Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christian, Mormon doctrinal differences
Baptist Press ^ | Dec 6, 2007 | Tal Davis

Posted on 11/04/2011 6:05:42 PM PDT by Graybeard58

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following information is adapted from the North American Mission Board's www.4truth.net apolgetics website.

ALPHARETTA, Ga. (BP)--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon church) professes to be a Christian church. However, a careful comparison of basic doctrinal positions of that church to those of historical, biblical Christianity reveal many radical differences. This comparison utilizes Mormon doctrines as stated in LDS authoritative primary sources and those of historic Christianity as derived solely from the Bible.

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD:

-- Historic Christianity

The one God is a Spirit who is the personal, eternal, infinite Creator of all that exists. He is the only God and necessary for all other things to exist. He exists eternally as a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (see Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; Matt. 28:19; John 4:24; 17:3)

-- Mormonism

God (Heavenly Father) is an exalted man with a physical body of flesh and bone. LDS founder Joseph Smith said, "If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible -- I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). The trinity is denied with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost seen as three separate entities. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us" (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 130:22).

THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST:

-- Historic Christianity

Jesus Christ was the virgin born God incarnate who existed in all time with the Father and Holy Spirit in the eternal Trinity. As a man He possessed two natures -- human and divine. He lived a sinless life and willingly died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sin of all humanity. (see John 1:1-18; 8:56-59; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:13-22; Heb.1:3; 13:8)

-- Mormonism

Jesus was the spiritual "first born" Son of God in the preexistence. "Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ, so he is literally our elder brother" (Gospel Principles [GP], p. 11)."And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn" (D&C 93:21). He is also the "only begotten" physical offspring of God by procreation on earth. "Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. That is why he is called the Only Begotten Son" (GP, p. 64). His atonement (death and resurrection) provides immortality for all people regardless of their faith. "Christ thus overcame physical death. Because of his atonement, everyone born on this earth will be resurrected ... This condition is called immortality. All people who ever lived will be resurrected, 'both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous' (The Book of Mormon [BOM], Alma 11:44)" (GP, p. 74). (See GP, pp. 11, 17-19, 61-77.)

THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURES AND AUTHORITY:

-- Historic Christianity

The Bible (Old and New Testaments) is the unique, revealed, and inspired Word of God. It is the sole authority for faith and practice for Christians. (see 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21)

-- Mormonism

Recognizes the LDS Four Standard Works as authoritative. These include the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly" (Articles of Faith 1:8). It also includes The Book of Mormon (BOM) which Joseph Smith declared is "the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 194).

The church also regards The Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) as Scripture. It "is a collection of modern revelations ... regarding The Church of Jesus Christ as it has been restored in these last days" (GP, p. 54).

The Pearl of the Great Price (PGP) is the fourth book believed to be inspired.

"It clarifies doctrines and teachings that were lost from the Bible and gives added information concerning the creation of the earth" (GP, p. 54).

The church's president is regarded as "a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet" (D&C 107:91-92).

THE DOCTRINE OF HUMANITY:

-- Historic Christianity

Human beings are created in God's image, meaning they have personal qualities similar to God's. Every person is a unique, precious being of dignity and worth. (see Gen. 1:26-27)

-- Mormonism

People are the preexisted spiritual offspring of the Heavenly Father and Mother. "All men and women are ... literally the sons and daughters of Deity ... Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal (physical) body" (Joseph F. Smith, "The Origin of Man," Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78,80, as quoted in GP, p. 11).They are born basically good and are "gods in embryo." A commonly quoted Mormon aphorism (attributed to fifth LDS president Lorenzo Snow) says "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN:

-- Historic Christianity

Human beings have chosen to sin against God, rejecting His nature and pursing life opposed to His essential character and revealed law. (see Rom. 3:23; 7:14-25; 1 John 1:8-10)

-- Mormonism

People sin by disobedience to God's laws. Adam's fall, a part of Heavenly Father's plan, caused a loss of immortality, which was necessary for mankind to advance, (see GP, pp. 31-34). As Eve declared according to LDS scripture, "Were it not for our transgression we never should have ... known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient"(PGP, Moses 5:11; see also BOM, 2 Nephi 2:22-25). Each person is responsible for his or her own sin.

THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION:

-- Historic Christianity

Salvation is release from the guilt and power of sin through God's gift of grace. It is provided through Christ's atonement and received by personal faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. (see Rom. 3:20; 10:9- 10; Eph. 2:8-10)

-- Mormonism

Jesus' atonement provided immortality for all people. Exaltation (godhood) is available only to Mormons through obedience to LDS teachings: faith, baptism, endowments, celestial marriage, and tithing. "Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God -- Wherefore, all things are theirs" (D&C, 76:58-59).

These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C, 76).

2. They will become gods.

3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

4. They will receive a fullness of joy.

5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have -- all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (See GP, p. 302).

Baptism for the dead provides post-mortem salvation for non-Mormons, and is "by immersion performed by a living person for one who is dead. This ordinance is performed in temples" (GP, p. 375). (See also GP, chapters 18-23.)

THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE AFTER DEATH:

-- Historic Christianity

Eternal life in heaven with God for those who have trusted in Jesus Christ. Eternal separation from God's presence in hell for the unsaved. (see Matt. 5:12-30; 25:41; Rev. 20-22)

-- Mormonism

One of three levels of glory:

1. Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom for faithful Mormons where people may become gods or angels; "Then shall they be gods" (D&C 132:20).

2. Terrestrial Kingdom for righteous non-Mormons; "These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fullness" (D&C 76:75-76).

3. Telestial Kingdom for wicked and ungodly (not hell); "These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers ... who suffer the wrath of God on earth"(D&C 76:103-104). (See also D&C 76:57-119; 131:1-4.)

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH:

-- Historic Christianity

Christians congregate together in local bodies and along denominational lines sharing distinctive doctrinal and ecclesiastical concepts. There is no organization or denomination that can claim exclusive designation as the "one true church." The universal church consists of all the redeemed in Jesus Christ in all of the ages. (see Matt. 16:15-19; 1 Cor. 1:12-14; Eph. 2:19; 3:11-12)

-- Mormonism

Asserts that the LDS is the one true church on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith claimed Jesus Christ told him to join none of the existing denominations because "they were all wrong ... that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" (PGP: Joseph Smith-History 1:19-20). Mormons claim only the LDS possesses the divine authority of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood as restored by God to Joseph Smith in 1829. (D&C 13; 27:8- 13; 107:1-20; PGP: Joseph Smith-History 1:68-73) --30-- Tal Davis is the strategic mentoring manager of the North American Mission Board's evangelization group.

