Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Book of Mormonís Critique of Other Churches
Mark Cares ^ | March 1, 2012 | Mark Cares

Posted on 03/01/2012 10:57:22 AM PST by Colofornian

That is what is contained in the 2 Nephi 26-30, the section of the Book of Mormon that will be studied this Sunday in the LDS Church. This critique is set in the context of its supposed prophecy of Joseph Smith finding and translating the Book of Mormon.

These chapters contain quite a few condemnations of Christian churches. One that is emphasized and the one that I will be focusing on is its condemnation of the position held today by millions of Christians that the Bible alone is God’s revealed Word. Following are a couple of quotes from these chapters in the Book of Mormon that give a flavor for its position.

2 Nephi 28:29: Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

2 Nephi 29: 3-6 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

As I said, that is just one of numerous condemnations of Christians and Christian churches in those chapters. As I reread those chapters this week, the thought that kept coming to mind was why would any Mormon today want to try to identify themselves, in any way, with the Christian church? These chapters draw a bold and distinct line between Mormonism and Christian churches. In fact, these chapters connect the actions and beliefs of Christian churches with Satan himself! That is even brought out in the conclusion of the teacher’s guide for this lesson. Its conclusion: “Explain that through studying the Book of Mormon and living the gospel, we will gain the power to avoid Satan’s deceptive illusions and be guided as we strive to stay on the strait and narrow path.”

In his book, Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, faithfully reflects the flavor of these chapters from 2 Nephi in his definition of Christendom. “The term also applies to the whole body of supposed Christian believers; as now constituted this body is properly termed apostate Christendom.” Again, I ask, why would any Mormon want to, in any way, identify themselves with apostates?


TOPICS: History; Other non-Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: bookofmormon; christian; churches; lds
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
From the blog citing the Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 29: 3-6 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

Ah, we can see that when the demons helped Joseph Smith put this one together, that God mandated a "truth in advertising" disclaimer imbedded...notice that word, "hiss." What "hisses forth" words in the Bible? Yup. That's right. That crafty serpent in the Garden otherwise known as the devil.

From the blog, citing the Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 28:29: Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

In reality, it's not just that Mormons condemn Christians for not being open to additional revelation from God; no...it's actually that they condemn Christians for rejecting Joseph Smith and a few other Mormon leaders as the portal for such "revelations."

When we consider that these "revelations" from Mormon leaders include...
...Joseph Smith's "go for it" multi-wife scheme -- written in 1843 but tucked away amongst Mormon leadership until 1852 when a book by a "Gentile" (Gunnison) announced their practice to the world...
...Wilford Woodruff's stop going for it announcement in 1890 re: multiple wives...
...Spencer W. Kimball's announcement that the Mormon god changed his mind about black people and their skin color is irrelevant, after all...
...Why would any thinking, discerning person deems what the Mormon god has to say in further commentary as worthy of any additional addendums to the Bible?

1 posted on 03/01/2012 10:57:35 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

To the best of my knowledge, Romney is not visiting Christian churches.

He and his people have decided they can win this without the Christian Right.


2 posted on 03/01/2012 11:03:43 AM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From the blog, citing the Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 28:29: Wo be unto him...

So...the Mormons give Christians all these "Woes" because we won't accept Joseph Smith as an addendum author of the Bible.

That's the reality in a nutshell. And, as Mark Cares, points out further: ...why would any Mormon today want to try to identify themselves, in any way, with the Christian church?...In his book, Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, faithfully reflects the flavor of these chapters from 2 Nephi in his definition of Christendom. “The term also applies to the whole body of supposed Christian believers; as now constituted this body is properly termed apostate Christendom.” Again, I ask, why would any Mormon want to, in any way, identify themselves with apostates?

Yes...why would over half of the Mormon hymns in their hymnal come from Christian so-called "apostate" sources?

Why do Mormons in one breath reference us as "apostates" and in the next breath say THEY are "other" Christians, too?

Why?

It's called the sin of coveting. They want the brand name of "Christian."

Of course, this means if Mormonism was a "restoration" from the ground up of Christianity, it means that Mormonism took the scorched-earth route & gave worldwide Christianity a mass burial early in the 19th century.

Mormons just don't want to publicly concede that they think of themselves as the spiritual gravediggers of worldwide Christianity. (Doesn't come across as very congenial, civil, or "ecumenical.")

Their references to our country's founding fathers as "apostates" -- to our church's founding catalysts as "apostates" -- isn't very "pretty."

Oh. And one more thing. When the leading GOP candidate believes the same thing...not exactly very inspiring to vote for him. I mean, here he is giving his $millions to spread the slander that Christians are "APOSTATES," that our professing believers are supposedly ALL "corrupt," & that our creeds are supposedly 100% abominable...and Christians are rewarding him for such spiritual militance with their votes?

Can you say they get an "F" in discernment?

3 posted on 03/01/2012 11:08:19 AM PST by Colofornian (An anti-FREEPER: That's a poster who says, "Let's elect one socialist to beat another!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Wow... never thought I would agree with anything from the Book of Mormon... but that’s pretty good stuff there. It’s an attack on Sola Scriptura... which is unbiblical... and a reminder that salvation is from the Jews. Not bad.

[Donning flame retardants...]


4 posted on 03/01/2012 11:08:36 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The Mormon “You’re a bigot if you speak the truth” Brigade in 5, 4, 3, 2.........


5 posted on 03/01/2012 11:11:42 AM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The BoM also condemns to hellfire all those who have had their children baptized as infants...


6 posted on 03/01/2012 11:13:42 AM PST by greatvikingone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
To the best of my knowledge, Romney is not visiting Christian churches. He and his people have decided they can win this without the Christian Right.

They can't do this without the Christian Right. In 2010, white Evangelicals constituted 34% of the turnout.

Romney can't win the South without the Christian Right.

And his only win in a primary in 2008 & 2012 outside of his home turf is Florida & AZ...FL due to the elderly vote...

7 posted on 03/01/2012 11:13:48 AM PST by Colofornian (An anti-FREEPER: That's a poster who says, "Let's elect one socialist to beat another!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

If the mormons think they’ve been persecuted in the past, just wait until Romney gets the nomination. In fact, with the money obama has behind him he may single handedly destroy the mormon church.


8 posted on 03/01/2012 11:14:20 AM PST by Terry Mross (Difference between a conservative / liberal-obvious. Difference between a rep and a dem? None)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
2 Nephi 29: 3-6 And because my words shall hiss forth

What "hisses forth" words in the Bible? Yup. That's right. That crafty serpent in the Garden otherwise known as the devil.

Yep. And when you expose a Mormon to the truth, sometimes they hiss too!

9 posted on 03/01/2012 11:18:26 AM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Vot for a mormon for president who claims he’s a Christian.....

OR

Vote for a muslim for presidnet who claims he’s a Christian.....

What’s a man to do? WRITE IN!


10 posted on 03/01/2012 11:23:56 AM PST by Terry Mross (Difference between a conservative / liberal-obvious. Difference between a rep and a dem? None)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke; Colofornian

“Wow... never thought I would agree with anything from the Book of Mormon... but that’s pretty good stuff there. It’s an attack on Sola Scriptura... which is unbiblical... “

Unsurprisingly, most cults shy away from Sola Scriptura (which is decidedly Biblical) because it interferes with their ability to introduce wacky ideas.


11 posted on 03/01/2012 11:25:01 AM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

1. Salvation is from God. God made a way for Salvation through his Son. Humans (Jews) are not able to provide salvation since they are not more powerful than God.

2. The Bible does say in Revelation that nothing should be added to Scripture.

3. Galatians chapter one says that if anyone comes along preaching a Gospel other than what Paul preached they should be accursed.


12 posted on 03/01/2012 11:30:48 AM PST by Ecliptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

“my words shall hiss forth”

Interesting verb choice, for those who have ears to hear.


13 posted on 03/01/2012 11:37:17 AM PST by Psalm 144 ("I think we ought to listen to Alinsky," - Governor G. Romney, father of Bishop Willard Mitt Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

God may have raised him up for just that purpose. He does not suffer false religion forever. There are many naive people who have been duped by these purveyors of religious lies. I pity those poor people. Mitt Romney does not fall into that category. He has been one of their leaders and is part of one of the families that helped start and spread this pagan faith.


14 posted on 03/01/2012 11:37:39 AM PST by .45 Long Colt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
Unsurprisingly, most cults shy away from Sola Scriptura (which is decidedly Biblical)...

Oh, goody. Prove it.

Just to frame the debate... why don't you define Sola Scriptura and then point in the Bible to where the Bible teaches it. Good luck.

15 posted on 03/01/2012 11:38:22 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ecliptic
1. Salvation is from God. God made a way for Salvation through his Son. Humans (Jews) are not able to provide salvation since they are not more powerful than God.

I didn't say we are saved by the Jews. I said, "Salvation is from the Jews." I think I stand on solid ground... John 4:22.

2. The Bible does say in Revelation that nothing should be added to Scripture.

No. Revelation says that nothing should be added to the Book of Revelation.

3. Galatians chapter one says that if anyone comes along preaching a Gospel other than what Paul preached they should be accursed.

