Clearing up misconceptions: Galatians1 6-9 VS TBOM

[Guest]

Byron,

 

I don't see how any evidence is possible by your definition and criteria.  If you refuse to even read the book which you accuse of being cursed, how can anyone prove anything to you?

 

You know nothing about it, but you freely make assertions about it.  How can anyone have a reasonable dialogue with you with that attitude?

 

You say you refuse to read anything spiritual other than the Bible.  But you will read that which accuses Mormons.  How are we to take that?

Edited November 2, 2015 by Guest

[cdowis]

Bottom line -->>

 

The historic Christian church replaced the apostles and prophets, who were guided by revelation, with theologians and philosophers who are guided by the wisdom of man, e.g receiving a PhD at the university, the Council of Nicea which created the doctrine of the "one substance entity" or Nicene Creed.

Paul wrote that the church would always be lead by apostles and prophets (Eph 4:11-14), and Peter wrote 

 

2 Pe 1 [20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

Even basic doctrines of salvation are debated by the theologians, such as baptism, and faith vs faith.

 

For this reason, the Lord called a prophet in our day, and restored His church and Gospel.

Edited November 2, 2015 by cdowis

[prisonchaplain]

cdowis, Are you turning Byron's assertions back on him, and suggesting that it is the historic Christian tradition and churches that have embraced "another gospel?"    (Just trying to connect our discussion of what "another gospel" is to this post about apostasy and restoration).
 

[Crypto]

cdowis, Are you turning Byron's assertions back on him, and suggesting that it is the historic Christian tradition and churches that have embraced "another gospel?"    (Just trying to connect our discussion of what "another gospel" is to this post about apostasy and restoration).

Hope cdowis doesn't mind me stepping in!

Just as many Protestant churches believe in a reformation from corruption of true doctrine and/or practices, so do Latter Day Saints. The difference is that we believe reform wasn't what was needed but restoration from God.

In that context the LDS see thoses verses in Galatians very similar to how prisonchaplain seemed to relate. Corruption, apostasy, heterodoxy, constitute what "Another gospel is", not an actual book, or letter, but the contents of such.

[Crypto]

Going along with what several other posters have already stated. Many of the books in the New Testament were written at different times, along with many other early christian documents that never made it into the bible. A concise listing dating the early christian writings, and scholarship on who they believed authored each work can be found here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

 

Alternatively I find "THE NEW OXFORD ANNOTATED BIBLE, New Revised Standard Version" a good source for concise information regarding dating, authorship, and commentary into historical and religious practices at the time of the writings.

To save time I'll quote a list showing the timeline from the before mentioned site

"
Date   Name of document

30-60 Passion Narrative

40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q

50-60 1 Thessalonians

50-60 Philippians

50-60 Galatians

50-60 1 Corinthians

50-60 2 Corinthians

50-60 Romans

50-60 Philemon

50-80 Colossians

50-90 Signs Gospel

50-95 Book of Hebrews

50-120 Didache

50-140 Gospel of Thomas

50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel

50-150 Apocalypse of Adam

50-150 Eugnostos the Blessed

50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ

65-80 Gospel of Mark

70-100 Epistle of James

70-120 Egerton Gospel

70-160 Gospel of Peter

70-160 Secret Mark

70-200 Fayyum Fragment

70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

73-200 Mara Bar Serapion

80-100 2 Thessalonians

80-100 Ephesians

80-100 Gospel of Matthew

80-110 1 Peter

80-120 Epistle of Barnabas

80-130 Gospel of Luke

80-130 Acts of the Apostles

80-140 1 Clement

80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians

80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews

80-250 Christian Sibyllines

90-95 Revelation

90-120 Gospel of John

90-120 1 John

90-120 2 John

90-120 3 John

90-120 Epistle of Jude

93 Flavius Josephus

100-150 1 Timothy

100-150 2 Timothy

100-150 Titus

100-150 Apocalypse of Peter

100-150 Secret Book of James

100-150 Preaching of Peter

100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites

100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans

100-160 Shepherd of Hermas

100-160 2 Peter

"

Notice how many books/epistles/writings that are in the bible were written after Galatians, (especially notice the synoptic gospels)? Also notice that many of these early christian writings DID NOT get accepted into the bible as well.
Also in similar fashion to Galatians 1:6-9 we find an earlier example Deuteronomy 4:2

 

2 You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you.

3You have seen for yourselves what the Lord did with regard to the Baal of Peor--how the Lord your God destroyed from among you everyone who followed the Baal of Peor,

 

4while those of you who held fast to the Lord your God are all alive today.

If we take a similar view to this scripture most of the bible would be gone. Scripture historically was kept on individual scrolls and not as a compiled book, so in like manner Deuteronomy and Galatians refer to distorting that which has been revealed by God, which is once again repeated at the end of the book of revelations. I've included verses 3 and 4 as context into why the command at verse 2 was given.

This is why, using contemporary information we can justify having works outside of the canonized bible. Though because of our belief in ongoing revelation, regardless of what scholarship seems to indicate, we can accept the Book of Mormon as Another testament of Jesus Christ.



Does this make sense?

Edited November 2, 2015 by Crypto

[prisonchaplain]

So, pulling away from the narrow question of exactly what Paul's "another gospel" was referring to, it does seem that in the Christian world today, there are segments that are, at minimum, threatened by this danger.  Byron seems to argue that it's this other testament.  I've argued it's heretical teaching.  cdowis alludes to the LDS teaching of a Great Apostasy--corruption and false teaching combined to remove God's authority.

 

There is certainly a divide between LDS and historic Christian churches.  We disagree about doctrine and about what constitutes the canon of scripture.  If we were to look at something as simple as the Plan of Salvation (say vs. something like Evangelical tracts like the Four Spiritual Laws, or the series of salvation verses known as the Romans Road), we'd find plenty to talk about.  We'd each find aspects of each other's teachings and scriptures we might consider "another gospel."

 

Where's the fruit in that though?  There's no nugget, or silver bullet that's going to cause either side to do a face palm, fall to our knees, and convert.  Rather, we respectfully discuss our perspectives, allow the Holy Spirit we both believe in to guide us, and the let free will, influenced by God do its work.

 

Years ago I posted a discussion comparing the LDS Articles of Faith with the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths.  We did not negotiate, or attempt to harmonize.  We just posted our insights.  I learned a lot.  Maybe some folks here got a better understanding of my corner of the Evangelical world.  Nobody compromised, or offered false assurances.  It was a rich, meaningful discussion, imho.

 

Hopefully, this will end up similarly.

[Crypto]

Hopefully, this will end up similarly.

The biggest issue I see from this, is that it seems like both sides are speaking in two different languages, often seemingly purposefully misinterpreting what the other is saying....though I get the feeling it isn't 100% purposefully, just that it seems that way.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Crypto

[cdowis]

cdowis, Are you turning Byron's assertions back on him, and suggesting that it is the historic Christian tradition and churches that have embraced "another gospel?" 

 

A truly  profound insight.  The Nicene Creed is the poster boy for the "other gospel".

 

Were you aware that the vote for this creed was NOT unanimous -- and those bishops who voted against it were severely punished by the Emperor Constantine.  A study of the history of the Council of Nicea would show that his creed was not a religious document, but a political one.  The Christian church was persecuted, and it  paid a heavy price for their protection.  

And it is still paying that price today.

 

It is truly ironic that this Creed it the major argument that Mormons are not Christian -- that we believe in "another Christ", we reject this doctrine of the "one substance entity".  We accept the teaching of Christ as found in the Bible, in John 17:19-23.

 

Who indeed is preaching this "other gospel"?

 

the great apostasy

 

 

This was fundamentally the loss of priesthood keys.  Again, looking at the history of the Council of Nicea, the bishop of Rome was ill at that time, so he sent a representative.  Look carefully whether the other bishops gave him a special place or authority in formulating this creed.  

 

He was simply an equal among equals.  No special recognition as the Bishop of Rome, possessing the keys of Peter.  Just another bishop.  It was the Emperor himself who took center stage and punished those who disagreed with him.

Edited November 3, 2015 by cdowis

[prisonchaplain]

My thought is that a discussion of the Nicene Creed, in depth, would be a good new string--either in Christian beliefs, or as a comparison/contrast in LDS gospel.  For here, though, suffice to say that it's a fair point to argue that if the BoM is accused of being Paul's "other gospel," why not the very influential Nicene Creed?  Of course, my own answer is that I affirm the Nicene Creed, and believe it comports with the revealed gospel that Paul preached. 

[Crypto]

My thought is that a discussion of the Nicene Creed, in depth, would be a good new string--either in Christian beliefs, or as a comparison/contrast in LDS gospel.  For here, though, suffice to say that it's a fair point to argue that if the BoM is accused of being Paul's "other gospel," why not the very influential Nicene Creed?  Of course, my own answer is that I affirm the Nicene Creed, and believe it comports with the revealed gospel that Paul preached. 

Prisonchaplain, you are quite the charitable person, and are certainly not quick to anger.