References:

Gospel Principles. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1992.

McConkie, Bruce. A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1986.

Smith, Joseph, Jr. The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982.

Smith, Joseph, Jr. The Doctrine and Covenants. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982.

Smith, Joseph, Jr. History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 7 vols. 2nd ed. rev. Edited by B.H. Roberts. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951.

Smith, Joseph, Jr. The Pearl of Great Price. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982.

Smith, Joseph Fielding. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1977.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: baptist; bible; christian; christianity; inman; josephsmith; lds; mormon; mormonism; trinity
Note that all information about Mormonism in the above article were taken directly from Mormon sources. I state that to head off any accusations of "lying" about the LDS.
1 posted on 11/04/2011 6:05:44 PM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Only one is necessary: Mormonism denies the God of the Bible Wo declares “The Lord your God is ONE God.”
Mormonism teaches that there are multiple gods. If is false.

It, of course, goes on to pervert everything it touches, but this one thing is enough.


2 posted on 11/04/2011 6:08:40 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (You know, 99.99999965% of the lawyers give all of them a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Bump for later. :)


3 posted on 11/04/2011 6:37:51 PM PDT by pennyfarmer (Even a RINO will chew its foot off when caught in a trap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

http://1857massacre.com/MMM/mormon_underwear.htm

One can spend days in this site, reading ALL about the Mormans, many first hand testimonies of events, and many former mormons telling it like it was for them.


4 posted on 11/04/2011 6:55:01 PM PDT by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

“historic Christianity” as represented by the Catholic Church ( Latin and Greek ) would not agree with the sections on Scripture and Authority, the Church and Salvation.
you should change the title from historic Christianity to Protestantism ( and even not all Protestants would agree on these points! )


5 posted on 11/04/2011 7:58:20 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Interesting. Neither the word trinity nor triune are found in the Bible. There are, however, many instances in the New Testiment where Jesus is presented as a separate figure from the Father. At his baptism the voice of God was heard. So, was Jesus a ventriloquist? Jesus prayed to his Father. Was he praying to himself?

In John 17:11 Jesus prayed to his Father thusly: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.”

Jesus prayed that his deciples would be one just as He and His Father are one. Are we destined then to become some monster multi-person entity. I think not. It’s clear to me that Jesus wanted his deciples to be one in purpose. And it’s just as clear that Jesus and His Father are one in purpose not in person.

The strange triune trinity doctrine comes not from the Bible but from a pagan. Eusibius was a great historian who was at the Nicean counsil. He says that Constantine dismissed the counsil without addressing the question of the nature of God. But by prior araingement some of the delegates remained and it was from that small body that Constantine (a pagan) got the vote on a triune godhead. Thus, the triune trinity is a pagan belief, not from the Bible, and not in any way a part of Christian belief.

I don’t much care what a preson beleives or teaches, except for this: if he follows the golden rule and believes that Jesus died for our sins, then I count that person a Christian.


6 posted on 11/04/2011 9:40:15 PM PDT by webboy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Baptist history only goes back to around 1600, so I guess Christianity began around than because you see the rest of us are apostates.

On that account the Baptists and Mormons are in agreement.


7 posted on 11/04/2011 9:47:37 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Baptist history only goes back to around 1600, so I guess Christianity began around then because you see the rest of us are apostates.

On that account the Baptists and Mormons are in agreement.


8 posted on 11/04/2011 9:48:54 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: webboy45

Interesting. Neither the word trinity nor triune are found in the Bible. There are, however, many instances in the New Testiment where Jesus is presented as a separate figure from the Father. At his baptism the voice of God was heard. So, was Jesus a ventriloquist? Jesus prayed to his Father. Was he praying to himself?

In John 17:11 Jesus prayed to his Father thusly: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.”

Jesus prayed that his deciples would be one just as He and His Father are one. Are we destined then to become some monster multi-person entity. I think not. It’s clear to me that Jesus wanted his deciples to be one in purpose. And it’s just as clear that Jesus and His Father are one in purpose not in person.

The strange triune trinity doctrine comes not from the Bible but from a pagan. Eusibius was a great historian who was at the Nicean counsil. He says that Constantine dismissed the counsil without addressing the question of the nature of God. But by prior araingement some of the delegates remained and it was from that small body that Constantine (a pagan) got the vote on a triune godhead. Thus, the triune trinity is a pagan belief, not from the Bible, and not in any way a part of Christian belief.

I don’t much care what a preson beleives or teaches, except for this: if he follows the golden rule and believes that Jesus died for our sins, then I count that person a Christian.

>>> Thank you for stating what Sola Scriptura really is about.


9 posted on 11/04/2011 9:51:30 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

A more complete comparison would note that Mormon prfeachers are unppaid: they have no fringe benefits like other preachers, parsonage,l


10 posted on 11/04/2011 10:16:01 PM PDT by anarabismybrotherinlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

*** Baptist history only goes back to around 1600, so I guess Christianity began around than because you see the rest of us are apostates. ***

It seems that your statement above is Biblically absolutely dead wrong in the first part, and partially Scripturally correct on the second part, of course. Why?

By the command of The Christ, His fully committed followers were ordained to make more disciples from all tribes of people; to immerse in water these new disciples individually, for a public sign of total commitment to The Father, to The Son, and to The Holy Ghost conjointly; and to congregate those disciples for public instruction in continually watchfully guarding all the commands of The Christ from any corrupting change whatsoever throughout this age. There The Christ avowed He would always stand with them in this effort.

Immersionists have constituted the visible Bodies of The Christ since the birth of the local church of Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; where, subsequent to gladly receiving the instruction of Simon Peter that day, about 3,000 responsible souls repented of sin, accepted immersion in water as a sign, were added to the Jerusalem local church as new regenerated disciple-believer constituents, continuing in the doctrine of the apostles, in The Fellowship, in The Breaking of The Bread, and in the prayers.

The resurgence of immersionists in the 1600s as baptisers of responsible adults is only a reconstitution of the local assemblies which follow the pure New Testament doctrine as demonstrated on Pentecost. These 1600s baptisers rejected the corruption of the statist Roman religion, as well as that of its illegitimate daughters, who sought to reform the Roman religion rather than to reject it completely.