And so it should be.

16 posted on 03/01/2012 11:42:58 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

“why don’t you define Sola Scriptura ...”

“The Bible contains all that is necessary to find salvation and to live a life that is pleasing to God.”


17 posted on 03/01/2012 12:17:37 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Etymology traps the mormons again...

Bible - Origin:
1300–50; Middle English bible, bibel < Old French bible < Medieval Latin biblia (feminine singular) < Greek, in tà biblía tà hagía (Septuagint) the holy books; biblíon, byblíon papyrus roll, strip of papyrus, equivalent to býbl ( os ) papyrus (after Býblos, a Phoenician port where papyrus was prepared and exported) + -ion noun suffix


18 posted on 03/01/2012 12:26:36 PM PST by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political party's in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
Vot for a mormon for president who claims he’s a Christian..... OR Vote for a muslim for presidnet who claims he’s a Christian.....

Maybe God is reminding His people of Psalm 146:3 - "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save." The fact that we will likely have two God-haters running for President probably tells us that God's hand of judgment is on our nation. As Christians, we need to remember that God is in control and to act as believers in this situation.

This is the first time in our history that we have two men running for office who have shown by their actions that they hate God's church and God's people. In the past, we had candidates who were clearly not believers but who weren't overtly hostile to orthodox believers. IMO, a Christian should not vote for either one since Obama has shown in the contraception/abortion debacle his disregard for the concerns of Christians and Romney who to hold his high office in the Mormon "church" has to hate true Christianity. If confronted with a choice of Obama versus Romney, I'll leave the Presidential line blank and vote for other candidates who pledge to thwart the plans of either of the duds at the top of the ticket.

Because I'm known for my strong Christian views and my interest in politics, I've been approached by a dozen or so Christians about this dilemma. As I have explained my reasoning on this, most have agreed and said that they wouldn't vote for Romney either. When asked if this would guarantee Obama's re-election, I say probably but this doesn't concern me that much. IMO, choosing between Obama and Romney is same as choosing between a Ford and a Mercury, the political differences are only cosmetic.

19 posted on 03/01/2012 12:29:47 PM PST by CommerceComet (If Mitt can leave the GOP to protest Reagan, why can't I do the same in protest of Romney?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; pgyanke
“why don’t you define Sola Scriptura ...”

“The Bible contains all that is necessary to find salvation and to live a life that is pleasing to God.”

I guess your Web browser dropped this part of pgyanke's request:

and then point in the Bible to where the Bible teaches it.

20 posted on 03/01/2012 12:37:03 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies; pgyanke

One step at a time.

I need to have pgyanke’s agreement to the definition.


21 posted on 03/01/2012 12:49:06 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
Vote for a mormon for president who claims he’s a Christian.....
OR
Vote for a muslim for presidnet who claims he’s a Christian.....
What’s a man to do? WRITE IN!

Thank you. BEST POST OF THE YEAR !!!

22 posted on 03/01/2012 12:53:12 PM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
The Christian Right vote has nowhere to go but Romney if he wins the GOP nomination for President. The fact is that no conservative has won that nomination since Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Before that you have to go back to Goldwater in 1964 and then Coolidge in 1924.

A lack of enthusiasm for Romney may enable Obama to reprise his 2008 victory by winning VA, NC, and FL. However, political analyst Michael Barone notes that Romney has shown strength among affluent suburbanites that could reprise pre-1992 strength in the ring counties around the Northern metro areas. Fear of higher taxes and socialized medicine would outweigh the social issues that drove many middle income suburbanites in the Northeast and Midwest away from the GOP in the 1990s and 2000s.

23 posted on 03/01/2012 1:07:57 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; pgyanke
I need to have pgyanke’s agreement to the definition.

You declared it "decidedly Biblical" without that agreement - but I do hope pgyanke obliges with a timely agreement (or counterproposal) so we can see this alleged biblical support.

24 posted on 03/01/2012 1:09:54 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
The fact is that no conservative has won that nomination since Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

Bush the Elder won in 1988 by pretending to be a conservative - does that count?

25 posted on 03/01/2012 1:12:48 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies; pgyanke

“but I do hope pgyanke obliges with a timely agreement (or counterproposal) so we can see this alleged biblical support.”

Indeed.

pgyanke, do you agree that that is an acceptable definition of Sola Scriptura?


26 posted on 03/01/2012 1:13:49 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
The Christian Right vote has nowhere to go but Romney if he wins the GOP nomination for President. The fact is that no conservative has won that nomination since Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Before that you have to go back to Goldwater in 1964 and then Coolidge in 1924.

