Responses to Biblical Arguments

[Guest MormonGator]

30 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html

I won't say Jeff Lindsay helped me join the church, but he didn't not help me. Big fan of his. 

[Steve Noel]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

@Steve Noel,

I believe @Vort may have been the only one so far to touch on the "protocol" for reading apologetic works.  I'll give you some of my general rules that I've found helpful.  Admittedly, as imperfect as I am, I don't always follow them myself.  But I try.

1. Don't compare our worst with your best.  Compare best with best and worst with worst.
2. Don't believe you know someone's faith better than they do themselves.  If you're talking to a person who obviously doesn't know their faith very well, go easy on them.  They exist in every faith.  Ask someone who knows.  And this group here is full of some good ones.  So, you're already off to a good start
3. Leave room for "holy envy".  This means that you can find something very good about their faith that doesn't exist in your own and admire it to the point that you're jealous that your own faith doesn't include it.  It doesn't mean you have to convert.  But if you can leave yourself open to that admiration of qualities in another religion, then it leaves room for loving more than condemning.
4. Recognize that everything you learn from another faith is based on the assumption of truth.  Flesh and blood does not reveal Eternal truths to us, but our Father which is in heaven.  All the logical arguments and earthly evidence in the world cannot build the foundation of our faith (whichever faith that may be).  The testimony comes from God.  Once we've received that foundational knowledge, then everything else in the faith can be studied in an entirely different light.

These are good guidelines. There are some good guidelines that Roger E. Olson shared in his book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. He says that we "should strictly avoid attributing beliefs to adherents of the other side that those adherents explicitly reject. This often happens because critics think they see where certain beliefs of the others must logically lead and then attribute the "good and necessary consequence" (as they see it) of a belief to the others even though the others deny it."  (Kindle Locations 2902-2904). He also advocates that we should go to the sources and not outsiders to get our information, since "self-description is always better than a description by an outsider" (Kindle location 2910).

[Steve Noel]

18 hours ago, Sadliers said:

This scripture sums it up:

"And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?"  (1 Nephi 15:8)

 

Scripture is not given for private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). If a good argument is what wins their mind then they are using their own interpretation. Who is wiser: them, a scholar, or God? God gave the scripture so why not ask Him what it means rather than someone else? Asking someone else then relying on their answer is a no-no:

 

"Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord." (Jeremiah 17:5)

 

Whatever someone says should only be received as merely an opinion and God should always have the final word.

I would like to get your thoughts on this situation. I think it highlights a concern I have with this approach. We had a guy in our church that would go from church to church because he was always trying to correct the beliefs of the church. He was basically a Calvinist. He was convinced that Jesus did not die for all mankind, but only for the elect. He would argue that human beings have nothing whatsoever to do with their salvation. God saves whomever he wishes to save and damns whomever he wishes to damn. Now whenever I would try to discuss a passage of Scripture with him he would not listen. He was not interested in understanding the text in context. In his mind he was right, because this was the interpretation he got from the Holy Ghost. So is he correct?

Edited April 5, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Sadliers]

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I would like to get your thoughts on this situation. I think it highlights a concern I have with this approach. We had a guy in our church that would go from church to church because he was always trying to correct the beliefs of the church. He was basically a Calvinist. He was convinced that Jesus did not die for all mankind, but only for the elect. He would argue that human beings have nothing whatsoever to do with their salvation. God saves whomever he wishes to save and damns whomever he wishes to damn. Now whenever I would try to discuss a passage of Scripture with him he would not listen. He was not interested in understanding the text in context. In his mind he was right, because this was the interpretation he got from the Holy Ghost. So is he correct?

No, he is not on many counts. One obvious one is that Jesus' death brought the resurrection and that became a gift for all mortals. 

The question could be turned back to him as: if God is all powerful then why did Jesus have to die at all? Why couldn't God just say "I see you're sorry and since I'm God that is good enough - come on in"? If the reply is "because someone had to pay the price" then point out that a just law requires that the violator be punished, not an innocent bystander. If I killed someone will our law, which is just, permit you to be punished for me? Of course not - a just law requires that I, the violator, be punished and nobody else. So if man, being imperfect, has just laws that require only the violator to be punished then how can a perfect God have an unjust law that permits an innocent bystander to be punished for sins he did not commit? Do we have a just or unjust God over us? From there it will be recognized that the given answer does not work in the face of justice yet God is a just God - so why did an Innocent have to die when we are the violators? If he can correctly answer that then the incorrectness of his claim will be realized  

He may believe it came from the Holy Ghost but the problem is that the Holy Ghost is consistent in what is revealed. One person will not receive one thing while another receives something different. And that's one of the reasons that a living prophet is necessary: so that as we are learning to recognize the Spirit from other sources we will have the words from the prophets to compare with what was received - if they don't match then we have the wrong source. The sources for revelation are God, ourselves, and Satan. 

Edited April 6, 2016 by Sadliers

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I would like to get your thoughts on this situation. I think it highlights a concern I have with this approach. We had a guy in our church that would go from church to church because he was always trying to correct the beliefs of the church. He was basically a Calvinist. He was convinced that Jesus did not die for all mankind, but only for the elect. He would argue that human beings have nothing whatsoever to do with their salvation. God saves whomever he wishes to save and damns whomever he wishes to damn. Now whenever I would try to discuss a passage of Scripture with him he would not listen. He was not interested in understanding the text in context. In his mind he was right, because this was the interpretation he got from the Holy Ghost. So is he correct?

Whether he is correct or not is for you to decide.  We can tell you what we believe is correct.  What's the difference between what we say and what he says to you?  The difference should be what your testimony of the Spirit tells you.

So, you might think... well, he says the Spirit tells him so and you say the Spirit tells you something else... whose Spirit is the right Spirit?

My tried and true answer to this having grown up a devout Catholic who is now an LDS convert is this:  Everything I gained a clear testimony from the Spirit as a Catholic did not become false when I became LDS.  Rather, the testimonies I gained as a Catholic got ADDED upon.  Were there things I believed as a Catholic that I don't believe anymore as an LDS?  Yes.  Lots of them.  These beliefs are my own logical extrapolation from things that I have gained a Spiritual witness of.

I'll give you a very simple example.  As a Catholic, I believed that the Catholic Church has Apostolic Authority handed down straight from Peter and passed through the generations all the way to the Catholic Bishops of today.  As an LDS, I don't believe that anymore.  I now believe that the Catholic Bishops did not receive Apostolic authority from the Apostles.  Rather, Joseph Smith Jr. received that Apostolic Authority from Peter in the 1830's and passed down through the generations all the way to Thomas Monson and the LDS Apostles.  So, how did this happen?  How did my Spiritual witness of the Catholic Church become wrong?  Well, it was simply that my Spiritual Witness is that God speaks through his Prophets and Apostles and that the Authority of the Rock of Peter is where the Church stands.  This, I received while I was learning about the Born Again Church.  My logical interpolation and an exercise of faith led me to believe that the authority of the Apostles was given to to the Bishops at the passing of the last Apostle.  Hence, the Bishop of Rome has the Apostolic Authority to lead the Church.  When I learned about the Great Apostasy and the Restoration of Apostolic Authority in the LDS Church, I had to take this back to God.  Logical interpolation and Biblical Arguments only go so far.  Eventually, I have to face the faith question of whether Linus, the Bishop of Rome, received Apostolic Authority from Peter.  This is not something I can argue around... this is a matter of Faith.  It took me 3 years before I finally received a spiritual witness that led me to baptism under the authority of the LDS Church.

Now, do I believe that my dear old mother who remains a devout Catholic who is praying for me to see the light and repent for my salvation is being led by the devil?  No, I don't.  I believe that Faith is an individual journey and that as long as one, like my mother, is sincerely and diligently seeking, praying, and humbling herself in the search for Truth that she and I, doing the same, will end up with Christ before the last day.  It might be that the Spirit is guiding her in her current path because it is, for her, where she is more likely to succeed in the path to Christ.  I don't know.  All I know that I don't believe that the Spirit that answers her prayers is not the same Spirit that answers mine.

So, my one and only answer to your question and my only advice - Logical interpolations, Biblical Arguments  and so on and so forth, although a good pursuit, only take you so far.  Diligently seeking, praying, and humbling one's self in supplication to the Holy Spirit in the search for Truth in the path to Christ is what is most important.  It is not for me to tell somebody that my Spirit is better than their Spirit.  Rather, it is for me to encourage them to seek the Kingdom honestly, diligently, and humbly through the Spirit and worship in the manner that the Spirit leads them even as it is different from what I believe.

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I would like to get your thoughts on this situation. I think it highlights a concern I have with this approach. We had a guy in our church that would go from church to church because he was always trying to correct the beliefs of the church. He was basically a Calvinist. He was convinced that Jesus did not die for all mankind, but only for the elect. He would argue that human beings have nothing whatsoever to do with their salvation. God saves whomever he wishes to save and damns whomever he wishes to damn. Now whenever I would try to discuss a passage of Scripture with him he would not listen. He was not interested in understanding the text in context. In his mind he was right, because this was the interpretation he got from the Holy Ghost. So is he correct?

Well, obviously so.  duhh.  Just ask him.  He'll tell you.

I often wonder what people think church is for if he goes there to correct their beliefs.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

On 4/5/2016 at 3:41 PM, Ironhold said:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html

Remember, he's "Dr. Dr. Dr. Jeff Lindsay" 

http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml  jump down to the bottom: "About the Author" -- Hilarious (thank you @Vort)

[bytebear]

On 4/5/2016 at 3:25 PM, Steve Noel said:

I would like to get your thoughts on this situation. I think it highlights a concern I have with this approach. We had a guy in our church that would go from church to church because he was always trying to correct the beliefs of the church. He was basically a Calvinist. He was convinced that Jesus did not die for all mankind, but only for the elect. He would argue that human beings have nothing whatsoever to do with their salvation. God saves whomever he wishes to save and damns whomever he wishes to damn. Now whenever I would try to discuss a passage of Scripture with him he would not listen. He was not interested in understanding the text in context. In his mind he was right, because this was the interpretation he got from the Holy Ghost. So is he correct?

I am going to take a different approach.  in the interpretation of "Scripture is not given for private interpretation" I don't think this means that you interpret based on the holy ghost (although you confirm truth).  I think this is discussing the hierarchy and order of the church.  The guy you describe may or may not be right, but that's not the issue.  The issue is that he doesn't have authority to make such claims.  The LDS Church is strictly hierarchical.  Only the prophet/president can speak for the whole church.  A bishop has stewardship of his congregation, but he cannot speak on issues regarding the practices of another ward.  And he cannot make claims on Biblical interpretation.  We have a living prophet who clarifies, and advises, but even still, he doesn't claim to have all knowledge (Article of Faith 9).   So, I look at it as Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."  So, for us who are not held responsible for truth, we can interpret, and pray and ponder on the revelations given in the Bible, as well as through prophets, and decide for ourselves what is truth.  But we cannot claim authority on our own interpretations.

Edited April 7, 2016 by bytebear

[Steve Noel]

6 hours ago, bytebear said:

I am going to take a different approach.  in the interpretation of "Scripture is not given for private interpretation" I don't think this means that you interpret based on the holy ghost (although you confirm truth).  I think this is discussing the hierarchy and order of the church.  The guy you describe may or may not be right, but that's not the issue.  The issue is that he doesn't have authority to make such claims.  The LDS Church is strictly hierarchical.  Only the prophet/president can speak for the whole church.  A bishop has stewardship of his congregation, but he cannot speak on issues regarding the practices of another ward.  And he cannot make claims on Biblical interpretation.  We have a living prophet who clarifies, and advises, but even still, he doesn't claim to have all knowledge (Article of Faith 9).   So, I look at it as Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."  So, for us who are not held responsible for truth, we can interpret, and pray and ponder on the revelations given in the Bible, as well as through prophets, and decide for ourselves what is truth.  But we cannot claim authority on our own interpretations.

Thank you for adding to the discussion. Many misunderstand what Peter meant when he mentioned "private interpretation" in 2 Peter 1:20. The misunderstanding results from taking the phrase "private interpretation" out of context. When we read this phrase in context we find that Peter was not speaking against personal interpretation of Scripture at all. Here is the text in context: 

Quote

 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 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

Take note of the linking word "For" at the beginning of v. 21. This tells us that what follows is a reason clause. A reason clause answers the question, "Why is this true?" Verse 21 tells us why verse 20 is true. Peter says that, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" because "prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: buy holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Notice that v. 21 is not about why individuals should not interpret Scripture. It is about how the prophecies in Scripture came about. This verse is about the source of the prophecies in Scripture. It has nothing to do with individuals seeking to interpret the Scriptures. This text was not intended to teach that we should get our interpretation via revelation as opposed to using reason. It also was not intended to teach that the authoritative interpretation of Scripture comes from chosen leaders and not individual believers.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Steve Noel

[LeSellers]

Here's a different understanding of a passage often used by anti-Mormons. Their argument is that Christ promised that His church would not fail, that is, would not fall into apostasy (flying in the face of dozens of prophecies to the contrary).

Some 25 years ago, I was reading Matthew, chapter 16, where the Apostle gave the account on the Mount of Transfiguration:

(AV)13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Greek (with word-for-word translation): 13. ᾿Ελθὼν δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὰ μέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου ἠρώτα τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγων· τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; (coming And Jesus into the parts of Caesarea of Philip he questioned the followers of him, saying, Whom me do say men to be, the Son of Man?) 14. οἱ δὲ εἶπον· οἱ μὲν ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ ᾿Ηλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ ᾿Ιερεμίαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν. (they And said, Some {say}, John the Immerser. others {say} And Elijah. others {say} And Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.) 15. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑμεῖς δὲ τίνα με λέγετε εἶναι; (He says to them, you But, whom me do you say to be?) 16. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπε· σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. (answering And Simon Peter said, You are the Christ, the Son of God the living!) 17. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἶμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέ σοι, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.(And answering Jesus said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah because flesh and blood not did reveal {this} to you, but the Father of me in the heavens.) 18. κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. (I also And to you say, - You are Peter, and upon this bedrock I will build of me the assembly and {the} gates of Hades not will be strong against her.) 19. καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. (I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth will be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on the earth will be, having been loosed in the heavens.)

We must look at who said what and why he said it. Peter responded to Christ’s question “Whom say ye (the apostles) that I am? After he finishes, Christ tells Peter, “blessed art thou”, not because of the words, but because of their source: “My Father which is in heaven”. In other words, Peter had just received a revelation. He then continues by telling Peter that He will build His church on “this rock”. Here some confusion enters in: The problem is that Christ had changed Simon’s name to “Cephas” (in Aramaic) which means “rock”. The Greek form of this word is “Petra” (πέτρα, which is a feminine noun). To make it masculine, the NT writers changed it to “Petros” (Πέτρος) which doesn’t really mean “rock”, but could be a diminutive, maybe “pebble” or “small stone”.

Christ could have meant that He was building His Church upon Peter, the mortal man, Simon, which is not particularly valuable to your point, since Peter was mortal and would not live more than another sixty years or so. But if not “Peter”, what? Knowing the rock upon which Christ was to found His church is critical to our understanding of the passage. So, let’s look into the verses here and see what they can tell us:

Check out the very verse we’re speaking of, v 18: There is not much wiggle room here, it has to be something closely connected with Peter and that revelation he’d just had. Could it be that the “rock” is the rock of revelation? What could be more stable, more long-lived? Paul tells us that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];” Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the church, and they receive revelation from God. Something to consider.

Now look at verse 19. “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...” Peter was the one Christ gave the keys of the kingdom unto. He didn’t give them to all of the Twelve, but to Peter alone (He said “thee” σοι, singular). So, Peter is the one in charge. (He later gave them to all the Apostles, but that’s a different part of the story. See Matt 18:18.)

“Cephas” (pronounced “Kayfas”, “Peter”, in Aramaic) still means “rock”, so what if Christ were saying that the “rock” He was going to build His church on was not “Peter”, the individual, but Peter receiving revelation because he’s the chief among the Apostles? In other words, “Peter” represented the leader of the Church, and any man who receives that calling, as long as he received revelation, would be the foundation of the church. This is, of course, in line with Ephesians 2:19~20: 19. “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”

This is purely Biblical. Don’t anyone come back and tell me that I used some “Mormon” scripture.

We still haven’t responded to the rest of the verse, though, so let’s get into that now.

That last phrase “... and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” is a really tricky one. There are three words we must define in order to understand it. The first is “Hell”. The word that whoever-translated-Matthew’s-work-into-Greek used was “hades” (ᾅδης). “Hades” is not the “hell” we usually think of when we hear the word. Hades is just a place where dead people go. If Christ had meant “hell”, Matthew’s translator would have written “gehenna” (γέεννα). So, the place Christ was speaking of is not the kingdom of Satan, but merely the tomb, the grave, i.e., death.

The 1897 Bible Dictionary gives us:

Hades – that which is out of sight, a Greek word used to denote the state or place of the dead. All the dead alike go into this place. To be buried, to go down to the grave, to descend into hades, are equivalent expressions. In the LXX, this word is the usual rendering of the Hebrew sheol*, the common receptacle of the departed (Gen. 42:38; Ps. 139:8; Hos. 13:14; Isa. 14:9). This term is of comparatively rare occurrence in the Greek New Testament. Our Lord speaks of Capernaum as being “brought down to hell” (hades), i.e., simply to the lowest debasement, (Matt. 11:23) In Acts 2:27-31 Peter quotes the LXX version of Ps. 16:8-11, plainly for the purpose of proving our Lord’s resurrection from the dead. David was left in the place of the dead, and his body saw corruption. Not so with Christ. According to ancient prophecy (Ps. 30:3) he was recalled to life.

* Sheol – (Heb., “the all-demanding world” = Gr. Hades, “the unknown region”), the invisible world of departed souls. [No indication of punishment]

The other two important words here are “gates” and “prevail” (in Greek κατισχύω “be strong against”). We really have to discuss them together because “prevail” can have so many meanings. The only one that interests us is the one that relates to “gates”.

I am a retired military officer, and I know something about the technologies of warfare. Anciently, cities (which were essentially synonymous with “kingdoms”) were surrounded by a wall for protection against marauding armies. Walls have a big disadvantage during peacetime, though: They’re designed to be impenetrable. When they discovered this, people invented the gate. It was a great answer because, when open, it allowed traffic into and out of the city. Closed, it disallowed that passage – that is if it “prevailed.”