One corruption of all of those religionists was subscribing to the Roman-innnovated “baptism” of unqualified, irresponsible, unbelieving, unregenerated infants, which changed the position of those infants not at all, and was never commanded by The Christ. Doctrinally correct disciple-believers have never practiced infant-baptism nor attributed any merits to it.

So — yes — those, who imagine that infant “baptism” creates new Christ-followers, are pursuing deep apostate error and malpractice. Such apostasy clearly indicates a departure away from The Faith once delivered to the saints, away from those whom The Christ has summoned to meet together to bear the good fruit of more immersionist-discipled-believers, and away from The Fellowship of The Holy Ghost.

That makes the numbers of observable practitioners of The Faith even smaller than that estimated by most of Christendom. Eh?

Is that worth thinking a bit about? Should one not muse, “Am I in The Faith?”


11 posted on 11/05/2011 7:04:50 AM PDT by imardmd1 ((Let the Redeemed say so ...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: webboy45

“Neither the word trinity nor triune are found in the Bible. There are, however, many instances in the New Testiment where Jesus is presented as a separate figure from the Father.”

From God’s Holy inerrant Word:

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Matthew 28:18-20

“I and my Father are one.” John 10:30

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.”
2 Corinthians 13:14


12 posted on 11/05/2011 7:16:29 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

Baptism by immersion is the norm among all Eastern Christians. As a Melkite Catholic, I can say with confidence that we baptize both infants and adults by immersion.

The Western Church save for the Church of Milan discarded baptism by immersion for some reason in the 13th century. But it has made a comeback in some Roman Catholic parishes as an option.

Don’t cite the Bible because the problem is with how you interpret it. The issue goes far beyond baptism by immersion though.

Your interpretation of the Bible with regard to the sacraments and what baptism means is revisionist.

There is more continuity between the Catholic and Orthodox episcopate of today and the apostles because of unbroken apostolic succession than there is between a Baptist congregation and the apostles.

There are fundamental differences even among Baptists about what we Catholics would call core dogmatic issues such as predestination, free-will, etc. Every time Baptists open their mouths to pontificate about scripture, it is subjective.

That’s why Catholics and Orthodox appeal to tradition, so we know how to properly interpret scripture as it has been interpreted at all times, in all places, by all.


13 posted on 11/05/2011 7:41:20 AM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: webboy45

### Interesting. Neither the word trinity nor triune are found in the Bible. There are, however, many instances in the New Testiment where Jesus is presented as a separate figure from the Father. At his baptism the voice of God was heard. So, was Jesus a ventriloquist? Jesus prayed to his Father. Was he praying to himself? ###

You pose a couple of questions above, but they are not the correct ones. But in that vein, does the chemical term “dihydrogen oxide” appear in the Bible? Is not water a separate manifestation than ice or vapor (steam), which terms _do_ appear in The Holy Scriptures? Are not water, ice, and steam all the same substance? In fact, do not all of the created elements have solid, liquid, and vapor states of the same composition of matter? Were not the Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost present and together in unity at His baptism-to-fulfill-righteousness? Does not The Jehovah Christ The Creator present us with triunity examples throughout the Bible?

What excuse do you want to refute the Trinity of the same substance, but of differentiated manifestations which can coexist on both a spiritual, philosophical, and material basis? Is this not a manifestation of The Elohim, The Uniplural Being (by definition)? Of and by which all things consist?

Try Isaiah 49:16 “Come ye, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.” Three of the same Deity in substance, in unity, and in differentiated manifestations, together. Is this not The Elohim?

Is this too difficult? If so, you may be operating on a natural (psuchicos) basis, not a spiritual (pneumatikos) one. If so, no one can explain to you that which requires one to understand the deep things of the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:10,13-16) It will just be foolishness to you, as it seems to be — you may not understand it from experience. Were that it be else.

(And although not a fatal flaw, you might check the spelling in your thesis to be a little more credible.)

With sincere concern and regards —


14 posted on 11/05/2011 8:21:36 AM PDT by imardmd1 ((Let the Redeemed say so ...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: webboy45

webboy,
Your post is a collection of almost every mormonic myth
about the God of the NT I’ve ever seen in one place.

Each has been refuted countless times on FreeRepublic.

First, the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible. I would
gently say to you that the word “Bible” isn’t in the
Bible either, yet you used it in your post.

We all know what is meant by the word “Bible” when we
use it.

I will assume you are unaware of the Biblical basis
for the Christian understanding that we worship a Triune
God. Perhaps your understanding is shaped by the mormonic
misunderstanding of truth. I notice in your post that you
have the mormoncentric, earthly view of God. In fact,
the great Christian Creeds were delineated because false
heresies were abounding - the same heresies mormonism
later assumed.

Because of this, I will post part of a post by
Godzilla addressing it in a simple form.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Boiled down to its very essence the doctrine of the Trinity has two simple components -

1. There is only one TRUE God - Deuteronomy 4:35, 6:4, 10:14, Psalm 96:5, 97:9, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6-8, 44:24, 45:5-6, 45:21-23, 46:9, 48:11-12, John 17:3, 1 Timothy 2:5, Revelation 1:8, (Hosea 13:4). He is not, in His essential nature, a man: Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19. All other gods are false gods.
2. There are three Persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – each of which are identified as God.
a. Father - 1 Peter 1:2; Philippians 2:11
b. Jesus - 2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:13; John 1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8
c. Holy Spirit - Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

“Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance....And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” —Athanasian Creed

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ampu


15 posted on 11/05/2011 9:01:38 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (You know, 99.99999965% of the lawyers give all of them a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: anarabismybrotherinlaw; SZonian; colorcountry; greyfoxx39
"A more complete comparison would note that Mormon prfeachers are unppaid: they have no fringe benefits like other preachers, parsonage,l"

I will defer commenting on mormonic compensation to those FRiends here who used to be trapped in the mormon cult. They can tell exactly what form of compensation - monetary or "celestial" occurs.

I will comment that GOD instructed CHRISTIANS that those who make their living by the Gospel are entitled to compensation, so it seems a silly point to brag that mormonic preachers are unpaid. It is just one more confirmation that mormonism ignores the truth of the Bible and substitutes human works for God's principles. As an example of His instruction...

"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." - 1 Timothy 5:17, 18

OK, my fellow Christians who used to be mormons, do you have any insight? cc:
SZonian
greyfoxx39
colorcountry

16 posted on 11/05/2011 9:13:55 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (You know, 99.99999965% of the lawyers give all of them a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
OK, my fellow Christians who used to be mormons, do you have any insight?

