Non-lds Input Wanted

[Dr T]

Good question CK. That may only be an assumption of mine. I got that from Jesus' insistence that the H.S. could not come until he left. I also don't remember ever reading that the Holy Spirit was serving a role in the O.T. So it made sense to me that they didn't. Do you have any references where it shows otherwise? Sorry for my typo of see vs. seen.

===

P.C.,

Where have you been?

[prisonchaplain]

I think Dr. T and shanstress are missing the point about priesthood authority. It is not intended to put "anyone between myself and God." It exists for the performance of ordinances and to see that all things are done in wisdom and order. What good is baptism if not by the proper authority? What good is the sacrament, or communion, if not blessed by the proper authority? I received my priesthood authority by the laying on of hands, as Aaron received his through Moses by the laying on of hands. Anyone can claim authority, but where did your pastor get his authority? I can trace mine back to Jesus Christ. Can he?

Authority tends to be a sensitive issue, especially to us rugged individualistic Americans. Even churches that believe in "the priesthood of all believers," generally have ordained clergy, who are set apart to perform the ordinances of the church (baptism, Holy Communion), marriages, funderals, counseling, homilies, and to administer the work of the church. The answer to "by who's authority" is "ordination." In my fellowship, the leadership sees the ordination process as our leadership confirming what God has done. So, ultimately, it is God. Yet, Scripture makes clear that teachers and overseers are to be people of good report, accepted by church leadership, and qualified by the standards set out in several of Paul's letters to the churches.

P.C.,

Where have you been?

We finally left the hotel (high speed internet), and are in our new home. However, we do not have a dial tone yet, and so, no internet. Also, when I was in the hotel, I visited the chat room more, and posted less.

[prisonchaplain]

Dr. T, I'll admit up front that the following scripture is one which I believe supports the belief that ordinances are necessary for salvation, and that they must be performed by those having authority recognized by God. I'd like to know what you think is going on, if not the above things I mentioned.

Acts 19

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

My question is two-fold:

1) If ordinances--like baptism--aren't required steps in acquring personal salvation, why did Paul baptize these disciples?

2) If ordinances are required, but specific priesthood authority is not required to perform them, why did Paul rebaptize these disciples and confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands? Why wasn't their first baptism good enough or valid?

Yahoo! CK asked a question for which the answer is...well...PENTECOSTAL!

John's baptism was water baptism--the baptism of repentence--burying the old life, and coming up to new life in Christ. The baptism in the Holy Spirit, from the pentecostal perspective, is a second work of grace, SUBSEQUENT to salvation. It is the baptism which gives power to be witnesses--and it is, according to my fellowship, accompanied by the gift of tongues.

So, there was no rebaptism. This was not water baptism, but a praying for the believers to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

[a-train]

SOLD

OK,

Wow. So the concept, if I understand properly, is that the 'authority' is vested in the New Testament, NOT the Apostles. The Apostles had NO 'authority', they were fallen errant men. We should make NO attempt to follow Peter and the Apostles who entered into great follies such as denying Christ thrice. Is this seriously the 'orthodox' Christian view? This sounds backwards. Are we truly to understand that traditional Christianity has for so many centuries held the notion that the Apostles are NOT to be trusted as authoritative declarers of God's will?

Which brings this new question: Did the Apostles get their teaching from the New Testament or did the New Testament get it's teaching from the Apostles?

I Acts 5, when Ananias attempted deception and secretly held back funds from the sale of his land which was to be an offering, it was Peter who represented the LORD in the matter and by miraculous revelation discerned the lie; and Ananias, having been caught with such guile, died. Did Peter read from the New Testament (which did not yet exist) that Ananias had lied or did the Holy Ghost reveal it to him directly?

I can't tell you how many traditional Christians have tried to tell me that my answers to my prayers via the Holy Ghost cannot be trusted. I served an LDS mission in the Bible belt. Countless traditionally Christian people denied that the Holy Ghost will answer the prayers we exhort the world to take to God concerning the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration. They say: 'You cannot trust such feelings.'