Gates were an ancient “weapons system”, albeit a defensive one. Think about it. Have you ever seen or heard of “gates” attacking anything or anyone? Get out your copy of Beauty and the Beast. In the second to last scene, Gaston leads the villagers to the Beast’s castle, and they cut down a tree for use as a battering ram. This was a common example (although B&tB uses a crude one) of another ancient weapons system. These rams were used against gates and other doors. The Beast’s castle door did not “prevail” against the villagers’ battering ram, though. Because it did not prevail, the villagers got through.

So, Christ’s words: “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” tell us something very important. The church will be attacking death, and it will be the church that will prevail, not the “gates of hell”.

This raises two very important, even if obvious, questions: Why and how will the church of Jesus Christ attack the gates of death?

Peter himself answers the “how?”:

(AV) 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Read verse 19 again: “He [Christ] went [in His spirit] and preached to the [disobedient] spirits in prison.” But this was Christ, not the Church. If we follow our Master, and we do, it will be the righteous members of Christ’s church who will continue this work after they have died.

But why? If everyone who has died without accepting Christ will be condemned to eternal death, why should He have bothered (and why will we do the same as He did)?

Peter, the chief Apostle, again answers our query. Speaking of the wicked in the world:

(AV) 1 Peter 4:4 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with [them] to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of [you]: 5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Notice, it is not to condemn them, but so they could be judged and to let them “live according to God” that the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached unto them. If we go back to Peter’s earlier passage, it continues speaking of the Noachian flood that baptized the earth:

(AV) 1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

He says that it is baptism that saves us. He explains that baptism is more than just bathing (“putting away the filth of the flesh”) but it cleanses us so we can answer a good conscious toward God.

If these disobedient spirits are to live, they must also be baptized. But that seems to require the impossible. Are there baptismal fonts in heaven? No, or so Paul intimates when he refers to the way these people can be baptized:

(AV) 1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Now, if the Church of Jesus Christ will prevail against the gates of hell, and it does so by preaching to the spirits in the prison, and baptizes its own members on behalf of the dead, and if your church does not do these things, whose church is following the Apostolic counsel found in the Bible, and whose church is not following the words of Christ when He said, “... and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?

 

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by LeSellers

[bytebear]

3 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thank you for adding to the discussion. Many misunderstand what Peter meant when he mentioned "private interpretation" in 2 Peter 1:20. The misunderstanding results from taking the phrase "private interpretation" out of context. When we read this phrase in context we find that Peter was not speaking against personal interpretation of Scripture at all. Here is the text in context: 

Take note of the linking word "For" at the beginning of v. 21. This tells us that what follows is a reason clause. A reason clause answers the question, "Why is this true?" Verse 21 tells us why verse 20 is true. Peter says that, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" because "prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: buy holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Notice that v. 21 is not about why individuals should not interpret Scripture. It is about how the prophecies in Scripture came about. This verse is about the source of the prophecies in Scripture. It has nothing to do with individuals seeking to interpret the Scriptures. This text was not intended to teach that we should get our interpretation via revelation as opposed to using reason. It also was not intended to teach that the authoritative interpretation of Scripture comes from chosen leaders and not individual believers.

I think if you take it from the LDS perspective though, the interpretation changes.  Peter was the head of the church.  Jesus created a "First Presidency" on the mount of transfiguration, and as such, we see Peter having the same role as our current prophet and president.  As such, he was correcting misinterpretation, and trying to make people understand that the church is led by a hierarchy.  Peter himself was creating new scripture as he spoke, and his words were just as important as the prophecies of old, just as today, church prophets/presidents are for instruction and correction, and creation of continuing revelation and scripture.

[bytebear]

3 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thank you for adding to the discussion. Many misunderstand what Peter meant when he mentioned "private interpretation" in 2 Peter 1:20. The misunderstanding results from taking the phrase "private interpretation" out of context. When we read this phrase in context we find that Peter was not speaking against personal interpretation of Scripture at all. Here is the text in context: 

Take note of the linking word "For" at the beginning of v. 21. This tells us that what follows is a reason clause. A reason clause answers the question, "Why is this true?" Verse 21 tells us why verse 20 is true. Peter says that, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" because "prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: buy holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Notice that v. 21 is not about why individuals should not interpret Scripture. It is about how the prophecies in Scripture came about. This verse is about the source of the prophecies in Scripture. It has nothing to do with individuals seeking to interpret the Scriptures. This text was not intended to teach that we should get our interpretation via revelation as opposed to using reason. It also was not intended to teach that the authoritative interpretation of Scripture comes from chosen leaders and not individual believers.