Well, the comment "it seems a silly point to brag that mormonic preachers are unpaid" is correct...first of all, the big wigs in SLC are handsomely compensated for their educational degrees in business administration, law, etc..(1 mention of a degree in Theology) and these leaders have NO training whatsoever in Christian Theology or in particular, counseling.

None of the "unpaid" leaders are REQUIRED to have any education or training of ANY KIND. The local bishops in my memory were farmers and cattlemen with possibly a high school diploma. These were the men who wielded the power of allowing members to be considered "worthy" to reach exaltation through the mormon system of attaining glory.

There is a tendency to dispense the mantle of leadership to those who are financially successful, so the boast that leaders are not paid being a mark of superiority does not recognize the years of study required of Christian Pastors who are free to spend all their time actually ministering to their flock instead of spending a minimum of 40 hours a week earning their daily bread.

Frankly, the "unpaid leaders" and missionaries who are required to live in penury for two years are just a sign of the cultic mormon practice of putting money before Christ. Money that is used to build temples that are exclusive of any but the most obedient members and money that is used to build up the mormon church huge investment portfolio and money to build multi-billion dollar malls. These are hardly "Christian" endeavors and nothing to boast about.

17 posted on 11/05/2011 10:39:22 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (If other churches were dead dunking mormons to save them mormons would be furious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

## Baptism by immersion is the norm among all Eastern Christians. ###

That only means a coincidence with The Apostles’ doctrine, not a proof of obedience to it. Which of the seven baptisms of the new testament are you talking about, if any (not counting mikvah cleansing)? (”Norm” and “Eastern” bear no weight or essence here, though “nominal” might accompany “Christians.”)

## As a Melkite Catholic, ###

(Query (sideissue): Melkite? Is that Benedictine? or is this representing as “Melchisidekian” priesthood?)

### I can say with confidence that we baptize both infants and adults by immersion. ###

But neither Jesus, his disciple-apostles, nor (I think) the first-generation of patristics did. Your claim is an argument for having departed from NT doctrine, not an argument for compliance. Any confidence in the value of water baptism as effecting salvation of infants (or adults) is misplaced.

### The Western Church save for the Church of Milan discarded baptism by immersion for some reason in the 13th century. But it has made a comeback in some Roman Catholic parishes as an option. ###

It is not the discarding of the baptism of believers that marks corruption of doctrine of Christ and His Apostles; it is the innovation of “baptism” of infants (far, far earlier) that initiated one phase of apostasy that increased in its prevalence. Perhaps the tendency to drown infants by total immersion was contraindicated.

### Don’t cite the Bible because the problem is with how you interpret it. ###

Wrong. The Bible _is_ the authority is what I am citing, not a personal interpretation. Attention to hermeneutics will give you a better view, perhaps improve your slant.

### The issue goes far beyond baptism by immersion though. ###

Well, this is quite correct — even most of today’s baptists are prone to immediately water-baptise converts who have not really become disciples, and thus wind up with people who are convinced that they are “saved” but fail in displaying the behavior brought about by (1) discipled from unbelief to repentance, to (2) regeneration of God that is (3) followed by spiritual maturation brought about by (4) continued faithful discipling (for ever). But God does the saving (through reliance on the transaction completed at the Mercy Seat in Heaven, paid for with the uncorruptible blood of Jesus Christ). We only do the water baptizing afterward.

### Your interpretation of the Bible with regard to the sacraments and what baptism means is revisionist. ###

No, that is incorrect. I am clearly stating the command of The Christ without the revision which you presuppose. Please do not call what I stated in the note as my doctrine. It is the gospel of at least Levi and John and Paul. The one you propose is later, is deviant, and is a consequence of “Christianity” being adopted as the state religion, with an unregenerated emperor as its authority and decision-maker, and “infant baptism” being the significance of automatic citizenship by nativity and as a co-religionist imposed.

### There is more continuity between the Catholic and Orthodox episcopate of today and the apostles because of unbroken apostolic succession than there is between a Baptist congregation and the apostles. ###

That is an extreme and unproveable presumption, which is easily rejected by an obvious disparate comparison of Catholic or Orthodox dogma opposing unassailable Biblical doctrine. Apostolic succession is a myth not supported by Scripture, and is only a figment of very active political manipulation. There is no continuity. The line of Apostleship (the Twelve having seen The Christ personally, discipled by Him alone, and ordained by Him face to face as Apostles — the eleven plus Paul), ended with the death of the beloved John at about 100 AD, which was also the closure of the progressive revelation of Holy Scripture. My understanding is that God’s special ordained servants now only include evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Offices in the local church also include qualified elders and appointed deacons (as defined in the pastoral missives).

### There are fundamental differences even among Baptists about what we Catholics would call core dogmatic issues such as predestination, free-will, etc. Every time Baptists open their mouths to pontificate about scripture, it is subjective. ###

With “every time Baptists” you are in the ad-hominem mode. And you seem to insist that factual reproof is subjective, when it is not (= “don’t confuse me with facts!”). No thanks.

### That’s why Catholics and Orthodox appeal to tradition, so we know how to properly interpret scripture as it has been interpreted at all times, in all places, by all. ###

Wrong again. By such traditions one descends into the error of the scribes and Pharisees — “Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by your traditions?” “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.” That is why the Donatists, the Paulicians, the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, the Baptists, the brethren out of Plymouth, kept appearing, rejected statist apostasy, were claimed to be heretics, and were persecuted and murdered (and their unadulterated Scriptures burned) by the traditionalists, when they only wished to adhere to the commandments of Christ uncorrupted.

Error cannot stand the competition with The Truth.

********

Let me suggest that the line you have been taking always hits the “glass ceiling” that the rabbis, Jesuits, Calvinists, philosophers, and the like traditionalists and logicians never seem to be able to supersede. What God directs is to “... lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways, acknowledge him, and he will direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.” It is only by obedience to the explicit direction of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures (not one’s own reasonings) to the spiritually regenerated man that God can be pleased.

To the natural man who _cannot_ understand this, it is foolishness. So this is only presented in a factual sense, not in striving or rivalry as a contest. Take it, or leave it (kerusso).

Find me a place, any place in the Holy Bible that his disciples are commanded by God to immerse infants, especially when repentance/salvation/regeneration is presumed to have already occurred as God’s clear prerequisite to the ordinance of immersion as a measure of obedience to a command. That will be the only worthwhile point from which we can depart on a profitable rational or spiritual discussion.

Until then ...