I have a lot of respect for that.

[cdowis]

 Of course, my own answer is that I affirm the Nicene Creed, and believe it comports with the revealed gospel that Paul preached. 

 

I would certainly hope you would understand that members of the LDS church have complete respect for your beliefs.  I singled out that particular doctrine because, for some,  it represents the demarcation between "one of us" and "nonChristian", e.g.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-accept-mormon-baptism

(Although this is addressing conversion baptism, within context, the meaning is quite clear.)

 

I simply wanted to point out the irony.  And the question was asked.

Edited November 3, 2015 by cdowis

[prisonchaplain]

One of the reasons I enjoy this site is that the level of discourse reaches a point where we can find irony, and have discussions about the similarities between the historic creeds and LDS restoration teachings.  We don't often engage like this in "real life."  :)

Edited November 3, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[estradling75]

One of the reasons I enjoy this site is that the level of discourse reaches a point where we can find irony, and have discussions about the similarities between the historic creeds and LDS restoration teachings.  We don't often engage like this in "real life."  :)

 

 

It does seem to come down to that doesn't?  If the creeds are what Paul preached and meant then clearly Mormonism is another gospel.  But if the creeds were an invention and interpretation of men hundreds of years later... They could very well be another gospel.  One that would clearly show the need for a restoration like the LDS church teaches.

[Guest]

I would certainly hope you would understand that members of the LDS church have complete respect for your beliefs.  I singled out that particular doctrine because, for some,  it represents the demarcation between "one of us" and "nonChristian", e.g.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-accept-mormon-baptism

(Although this is addressing conversion baptism, within context, the meaning is quite clear.)

 

I simply wanted to point out the irony.  And the question was asked.

 

 

 

It does seem to come down to that doesn't?  If the creeds are what Paul preached and meant then clearly Mormonism is another gospel.  But if the creeds were an invention and interpretation of men hundreds of years later... They could very well be another gospel.  One that would clearly show the need for a restoration like the LDS church teaches.

 

 

It goes farther back than the Creeds.  In my studies, the point of demarcation is the Apostolic Authority of the Bishops.  Peter had Apostolic Authority before he was Bishop of Rome.  The Apostolic Authority of Bishop Linus (the first Bishop of Rome after Peter) is the demarcation for me.  I can't find any writings of any kind that Bishop Linus was ordained an apostle.  The Catholic Church basically teaches that all the Bishops received this Apostolic Authority.

 

Therefore, if we take upon Faith that the Bishops did receive this Apostolic Authority, then the Creeds are true gospel.  People tend to think that the Creeds were logically "argued" until it came out with majority consensus.  That's not how it happened.  The teaching has always been that there is One God.  How they are One has been traditionally taught as One in Ousia by Bishops as far back as the time of Linus.  But heterodox teachings by other Bishops were also present in the Church.  So, the Nicene Council was not to argue how God is One.  Rather, it was to decide which Bishops have the true Apostolic Authority and which Bishops are Apostate.  The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome among all Bishops (in the same manner that the Prophet has Primacy over all the Apostles in LDS organization) was asserted in these councils leading to the schism.  The Creeds were simply a way for the Bishops deemed as having Authority to canonize their teachings for the Magesterium.

 

As an LDS, we don't need to worry about the Creeds.  We believe that Apostolic Authority was not handed down to the Bishops.  It's as simple as that.

Edited November 3, 2015 by anatess

[AnnieCarvalho]

 

I think it important to remember I am not trying to upset you with questions. I am seeking to understand your faith and reasoning behind an apparent opposition to something I have held as truth for decades.

 

Could I be wrong? I am open for correction. As should we all be.

 

This is a really important statement.

When you have been told something is true for decades, and now someone is saying something different,

it's important to ask questions and get answers.

 

I understand your need for answers and I hope you'll find someone who will patiently listen and answer what they can. The "anti" literature can rend your heart and spirit. 

 

Even if you were here to argue, there's hope.

 

Paul persecuted Christians, and his heart was changed.

Edited November 3, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[Guest]

This is a really important statement.

When you have been told something is true for decades, and now someone is saying something different,

it's important to ask questions and get answers.

 

Annie, Byron's statement was specifically designed to put blame back on us.  He doesn't accept because we were too mean to him, he got offended.

 

He specifically said he was unwilling to read the Book of Mormon.  He was unwilling to accept anything that would change his current views.  Then he switched it around and said he was seeking the truth in our faith.  That is called a lie.