Are you telling me now, that traditional Christians believe they can read the scriptures and have the Holy Spirit dwell in them and enlighten their mind? Can we ask the LORD whether the Apostles were true servants of God and gain an answer from the Holy Spirit? What are we to understand about that?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Yahoo! CK asked a question for which the answer is...well...PENTECOSTAL!

Glad I made your day PC, hahahaha.

So, there was no rebaptism. This was not water baptism, but a praying for the believers to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

I disagree but that's okay. The reason I disagree is that the cause and effect is as follows:

The disciples in question received the Holy Spirit...

AFTER Paul laid his hands on their head...

AFTER Paul baptized them.

Those are the words of the scripture in question. :) It seems strange that Acts would record Paul instigating the baptism of fire (not water) by laying his hands on disciples' heads. If the second baptism is a result of salvation, how would Paul laying his hands on their head add one whit to or take away from their salvation?

I guess I don't see how your view and the cause/effect described in Acts 19 meshes.

I don't recall reading anywhere in the New Testament where someone physically triggers a baptism in the Spirit. There are cases where water baptism is performed by one for another, but I can't recall anywhere that the apostles needed to physically confirm the salvation of others as manifested in the Spirit baptism. Does that make sense?

[prisonchaplain]

Anytime CK.

P.S. My last post ought to read "Assemblies of God" not "Assemblies of Christ" sorry for that error.

This could start looking like a regular Christian site, with lots of different denominations posting, if we're not careful. B)

Just to clarify, the Assemblies of God does not teach that there are first or second class Christians in Christ's kingdom. Rather, I can operate in greater power with the baptism in the Spirit than I would, should I choose not to pursue the blessing. On the other hand, Dr. T, or Shantress or any other # of Christians might do better without it than I do with it. Hope that makes sense.

[CrimsonKairos]

10-4 good buddy. B)

[prisonchaplain]

Would persons or sects expressing a belief in Christ, but rejecting revelation through Peter during his lifetime be considered members of the Church?

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?

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?

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.

We've come full circle. SNOW has repeatedly asked me if salvation was something we earn by ascertaining a certain set of correct doctrines (read--works, not faith alone). Now, we're getting the reverse: can someone be saved if they reject the message of God's prophet?

So, just how right do we have to be? BTW, the Catholic church does teach that their "separated bretheren" in the Protestant movement are within the household of faith.

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?

-a-train

To clarify, yes the RCC teaches that Protestantism is heretical (has wrong belief), and, so is apostate (has strayed from the Mother Church). Nevertheless, the label us as "separated bretheren" who are still within the household of faith.

So, yes, I do believe that most of those who self-identify as Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalean, Pentecostal, Baptist, evangelical, nondenominational, etc. will make it into God's kingdom, despite some differences on important, but non-salvational doctrine.

[Dr T]

P.C.,

I make that statement based on a Junior High Pastor that I met from that denomination. He said that was the case. I know it is only his view but I was giving an example.

[prisonchaplain]

The problem with these sorts of discussions is that they are pretty unbalanced. What do I mean?

I'm not trying to be stupid or condescending, but most LDS know what non-LDS believe, and read the same source texts that non-LDS read (i.e. Bible).

Most non-LDS don't read the additional source texts LDS read (i.e. BoM, D&C, PoGP). So the discussion is unbalanced in that the LDS position is founded on teachings and doctrines most non-LDS have never actually read.

Not heard about, not heard summarized, not heard criticized, but actually read them.

So I guess I'd have to say that to level the playing field, all involved would have to read and be familiar with LDS scriptures in addition to the Bible. Our beliefs are very much Biblical and very much modern-day scriptural too.

Of course if someone says, "Well I don't believe there could even be modern day scripture so I'm not going to waste my time," then that's that, but a true discussion involves a meeting of the minds. I believe that for a non-LDS to truly engage in a discussion of LDS beliefs, they must read the LDS source texts.

Not an easy task, I'll grant you, but a task that's worth it. :)

But we wouldn't be reading them right.

If a Jew decided to read the New Testament, as an examination, he would do so by reading through the lense of the Old Testament, and might find some conflict. We Christians tend to read the Old Testament in light of the New revelations in the 27 books of the New Testament.