18 posted on 11/05/2011 12:15:25 PM PDT by imardmd1 ((Let the Redeemed say so ...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
Regarding the topic of paying Christian preachers today, there is ample evidence that the early preachers (”elders” in the scripture quoted) were unpaid. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, and “honour” and “reward” in this scripture have other valid interpretations besides monetary reward or benefits such as a parsonage, Church supplied automobile, etc. I could easily cite numerous other scriptures and historical texts that clearly show that early Church leaders did not start being supported by either the congregation or the Roman Empire until much later, i.e., after great apostasy and evil had crept in.
19 posted on 11/05/2011 2:53:29 PM PDT by anarabismybrotherinlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: anarabismybrotherinlaw

“You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, “

The fact is that GOD says it is right and good. I believe Him. If you choose to disbelieve, that is your call.

When you didn’t muzzle an oxen as it threshed grain, it ate (made it’s living) from its work. God chose that to illustrate the principle. Christians are not required to be paid, but it is perfectly acceptable to GOD.


20 posted on 11/05/2011 3:32:26 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (You know, 99.99999965% of the lawyers give all of them a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
I'd say your premise starts with a logical fallacy. That of the argument from silence. It's the same sort of fallacy gay apologists make by trying to say homosexuality is permissible because the gospels are silent on the issue. We know that Jesus says in Matthew 19:14 "but Jesus said, g“Let the little children hcome to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” In Acts 16:32-33 the possibility of infant baptism is raised by the baptism of everyone in a particular household. And there isn't anything saying that only adults were baptized. "32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them zthe same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he awas baptized at once, he and all his family." And the Didache, which was a 1st century catechism written for converts around the same time as the canonical scriptures says the following about baptism: Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before." And St. Irenaeus of Lyon, author of the Against the Heresies, testifies. He was two generations removed from the apostle John, and his spiritual master St. Polycarp was evangelized by St. John the Apostle personally. "4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15 existing before all, and going before all." You say that infant baptism initiated apostasy, but aren't you saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church contrary to Matthew 16:19? If you want to identify with the Gnostics (the Paulicians, Albigensians be my guest because by doing so you are making my point about Baptists being a heterodox sect that has some sort of claim to hidden knowledge about the Bible.
21 posted on 11/05/2011 7:40:28 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
I'd say your premise starts with a logical fallacy. That of the argument from silence. It's the same sort of fallacy gay apologists make by trying to say homosexuality is permissible because the gospels are silent on the issue.

We know that Jesus says in Matthew 19:14 "but Jesus said, g“Let the little children hcome to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

In Acts 16:32-33 the possibility of infant baptism is raised by the baptism of everyone in a particular household. And there isn't anything saying that only adults were baptized.

"32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them zthe same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he awas baptized at once, he and all his family."

And the Didache, which was a 1st century catechism written for converts around the same time as the canonical scriptures says the following about baptism:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

And St. Irenaeus of Lyon, author of the Against the Heresies, testifies. He was two generations removed from the apostle John, and his spiritual master St. Polycarp was evangelized by St. John the Apostle personally.

"4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15 existing before all, and going before all."

You say that infant baptism initiated apostasy, but aren't you saying that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church contrary to Matthew 16:19?

If you want to identify with the Gnostics (the Paulicians, Albigensians be my guest because by doing so you are making my point about Baptists being a heterodox sect that has some sort of claim to hidden knowledge about the Bible.
22 posted on 11/05/2011 7:41:49 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
No, that is incorrect. I am clearly stating the command of The Christ without the revision which you presuppose. Please do not call what I stated in the note as my doctrine. It is the gospel of at least Levi and John and Paul. The one you propose is later, is deviant, and is a consequence of “Christianity” being adopted as the state religion, with an unregenerated emperor as its authority and decision-maker, and “infant baptism” being the significance of automatic citizenship by nativity and as a co-religionist imposed. >>As I already pointed out, infant baptism predated St. Constantine's acceptance of Christianity by some 300 years. Christianity didn't even become the state religion of the empire until Emperor Theodosius about 100 years later.

And contrary to the mythology surrounding St. Constantine's adoption of Christianity, it wasn't received well. Those who wanted to be true to Christ rather than imperial politics fled to start the monastic movement, which placed holiness and devotion to Christ over being accepted.

The monks in Byzantium became a headache for the Eastern Roman emperors for the next 1,000 years because they frequently revolted against his control.

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America has an interesting article to this effect:

The establishment of Christianity as a legal religion of the roman Empire by Constantine the Great, with the edict of Milan (313), led to a new decline in the ethical life of Christians. In reaction to this decline, many refused to accept any compromises and fled the world to become monastics. Monasticism thrived, especially in Egypt, with two important monastic centers, one in the desert of Nitria, by the Western Bank of the Nile, with Abba Ammoun (d. 356) as its founder, and one in the desert of Skete, south of Nitria, with Saint Makarios of Egypt (d. ca. Egypt 330) as its founder. These monks were anchorites, following the monastic ideal of St. Anthony. They lived by themselves, gathering together for common worship on Saturdays and Sundays only." http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7103

Baptist Christianity has very little in common with how the Early Christians worshiped or believed. All early Christians continued the Jewish practice of liturgical worship. In fact the Greek text of Acts uses the word leitourgia (liturgy) several times. http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/liturgical_worship_in_the_new_testament

On that note, Lutherans and Episcopalians have more in common with early Christians than Baptists do.

Baptism is NOT just a symbol, and I challenge you to provide a verse from scripture or from the ancient writers fo the Church that it was.

John Calvin was the first person to my knowledge who denied that God uses baptism as a physical means of conferring the Holy Spirit.
23 posted on 11/05/2011 7:57:03 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
Apostolic succession is a myth not supported by Scripture, and is only a figment of very active political manipulation. There is no continuity. >>What do you call when the apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas?

Apostolic succession was the norm that the early Christians used to distinguish themselves from the Gnostic heretics who claimed apostolic authority. St. Clement of Rome, who St. Paul mentions in Phillipians 4:3 testifies around 80 A.D. in Chapter 42:Verses 1-3 that: ""Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." And St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes the following against the Gnostic heretics a century later around 189 A.D.: "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about".(Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2). "Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4). "Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1). "[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession(Baptists?), and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2). "The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8). The line of Apostleship (the Twelve having seen The Christ personally, discipled by Him alone, and ordained by Him face to face as Apostles — the eleven plus Paul), ended with the death of the beloved John at about 100 AD, which was also the closure of the progressive revelation of Holy Scripture. >>Catholics and Orthodox likewise believe this. Pope St. Pius X writes in his Oath Against Modernism in 1907: "..., I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously." My understanding is that God’s special ordained servants now only include evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Offices in the local church also include qualified elders and appointed deacons (as defined in the pastoral missives). >>The only ministries mention explicitly in scripture are bishops (episkopoi), presbyters (presbyterium), and deacons (diakonoi). The early Church later instituted the ministries of subdeacon, lector, etc. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches alone have maintained these ministries in unbroken succession for over 2,000 years.