 

He demanded (or requested) that we defend our faith when he clearly took no measure or effort to verify anything that was told to him by anti-Mormons.  He took what they said at face value.  But he never answered any of our questions yet said he did.  That is hypocrisy and deception.  Or at the very least, laziness.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

Annie, Byron's statement was specifically designed to put blame back on us.  He doesn't accept because we were too mean to him, we got offended.

 

He specifically said he was unwilling to read the Book of Mormon.  He was unwilling to accept anything that would change his current views.  Then he switched it around and said he was seeking the truth in our faith.  That is called a lie.

 

He demanded (or requested) that we defend our faith when he clearly took no measure or effort to verify anything that was told to him by anti-Mormons.  He took what they said at face value.  But he never answered any of our questions yet said he did.  That is hypocrisy and deception.  Or at the very least, laziness.

 

Which is funny. Because with a lot of these sorts of questions (you see them a lot for Ask Gramps too) my initial response to myself is, "Really? Do you not know how to Google? Can you not read the answers to this on fairlds or lds.org or jefflindsay, or whathaveyou a whole lot easier than making us regurgitate what they've already explained there?"

[cdowis]

"bad bad Byron"

 

But your response will be read by others.  When I do my youtube apologetics, even though it appears that I am addressing "bad Byron", I am actually talking to those other readers who may have an open mind.  So I talk to him as he were willing to listen, just for the sake of the other readers.

Edited November 4, 2015 by cdowis

[LeSellers]

Byron makes unwarranted assumptions about several things in this topic.

First, he apparently assumes that "Gospel" means only the four Gospels: Matthew through John. The context of the very passage he cites makes that assertion false. Paul is speaking of the Gospel he preached. Others have shown that the Gospels, as texts, had not all been written when he penned Galatians. Even had they, he did not preach the texts of the Gospels. This fact is attested by the rest of the first chapter and, indeed, the whole epistle.

Part of his argument is that the Greek word euangelikos means "good news" (in Old English, "gut speil", whence "gospel"). So? Rather than support it, this undermines his position, since "good news" is hardly limited to the first four books of the New Testament.

We can examine what Paul meant by "gospel" in 1 Cor 15. The first few verses define the Gospel: it is the good news that responds to Job's question in Job 14:14a: "If a man die, shall he live again?" and his assertion that, though worms destroy this body, yet in [his] flesh, shall he see God. (The passage is not clear. In some translations, it says the opposite: he will see God without his body. My Hebrew is not up to translating this, so we'll use scholars who have worked on it for centuries -- but this is where having a iving prophet is helpful.)

The answer to Job's query is "YES!!! And therein lies the nugget that helps us understand why Byron is wrong in his implications.

Second, he assumes that we know today what Paul taught the Galatians. In this, he is right, to a point, but only to that point. The particulars of his teaching in Galatia are shouded in silence, but we can deduce that, at least, he taught what he'd preached elsewhere.

Knowing what that was is critical to discussing his point in the first few verses of Galatians.

Third, he assumes that he was writing about us, but Paul was writing to and about the Galatian saints. This is not to say that we cannot apply it to others, but those "others" must be in the same condition the Galatians were in when Paul chastized them for their apostasy.

The Galatians, like many of the early converts to the Church were of two types: Jews who accepted Jesus of Nazareth as their Redeemer and God, and gentiles who had also accepted Christ. Both groups shared the world with the Romans and the Greeks. The Greek philosophers were wise in many things, but they were wrong to the extreme when they hypothesized that matter was evil, and that God, god, or gods must be immaterial while still existing, because He, it, or they were not evil or corruptable.

Thus, the apostates of the I & II repeatedly had to be reminded of the central fact of the Gospel: Jesus Christ rose from the dead with a resurrected body, and each of us will be similarly resurrected, as well. That is the good news.

In chapter 3, Paul calls his converts foolish. Why? Because they had rejected the true Gospel, the Gospel he had preached, and started following "another gospel: which is not another". Or, in other words, they had become apostates, preferring a false "gospel" to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

How shall we apply this scripture to our day? Who follows a false gospel, and who follows the true? Who accepts the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ? Who accepts the literal physical resurrection of all mankind, as Paul, as Peter, as Jesus Himself, taught? Who denies former, who the latter? Who denies both?

Answer this question, and we see to whom Paul was writing in our time.

I know that we Latter-day Saints accept the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. We know that He sits in yonder heaven in His physical, His resurrected body of flesh and bones. We know that one day, all, from Adam to the last babe to be born in the Millennium of our Lord's reign, will likewise be resurrected.