I think if you take it from the LDS perspective though, the interpretation changes.  Peter was the head of the church.  Jesus created a "First Presidency" on the mount of transfiguration, and as such, we see Peter having the same role as our current prophet and president.  As such, he was correcting misinterpretation, and trying to make people understand that the church is led by a hierarchy.  Peter himself was creating new scripture as he spoke, and his words were just as important as the prophecies of old, just as today, church prophets/presidents are for instruction and correction, and creation of continuing revelation and scripture.

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thank you for adding to the discussion. Many misunderstand what Peter meant when he mentioned "private interpretation" in 2 Peter 1:20. The misunderstanding results from taking the phrase "private interpretation" out of context. When we read this phrase in context we find that Peter was not speaking against personal interpretation of Scripture at all. Here is the text in context: 

Take note of the linking word "For" at the beginning of v. 21. This tells us that what follows is a reason clause. A reason clause answers the question, "Why is this true?" Verse 21 tells us why verse 20 is true. Peter says that, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" because "prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: buy holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Notice that v. 21 is not about why individuals should not interpret Scripture. It is about how the prophecies in Scripture came about. This verse is about the source of the prophecies in Scripture. It has nothing to do with individuals seeking to interpret the Scriptures. This text was not intended to teach that we should get our interpretation via revelation as opposed to using reason. It also was not intended to teach that the authoritative interpretation of Scripture comes from chosen leaders and not individual believers.

As for me, this is why I previously mentioned, anyone can specify their correct interpretation of the Bible. On my mission I spoke with ministers from other faiths (Protestant faiths) that would disagree with what you say others are misunderstanding, and then I spoke with other who would interpret the verse as you have. Thus, which interpretation should I accept? What authority does the one interpreting have before God that he should be correct, and the other incorrect when both are relying on their own wits and intellect to interpret scripture?

Reminds me again of my mission companion, "The two prophets will breath fire from their mouths -- literally from their mouths." The scriptures are not for personal interpretation, and the result of personal interpretation is the reason why so many different faiths exists -- including non-Christian faiths -- all interpreting at some point "truth" incorrectly (through reason alone) and creating a religious hobby off one doctrine thus creating a new faith.

In reference, I would say, thank you for your thoughts and personal interpretation regarding these verses. I would respectfully disagree and verify that it is indeed both: 1) How the Scriptures came about 2) That as God is the one delivering his word, by the Holy Ghost through his servants, then those words can only be correctly understood by the Holy Ghost -- revelation -- and through the avenue of chosen leaders, confirming (Amos 3:7), as one of the roles of a chosen leader is to break down false teachings as we see so often in the New Testament. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Anddenex
agree to disagree second sentence

[Steve Noel]

12 hours ago, bytebear said:

I think if you take it from the LDS perspective though, the interpretation changes.  Peter was the head of the church.  Jesus created a "First Presidency" on the mount of transfiguration, and as such, we see Peter having the same role as our current prophet and president.  As such, he was correcting misinterpretation, and trying to make people understand that the church is led by a hierarchy.  Peter himself was creating new scripture as he spoke, and his words were just as important as the prophecies of old, just as today, church prophets/presidents are for instruction and correction, and creation of continuing revelation and scripture.

If you don't mind I would like to challenge you a bit on this. In my post I sought to demonstrate from the text of 2 Peter 1 why the interpretation I offered is correct. Can you demonstrate from the text why my interpretation is incorrect? I am interested to see from this text how you come to your conclusions. Can you demonstrate from 2 Peter 1 that his intention in vv. 19-21 is to correct misinterpretation and teach that the church is lead by a hierarchy?  

[Steve Noel]

I just looked this passage up in a commentary by Michael Green. After going through the text carefully he concludes:

Quote

"Peter, then, is talking about the divine origin of Scripture, not about its proper interpretation. If interpretation were his subject in this verse, then verse 21 would be utterly irrelevant to his argument" (102).

This is the same thing I am saying. Verse 21 tells us what Peter meant by "private interpretation" in verse 20. Verse 21 is about the origin of the prophecies in Scripture.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I just looked this passage up in a commentary by Michael Green. After going through the text carefully he concludes:

This is the same thing I am saying. Verse 21 tells us what Peter meant by "private interpretation" in verse 20. Verse 21 is about the origin of the prophecies in Scripture.

LDS thinking is that the origin is prophets. God reveals his words through prophets. Therefore "private" interpretation isn't His (the Lord's) means of revealing new scriptural understandings of truths, but rather He gives us truths through the prophets and then confirms those words of theirs are true. If we come up with a conclusion and interpretation that differs from His authorized servants the prophets, then we can use that as a measurement for the legitimacy of the revelation we've received.

In that regard, certainly we can privately interpret scriptures, but we must balance the interpretations we have against the teachings of the prophets and apostles. Latter-day Saints, as you likely know, believe in living modern prophets and apostles who are authorized to lead His gospel on the earth. This is important because without them we are left to flounder to nothing but private interpretation, which leads to...as was seen after the time of Christ when the apostles were killed...a gazillion private interpretations, debates, etc., that lead to a myriad of different religions all based on the private interpretations of man.