And the Anglicans, and some Lutherans, have retained these ministries at least materially.
24 posted on 11/05/2011 8:13:47 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
Apostolic succession is a myth not supported by Scripture, and is only a figment of very active political manipulation. There is no continuity. >>What do you call when the apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas?

Apostolic succession was the norm that the early Christians used to distinguish themselves from the Gnostic heretics who claimed apostolic authority.
,
St. Clement of Rome, who St. Paul mentions in Phillipians 4:3 testifies around 80 A.D. in Chapter 42:Verses 1-3 that: ""Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."

And St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes the following against the Gnostic heretics a century later around 189 A.D.: "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about".(Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).
"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession(Baptists?), and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).

The line of Apostleship (the Twelve having seen The Christ personally, discipled by Him alone, and ordained by Him face to face as Apostles — the eleven plus Paul), ended with the death of the beloved John at about 100 AD, which was also the closure of the progressive revelation of Holy Scripture.

>>Catholics and Orthodox likewise believe this. Pope St. Pius X writes in his Oath Against Modernism in 1907: "..., I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."

My understanding is that God’s special ordained servants now only include evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Offices in the local church also include qualified elders and appointed deacons (as defined in the pastoral missives).

>>The only ministries mention explicitly in scripture are bishops (episkopoi), presbyters (presbyterium), and deacons (diakonoi). The early Church later instituted the ministries of subdeacon, lector, etc. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches alone have maintained these ministries in unbroken succession for over 2,000 years.

And the Anglicans, and some Lutherans, have retained these ministries at least materially.
25 posted on 11/05/2011 8:16:58 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rzman21; imardmd1

Do you have any real idea why Matthias was chosen to replace Judas? Hint: it is NOT about Apostolic succession.


26 posted on 11/05/2011 8:21:31 PM PDT by smvoice (Who the *#@! is Ivo of Chatre & why am I being accused of not linking to his quote?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
Wrong again. By such traditions one descends into the error of the scribes and Pharisees — “Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by your traditions?” “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.” That is why the Donatists, the Paulicians, the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, the Baptists, the brethren out of Plymouth, kept appearing, rejected statist apostasy, were claimed to be heretics, and were persecuted and murdered (and their unadulterated Scriptures burned) by the traditionalists, when they only wished to adhere to the commandments of Christ uncorrupted.

You miss the point of Jesus's talk about the Pharisees. I might add that today's Jews are the descendants of the Pharisees. The Pharisees made observance of all 600+ Levitical commandments over the law of grace.

Orthodox Jews still do this today.

I might add that the Catholic Church applies these warnings against those who place cultural practices before the gospel, including bragging about the numbers of rosaries, fastings, etc. that people do.

The Church condemns anything that is done out of spiritual pride rather than in a spirit of humble service to our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible never says that everything that Jesus did or said is contained in Scripture. In fact, the Bible speaks to the contrary.

In John 20:30 attests: "30 uNow Jesus did many other signs vin the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;" And John 21:25 attests: "25 Now qthere are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that rthe world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Hence the Catholic/Orthodox veneration of extra-scriptural accounts of the lives of Jesus and Mary, and the apostles inasmuch as they do not contradict canonical scripture.

Then we find in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. "15 So then, brothers, dstand firm and hold to ethe traditions that you were taught by us, either fby our spoken word or by four letter."

And in 2 Thessalonians 3:5: Παραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ' ἡμῶν. "6 Now we command you, brothers, sin the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, tthat you keep away from any ubrother vwho is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." The Greek uses the word "paradosis", which means as follows according to a Protestant New Testament Greek lexicon: Paradosis giving up, giving over the act of giving up the surrender of cities a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence."

I challenge you to show how your sect's practices stack up against what we know from outside of scripture about how early Christians believed and worshiped. How are you so sure that you stack up against 2 Thessalonians 3:6?

From what I have been able to see since just before I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism 20 years ago, Protestants don't conform with the verse.
27 posted on 11/05/2011 8:38:47 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
Do you have any real idea why Matthias was chosen to replace Judas? Hint: it is NOT about Apostolic succession.

That's apostolic succession in a nutshell. Every Catholic or Orthodox bishop is what Matthias was.

I call your comment sectarian denial.

To admit apostolic succession would be to concede that you belong to a sect that has completely rewritten the norms of Christian faith.

Aren't you setting yourself up as your own infallible Pope?
28 posted on 11/05/2011 8:56:13 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
To answer your first question, Melkite Catholics are descendants of Greek Orthodox Christians who entered into union with the Pope of Rome in 1724.

We retain a married priesthood, have our own autonomous chief bishop of Patriarch of Antioch who ranks 3rd in the entire Catholic Church after the Pope of Rome, and use the same rituals and customs as the Greek Orthodox. Plus, we follow a more mystical and more monastic approach to our faith than the West. We don't teach purgatory in the classical Western sense, our bishops refrain from any discussions about indulgences, and our ways of doing things are a lot older than the West.
29 posted on 11/05/2011 9:03:11 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE THRONES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL." Mt. 19:28.

Get it? When Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, the twelve disciples will be sitting on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. When Judas went to his own, that left 11. Christ could not set up His kingdom with 11 disciples judging the twelve tribes. There is a disciple for each tribe of Israel. THAT is why Matthias was made the 12th disciple.

It has NOTHING to do with Apostolic succession. It has EVERYTHING to do with the PROMISE Christ made to His disciples.

No, I'm not setting myself up as my own Pope. I'm setting myself up as someone who can read the Bible and believe it says what it means and means what it says.

30 posted on 11/05/2011 9:06:34 PM PDT by smvoice (Who the *#@! is Ivo of Chatre & why am I being accused of not linking to his quote?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

I’m not setting myself up as my own Pope. I’m setting myself up as someone who can read the Bible and believe it says what it means and means what it says.

>>But you are picking and choosing which scriptures to tie together, so in effect you are appointing yourself as your own Church, Pope and hierarchy.

But I’ll say you have a rather novel interpretation. Now show me any Church fathers who used your hermeneutic connecting the appointment of Matthias with this verse.

The Catholic/Orthodox interpretation predates the canon of scripture we have today.

I might add there were 70 apostles, not just the 12.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_disciples

I imagine that if a person sitting in the pew next to you has a different interpretation they are a heretic, right?

Read Eusbius’s Ecclesiastical History, which takes the Church’s history from the cross to the time of Constantine.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

From what I am seeing the only difference from a Baptist and a Mormon is a matter of degrees. Both sects are implicitly Gnostic.


31 posted on 11/05/2011 10:07:05 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

The year 2007. This is 2011 where folks are bored with all the anti Mormon stuff. Don’t you have anything better to do with your time?

P.S. If I wanted to - which I don’t - I could dig up all kinds of controversial stuff about every Christian sect and denomination on the earth - but why would I want to do that? I have better things to do with my time.


32 posted on 11/06/2011 3:04:31 AM PST by Saundra Duffy ( For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Enlightening people is never a waste of time. Do you fear enlightenment? Everything in this article is from Mormon sources. Do you fear the truth or do you fear others reading the truth? Refute the article, not the message bearer.
33 posted on 11/06/2011 3:51:44 AM PST by Graybeard58 (Of course Obama loves his country but Herman Cain loves mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1
One corruption of all of those religionists was subscribing to the Roman-innnovated “baptism” of unqualified, irresponsible, unbelieving, unregenerated infants

You mean infants who haven't earned the right to salvation by working for it? Oh, perish the thought that God would save the unworthy and freely justify the unjust through grace ... appalling! Scandalous! For as Paul says somewhere, "If you haven't worked for it, it's not grace." /s

BTW, no matter what else you say about it, it's definitely not true that infant baptism is "Roman-innovated". Justin Martyr says that there were old women living in his day who had been baptized by the apostles -- he wrote around AD 150. Origen says that the church received the custom of baptizing infants from the Apostles.

The Armenian and Ethiopian churches, who were never obedient to Rome or Constantinople nor under the Roman yoke politically, both baptize infants.

34 posted on 11/06/2011 4:56:41 AM PST by Campion ("It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." -- Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

### Do you have any real idea why Matthias was chosen to replace Judas? Hint: it is NOT about Apostolic succession. ###

Yes. My take is that in the period between the time Peter was converted (Jn 21 probably) I believe that he did obey the risen Christ and was engaged in strengthening the brethren (Lk 22:31-32) under the direction of the risen Christ (the Holy Ghost had not yet come). But in the 9 to 10 days between the Ascension and the Pentecost, neither Peter nor the other 10 disciples and core believers were under the direct personal control of The Christ or The Holy Ghost. So, without that restraint and guidance, Peter became restive, and under humanistic reasoning invented a misuse of the Scriptures to assert his sense of establishing himself as a(the?) dominant leader and influence-peddler through the gambit of forcing the fellow disciples to choose a replacement for Judas Iscariot.

Apparently he was able to obtain a consensus of agreement. Then taking the matter in hand, and without any authority to do so, they devised a method whereby a replacement would be selected by them from two of the camp-follower men. One supposes that the lottery method was one which they thought was suggested by Scripture (Lev 16:8, Prov 16:33, Jonah 1:7 for example). Hence they gave themselves the excuse that the choice was of the Lord by the time-honored of casting the lot. So they, instigated by Peter, all conspired against the Lord to execute their will and not His.

Matthias was chosen as the replacement, but was never again mentioned in the New Testament. They had no idea that one of their desperate enemies was to be chosen by God to supply the office of the twelfth and last Apostle, in His own time.

So we see the kind of evil that well-intentioned men can do without waiting on God and without walking in The Spirit. As a consequence Peter, though a great preacher, evangelist, pastor, and discipler, never again achieved the role of executive leadership in his own local church. Moreover, though he claimed the ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7) that ministry to the uncircumcision was committed to Paul by God and the brethren; and Peter was charged with the ministry to the circumcision (mostly the diaspora?).

It would be well to note that Mary, the mother of Jesus, apparently had no authoritative voice in these deliberations, even in the 10 days before Pentecost when any Spirit-led person ought to have spoken up against the anthropocentric machinations of Peter and his cohorts. But the Holy Spirit had as yet had fallen on none. Though converted, there were none regenerated — none had the indwelling Holy Ghost, and none were speaking by inspiration.

Also note that later on her son James (Jacob) became the pastor of the First local church — that of Jerusalem. Another of her sons, Jude, wrote the definitive tract on apostasy. But she was not mentioned again after the commencement of the Church Age on Pentecost.


35 posted on 11/06/2011 5:51:04 AM PST by imardmd1 ((Let the Redeemed of The LORD say so ...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

By Gnostic, I mean that Baptists and Mormons seem to think they have some sort of hidden knowledge that eluded all of their predecessors when they read the Bible.


36 posted on 11/06/2011 6:01:46 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Do you have some sort of hidden knowledge about how to properly interpret the Bible that people like St. Clement of Rome or St. Ignatius of Antioch, or St. Polycarp who actually knew the apostles weren’t given?


37 posted on 11/06/2011 6:07:34 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Protestants act like bitter children when it comes to their anti-Roman polemics, which causes them to forget what the separated Eastern Churches share in common with Rome doctrinally despite their separation.


38 posted on 11/06/2011 6:16:02 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

It’s called 2 Tim 2:15. Not exactly a secret, but completely ignored by those who want to believe they are spiritual Israel, or are bringing in the Kingdom, or have some sort of Apostolic Succession, or believe that water baptism saves, or teaching that faith plus works save. Sound familiar?


39 posted on 11/06/2011 6:39:47 AM PST by smvoice (Who the *#@! is Ivo of Chatre & why am I being accused of not linking to his quote?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

2 Timothy 2:15 is what the Catholic Church adheres to unlike your own sect, which only dates from the 17th century.

My response is from Matthew 7:15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

The following verses apply to Protestantism and the followers of your sect because you have not kept the traditions of the apostles and have created a new gospel.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Acts 20:30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

A sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace, and it is not a human work. To think otherwise is to depart from scripture as well as tradition.


40 posted on 11/06/2011 10:15:03 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; anarabismybrotherinlaw

No compensation that I’m aware of, but I seem to recall that they would be judges during the resurrection. So there is the “promise” of authority to reign and rule so to speak.

However, I have larger issues with the “lay” leaders...