When accusing us of false doctrine, our critics must assure themselves that they are not the apostates. Lest their arguments turn again and rend them.

Lehi

Edited November 10, 2015 by LeSellers

[dberrie2001]

There is certainly a divide between LDS and historic Christian churches.

 

I have often wondered, when someone makes this statement--are they referring to the true Christianity of the Biblical NT--or the "christianity" the Reformation brought?

 

Chaplin--there is very little common ground between "faith alone" theology--and the Biblical NT.

 

The faith alone theology is "another gospel", when comparing it to the Biblical NT:

 

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)

²⁴ You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

What is found in the Bible--is also found in the LDS church, especially pertaining to core salvational doctrines.

[Guest]

Maybe PC needs a new profile pic. Might I suggest:

[prisonchaplain]

 

I have often wondered, when someone makes this statement--are they referring to the true Christianity of the Biblical NT--or the "christianity" the Reformation brought?

 

You've got to give me credit for distinguishing between your church and the historic churches.  There's precious little value in arguing who's got the NT Christianity, since we both know the answer to that question. 

 

Chaplin--there is very little common ground between "faith alone" theology--and the Biblical NT.

 

The faith alone theology is "another gospel", when comparing it to the Biblical NT:

 

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)

²⁴ You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

We are really discussing whether a Christian's good works (we both believe Christians should do them) are a product of salvation or a prerequisite to the highest heaven (call it the Celestial Kingdom, if you like).  The proof-texts we could both must really do not directly address that question.

 

What is found in the Bible--is also found in the LDS church, especially pertaining to core salvational doctrines.

 

There is much that your church teaches that is in the Bible.  However, the grand theology--even that found on the Plan of Salvation cards I've seen, rely on the modern revelations from your church.  Pre-mortal existence, the hope of salvation for those who died without conversion, etc. cannot be explained in any detail without reliance on those extra scriptures. 

[prisonchaplain]

Maybe PC needs a new profile pic. Might I suggest:

 

 

 

I wouldn't need a new profile picture if people would just learn to spell chaplain properly.  Hint:  Charlie never was one.  :-)

 

 

 

 

[dberrie2001]

You've got to give me credit for distinguishing between your church and the historic churches.  There's precious little value in arguing who's got the NT Christianity, since we both know the answer to that question.

 

We are really discussing whether a Christian's good works (we both believe Christians should do them) are a product of salvation or a prerequisite to the highest heaven (call it the Celestial Kingdom, if you like).  The proof-texts we could both must really do not directly address that question.

 

There is much that your church teaches that is in the Bible.  However, the grand theology--even that found on the Plan of Salvation cards I've seen, rely on the modern revelations from your church.  Pre-mortal existence, the hope of salvation for those who died without conversion, etc. cannot be explained in any detail without reliance on those extra scriptures. 

 

Yes--I have respect for your replies--they are very good and courteous.

 

I remain adamant about NT theology not agreeing with faith alone theology---running transverse to that theology, in obvious ways.

 

Again--what is found in the Biblical NT--is also found in the LDS church, concerning core salvational doctrines. That there are doctrines found in the LDS church which is not revealed in the Biblical NT, could be evidence of continuing revelation--which is a cornerstone of the Biblical text itself.

 

AS to whether the NT addresses the good works issue--I marvel that one does not consider the testimony of the Savior--who testifies all men will be judged according to their own works--after death--and that for life or damnation:

 

John 5:28-29---King James Version (KJV)

²⁸ Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

²⁹ And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

[prisonchaplain]

Okay...directly to the matter of faith and works.  What do we agree on?

 

1.  Grace.  I have yet to meet an LDS person here, or in real life, who says that good works, apart from Grace, garners the kind of salvation that would lead to the Celestial Kingdom.

 

2.  Good works.  That they must be evident in a believer's life.

 

3.  Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS).  I don't have to defend this view either--since I don't believe in it.

 

So, why do I support the idea of "faith alone?"  It means that I am converted by faith.  I cannot clean myself up, or perform sufficiently well, or deny myself sinful desires to a great enough degree, to impress the Savior.  Billy Graham got it right:  Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me . . .

 

Perhaps one of the strongest cases against a focus on works or performance is 1 Corinthians 13--the love chapter.  It details how a person can speak angelic tongues, prophecy, give all to the poor, and even die as a martyr.  However, without love (God-produced) all of that is nothing.

 

I will give you this.  If "faith alone" were taken literally--as in faith without works--then it is indeed dead.  However, only faith can lead to my conversion, so it can then be infused with God's love and power--and result in good and great works.

Edited November 19, 2015 by prisonchaplain