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

LDS thinking is that the origin is prophets. God reveals his words through prophets. Therefore "private" interpretation isn't His (the Lord's) means of revealing new scriptural understandings of truths, but rather He gives us truths through the prophets and then confirms those words of theirs are true. If we come up with a conclusion and interpretation that differs from His authorized servants the prophets, then we can use that as a measurement for the legitimacy of the revelation we've received.

In that regard, certainly we can privately interpret scriptures, but we must balance the interpretations we have against the teachings of the prophets and apostles. Latter-day Saints, as you likely know, believe in living modern prophets and apostles who are authorized to lead His gospel on the earth. This is important because without them we are left to flounder to nothing but private interpretation, which leads to...as was seen after the time of Christ when the apostles were killed...a gazillion private interpretations, debates, etc., that lead to a myriad of different religions all based on the private interpretations of man.

Just a slight correction - might be relevant but might also be moot...  On the bolded part... the origin is God.  And then the 2nd sentence falls right into its place... God reveals His words through prophets.

Carry on...

[anatess2]

duplicate

Edited April 8, 2016 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Just a slight correction - might be relevant but might also be moot...  On the bolded part... the origin is God.  And then the 2nd sentence falls right into its place... God reveals His words through prophets.

Carry on...

Correction accepted...unless I were to point out that I meant the mortal origin...but...from God, yes.

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Correction accepted...unless I were to point out that I meant the mortal origin...but...from God, yes.

Right.

 

So Steve:

The full import of verses 20-21 is as follows:

(Did you say you prefer the NIV?  I can't remember... let's just use that here)

²⁰ Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. ²¹ For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Verse 20 states that when prophets prophesy (assumed to hold the proper authority, otherwise they won't be called prophets in Scripture), it is not their own interpretation of the word of God.  Rather it is THE Word of God.  Verse 21 states that even though they are human with human will and, as such, are also working out their own salvation, when they speak with the power of the Holy Spirit, they speak for God.

Neither verse applies to anybody who does not have the prophetic authority to speak for God.

In the LDS Church, we hold faith that the 15 people in the First Presidency and Quroum of 12 Apostles have this prophetic authority to speak for God.  Therefore, anybody studying scripture with their own personal revelation of the Holy Spirit or biblical arguments or logical reasoning will always receive revelation that is not contrary to the words of the prophets.  If it is contrary, then we need to study it more and see how that is - it could possibly be that one's understanding of scripture is flawed or it could be that one's understanding of the words of the modern prophets is flawed... or both.  So we get to study it some more.

Therefore, what you need to do is figure out for yourself if the 15 people in the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of Apostles ARE TRUE PROPHETS.   That's for you to take to the Lord and the revelation of the Holy Spirit.  It's not something you can rely on Biblical Arguments or reason.  It is simply a matter of Faith.   Then Verse 20-21 gets to hold a different meaning.

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by anatess2

[bytebear]

What I find most fascinating about the words of Peter is that he not only is telling people how to interpret the words of past prophets, but also how to interpret his own words, which at the time were not yet known to end up being scripture.  He was creating scripture as he spoke about how to interpret scripture.  That's just mind blowing.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

If you don't mind I would like to challenge you a bit on this. In my post I sought to demonstrate from the text of 2 Peter 1 why the interpretation I offered is correct. Can you demonstrate from the text why my interpretation is incorrect? I am interested to see from this text how you come to your conclusions. Can you demonstrate from 2 Peter 1 that his intention in vv. 19-21 is to correct misinterpretation and teach that the church is lead by a hierarchy?  

I don't know that you can from chapter 1 alone; but when you go on and read into chapter 2 where Peter condemns all kinds of false teachers (after having built up his own and his fellow apostles' credibility in chapter 1), I think vv 19-21 is Peter saying "look, there's a right, and there's a wrong, and some of these clowns are just plain wrong". 

That doesn't mean we can't use a variety of textual or academic or logical approaches in interpreting scripture.  It doesn't mean that a particular scripture might have multiple layers of meaning.  It just reminds us that at some point, it is possible for "they that are unlearned and unstable [to] wrest . . . the . . .  scriptures, unto their own destruction " (2 Peter 3:16).  The rules of scriptural interpretation are very broad--but there are rules, and the consequences for violating them can be dire.  That, I think, is the point Peter was trying to make.

Incidentally, Peter's talking about a "more sure word of prophecy" is going to have resonance for Mormons, because there is a (relatively obscure) LDS teaching about receiving the "more sure word of prophecy"; the gist of which is that a Church member might hypothetically receive a visit from Jesus Christ Himself.  That kind of feeds back into the other discussion you initiated about why the LDS Church is so loath to abandon the KJV--"Prophetic message as something completely reliable" (per the NIV's wording) just doesn't carry the same cachet. 