Besides living in the world on a daily basis;

No ecclesiastical/theological training.

No marriage counseling training.

No psychology training.

They are “lay” in every sense of the word.

I would say you get “what you pay for”.

Bogged down with ward administrative issues, family issues, work issues, etc. There is only so much time in a day to devote to the bishop’s duties. How then, can he be expected to do the job he’s been called to efficiently? How can he ensure the member’s spiritual needs are taken care of?

I can recall how difficult it was to get time with a bishop to discuss spiritual matters. I didn’t trust any others in the wards because they were just like me, trying to sort it all out and coming with as many interpretations as there were people.

I’ve sat and listened to speakers put forth erroneous interpretations of scripture and doctrine during their assigned talks and not once did I ever see one of these “lay” bishopric members stand and correct it.

When confronted afterwards, I would be told that since I wasn’t in the bishopric, I had no standing in attempting to correct the speaker.


41 posted on 11/06/2011 5:19:07 PM PST by SZonian (July 27, 2010. Life begins anew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SZonian; greyfoxx39

Thanks to you both for chiming in from your actual experience.
I appreciate it.


42 posted on 11/06/2011 5:49:33 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion (You know, 99.99999965% of the lawyers give all of them a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
### Then we find in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. "15 So then, brothers, dstand firm and hold to ethe traditions that you were taught by us, either fby our spoken word or by four letter." ### Had to take a break by obligations on the Lord's Day, Monday, and today, so it happened that I could not reply until now. And indeed, also as I indicated before that we would only find a profitable point of departure when you find any place in the Holy Scripture ordaining infants to be baptized. So I do not intend to strive, especially since the voluminousness of your responses only prove that you have found simple positive affirmation for paedobaptism in Scripture; and therefore you have only uninspired tradition, post-dating the completion of the canon, to lean on. Now, considering your reference to the passage above, there are three points: (1) Your Greek above is identical to that found in both Scrivener's TR and Nestle's 4th 1904 ed of WH. -- no fault there. But the translation you give is not merely imprecise, it is very misleading. Three faithful interchangeable English renderings are given by AV, ASV, and Douay-Rheims of which the following is representative: "(Therefore)(So then), brethren, stand (fast)(firm) and hold (to) the traditions which (ye)(you) (were taught)(have learned)whether by word, or (by) our epistle." The RV and NASB are discounted because seek to improve by adding to the sentence, embroidering the truth, thereby destroying the integrity. Yet they are modified not quite so much as the version you have given above. To "taught" you have added "by us", and to "word" you have added "our spoken." This lends a completely different and unwarranted complexion to the interpretation, not confirmed by a precise hermeneutic. (2) Even then, the traditions taught to the Thessalonians only comprise the teaching by word of mouth (inspired only during that limited phase of the development of NT canon), or by written embodiment of known _doctrine_ (Heb. 6:1)(logos); or by OUR letter (singular), which can only be the single previous letter written by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy _together_ (who were all still then together in Corinth in 51 AD, with even the first Synoptic Gospel not yet widely distributed); and the NT ordinances to be held fast were only those derived from the OT, or directly from being discipled by The Christ, or just being written down. (Note that Paul saw The Christ, and was discipled by Him for 3 1/2 years in the Arabian desert). Now, I know that the transmission of oral precepts were permitted under the Mosaic/Davidic Covenant. In just one instance it is (now) _recorded_ that Joseph "... came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.' "(thus making what had been an oral tradition not found in the OT, into inspired Scripture by being written down by the Holy Ghost through Levi). But now, since the methods of mouth to mouth revelation or oral transmission from God to man are no longer taking place, your basis of these kind of post-canonical traditions is no longer relevant. The application of inspiration of the new orally-delivered precepts is limited to the time period concluded by the death of John. After that, the only new "traditions" formed were uninspired. Furthermore, if there were any supposed precepts formed in that time and holding over after the canon was closed -- if they were not clearly cited in the Holy Scripture, they were extra-Biblical, uninspired, anthropocentric, and invalid. Your citation above as you translated and used as you have done, only leads you to draw weak conclusions by referring to extrabiblical practices that are founded on false doctrine. (3) I have a bit of understanding of paradohses, such as the Ordinance of Honor, taught by Paul to the Corinthians in about 50 AD, his reminder set down by inspiration in 1 Cor 11:2-15, and which is now a flat-out order, not just to the Greeks of Corinth, but to all believers everywhere. It amazes me that the Greek bishop that you hold up as an example, regularly does (as the Pope does) directly disobey the clear precept that "... the head of _every_ man (male) is Christ; ..." v. 3, "Every man (male) praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." What tradition of that bishop is it whereby he is able to supersede the direct command of the Holy Spirit in this matter by dishonoring The Christ??? I wouldn't lift _that_ up in defense of unscriptural tradition. I didn't miss the point of Jesus' talk to the Pharisees at all. I think perhaps that slipped right by you in your lecture on this principle. (3) One of the problems people have demonstrated in this thread is the implicit assumption that human-administered water baptism, even immersion and not merely topical, effects salvation: that man's determined wilful conduct forces The God to respond to that provocation by regenerating the person suffering the rite. This is a wholly incorrect and presumptuous doctrine. In fact, this does touch on the "Christian"/Mormon doctrinal differences, which baptism would be one topic of this thread. ***************************** So again (and this is my last attempt) find me a Scriptural ordinance for water-baptizing an infant -- yea, even a convert who has never become a disciple -- and I will be corrected. If not, you need to find someone who can disciple you into a productive maturity, whereby you may become a discipler according to Scripture. (2 Pe 3:15,16 unlearned = undiscipled) As a further note, be aware that I am not a Protestant, and am not a sectarian. I am a believer in the Scripture that alone The God uses to present His plan of redemption as executed by The Messiah The King, and His coming Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace; and his guidance for the churches in every age. I a constituent of an independent local assembly of fundamental immersionist believers. I believe that is the only manifestation of His true visible churches on earth. Also, you might check out: http://www.happyheralds.com/
43 posted on 11/09/2011 12:51:16 AM PST by imardmd1 ((Let the Redeemed of The LORD say so ...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

This link may assist you the next time you post.

HTML 2011-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2650195/posts


44 posted on 11/09/2011 12:59:28 AM PST by airborne (Paratroopers! Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

The only false doctrine comes from those who chose to reinterpret the scriptures 1600 years later without cultural, linguistic, or historical context.

In the end, the only thing you have is your subjective private interpretation.


45 posted on 11/09/2011 11:22:40 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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