There is an elephant in the living room that you are ignoring. The Christian Right can stay home or just not vote for President. To suggest that's it just Obama or Romney is a false dilemma.

Dubya was definitely the choice of conservatives in 2000. Although he disappointed conservatives on economic issues, he was always there with conservatives on social issues.

27 posted on 03/01/2012 1:33:08 PM PST by CommerceComet (If Mitt can leave the GOP to protest Reagan, why can't I do the same in protest of Romney?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
The Christian Right vote has nowhere to go but Romney if he wins the GOP nomination for President

Sure it does.

Given that Romney has only won 2 primary races outside of his hometurf...that he's not a viable candidate...especially after the MSM & Obama would get done w/him...making the race, in part, a referendum vs. racism... Romney will lose no matter what.

The GOP right now has a lock on only 29% of registered voters. Even if Romney got all 29% (or for every GOP vote lost to 3rd party or whatever...regained an Ind. or Dem vote), that's all he's gonna get...29% of the vote.

Enough GOP voters would vote third party (including me and all I could influence to do the same)

Hey, if you're going to toss away your vote, at least keep your conscience by not voting for a pro-abortion, socialist lite, Obama lite "god in embryo" named Mitt...I mean, hey, if I wanted to vote for someone more liberal than the Dems of the 1960s, I would have joined the Dems' party...

If you were a gambler & you put your $ on the candidate who got 29% (vs. a third party guy)...guess what, you wasted your $ no matter what! Doesn't matter if the 29% guy gets closer than a third party guy...I'm not going to let the GOP forever turn the party into a Dem lite party.

'Cause if they do...that 29% of all registered voters will soon be 20% of all registered voters...and it wouldn't be long before it became as extinct as the Whig party...The GOP rose on the ashes of the Whigs...a new party, the FREE Republicans could rise on the ashes of the GOP.

Too many FREEPERS are so short-sited they don't see the permanent destruction of the GOP at stake. 'Cause if that happens, you get Dem POTUS candidates even worse than Obama...election after election after election til dooms day...Perhaps, one day, the anti-Christ.

And if the GOP ran a candidate opposite the anti-Christ who was the reincarnation of Hitler, sorry...not gonna vote for a hitler reincarnation just 'cause I allegedly have "no place to go."

28 posted on 03/01/2012 1:36:48 PM PST by Colofornian (An anti-FREEPER: That's a poster who says, "Let's elect one socialist to beat another!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; JustSayNoToNannies
Many apologies for the delay. If you read my profile, you will find that I am primarily a daytime FReeper. When I leave the office, all bets are off on when I will post next. I have three beautiful children and another on the way... life is busy!

I'm flattered that you've waited so long for me to respond. It really wasn't necessary. You are the one holding to Sola Scriptura, surely you could give an adequate defense of your own doctrine without me...?

“The Bible contains all that is necessary to find salvation and to live a life that is pleasing to God.”

It's probably for the best that you waited, though. I can see by your definition that it could become the focus of the debate first. So let's clear that up... Your definition isn't one that I've read before on the subject. I don't usually see the word "find" in front of salvation, for one thing. I also don't remember Sola Scriptura adherents being all that concerned about pleasing God... after all, our works are as "dirty rags", aren't they? Lastly, I don't see any mention of authority... and that is the biggest issue of all, really.

So I'll ask a question of you to clear these things up... do you hold that Scripture is the only authority and that it alone is all Truth regarding salvation?

If not, please clarify. If so, please tell me where you find that in the Bible.

29 posted on 03/01/2012 6:53:13 PM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144
Sorry, but I don't think Isaiah agrees with your condemnation of hiss.

Isaiah 5:

25 Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

26 ¶And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:

27 None shall be weary nor stumble among them; none shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken:

30 posted on 03/01/2012 8:06:27 PM PST by Allon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

The Christian Right vote has nowhere to go but Romney if he wins the GOP nomination for President.

- - - -
Wrong. We can leave the GOP and make them go the way of the whigs. It is time the GOP dies.


31 posted on 03/01/2012 9:15:33 PM PST by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost, but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut; Wallace T.

The Christian Right vote has nowhere to go but Romney if he wins the GOP nomination for President.

- - - -
Wrong. We can leave the GOP and make them go the way of the whigs. It is time the GOP dies.

***************

Time and past time. The GOP is part and parcel with the leftward drive since the end of WWII.


32 posted on 03/02/2012 3:02:34 AM PST by Psalm 144 ("I think we ought to listen to Alinsky," - Governor G. Romney, father of Bishop Willard Mitt Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Allon

Sorry, I don’t think Christ agrees with your condemnation of Christians. ‘Hiss’ appears to be an archaic usage in your selected quote. http://bible.cc/isaiah/5-26.htm
Nice try, deceiver.


