, I'm afraid. The coming of Jesus was predicted throughout history as recorded in the Bible. Prophet after prophet with Israel passing through countless periods of faith and separation from God and then the Messiah who has been awaited for thousands of years comes, dies on the cross to bring salvation to all man kind....and then everything collapses? Jesus promised that even the "gates of hell" would not withstand his church. Sorry, but such a claim does not stand up in the face of history or fact. Now if I were trying to supplant the church with some kind of new gospel discrediting the old might be a good place to start....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted February 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Pure fantasy, I'm afraid. The coming of Jesus was predicted throughout history as recorded in the Bible. Prophet after prophet with Israel passing through countless periods of faith and separation from God and then the Messiah who has been awaited for thousands of years comes, dies on the cross to bring salvation to all man kind....and then everything collapses? Jesus promised that even the "gates of hell" would not withstand his church. Sorry, but such a claim does not stand up in the face of history or fact. Now if I were trying to supplant the church with some kind of new gospel discrediting the old might be a good place to start.......Pure fantasy? Perhaps you should brush up on the history of Christianity. As for the Gates of hell.....well it didn't prevail, obviously or the Lord's Kingdom on earth would not exist. But as for the church that Christ established, it did indeed "fall away". "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first".God certainly isn't the author of the confusion that has prevailed among Christendom for the last two thousand years. Why, the entire Protestant faith came as a result of a protest against the Catholic church. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," Every other Christian denomination is merely an off shoot of the Catholic Church. If the Tree was bad it didn't bear good fruit. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Edited February 11, 2012 by bytor2112 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts