 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
Ozzykp:
Guilty as charged of Baptist influences. 
quote:
Immersion is regarded as the only legitimate, biblical baptism;
|
Only legitimate? I guess that's why I'm not a Baptist. I believe that the mode of baptism does not matter in terms of the validity of baptism. However, I will agree that I think immersion is a more biblical form of baptism.
quote:
They typically teach that baptism does not accomplish anything, but is an outward sign or testimony,
|
If by the term 'anything' they mean that baptism confers salvation, this is correct. Baptists do not believe that baptism saves a person.
All the rest seems right.
Edit:
It appears I am wrong! 
"Baptism by immersion is not unique to Southern Baptists, but it is certainly one defining distinctive. Baptists consider Christian baptism to be an ordinance for believers only, properly administered by immersion only, and as a symbolic act, not having any power in itself. The act of baptism pictures what Christ has done for us in His death, burial, and resurrection. It pictures what Christ has done in us through the new birth, enabling our death to the old life and resurrecting us to walk in newness of life. Baptism gives testimony to a salvation already received; it is not a requisite for salvation. It is an act of obedience to Jesus Christ."
As for the holy spirit:
"Baptists confess, along with many others, that one becomes a Christian through the new birth. When one receives Jesus Christ as Lord, the Holy Spirit does an internal work within the person to redirect his life, making him to be born again - or to use another biblical term, "regeneration." This is not merely choosing to "turn over a new leaf," but is a matter of God beginning a life-long process of changing our desires and affections. "
So profession of faith, not baptism provides the holy spirit to work on your life.
http://www.baptiststart.com/baptist_distinctives.htm
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 17-04-2004 at 03:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
If part of the doctrine is wrong, then the entire thing is wrong. Individual parts may be correct, but as a whole it is false.
|
Skywalker:
For the doctrine in the whole to be true, you are correct.
However, just because one part is false, does not mean that the whole doctrine is false. What is true exists apart from what is false, and the real question that must be asked, if parts are true and parts are false, where do they go off on the wrong path?
For most religions, their doctrinal components connect with each other, so to really answer this question, you have to understand how each part fits in the whole.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
This is BS. So were those who claimed to be Christian before these ecumenical councils not really Christians?
|
No. Those who come after the ecumenical councils agree upon these points defining the nature of Christ. Go ahead and look at all the denominations, whether they be Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic.
Again, if we were to take your position literally, that the ecumenical councils have no connection to the gospel accounts, then one would have to say that the original Christians did not believe in the Trinity. As the ecumenical councils derive their authority from the primitive church, you assert divisions where none exist.
quote:
Seriously, though--Mormons believe the true Christian church died out in the 2nd century CE, and they are the inheritors of its legacy.
|
People make claims without validity all the time.
It is in contrast to this claim, the claim of the Protestants, particularly Martin Luther that they did not start up a new church, because it made no sense. Rather they sought to renew the church, to restore the principles of the primitive church believed to be lost.
quote:
You're again asserting that if it isn't your brand of Christianity,
|
Which brand is my Christianity? Catholicism? Protestantism? Mennonite? Baptist? On this particular issue of the authority of the ecumenical councils, all of these different groups agree.
quote:
But this is not the case, as Mormon's believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God. How could they not be Christians, then?
|
Verto has not answered my second question, as to whether or not they believe Christ to have always been, and shall always be eternally the Son of God.
The reason for this is that they believe that Adam is now God, and to assert that Christ is eternally the Son of God, does not work with eternal progression.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Maybe I just have higher expectations than Christians have when it comes to tolerating variations on Christian faith?
|
Some things have to be non-negotiable, in order for the concept of a Christian faith to have any meaning.
Check with me on worship styles, modes of baptisms. There are substantial difference across churches, yet each should be allowed their freedom.
quote:
since it might influence others to see baptism in a different manner than what you believe is its true purpose. My response is that traditional baptism isn't in any danger from Mormonism, as it remains an isolated minority.
|
At the time of the reformers, they were just an isolated minority, so my point still holds. If a group calls themselves Christian, and has confusion over baptism, then this is going to have problems for those who are Christians to explain the differences.
quote:
No, you're not involved, as has been explained by the others. They aren't baptising you,
|
Yes they are! They are baptising me! That is the whole point, to involve me in the process of baptism. I am involved, as soon as the Mormons decide to baptise me.
quote:
Vicarious baptism isn't infringing on your ability to practice your beliefs whatsoever, no matter what kind of ludicrous logical stretch you're trying to make.
|
Again, even so-called 'vicarious' baptism is done for the purposes of involving me. I do not have a choice to say no to the Mormons, that I do not want to participate in vicarious baptism, even if you want me to.
This is the violation of religious freedom, that I don't get a chance to say no.
Now, let's suppose the Mormons asked people if they wanted to be baptised? I'd bet they'd get better responses. The reason they do not is that they don't want to ask people.
quote:
Their practice in no way effects you, as you've acknowledged, since you don't belief the vicarious baptism works.
|
It still requires my participation, to which I decline. Would it be right for me to force you to attend my church, even if you believe that it will have no effect on you? No. The same is with this case of baptising the dead. I do not get an option to refuse my participation.
quote:
They aren't doing that. You would be dead!
|
So when I die I stop practicing my religion? That again assumes that one does not have an immortal soul, that one cannot be resurrected from the dead, something that the Mormons do believe, and is a reason why they baptise the dead.
quote:
Except that you're completely unwilling to see their point on the matter, which is that they are commanded to do this as a moral perogative.
|
I'm commanded to spread the truth about my religion, but that does not mean that I have to force people into my church to do so.
It doesn't even mean that I have to start threads promoting my religion.
quote:
Saying they should stop is no different from someone making you stop attempting to save people's souls by convinvcing them to become Christian.
|
Then there is a problem with their religion, if they have to force others to participate. Why can't they just ask people if they want to participate after the resurrection, and leave it at that?
quote:
If the Mormons' view is right, then the dead souls can opt to accept the baptism or decline it.
|
They should ask first, after the resurrection, if these people want to be baptised, then they are given the option to repent of their sins.
quote:
there's no freedom of religion after death, now is there? Hindus, Muslims and Jews aren't being welcomed into heaven and their own beliefs tolerated, are they?
|
No, there isn't although unbelievers are banished, they will not be destroyed. They will suffer for their decisions made here on Earth, which is why we have to be as up front as we can with those who do not believe while they are still alive.
They will not get a second chance when they die, and there are several reasons for this.
Would you really believe someone who only repents after God returns, and demonstrates his power and authority to everyone? No. They are only doing so because now they have finally been shown the truth in such a way, as the truth cannot be rejected.
quote:
My reporting Mormon beliefs as I understand them is not a claim to authority on them. Under this silly premise, anyone who argued about something would be making an appeal to authority! That's not the definition of the fallacy.
|
But you did not start with AFAIK.
quote:
Except that I responded to your responses, I didn't "draw fire away" from them (interesting metaphore usage...).
|
Your complaint that I am not addressing your arguments has as much validity as this complaint.
quote:
All well and good, but it's STILL doesn't contradict the Mormon notion that the Book of Mormon is, to them, scripture.
|
I can't contradict that they consider the Book of Mormon scripture, since that is a fact.
But the questions still remain, none of which has been addressed in the thread, of how the Mormons reconcile contradictions between the Book of Mormon, and the New Testament, in particular, the one already featured in the thread of Romans 4.
So far, it seems, that the only reconciliation made is that if there is a contradiction, the Book of Mormon takes priority.
quote:
Reconciling apparent contradictions isn't of interest to me nor of particular relevance to my argument. Religions are allowed to have contradictory beliefs and practices--they all do.
|
Perhaps you should ask the actual believers to testify whether they believe their religion has contradictory practices. Just because you believe that they ALL have contradictions does not mean that they do, any more than the testimony of the believers means that there exist no contradictions.
Rather than being irrelevant to your assertions that all holy books are equal, this presupposition of contradictions is one of your fundamental assumptions. And the only way to examine this assumption is to go over these perceived contradictions.
If you say that you are not interested, then what you are really saying is that you are not interested in evidence that may show your position to be true or false.
In short you have greater faith that they are all contradictory than even the believers!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
If those people were indeed LDS, then they were mistaken in saying the LDS church does not consider itself Christian.
What were you in Nauvoo for? Were you there after the Nauvoo Temple was rebuilt, or just looking through the historic sites? |
I went on a 9,000 mile road trip in the summer of 2000. I stopped in to visit a friend in Keokuk, IA. I asked if there was anything interesting around, and they said Nauvoo, so we went and checked it out. The Temple was in the process of being rebuilt. We saw some video on the history of LDS (or maybe it was trying to convert us) and toured some old(or rebuilt) LDS houses. We learned how early members of the church lived their lives in the ancient days of the 1840s (or something).
Then I think my friend, who I picked up in Salt Lake City, and who was raised Mormon (who has since converted to non-demonitational general Christian), got into an argument with some museum curator about the post-humous baptism thing.
And we've come full circle.
Actually there was a lot of LDS stuff on my trip. I criss crossed all the Illinois area where y'all started out. I think I saw, or passed by, the spot where Joseph Smith was jailed, or killed, or something. Plus on the way back I had my ex-Mormon guide. I saw all the stuff in Salt Lake, went in the Tabernacle, drove around the Temple, talked to folks. It was interesting.
Not that I'm gonna convert or anything. But I've got a copy of the Book of Mormon (next to my Bible and Koran), and I don't slam the door on Mormons who come to my door. Oh, and I explain to my friends that the huge church off the Beltway in DC is not Cinderella's castle from Disney World.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Some things have to be non-negotiable, in order for the concept of a Christian faith to have any meaning. |
It seems your standard here, however, is remarkably narrow. To say the Mormon's are in violation of Christian ethos because they don't accept the ecumenical councils is a stretch, since, as I pointed out, Christians existed long before such councils were held. If those people were Christians, then the Mormons can be as well.
quote:
At the time of the reformers, they were just an isolated minority, so my point still holds. If a group calls themselves Christian, and has confusion over baptism, then this is going to have problems for those who are Christians to explain the differences. |
Again, the historical analogy is extremely poor. Mormonism is in no such shape to conquer the Western world as Protestantism was. You'll note that Mormonism hasn't exactly spread very much since its beginnings.
quote:
Yes they are! They are baptising me! That is the whole point, to involve me in the process of baptism. I am involved, as soon as the Mormons decide to baptise me. |
 Now you're just being ridiculous. One last time, because this is getting old: They are NOT baptising you. You accept the notion that vicarious baptisms don't work--they carry no authority or spiritual power or weight, right? Then there's no way you can claim they are baptising YOU, since YOU would be DEAD. They don't have your bones, your belongings, or anything else. They just read your name. This would be no different from me taking your name after you've died and adding it to a list of Muslim believers. Is it not what you believe? Yes. Is it a violation of your religious freedom? Categorically no, since it in no way inhibited your ability to practice your faith within legal confines. There is positively NO case for a violation of religious freedoms here, as tortuous a case as you want to make.
quote:
Again, even so-called 'vicarious' baptism is done for the purposes of involving me. I do not have a choice to say no to the Mormons, that I do not want to participate in vicarious baptism, even if you want me to. |
It doesn't involve you! You would be DEAD! Gone! Poof! Whatever was going on with your soul on the other side, if there was one, would be totally unaffected by this, unless the Mormons were right, which would make it good for you. But that's not the point--the point is that religious freedom doesn't apply to the dead. The Constitution doesn't make any mention of rights for corpses.
quote:
This is the violation of religious freedom, that I don't get a chance to say no. |
It's irrelevant, since you're not really involved! 
quote:
Now, let's suppose the Mormons asked people if they wanted to be baptised? I'd bet they'd get better responses. The reason they do not is that they don't want to ask people. |
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. You can't really ask the dead, can you? They're not vicariously baptising the living, only the dead.
And again, since we both acknowledge that vicarious baptism doesn't work, they're not doing ANYTHING to the dead.
quote:
It still requires my participation, to which I decline. Would it be right for me to force you to attend my church, even if you believe that it will have no effect on you? No. The same is with this case of baptising the dead. I do not get an option to refuse my participation. |
You would not be participating! You'd be dead! How is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Regardless, the analogy is wrong, because it wouldn't be akin to them forcing me to go to church, it would be akin to them asking me whether or not I wanted one last shot to go to church before the doors closed, according to their beliefs. Now, if those beliefs are wrong (as you and I both accept), then it's akin to nothing. It's akin to them asking someone else standing in for me if I wanted to go to church or not after I'm dead and gone and not a factor in it!
quote:
So when I die I stop practicing my religion? That again assumes that one does not have an immortal soul, that one cannot be resurrected from the dead, something that the Mormons do believe, and is a reason why they baptise the dead. |
No, BK, you're utterly missing the point. This exasperating now. If your religion is correct, then it is the one true way and all others are wrong. So when it comes to religious freedom, there is none in the afterlife, as alternative religious beliefs won't be tolerated, will they? So with this in mind, it doesn't matter WHAT the Mormons do vicariously after you're dead, because you'd be enjoying the fruits of heaven, yada yada yada and it wouldn't have any effect on you whatsoever.