33 posted on 03/02/2012 3:11:31 AM PST by Psalm 144 ("I think we ought to listen to Alinsky," - Governor G. Romney, father of Bishop Willard Mitt Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

The King James Version of the Holy Bible is hardly archaic. Sure there are modern translations, but it is widely used and accepted by millions of Christians of many denominations worldwide.

Here’s another. Spin is as you will, or feel free to continue to shoot the messenger, but hiss is simply not as you say it is.

Zechariah 10:

8 I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased.

9 And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again.


34 posted on 03/02/2012 4:43:30 AM PST by Allon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

So I went back and looked at your list of different translations, and the following specially use the word “hiss.” Only some very modern translations use “whistle”.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

American King James Version

American Standard Version

Darby Bible Translation

English Revised Version

Webster’s Bible Translation

Young’s Literal Translation

I know you’re really trying to tie Mormons into using sort of twisted serpent reference, but it’s not working.

But feel free to try that with Moses. He used a serpent on a stick to represent salvation. I’m sure he would be pleased with your blanket approach.


35 posted on 03/02/2012 4:59:50 AM PST by Allon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke; JustSayNoToNannies

“It’s probably for the best that you waited, though. I can see by your definition that it could become the focus of the debate first. So let’s clear that up... Your definition isn’t one that I’ve read before on the subject. I don’t usually see the word “find” in front of salvation, for one thing. I also don’t remember Sola Scriptura adherents being all that concerned about pleasing God... after all, our works are as “dirty rags”, aren’t they? Lastly, I don’t see any mention of authority... and that is the biggest issue of all, really.”

Wikipedia’s description of Sola Scriptura:
“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

My definition:
“The Bible contains all that is necessary to find salvation and to live a life that is pleasing to God.”

I think, though differently worded, they are almost exactly the same.

++++++++++++++++

“So I’ll ask a question of you to clear these things up... do you hold that Scripture is the only authority and that it alone is all Truth regarding salvation? If not, please clarify. If so, please tell me where you find that in the Bible.”

These issues, to my mind, fall outside of the scope of this argument. The Sola Scriptura argument is that “the Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life.”

Now for the Biblical proof...

2 Timothy 3: 15-17
“and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Statement: “The Bible contains all that is necessary to find salvation”

Proof: “the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation

+++

Statement: “...and to live a life that is pleasing to God.”

Proof: “All Scripture is ... profitable for ... instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work

Based on the above, Sola Scriptura is decidedly Biblical.


36 posted on 03/02/2012 6:54:41 AM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144; Colofornian; reaganaut
I agree with your statement that the GOP is part and parcel of the leftward drive of this country since World War II. The last conservative to hold the White House walked out the mansion door on January 20, 1989. I hold little hope for Romney or even Santorum in making significant progress in reducing the size and scope of government. In an ideal world, Ron Paul would be in charge of domestic and economic policy and John Bolton would run foreign policy and defense. That isn't going to happen.

If we compare the track record of the post-World War II Democrats (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama) with the post-World War II Republicans (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II), the Democrat grade would be F+ only because Congressional conservatives placed some domestic spending restraints on Truman and Clinton, and the Republicans a C-. (Excluding Reagan, it would be a D-.)

So why bother and not stay home, write-in Herman Cain, or vote for the Libertarian or Constitution candidate? One word: Obama. He is a "red diaper" baby with plenty of ties to Communists, their Muslim allies, and the Chicago Outfit. (BTW, I don't think Breitbart's death was the result of natural causes, nor the suspicious package sent to Limbaugh's Florida home. These tactics smell of the descendants of Al Capone.)

It may be said that voting for someone who will head toward the precipice at 30 mph is little different than one who will drive at 60 mph. However, the slower driver will buy more time. Time can be our ally because events beyond the control of the ruling elites can change the game. Romney or Santorum will at least slow down economic collapse by gutting Obamacare and being more pro-energy than the current regime. Under current circumstances, this is the best we can do.

37 posted on 03/02/2012 7:30:47 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; pgyanke

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants’ often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” This verse is important because “teleioi”and “holoklepoi” are much stronger words than “artios,” but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (”pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men “fully assured.” No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#scripture-II


38 posted on 03/02/2012 8:12:51 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Well said! Another good reference (among others) to rebut this idea of closed scripture is what God told Daniel after He gave him revelation, which he wrote. He then was commanded to seal it up until the end times. We have yet to receive that holy writ. It will happen.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Personally, I think many people will be surprised how much God has interacted with his prophets throughout history, when all things are revealed... of which the bible only really represents a single tribe of Israel.