Likewise, as I read the BoM, or any other LDS text, I would naturally do so in the light of the Bible, and may come across passages I would see as conflicting at worst, or perhaps as speculative.

God works through men.

That's the Bible's central theme. God sends prophets/apostles to lead and teach His people.

But wait, I forgot, after Christ's ascension, God decided to stop what He had been doing since Adam's day...using men to lead and correct His people.

I guess we're so advanced or intelligent that we no longer need the guidance our hapless ancestors did. Pfffffffff, stupid ancestors.

Sounds like a good argument for raising up ordained leaders that might be set aside for full-time gospel labor--not only for missions, but to oversee and guide the local wards. Perhaps they could be called ministers (servants) or pastors? B)

I'm being a bit cute, but in many ways pastors/evangelists/missionaries/ in combination with the modern gifts of tongues and interpretation and prophecy cover the same span of gospel work that prophets, apostles, bishops, etc. do.

I disagree but that's okay. The reason I disagree is that the cause and effect is as follows:

The disciples in question received the Holy Spirit...

AFTER Paul laid his hands on their head...

AFTER Paul baptized them.

Those are the words of the scripture in question. :) It seems strange that Acts would record Paul instigating the baptism of fire (not water) by laying his hands on disciples' heads. If the second baptism is a result of salvation, how would Paul laying his hands on their head add one whit to or take away from their salvation?

It is very common to pray for people to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit by laying hands on them. In fact, it is much more common to do so at such altar prayer times, than during a water baptism. For the latter, my hand supports the back of the head as a means of support as I submerge them in water.

I guess I don't see how your view and the cause/effect described in Acts 19 meshes.

I don't recall reading anywhere in the New Testament where someone physically triggers a baptism in the Spirit.

The baptism comes as a response to the petitioners earnest seeking. It can even happen in private. However, it is indeed common for there to be a prayer time, and deacons, elders, board members, or just other members, will lay hands on the seeker and pray with/for them.

There are cases where water baptism is performed by one for another, but I can't recall anywhere that the apostles needed to physically confirm the salvation of others as manifested in the Spirit baptism. Does that make sense?

I'm not clear on the question. The apostles prayed for the seekers to receive the baptism in the Spirit. It's quite common to pray for and receive whatever is sought. Why should this be different?

P.C.,

I make that statement based on a Junior High Pastor that I met from that denomination. He said that was the case. I know it is only his view but I was giving an example.

Sometimes when you know you got something that is good and of God, it's frustrating that other Christians won't grab ahold of it. Young pastors might be less than discerning in how they choose to express that frustration.

perhaps some of our LDS friends feel that frustration for us, believing they have added blessings that we can only guess at?

[Dr T]

I understand.

[CrimsonKairos]

PC, you said (if I recall) that the baptism by fire/Spirit is a result of attaining personal salvation...of being saved.

So my question is, if someone's saved, why do they need someone else to ask God to grant what that person already deserves?

Now I do believe in the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I view it as an ordinance, though, whereby the power of the Holy Ghost is made an abiding presence in one's life if they remain worthy of such.

I guess I'm not arguing doctrine here, I'm just saying that pretend I agree with you about the baptism of the Spirit and being saved, etc... Well maybe I'm a rebel, but my question would be, "If I'm saved, why do I need some deacon to ask God to give me what should be mine already, e.g. the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"

Is that more specific?

[LukeAir2006]

Hi Dr. T,

I wasn't being disrespectful or contentious. You can believe exactly what you want to believe of course.

My own experience is that some christians are so caught up in saying 'its all about Jesus, its all about Jesus' that they actually ignore what Jesus is saying. The giving of the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter the Senior Apostle is a Biblical event. Its not something the Latter Day Saints have made up. As christians believe that the Bible is the final word of God and the only authority on matters of doctrine,its probably important to know what the Bible actually says. We Latter Day Saints feel that its important to know what Christ says and what He expects of us because he said that those that really love Him keep his commandments. (John 14:15,21)

You mention that Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone, and of course he is. You should have quoted the whole of that verse of Scripture but I can understand why you didn't. "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. (Ephesians 2:20) The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ. Why is this?

First, they are special witnesses of Christ to all the world. You'll remember that at the begining of Acts, Matthias was called to fill the vacancy in the Twelve Apostles which had occured through Judas Iscariots apostasy and death. The qualification was first hand knowledge of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 1:22-26) Second, as Christ said in Matthew 16:18, the Church is built on the rock of revelation. Those responsible for receiving revelation for the church are the Apostles and Prophets. They hold the Keys of the Kingdom, the authority given by Christ to act in his name. All of the Apostles hold the Keys of the Kingdom, but only the Senior Apostle has the authority to use them all. He presides over the church. The other Apostles exercise the keys under his authority.

On the death of Peter and James, John would have been the Senior Apostle, the President of the Church and the recipient of any revelations for the Saints; and hence we find John having angelic visitations and receiving revelations for the last remaining seven branches of the church, the rest of the church having apostasized. (Rev 1) Paul had prophesied that the Church would fall away and that a Man of Sin would appear who would sit on a throne in the temple/church of God, showing himself that he is God. (2 Thes 2:2-4) I don't think I need to explain how this prophecy was completely fulfilled. John was eventually taken from the earth and the keys and authority were taken with him.

I'll leave the final words to Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist church in America, who died April 1684.

"There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking"(Picturesque America, p. 502.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)

[Dr T]

Thank you LukeAir2006,

Good post. Things pop to my mind immediately about what you have written. I'll consider it and respond later instead of impulsively. Thanks again. :)

[prisonchaplain]

PC, you said (if I recall) that the baptism by fire/Spirit is a result of attaining personal salvation...of being saved.

Not exactly. I said that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace, SUBSEQUENT to salvation. In other words, it is not an automatic result of salvation. It is another blessing available to those who are saved.

So my question is, if someone's saved, why do they need someone else to ask God to grant what that person already deserves?

They don't. There have been cases where a Christian is simply worshiping God--perhaps even in their prayer closet, and the gift of the Holy Spirit comes upon them. On the other hand, like many petitions, it is often effective and faith-building to call upon other believers to agree together for the blessing. Probably the most common locale for reception of this gift is the front area of a sanctuary, towards the end of the service, when people will come up to pray for healing, for salvation, simply for encouragement from God, and yes, to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Now I do believe in the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I view it as an ordinance, though, whereby the power of the Holy Ghost is made an abiding presence in one's life if they remain worthy of such.

Your belief is probably closest to Nazarene theology, which believes that SANCTIFICATION (which they sometimes also call baptism in the Holy Spirit) is a second work of grace. However, rather than tongues and power to witness, they believe that there is an enhanced presence of the Holy Spirit that allows the believe to live holy and resist sin.

However, they also do not view this baptism as an ordinance.

I guess I'm not arguing doctrine here, I'm just saying that pretend I agree with you about the baptism of the Spirit and being saved, etc... Well maybe I'm a rebel, but my question would be, "If I'm saved, why do I need some deacon to ask God to give me what should be mine already, e.g. the baptism of the Holy Ghost?"

Is that more specific?

The short answer is that you don't. In prayer, we do believe that joining with others is faith-building, and God does respond well to corporate prayer. However, there is no requirement for the laying on of hands, or for someone with any particular church office to be included in petitions for the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

[a-train]

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!

Do you feel that we have already entered this phase wherein 'all' know the LORD, 'from the least of them unto the greatest of them'?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks for taking time to clarify your views, PC. You rock, man. B)

[ThickAir89]

Hi everyone, is anyone in here willing to do an hour interview with me over AIM. I am doing this for my seminary and have to interview someone from the LDS community. Please reply if anyone is interested.

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks for taking time to clarify your views, PC. You rock, man. B)

I'm here for you, hermano. B)

[Maureen]

1. How does your church understand the apostasy spoken of by Paul and others as having to happen before Christ comes again?

2. Why your church wasn't touched by that apostasy, or how did your church survive it if it already occurred?

3. Do your churches have Priesthood authority? Do they feel it is necessary?

Since saintoflatterdays has articulated the answers so much better than I believe I could, I will just agree with him/her. :)

M.

[rehunter]

SOLD

OK,

Wow. So the concept, if I understand properly, is that the 'authority' is vested in the New Testament, NOT the Apostles. The Apostles had NO 'authority', they were fallen errant men. We should make NO attempt to follow Peter and the Apostles who entered into great follies such as denying Christ thrice. Is this seriously the 'orthodox' Christian view? This sounds backwards. Are we truly to understand that traditional Christianity has for so many centuries held the notion that the Apostles are NOT to be trusted as authoritative declarers of God's will?

Which brings this new question: Did the Apostles get their teaching from the New Testament or did the New Testament get it's teaching from the Apostles?

I Acts 5, when Ananias attempted deception and secretly held back funds from the sale of his land which was to be an offering, it was Peter who represented the LORD in the matter and by miraculous revelation discerned the lie; and Ananias, having been caught with such guile, died. Did Peter read from the New Testament (which did not yet exist) that Ananias had lied or did the Holy Ghost reveal it to him directly?

I can't tell you how many traditional Christians have tried to tell me that my answers to my prayers via the Holy Ghost cannot be trusted. I served an LDS mission in the Bible belt. Countless traditionally Christian people denied that the Holy Ghost will answer the prayers we exhort the world to take to God concerning the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration. They say: 'You cannot trust such feelings.'

Are you telling me now, that traditional Christians believe they can read the scriptures and have the Holy Spirit dwell in them and enlighten their mind? Can we ask the LORD whether the Apostles were true servants of God and gain an answer from the Holy Spirit? What are we to understand about that?

-a-train

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.

[a-train]

SOLD: post #71: '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.'

SOLD post #32: 'Again, in the early days of the church, there was no real central authority to speak of.'

I am now officially uncertain of your position. Did the Apostles have authority in the Primitive Church or not?

SOLD: post #71'Their job was to proclaim Christ and His atonement, not to rule over men.'

Now, did you not read my post (#23) about the meaning of the authority of the Apostles? About how Christ said that they were to be servants and not rulers as those of the world? Perhaps that would help you understand the use of the term 'authority' here as I am using it. Is this different meaning of the term 'authority' in the Church vs. the world what you are speaking of in this most recent post?

SOLD post #47: '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.'

SOLD: post #71: 'The heart is not to be trusted, as the Bible says, and thus this is a very dangerous way to comprehend theology.'

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?

SOLD post #22: 'My pastor does not have any more authority under God to preach the Gospel than I do.' Are you saying that no man can have the 'authority' to proclaim the gospel to another anymore?

SOLD post #71: '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.'

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?

The LDS belief is exactly in that which occured in New Testament times. The LORD's servants, who had been sent to proclaim the gospel, preached the word to the people. The Holy Ghost, then fell on the people and they believed and were baptized and brought into the fold of Christ as in Acts Chapter 10 when Peter preached to the Gentiles.

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?

Please clarify, this all seems very contradictory.

GOD BLESS

-a-train

[rehunter]

“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.

[CrimsonKairos]

The heart is not to be trusted, as the Bible says, and thus this is a very dangerous way to comprehend theology.

Seems you've been reading a different Bible. That, or Jesus chose a really lame way to confirm the reality of his resurrection while talking with his disciples incognito, as here:

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:32)

Yes, yes, I know, Old Testament injunctions against trusting the heart...guess the New Testament brings a new way of discerning the truth.

Feel the burn, baby...feel the burn. B)

[a-train]

SOLD,

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?

What do you believe the Holy Ghost does to people? Or in other words, how do you understand the Holy Ghost reveals things?

SOLD: '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.'

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?

Also, to clarify: I have seen nothing in any LDS publication or scripture that states anything to the effect that the 'burning in the bosom' or 'burning in the heart' described constitutes an emotion. This is no more an emotion than a tingle in your toe or an itch on your forhead. It is a sensation, not an emotion. Who ever linked the Holy Ghost to emotions? The promise in the Book of Mormon is that the LORD 'will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.' (Moroni 10:4)

Now, I didn't mean to put words into your mouth. You said: '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.' 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?

-a-train