In a broader sense, however, the point was that religious freedom doesn't exist in the afterlife under this model because there's no longer any reason to debate--the certain truth will be known by everyone, so freedom of religion will be an utterly moot point. Religious freedom is a human concept and doctrine, not a religious one (except maybe for universalists). Christians, Jews, Mulsims, Hindus, etc. all believe their way is the only real one and when they get to the beyond, that one truth will be all that is known for everyone. See now how religious freedom then doesn't apply to the dead?
quote:
I'm commanded to spread the truth about my religion, but that does not mean that I have to force people into my church to do so. |
Good to know, but the Mormons aren't doing this, either, since the people in question are dead and gone and their status vis-a-vis any earthly church is irrelevant. Again, this would be akin to my just putting your name on a list of Muslims after you've died. Is it factually correct? No. Does it violate your religious freedoms? No, because you're dead, and either you're obliterated or you're experiencing the aforementioned distinct lack of religious freedom in the afterlife.
quote:
No, there isn't although unbelievers are banished, they will not be destroyed. They will suffer for their decisions made here on Earth, which is why we have to be as up front as we can with those who do not believe while they are still alive. |
According to your beliefs, but the Mormons believe that the dead can be saved still. So what they are doing, in their minds, is a great, compassionate good that will save everyone, eventually. You disagree? Fine. But don't try to say they're violating anybody else's religious freedom by doing so. Under this logic, I could say the same for your belief that only your religion is correct and all unbelievers will go to hell. You're violating my religious freedom by believing I'm wrong! Waaaah!
quote:
Would you really believe someone who only repents after God returns, and demonstrates his power and authority to everyone? No. They are only doing so because now they have finally been shown the truth in such a way, as the truth cannot be rejected. |
Irrelevant. Whether or not YOU don't believe it, the Mormons do, and they're religion specifically calls upon them to offer salvation vicariously to the dead. You're not obliged to agree with it, but you're going to have to live with the fact that they do so, since it's not illegal to offer dead people salvation.
quote:
But you did not start with AFAIK. |
Please. So from now on, on any subject matter, I will expect you to begin with "AFAIK" before you state something, since I'll have become too dense to realize that you're speaking from what you know and instead assume you must claiming to be an unassailable expert in the field.
How do you discuss anything with anyone? It must be an interesting exercise in which you tell them that unless they're a recognized expert, anything they say can't be believed. Do people not like to talk to you much?
quote:
So far, it seems, that the only reconciliation made is that if there is a contradiction, the Book of Mormon takes priority. |
Which, as far as the right for the Mormons to practice their beliefs is concerned, is all that is needed. There's nothing about the right to practice one's religion freely that entails doctrinal consistancy. Thankfully.
quote:
Perhaps you should ask the actual believers to testify whether they believe their religion has contradictory practices. Just because you believe that they ALL have contradictions does not mean that they do, any more than the testimony of the believers means that there exist no contradictions. |
So, I'm not allowed to say another religion has contradictions, but you are? Oh thank you, Grand Arbiter of All Things Religious.
If you don't like people talking about their being contradictions in your religious dogma, then don't talk about other religions that way. I'm sure the Mormons have just as vociferous apologists as you are for your beliefs that will use the best possible explanation, no matter how tortuous and unlikely, to reconcile any inconsistencies.
quote:
Rather than being irrelevant to your assertions that all holy books are equal, this presupposition of contradictions is one of your fundamental assumptions. And the only way to examine this assumption is to go over these perceived contradictions. |
Not at all, since a religion can be completely internally consistent and it would still be on the same footing. Internal consistency does not equate to something being fact. There have been plenty of philosophical doctrines that were internally consistent but ended up having little or no bearing on reality.
quote:
If you say that you are not interested, then what you are really saying is that you are not interested in evidence that may show your position to be true or false. |
My position?  My position isn't based on the doctrines of Mormonism being true or false. I would think that would be obvious, considering I'm an atheist. I think the Mormons are wrong, just as you are. That's a moot point, because what matters is the Mormons have a right to act as if they are right, just as you do, so long as they're practices don't interfere with the rights of others to practice their beliefs. Since, as expressed above, vicarious baptism doesn't in any way violate religious freedom, it is well within their rights, just as it would be mine to posthumously claim you were a Muslim, whether it were true or not.
quote:
In short you have greater faith that they are all contradictory than even the believers! |
Perhaps, but so what? Believers aren't exactly the most unbiased sources for examining religious contradictions, now are they?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
Verto has not answered my second question, as to whether or not they believe Christ to have always been, and shall always be eternally the Son of God.
The reason for this is that they believe that Adam is now God, and to assert that Christ is eternally the Son of God, does not work with eternal progression. |
We do not believe that Adam is now God.
Last edited by Verto on 19-04-2004 at 01:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
Are you aware that even the Catholics say that anyone can perform a valid baptism, so long as the baptism is done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? |
I was aware that the Catholic church accepts the baptisms performed by other churches, yes.
--
quote:
This position comes from Augustine who had a long discussion over the topic of the validity of baptisms performed by schismatic groups. Augustine said that these people should not be baptised again, to be admitted into the church, while Cyprian argued the opposite, that to be restored into the church, required them to be baptised by priests with proper authority.
Augustine's position came from the important idea that baptism provides an indelible mark, that it cannot be removed or undone, even by the later actions of the people. |
We receive revelation and clarification from God, through living prophets and apostles. This takes precedence over someone's opinion. Through revelation we have been taught that we must be baptized, by immersion, by one holding the proper Priesthood.
quote:
It is in contrast to this claim, the claim of the Protestants, particularly Martin Luther that they did not start up a new church, because it made no sense. Rather they sought to renew the church, to restore the principles of the primitive church believed to be lost. |
It would not make sense to Luther, since he believed the Catholic Church WAS the true Church of Christ, albeit filled with corruption. We believe that, following the deaths of the apostles, members began slowly changing doctrines of Christ's church, leading to an Apostasy. While many truths remained, a complete restoration was needed - as Peter prophesied, a 'restitution of all things'.
Now, please point out the contradiction you see between the doctrine and principles of the LDS church and the Book of Mormon, and the content of Romans 4. You have said our baptisms show a lack of trust in God's power to save, but I don't see it as that. I see the baptisms as helping to fulfill the promise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chaunk
|
 |
CEO of Morgan Industries, ACDG3
Apr 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
I take issue with the mormons on some issues, notably the book of Mormon and current apostles & prophets, because of Hebrews 1:1-4.
quote:
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
ESV translation |
The bolding is mine, on the basis that Jesus Christ was the final complete revelation of God, not to be added too or superceeded by anything or anyone else. I'd consider this to be a basic enough issue for me to not go to a mormon church, but I understand they could still be brothers and sisters in Christ through faith in him (albiet a misguided and slightly incorrect one).
Therefore, although I disagree with their baptism for the dead (I see no biblical basis for it), I won't argue with them over it because it has no authority that I recognise.
I can understand Ben's point though. I have been baptised, and I would not like to be baptised again, even if I were baptised by proxy when dead. I would point to Ezekiel 18:19-20, and say that any act on the behalf of someone has no effect whatsoever, only their actions. This makes the process pointless, and needless ritual.
However since Mormons may not recognise the authority the bible has, they'll probably dispute my quotes, and so we're back to me not going to a mormon church, but realising through faith in Christ, they may be Christian brothers and sisters with me.
Or am I missing something?
Chaunk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chaunk
|
|
CEO of Morgan Industries, ACDG3
Apr 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
He apointed apostles to go and tell the people about Christ. When the original 13 died out, there were no successors who had the authority that being an apostle has. (This is an area I disagree with the Roman Catholic church on, being as they claim the pope is the successor to Peter and all).
And Hebrews 1 says that before Christ, there were prophets, but now we have Jesus and have no need of prophets who will speak the words of God to us.
I see this has more issues to do with revelation/authority than baptism, and with this I do take issue. The bible is Gods final revelation of himself. It is infallible, containing no errors nor missing things that are necessary for salvation. It is only superceeded by Jesus, who no one alive has seen.
Thus modern revelation must be interpreted in light of the bible not the other way arround. God does not change, and he does not contradict his previous reveled character as seen in the bible.
Could you be more specific about the "plain and precious things"? What has the book of Mormon (or other inspired scripture or whatever) told you that the bible has lost? Forgive me if that sounds scathing and/or sceptical, it's not meant to.
Chaunk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
I was aware that the Catholic church accepts the baptisms performed by other churches, yes.
|
They accept other Christians, and not the Mormons, because of this issue in particular.
quote:
Through revelation we have been taught that we must be baptized, by immersion, by one holding the proper Priesthood.
|
Again, who constitutes the 'proper priesthood?' What are the proper qualifications?
Secondly, regarding the existence of living prophets, how does the LDS church determine prophecy from opinion?
quote:
but we also recognize the fact that it is no longer perfect, containing errors and having lost many 'plain and precious things'.
|
What has the bible lost that is essential to the doctrine of the church?
quote:
I see nothing in Hebrews 1 that would contradict or disprove the idea of modern prophets and apostles, nor anything that contradicts the Book of Mormon.
|
Hebrews affirms the revelation of Christ as coming from the same authority of the priests before him; from God.
Chaunk, think the word you are looking for is sufficient. The revelation of Christ is sufficient, in that Christians need nothing more to add to their faith for salvation.
Could there be other insights into God? Yes, but these are not essential to the faith, nor should they be considered necessary.
quote:
Indeed, if Christ was not to be added upon or superceded, why did He Himself appoint apostles, who in turn appointed apostles to maintain their number?
|
But Christ did appoint Apostles, the Apostles appointed Apostles, but we cannot be Apostles. The Apostles appointed priests who derive their authority from the Apostles, but they do not derive the same capabilities, nor the same responsibilities with respect to the other Apostles. They do not have the authority to add to Scripture.
You are right that Acts records how the 11 apostles replaced Judas, but let us look at their criteria:
Acts 1:21-22
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
For this is why there can be no more Apostles. There are none remaining as witnesses to Christ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
And so they will not reach the highest degree of glory.
|
So there are to be divisions in heaven?
What evidence in Scripture is there for this position? That those who repent after death will be accorded a position in Heaven?
There are passages, such as 1 Cor 3:12-5
(which by the way is very near to my heart because of 1 Cor 3:11)
"If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. "
Our works may accord to positions of greater responsibility in heaven, but they will still be saved. The greater glory says nothing about those who repent after death, but only about the works that one does while still alive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
It seems your standard here, however, is remarkably narrow.
|
I encompasses all the protestantants, Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Narrow? Hardly. Your definition is completely meaningless.
quote:
To say the Mormon's are in violation of Christian ethos because they don't accept the ecumenical councils is a stretch, since, as I pointed out, Christians existed long before such councils were held.
|
They existed because they upheld the same truths affirmed in the councils. To reject the councils is to reject the early Christian church.
quote:
If those people were Christians, then the Mormons can be as well.
|
No, because they do not believe in the same things. Again, you assert divisions, where none exist, between the council and the early Christian church.
quote:
You'll note that Mormonism hasn't exactly spread very much since its beginnings.
|
Does that matter? The point at hand is that people could be led astray by confusion in teaching. The very fact that people know the Mormons do baptise the dead, is evidence that others could be led astray.
quote:
Then there's no way you can claim they are baptising YOU, since YOU would be DEAD.
|
It all becomes clear. You don't believe that there is an immortal soul, how can you possibly understand either the Mormon perspective, or the Christian?
quote:
It doesn't involve you! You would be DEAD! Gone! Poof!
|
quote:
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD.
|
quote:
You would not be participating! You'd be dead! How is this such a hard concept to grasp?
|
My body would be dead, but I would still exist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chaunk
|
|
CEO of Morgan Industries, ACDG3
Apr 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hebrews affirms the revelation of Christ as coming from the same authority of the priests before him; from God.
Chaunk, think the word you are looking for is sufficient. The revelation of Christ is sufficient, in that Christians need nothing more to add to their faith for salvation.
|
Hebrews goes further than saying that Christ comes from the same authority line. "Long ago... God spoke... by the prophets." Finished, done, not carrying on still. God used to speak in this way (Long ago!), but when Jesus came as the supreme revelation of God (which is the word I was looking for before, not superceeded... sorry) he didn't need to speak by mere prophets. Instead, "he has spoken to us by his son." Also finished note - Jesus is not to be bettered, or filled in on the missing bits, but he is the supreme (and sufficient) revelation of God.