I’m staying tuned, more to come!


39 posted on 03/02/2012 9:47:13 AM PST by Allon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; JustSayNoToNannies
“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

My definition: “The Bible contains all that is necessary to find salvation and to live a life that is pleasing to God.”

I think, though differently worded, they are almost exactly the same.

Funny, though... your definition differs in exactly the ways I noted.

These issues, to my mind, fall outside of the scope of this argument. The Sola Scriptura argument is that “the Bible contains everything that one needs to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life.”

If you were just going to swat my suggestions aside, why did you wait for my response?

Now, let's talk about what you posted from Scripture.

JustSayNoToNannies already posted some excellent Scripture refutations for the specific verses you cited. So I'll let those stand. Rather, I want to have a logical discussion with you. In Matt 16:18, Jesus said He would build His Church. If the underpinnings of this Church was that everyone must have a Bible in his hands to be complete for salvation... there was no Church until we got the printing press 1,500 years later. It would be very hard to argue that Christ built that church... it would be more closely built by Gutenberg.

Christ also promised in John 14:26 that the Father would send the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) to teach all things. We recognize the voice of the Holy Spirit in the Magisterium of the Church where we have learned an unfolding revelation which has deepened our understanding of Scripture, not contradicted it. The Sola Scriptura viewpoint is that only the Apostles were given this help in preparing Scripture for the rest of humanity to read. Since then, the Holy Spirit has not taught all things but has only been saying "read the Book." What's ironic is that much of the Protestant world has come to embrace the doctrine of the "rapture" which is a doctrine only taught since the 17th Century. Apparently, new teachings and revelations are allowed... as long as they don't come from the Catholic Church. The problem is, this doctrine is contradicted in Scripture whereas no doctrine of the Catholic Church is. Whereas Christ prayed that we would all be one (John 17:21), private revelation has brought disunity and division in the Protestant world with each congregation holding to their own narrow interpretations.

Logically, the Epistles were written to correct what was flagging in the early Church. Left to their own devices without the correction, the Church would have been left in disunity and disarray. The Epistles point to the authority of the Church to teach the Scriptures and correct abuses. If we are to follow Scripture alone, we need only follow the methods of the Gidians and leave a Bible where all can find it. But we don't do that. In addition to a Bible, one must teach and preach... that alone blows Sola Scriptura out of the water.

If the Bible is all we need, then Christ should have left us a cypher. If all the Ethiopian Eunuch needed was a Bible, then why did he need St Philip in Acts 8:26-40? The answer is because God gave us men to act as teachers and priests in carrying on His work of salvation. Left to our own devices, we distort Scripture in our lack of understanding to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). If the Bible is all we need, I thank God that He also gave us the Church to teach and understand it. Interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private revelation (2 Peter 1:20).

As noted by our other FRiend, St Paul never said he brought Scripture for the people to memorize. He brought traditions oral and written (2 Thess 2:15). This is because there was no widely used New Testament Scripture when he came. What he brought was his own testimony. In fact, in 1 Cor 5:9-11, St Paul references another of his letters that is equally authoritative... but we don't have that letter... this should be a huge glaring hole for a Sola Scriptura viewpoint. In 1 Thess 3:10, St Paul says that he wants to see them face to face because his letter is not enough for their instruction.

Sometimes St Paul's testimony actually relied on extra scriptural sources. When he spoke to the Athenians (Acts 17:28), he referenced their altar to "the unknown god" (an allusion to a tradition of theirs by which they were delivered from a deadly plague) to help them come to know that God. Rarely did St Paul appeal to Scripture and rarely did he tell the people to be true to anything but the Traditions he brought (Phil 4:9).

In short, as told by the Apostles themselves, they brought the Word of God, Jesus... not just the Word of God written. This Jesus spent 40 days from His Resurrection to His Ascension with His Apostles--with very little said in the Bible. What was He doing, playing the Wii? No, He was building His Church and instructing His Apostles. Just as John 20:30 and John 21:25 tell us, there are many more things that Jesus did that are not written down. The private instruction Christ gave the Apostles is the Deposit of Faith given to them which is the Tradition (Big T) brought by them to the world and still preserved by the Catholic Church today. The very fact that the Bible Itself tells you it is not all-inclusive should tell you there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura.

40 posted on 03/02/2012 10:17:02 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies; pgyanke

JustSayNoToNannies,

I do not respond do copy and paste arguments.

If I take the time to write to a person, I expect they can also take the time to respond in their own words, (with allowances for copied reference materials).

But a simply copy & paste answer?

Don’t was my time.

Let me add, I am not in the least surprised that a catholic would have come up with some voluminous post as to why a scriptural passage does not actually mean what it clearly and plainly says.


41 posted on 03/02/2012 11:12:53 AM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
Romney or Santorum will at least slow down economic collapse by gutting Obamacare and being more pro-energy than the current regime

I support Santorum. And if Gingrich was to resurge next week ahead of Santorum, I'd vote for him.

Otherwise, allow me to be succinct in the first part of my response to this comment: A country that places a rival idol -- a literal flesh-and-blood person who actually believes he is already a 'god in embryo' & is growing up to full-grown godhood -- as the so-called "conservative" alternative to a candidate billed as a "Messiah" of sorts...DESERVES economic collapse...at least from God's perspective...

I might not want to hear that if I'm looking @ things from my own realites -- or especially that of my friends & family -- but that's the real long & short of it.

So why bother and not stay home, write-in Herman Cain, or vote for the Libertarian or Constitution candidate? One word: Obama. He is a "red diaper" baby with plenty of ties to Communists, their Muslim allies, and the Chicago Outfit.

If we're talking about Romney as the so-called "alternative" to Obama, you make some REALLY BAD assumptions here:
#1 That you can get enough pro-lifers to militate vs. their own conscience & vote for a pro-abort...just in Dec 07 Romney told Katie Couric that it's "OK" for PARENTS to give away their (embryonic) offspring to "research"...Hey, Mitt why stop @ embryonic stage?
#2 That you can get enough Christians to actually vote for a cultist who thinks he's a "god."
#3 That you can get enough anti-socialists for a man who introduced RomneyCare.
#4 That you can get enough social-issues conservatives who are willing to submerge their values & convictions.
#5 That you can get enough Independents & Dems & GoPs to vote for a guy who paid 10% of his income for the first 13 years of his life into an openly racist org...and who still believes in "scriptural" documents that still spouts racism...
#6 That you can get enough Indies/Dems/GoPs to vote for a guy tantamount to a Scientologist.

Accumulating all these categories (& a lot more, BTW...such as the class warfare the MSM will use vs. Romney as well as other aspects of his culticness...baptizing dead Jews, for example) = an answer to those assumptions that is something Romney CANNOT overcome.

That means people would not only be throwing away their votes to vote for Romney, but would have to answer to God, Himself as to why they were supporting a pro-abortion, idol while simultaneously sending a message to the GOP establishment...hey, give us "anybody" & we'll vote for him.

Seriously, is there an actual POTUS candidate with an (R) next to his name that you or other GoP voters wouldn't vote for in any general election?

42 posted on 03/02/2012 11:37:36 AM PST by Colofornian (An anti-FREEPER: That's a poster who says, "Let's elect one socialist to beat another!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; Wallace T.
...a guy who paid 10% of his income for the first 13 years of his life into an openly racist org

Adjective qualification here: a guy who paid 10% of his income the first 13 years of his ADULT life into an openly racist org...And...given that the Mormon church hasn't wiped about half-a-dozen racist passages from the Book of Mormon & the so-called "Book of Abraham" = MILLIONS more that Mitt has paid to support the last almost 34 years...

43 posted on 03/02/2012 11:48:26 AM PST by Colofornian (An anti-FREEPER: That's a poster who says, "Let's elect one socialist to beat another!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; JustSayNoToNannies
Let me add, I am not in the least surprised that a catholic would have come up with some voluminous post as to why a scriptural passage does not actually mean what it clearly and plainly says.

You've added it. I approached you in charity to explain my position in light of my understanding of Church teaching. What I get is anti-Catholic invective. What JustSayNoToNannies posted may have been pasted... but I read it and it was relevant. If you won't even consider a post because of the source, there isn't much room for dialogue. So much for a respectful conversation.

44 posted on 03/02/2012 12:13:26 PM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Allon

Maybe if an insipid hermaphroditic angel delivered an ear trumpet of genuine goldium to me I could hear you better. Then again I would recognize the source. God does not hiss abuse at Christians. The Father of Lies and his minions do.

Get thee behind me, Mormon.


45 posted on 03/02/2012 12:18:01 PM PST by Psalm 144 ("I think we ought to listen to Alinsky," - Governor G. Romney, father of Bishop Willard Mitt Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

Wow. I can’t believe I took the time to even respond or engage in dialogue with you. Rest assured it won’t happen again.


46 posted on 03/02/2012 12:29:06 PM PST by Allon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Allon

Suits me. Hit the road, and take your blackened windows with you.