[Steve Noel]

On 4/8/2016 at 1:03 PM, anatess2 said:

(Did you say you prefer the NIV?  I can't remember... let's just use that here)

I think the NIV is pretty good. I usually read the ESV or NASB.

Quote

²⁰ Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. ²¹ For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Verse 20 states that when prophets prophesy (assumed to hold the proper authority, otherwise they won't be called prophets in Scripture), it is not their own interpretation of the word of God.  Rather it is THE Word of God

Thanks for taking up my challenge. The first step of interpretation is to understand what the text meant when it was written. In verse 20 Peter tells us that he is talking about "prophecy in Scripture" that was produced by the "prophets." Thus, it is clear that this is a reference to the prophets whose prophecies are recorded in the Old Testament. That is the only "Scripture" Peter possessed. Peter tells us that these biblical prophecies were not produced (NIV "came about") by the "prophet's own interpretation of things" (KJV "private interpretation"). What does "private interpretation" mean in this context? The context is about how the prophecies of the Scriptures (Old Testament) "came about." Therefore, "private interpretation" here means something like "reasoned opinion." The prophecies of the Old Testament prophets were not the result of the prophets reasoned opinion, or, as in the NIV, "by the prophet's own interpretation of things."

Quote

Verse 21 states that even though they are human with human will and, as such, are also working out their own salvation, when they speak with the power of the Holy Spirit, they speak for God.

To go back to my original point on this text, take note of the linking word "For" which begins verse 21. This word tells us that what follows is an explanation of why what was just said is true. The reason that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets reasoned opinion ("private interpretation" or "own interpretation of things") is because "prophecy never had its origin in the human will." Here "the human will" is parallel to "the prophet's own interpretation of things" in the previous verse. They are saying the same thing in different language. Both texts are talking about the "origin" of the prophecies recorded for us in the Old Testament Scriptures. They did not come from the prophet's own interpretation of things / private interpretaton / human will, rather, the source of the prophecies was the Holy Spirit. The prophets whose prophecies were recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures were mouthpieces for the Holy Spirit. They did not tell us their reasoned opinion / private interpretaton / own interpretation of things.

When this text is understood in context it becomes clear that Peter was not writing about interpreting what we read in the Bible. The subject of these verses is not the reader of Scripture, but rather the origin of the prophecies in Scripture.The phrase "private interpretation" is what throws people off. We must not pull a phrase out of context and then use it in a way that the author never intended.

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I think the NIV is pretty good. I usually read the ESV or NASB.

Thanks for taking up my challenge. The first step of interpretation is to understand what the text meant when it was written. In verse 20 Peter tells us that he is talking about "prophecy in Scripture" that was produced by the "prophets." Thus, it is clear that this is a reference to the prophets whose prophecies are recorded in the Old Testament. That is the only "Scripture" Peter possessed. Peter tells us that these biblical prophecies were not produced (NIV "came about") by the "prophet's own interpretation of things" (KJV "private interpretation"). What does "private interpretation" mean in this context? The context is about how the prophecies of the Scriptures (Old Testament) "came about." Therefore, "private interpretation" here means something like "reasoned opinion." The prophecies of the Old Testament prophets were not the result of the prophets reasoned opinion, or, as in the NIV, "by the prophet's own interpretation of things."

To go back to my original point on this text, take note of the linking word "For" which begins verse 21. This word tells us that what follows is an explanation of why what was just said is true. The reason that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets reasoned opinion ("private interpretation" or "own interpretation of things") is because "prophecy never had its origin in the human will." Here "the human will" is parallel to "the prophet's own interpretation of things" in the previous verse. They are saying the same thing in different language. Both texts are talking about the "origin" of the prophecies recorded for us in the Old Testament Scriptures. They did not come from the prophet's own interpretation of things / private interpretaton / human will, rather, the source of the prophecies was the Holy Spirit. The prophets whose prophecies were recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures were mouthpieces for the Holy Spirit. They did not tell us their reasoned opinion / private interpretaton / own interpretation of things.

When this text is understood in context it becomes clear that Peter was not writing about interpreting what we read in the Bible. The subject of these verses is not the reader of Scripture, but rather the origin of the prophecies in Scripture.The phrase "private interpretation" is what throws people off. We must not pull a phrase out of context and then use it in a way that the author never intended.

How do you know that is not what Peter intended?

[Steve Noel]

8 hours ago, Anddenex said:

How do you know that is not what Peter intended?

We discover the intention of the author from the historical-grammatical context. Take a few minutes to read this blog post. It expresses the approach to Scripture that I have tried to demonstrate here.