I'm not denying there is prophecy today, but that prophecy should be limited by (and to) the bible. It is NOT the same as prophecy in old testament times, as now there is no further revelation of God needed.
The bible is complete as Jesus is complete. The bible is sufficient because Jesus is sufficient. The bible is supreme becuase Jesus is supreme. It needs no additions nor is it missing anything.
Ben has already mentioned why there are no apostles today, so I'll not cover that one too.
Chaunk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
Again, who constitutes the 'proper priesthood?' What are the proper qualifications? |
I thought I had posted this before, but I don't see it. Here it is again, an excerpt from the Testimony of Joseph Smith with regards to the Priesthood, and the restoration thereof:
We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:
"Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."
He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me--after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood--for so we were commanded.
The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first Elder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized.
Immediately on our coming up out of the water after we had been baptized, we experienced great and glorious blessings from our Heavenly Father. No sooner had I baptized Oliver Cowdery, than the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and he stood up and prophesied many things which should shortly come to pass. And again, so soon as I had been baptized by him, I also had the spirit of prophecy, when, standing up, I prophesied concerning the rise of this Church, and many other things connected with the Church, and this generation of the children of men. We were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation.
quote:
Secondly, regarding the existence of living prophets, how does the LDS church determine prophecy from opinion? |
The General Authorities [First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and the Seventy etc] make every attempt to clarify whether they are speaking in their official capacity and position, or merely stating their opinion as an individual.
quote:
The bible is supreme becuase Jesus is supreme. It needs no additions nor is it missing anything. |
I'm sorry, but the Bible can in no ways be seen as being complete, and containing all that God would have us know. Even when the Bible was first comprised, many individual books were already missing passages - there are several references in the Bible to books written by prophets and seers, that are not contained therein.
quote:
But do you affirm that Christ is eternally the Son of God? |
He must have, at one time, been created by the Father.
He is the Firstborn, the Only Begotten, Alpha and Omega.
quote:
Very true about supremacy. Christ is supreme because his is the Son of God, and not merely a prophet. |
On this there is no disagreement. The latter-day prophets and apostles we have bear witness of Christ, provide us with revelation and instruction to help us return to live with our Father, and His Son. They are not considered higher than Christ, they are not meant to replace Him, nor in any way lessen His importance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Even when the Bible was first comprised, many individual books were already missing passages - there are several references in the Bible to books written by prophets and seers, that are not contained therein.
|
Evidence would assist your claim.
quote:
He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter
|
So then we are all priests.
So we are to believe that an angel came upon him?
Is this how people became priests of the church in the Gospels? I see no need in the Gospels for the priesthood of Melchizedek to be conferred, because this priesthood is Christ's and Christ's alone.
quote:
The General Authorities [First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and the Seventy etc] make every attempt to clarify whether they are speaking in their official capacity and position, or merely stating their opinion as an individual.
|
So then they are infalliable when they say they prophesy?
quote:
He must have, at one time, been created by the Father.
He is the Firstborn, the Only Begotten, Alpha and Omega.
|
Not quite...
These two statements are contradictory. If Christ is begotten, he is not created, nor made by God.
Nor was he created at some time by the Father, but that he was begotten before all worlds. He is uncreated, just as the Father is uncreated, he is eternal, just as the Father.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I encompasses all the protestantants, Catholic and Orthodox churches. |
So? I'm sure there are plenty of issues on which all churches but a very few agree. That's the nature of sectarian disagreement, after all. I don't see how you can claim the Mormon's aren't Christian when they worship Christ as the Son of God. That's the prime definition of a Christian.
quote:
They existed because they upheld the same truths affirmed in the councils. To reject the councils is to reject the early Christian church. |
They reject the notion that the councils are somehow official representations of God's will, but they don't necessarily reject all the conclusions of the councils. I thought this would have been evident by the fact that they believe in the Holy Trinity.
And as a side note, this isn't really true, as the councils upheld only particular views of Christianity that existed at the time. There were dozens of Christian "heresies" about--that was the whole point of having the council, to stamp out what was seen as heretical doctrine. Had those heresies won out, you'd be claiming they were the proper form of Christianity to be worshiped today, no doubt.
quote:
No, because they do not believe in the same things. Again, you assert divisions, where none exist, between the council and the early Christian church. |
Except we've yet to see any real reason why the Mormon's shouldn't be considered Christian. You have a problem with their baptism ceremony, but that's hardly enough to brand them un-Christian, since they worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Again, that would seem to be the most crucial definition.
quote:
Does that matter? The point at hand is that people could be led astray by confusion in teaching. The very fact that people know the Mormons do baptise the dead, is evidence that others could be led astray. |
It matters in terms of severity. You were the one who compared it to the Reformation, not I. I'm just pointing out that such hysteria is unfounded, as there's no threat of Mormonism overrunning the Western world at this point.
quote:
It all becomes clear. You don't believe that there is an immortal soul, how can you possibly understand either the Mormon perspective, or the Christian? |
Hmm, an Appeal to Authority, dodge and an insult all in one sentence. Efficient, at least!
I need be neither to understand their perspectives. Regardless, their respective perspectives are irrelevant when it comes to establishing if their practices violate another's religious freedoms.
I hope you won't dodge my thought exercise as you did loinburger's in the other thread: If I were to posthumously add your name, incorrectly, to a list of Muslims, would that be a violation of religious freedom?
quote:
My body would be dead, but I would still exist. |
Irrelevant, again. Especially by your belief system's view of the afterlife. Nothing in Christian doctrine, as far as I have ever seen, has ever indicated that what someone does on Earth after one's death has any bearing whatsoever over your status in the afterlife, or even if you'd know about it. Do you think they'll kick you out of heaven? Would God be duped by such a sneaky little tactic as the Mormons? The implications stretch into absurdity.
So again, we're faced we three, and only three possible outcomes for this:
A) The Mormons are right, in which case the baptism is the offering of a second chance which you get to take and go to heaven.
B) You're right, in which case the vicarious baptism, which you fully acknowledge is sans meaning or authority, has absolutely no bearing on the status of your soul in heaven, since you're already there.
C) I'm right, and we're all just worm food in the end anyway.
As another thought exercise... let's say you die, and horror of horrors, you find yourself in the spiritual prison that the Mormons believe exists, and it's made clear that your only hope of escaping it is to be vicariously baptised. But the Mormons, having acceeded to your demands, decide not to do so, leaving you trapped for all eternity, separated from God. Hey, they're respecting your religious beliefs. Wouldn't you feel mighty silly then? I know I would.
(Hint to Verto: Feel free to put me on the list...does me no harm if you're wrong, and if you're right, well then, weeha!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
I don't see how you can claim the Mormon's aren't Christian when they worship Christ as the Son of God. That's the prime definition of a Christian.
|
I don't think we mean the same thing by Christ being the son of God.
If he's created, like us, then he isn't God's Son, in the sense that he is God, just as much as God the Father.
quote:
I thought this would have been evident by the fact that they believe in the Holy Trinity.
|
Well, that's what Verto and I are grappling over. Definition of the Trinity. So far, it's not clear whether they believe in the Trinity or not.
quote:
Had those heresies won out, you'd be claiming they were the proper form of Christianity to be worshiped today, no doubt.
|
They arose out of misunderstandings about the relationship between God and Christ.
I disagree. Even if the councils had ruled the other way, the problems would still be there. The new definitions would fall apart at some point.
quote:
You have a problem with their baptism ceremony, but that's hardly enough to brand them un-Christian, since they worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Again, that would seem to be the most crucial definition.
|
Doctrine of the Trinity is a little bit more than the baptism. Do try to keep up.
quote:
I'm just pointing out that such hysteria is unfounded, as there's no threat of Mormonism overrunning the Western world at this point.
|
And I could care less about the severity. The point is that these questions have come up, and they ought to be answered.
quote:
I hope you won't dodge my thought exercise as you did loinburger's in the other thread: If I were to posthumously add your name, incorrectly, to a list of Muslims, would that be a violation of religious freedom?
|
Yes.
And I didn't dodge Loin's thought exercise.
Edit:
Ate my reply.
Yes, I would go to Hell, if the Mormons are right, and rightfully so.
Each should be judged on his own convictions.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 19-04-2004 at 12:15
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-04-2004 03:01
|