47 posted on 03/02/2012 12:36:14 PM PST by Psalm 144 ("I think we ought to listen to Alinsky," - Governor G. Romney, father of Bishop Willard Mitt Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke; PetroniusMaximus; JustSayNoToNannies
...God gave us men to act as teachers and priests...

You know, God gave us other men as well--something in the Old Testament known as "prophets."

Imagine if you will for a moment that you were such a prophet. That God would use you not only to foretell, but to forthtell -- to speak God's voice into a given contemporary situation.

Tell me something, PGYanke, would you as such a would-be prophet try to elevate your credentials as a prophet if you were tempted to put together a resume'? Would you try to place your personal authority on par with God's voice & impulses & leadings?

Really?

Or would you simply go the humble way & recognize that you're simply a mouthpiece...a mere servant-agent who has about as much authority as the apostle Paul, who billed himself as both a prisoner and bond-servant (slave) of the Lord?

See...this is the corner you've painted yourself into...

If a boss went on vacation -- and left detailed written instructions -- plus said he'd be "present" in other ways while gone...of course, there would be a derived authority with steward-managers in place while he was "gone"...

But bottom line...nothing these steward-managers could say -- no matter how much they might correctly point to their getting their derived authority from THE BOSS -- will contradict the ULTIMATE Boss' written directives. The written Word will always be the baseline of comparison.

You know, PGYanke, your position represents the Thessalonians. IOW...a not very "noble" posture. Whereas, the Bereans were deemed "noble." Why?

11 Now the Berean Jews were of MORE NOBLE CHARACTER than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)

What? Don't we all agree that God spoke thru Paul? Didn't Paul give us a good chunk of the NT? Why would the Bereans need to have a baseline (the Old Testament) to check to see if what Paul said was so?

Why? Because of this idea of Sola Scriptura. Acts 17:ll -- coupled with the reality of knowing how much Paul was used of God to give us most of the NT books -- alone shoots to hell your anti-Sola Scriptura rhetoric.

If God's people merely state that which is an extension of His recognized revelation, aren't we arguing about non-essential stuff? BUT, if these steward-managers are offering new interpretations -- new visions -- twisted distortions of the Boss' clear imprinted Voice ... THEN Sola Scriptura matters at that exact point of a "rub." We need to have a recognized "bottom-line" authority.

Oh, and Btw, as far as popes, alleged "heads" of the church, and the like, the last time I looked Paul in Ephesians & Colossians referenced JESUS CHRIST SOLA as the HEAD of the Church. And Jesus further said He would be with us ALWAYS (Matt. 28:20). And, finally, the OT process of speaking thru prophets was done away with because Jesus is our ever-Present, ever-living prophet...or do you just take some scissors like the Mormons do and virtually cut out Heb. 1:1-2 from your Bible?

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. Hebrews 1:1-2

You may have all kinds of living & breathing recognized mouthpieces of God...but we REALLY HAVE ONLY ONE PROPHET remaining -- Jesus Christ.

You may have an earthly "daddy," but you only have one true Father [...do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." Matt. 23:9...so stop setting up rival 'fathers' to the one]

You may have a propped-up "head" of your church, but we REALLY only have ONE HEAD: Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:10)

You may prop up all kinds of "mediators" to lobby on your behalf before God, but there's REALLY ONLY ONE Mediator -- Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5).

Stop promoting the nonsensical "competition" to Jesus Christ as THE LIVING REVELATION, as the HEAD of the CHURCH, and as the Living Mediator for the church. And stop belittling His Word as the bottom-line, baseline authoritative Word.

(Well, thanks for inspiring a new tagline)

48 posted on 03/02/2012 12:36:23 PM PST by Colofornian ( Those who militate vs. 'sola scriptura' lack the character of nobility (Acts 17:11))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke; JustSayNoToNannies

“You’ve added it. I approached you in charity to explain my position in light of my understanding of Church teaching. What I get is anti-Catholic invective”

I posted that comment to JustSayNoToNannies. I pinged you out of courtesy because you had commented on her post.

+++++++++++++++

“If you won’t even consider a post because of the source, there isn’t much room for dialogue. So much for a respectful conversation.”

It wasn’t the source that I found offensive, it was the lazy copy & paste without comment.

I will be addressing your thoughtful post separately - as soon as I have time to address it correctly.


49 posted on 03/02/2012 1:01:34 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
I do not respond do copy and paste arguments.

How convenient for you.

Let me add, I am not in the least surprised that a catholic would have come up with some voluminous post

Catholics think about what they read.

50 posted on 03/02/2012 1:05:38 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson