I Believe

[Northern Lights]

I think that the Mormans are the fastest growing religion right now,

I would say that one of the biggest concerns for Evangelicals is the Morman Law of Eternal Progression which states:

"As man is God once was, and as God is man may become"

This is very contrary to what's in the bible. God always was and always will be. He's Immutible (sp?) -- unchanging

 

[Timebuilder]

This is what the Bible says about other teachings not included in the Bible: (only three references to keep this short)

Galatians 1: 8-9

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Revelation 22: 19
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Revelation 14:6
Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth--to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people--

First, the Bible describes itself as fully sufficient for our use, and secondly, it is not in character with the Bible for believers to become "gods". This may be a big attraction for many to Mormonism, but this is not true, according to the Bible, which does not describe God as going through any kind of change or metamorphosis to become the God we know, nor does it allude to our changing to become "gods" ourselves.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Timebuilder, I was trying to make a point that science has hindered by Christianity but you would not engage in that discussion except tangentially. I'll live with that, but I disagree with you and I would be interested in someone else's view on the subject.

I do have a few statements on this though:

This is what the Bible says about other teachings not included in the Bible: (only three references to keep this short)

Galatians 1: 8-9

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Ironically I jst spoke of infinitely regressive just a little while ago. This too is infinitely regressisive. By this I mean that you could say that this means
"Only the bible,"
"Only the New Testament,"
"Only the book of Galatians,"
"Only the words of the author of the book of Galatians (regardless of where they are found),"
"Only this chapter in the book of Galatians,"
"Only this verse or group of verses..."

In other words, someone could always come along and claim to be MORE LITERAL than you and cut away even more. And that this could almost happen infinitely. The text really doesn;t preclude that unless you start to (gasp!) INTERPRET IT.

What I would say to you is that you use a very indistinct bright line to identify what is acceptable and then you exclude the rest. I can't think of any reason why the author (Paul I guess?) wasn't refering more broadly to Christian teachings. After all... who are YOU to say that God didn't mean something other than the way you read it.

Revelation 22: 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I am not sure this goes quite where you want it to. It says "take away from". The Book or Mormon does not minimalize the book of Revelation in any way. It removes nothing from it. Contrarily, it adds to it.

Revelation 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth--to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people--

So who are you to say that God didn't intend for there to be another book somewhere else? The bible does not specifically say that, does it? (If it does then I am wrong, but you have not presented it to me).

God spoke to other people, so why not an ancient civilizationfrom this continent (even though there is no archeological evidence whatsoever of this...)?

First, the Bible describes itself as fully sufficient for our use, and secondly, it is not in character with the Bible for believers to become "gods". This may be a big attraction for many to Mormonism, but this is not true, according to the Bible, which does not describe God as going through any kind of change or metamorphosis to become the God we know, nor does it allude to our changing to become "gods" ourselves.

It says in Genesis Chapter one that God made man in his own image.... I don't speak ancient Hebrew, but in English it doesn't seem to preclude what you are saying it does - ie becomming a God. While this does seem a little blasphemous considering my cultural and religious (surprise, surprise) background, why is it precluded?


Timebuilder, to pursue this line maybe to the point of beating up that horse, you can say "Well, that's not MY christianity so its not REALLY christianity" all you want. At some point, you lose your bright line, because you too are drawing conclusions.

I'll leave the nature of the bible itself, and its creation for another time.

 

[Timebuilder]

If you like, you can sit down with a well versed (no pun intended) Bible scholar, and I strongly suspect that they will tell you the same things that I have told you.

I have given you what the Bible says. If you don't like it or don't agree with it, that's your perogative. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but at that point, whose opinion contains the underpinnings of scripture and its study?

I feel very comfortable that the few verses I have cited are appropriate to the discussion, and I am certain that the Bible does not support the idea of a changing God or believers becoming like God. That is a Bible fact that does not require the eye of a trained Bible student. The book of Mormon purports to be "another testimony of Jesus Christ", in which case your argument against Galatians 1: 8-9 falls short. The book of Mormon would DEFINITELY be "any other gospel" compared to the Bible gospel.

 

[100LL... Again!]

I am a Christian. However, I must say that for the most part, I have trouble in the company of other Christians.

Why? The division over theological issues, anger, holier-than-thou attitudes, etc.

To compare to a business:

The church gets a lot of repeat customers, but that marketing, whew! That one's a b!tch.

(Please withold the snide remarks about the church being a business. Some are, some are not.)

In reality, the church as a collective whole should do some soul-searching (no pun intended) and resolve some of the discord. It is only weakening their position.

I'm saved, I know that. If you are too, great. If you are not, for your sake I hope you get saved. If you choose not too, I can't worry about that.

Sometimes I get the impression that some Christians argue their point to excess because they cannot accept that some people will reject God. Sometimes I think that this means that their own faith is weakened by someone else's doubt. They will feel justified only when others agree with them. The more someone argues with them, the more they feel a need to 'convert' them. Even IF you could convert someone through argument, why the heck would you want to?

Some points

If you think someone is rejecting the Gospel, there are reasons this could happen:

1) You are not presenting it very well. Arguing, hamering on someone, etc. Holier-than-thou attitudes won't work either.

2) Gospel means "Good News" in Greek. If it doesn't sound like good news, then just perhaps you aren't preaching the Gospel. (I feel a flame coming on...)

3) They are an unrepentant sinner with the pedal to the metal on the highway to he11.

I'm sure there are more reasons.

Bottom line - remember the parable of the plank and the splinter.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Timebuilder-

If you can't give them proof, why should they believe the Bible over any other "Holy Book?"

 

[fLYbUDDY]

cricket cricket

 

[Timebuilder]

Sometimes I get the impression that some Christians argue their point to excess because they cannot accept that some people will reject God. Sometimes I think that this means that their own faith is weakened by someone else's doubt. They will feel justified only when others agree with them. The more someone argues with them, the more they feel a need to 'convert' them. Even IF you could convert someone through argument, why the heck would you want to?

That's an excellent point. It's precisely what I thought about when people shared the gospel with me. What did they want? What was their angle? Were they just trying to reinforce some insecurity about being a believer?

Later, in fact many years later, when I was saved, I at first told NO ONE, remembering my old reaction to those who witnessed for Christ. Then, I heard a message that changed my attitude. In short, I realized that I will not only have to stand and give account for my actions both before and after being saved, but I will also face the possibility of being made aware of all those with whom I could have shared the gospel, but failed to do so. Knowing who they are, and seeing my failure would be a large burden, even if were immediately forgiven.

Some of the people you may end up becoming aware of during the judgement could be not only strangers, but close friends and relatives. So if you hesitate to share this gift, be aware that your failure to do so may not be limited to a moment in time.

 

[Timebuilder]

If you can't give them proof, why should they believe the Bible over any other "Holy Book?"

A very good question.

My own experience of being prepared for the decision happened over a period of several years, and it was a road populated with various people and experiences, along with many, many discussions. It was a long term process of the softening of my heart, which had been very hard to God for a long time.

The only reason to continue to answer the questions and continue the teaching is the possibility that somewhere down the road, the prepared soil will receive the seed and begin to grow.

I think that's a good enough reason.

 

[100LL... Again!]

I'll go along with that.

I think if we are not careful, we could stir up resentment and hinder the outcome. Maybe?

That's why I don't evangelize a lot - I haven't learned to like people well enough to care. If they don't wanna know God, I let 'em go. Not my problem at that point.

 

[Timebuilder]

Hey, wait a minute!

I'm supposed to be the curmudgeon!!!

 

[fLYbUDDY]

I was raised Catholic and I can offer insight as to that side of the equasion. However, I haven't practiced for several years though. I haven't subscribed to that particular doctrine ever since I became "enlightened".

Me too! "Enlightened" onto the fact that God is alive and available in a personal relationship with Him rather then some routine religion.

In reality, the church as a collective whole should do some soul-searching (no pun intended) and resolve some of the discord. It is only weakening their position.

It will all change anyway as it is outlined in the book of Revelation about the different churches and how the Lord sees it.

Here is something to consider 1 Cor 1:18):

"Divisions in the Church"
10Now, dear brothers and sisters,[1] I appeal to you by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yourselves. Let there be real harmony so there won't be divisions in the church. I plead with you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11For some members of Chloe's household have told me about your arguments, dear brothers and sisters. 12Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter,[2] " or "I follow only Christ." 13Can Christ be divided into pieces?
Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16(Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. I don't remember baptizing anyone else.) 17For Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News--and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.

And just to clear anything up 100LL, and this isn't to call you out on anything I just don't want you to misunderstand where I am coming from: I am not trying to convert any of the opposing beliefs posted on here unto my own. That is the Spirit's job. I am simply giving a reason (as the Bible commands) about why something is the way it is. Have I done it 100% in the absolute perfect Christian way? No I'll admit my flesh would rise every now and then and feel like arguing for the sake of arguing, but for the majority of the time I believe the Spirit was more involved in the actual posts (Christian ones) then I was. I apologize for ever coming across as anything better then anyone, or as having a “holier” attitude if that was what appeared to of happened. If I have pleaseeeee forgive me. I have just discovered something I want to share with everyone (and so does He) and sometimes it amazes me someone would rather be the furthest away from God rather then embraced in His loving hands. So I apologize for my forcefulness in any way it appeared to have come out. I do believe however that for the most part it was a healthy intellectual logical conversation between some internet buddies. The changing of the mind isn't expected for someone who has spent the better part of a lifetime trying to disprove God. It is for the watching world that has questions in favor/against both sides of the coin. So I hope what happened here is that someone who strolled through the threads (maybe aren't even a registered user) really did get a two-sided view of the issue (rather then a bias) and can now better make the decision of what they believe themselves. Either way I still love them and ALL you guys/gals in here!
-Gary-

 

[100LL... Again!]

I've been a curmudgeon since I was 10.

You?

I'm probably a lot like Jonah, if you get my drift. Sittin' under that tree just a-waitin' for the you-know-what.

Wish I was like Paul. Maybe someday...

 

[Timebuilder]

What he said.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Flybuddy-

Wasn't directed at you or timebuilder. You guys are fine. More at the Bible thumpers who throw accusations around and preach he11fire and brimstone. Some of it might be true, but they're never gonna win many over.

 

[TurboS7]

If you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and paid the penalty for your imputed sin(all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God) Then you will be saved, and God welcomes you to the Body of Christ. The blood shed on Calvary saves you, works do not. For by grace are you saved through faith, it is a gift from God, not by works lest any man should boast. God did not intend for denominations to be an issue, we are part of the Body and we should love one another and our diffrences. That is what makes Calvary Chapels, Calvary Chapels, they apply sound Bibilcal doctrine. Yet people still don't see it and turn Calvary Chapels into a denomination, when in reality they are just practicing Biblical truth.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

How about a dose of truth here?

You guys bashing the Catholic Church as not really "Christian" crack me up! BTW, you notice how in recent times Protestants no longer refer to themselves as "Protestants" but rather as "Christians"? It's almost like they are ashamed that they are Protestants and think by changing their label, they change their reality....George Carlin would have a field day with that one!

And the guy who said Emperor Constantine founded the Church....YGBSM!!! Then how come there had been a continuous progression of popes for several hundred years already, going back to St Peter himself? (followed by Linus, followed by Clement, etc.) In the latter third century (well before Constantine) St. Iraneous of Lyons gives a list of the unbroken succession of popes, from St Peter to Syslvester...who held the office at the time St Iraneous wrote. And how do you explain all the pecularily Catholic beliefs alreay being universal in the first 2 centuries of the Christian Era?

St Justin Martyr about 150 A.D. writes about the doctrine of trans-substantiation in the Eucharist...this is a Catholic doctrine all Protestants (and "fundies") reject!! And St Justin was clearly not announcing something new...from the tone of his letters, it is clear he takes this belief as being long-established and accepted...and he is merely explaining it clearly to potential convets. And this was in 150 AD - where was Constantine then? He wouldn't even be born for more than 100 years!! Likewise there is plenty of documentation for auricular confession to one's priest, prayer for the dead, veneration of saints, etc....again many years before birth of Constantine.....so nice try with the old "Constantine invented the Catholic Church" BS, but that only works with people who are ignorant of history. Guess that's why Cardinal Newman, after he left the Anglican Church to become a Catholic, said "To be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant".

There is much more I could say on this topic, but I think this reply is long enough. So next time you fundies out there want to trash the Catholic Church, maybe you should do some homework first. If you are interested, there are plenty of good books out there...many by Protestant converts to Catholicism.

Try "Catholicism and Fundamentalsim" by Karl Keating, "Rome Sweet Rome" by Scott and Kimberly Hahn, or "Evangelical is not Enough" by Thomas Howard. I would also strongly recommend "On What Authority" by Mark Shea. Many of these can be found at your local bookstore...or you can order them from www.tanbooks.com or www.allcatholicbooks.com.

To finish up on a humorous note....it seems a certain man in France a couple centuries ago confided to a friend that he had lost his faith and had decided to leave the Catholic Church. His friend was somewhat surprised and inquired as to what Protestant denomination his fallen-away friend might consider joining. The man answered with this: "Join a Protestant chuch? Sir, you insult me...I said I had lost my faith, not my reason!"

 

[Timebuilder]

And the guy who said Emperor Constantine founded the Church....YGBSM!!! Then how come there had been a continuous progression of popes for several hundred years already, going back to St Peter himself? (followed by Linus, followed by Clement, etc.) In the latter third century (well before Constantine) St. Iraneous of Lyons gives a list of the unbroken succession of popes, from St Peter to Syslvester...who held the office at the time St Iraneous wrote. And how do you explain all the pecularily Catholic beliefs alreay being universal in the first 2 centuries of the Christian Era?

It's interesting how you might refer to Linus and Clement as popes of a Catholic chucrch that was not yet a Catholic church. A little revisionist history, no doubt officially sanctioned by the Vatican. No matter. As far as protestants not calling themselves protestant, you need to understand what it was that Martin was protesting. The main thrust was the selling of indulgences, but that was only one blatantly non Biblical activity of the so-called "holy" church.



Oh, and to call the beliefs you mention as being "universal" is a matter of opinion. You are welcome to your opinion.

The basis of Chritianity is the Bible. You cannot find the typical Catholic constructs in the Bible because they are just that: constructs. Constructs of Man, to be precise.

St Justin Martyr about 150 A.D. writes about the doctrine of trans-substantiation in the Eucharist...this is a Catholic doctrine all Protestants (and "fundies") reject!!

If it was written by Man and not by inspiration of God, then transubstantiation is a false docrtrine, and NO ONE should follow it.

And St Justin was clearly not announcing something new...from the tone of his letters, it is clear he takes this belief as being long-established and accepted...and he is merely explaining it clearly to potential convets. And this was in 150 AD - where was Constantine then? He wouldn't even be born for more than 100 years!! Likewise there is plenty of documentation for auricular confession to one's priest, prayer for the dead, veneration of saints, etc....again many years before birth of Constantine.....so nice try with the old "Constantine invented the Catholic Church" BS, but that only works with people who are ignorant of history. Guess that's why Cardinal Newman, after he left the Anglican Church to become a Catholic, said "To be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant".

All that you are showing, other than a detailed study of Catholic dogma, is that a great deal of incorrect doctrine existed long before the Catholic church became the unifying body of preexisting pagan belief and the misleading beliefs of others. In other words, you are wrong. Sure looks good on paper, though.

There is much more I could say on this topic, but I think this reply is long enough. So next time you fundies out there want to trash the Catholic Church, maybe you should do some homework first. If you are interested, there are plenty of good books out there...many by Protestant converts to Catholicism.

You would be served well to ignore the writings of men. Your homework, written by others who have also been mislead, can only serve to hurt you. Jesus was a fundamentalist Christian. If you do not believe Him and His Word, than you should start worshipping only His mother, as I have seen people doing in countless places as various charlatans reveal statues that "bleed". At least in that case, you would be honest about your rejection of God's word.

I feel as bad as I possibly can for you: believing a teaching written and supported by mortal Man, failing to trust Him according to His Word, blinded as a man who has willingly put out His own eyes!

I will not read your books, but only recommend the one book that is the basis of Christian faith.

If it isn't there, you should not be doing it. Nothing could be simpler than that.

 

[enigma]

Catholics are Christians according to these definitions...


Chris·tian
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Your definitition of a Christian is incorrect. A Christian is one who: recognizes that he is totally unable to reach Heaven/God by himself, who recognizes that Jesus the Christ died in order to provide a way for humans to reach Heaven, and who trusts in Jesus and Jesus alone for salvation(reaching Heaven).

It doesn't matter if one "believes" in Jesus, so does the devil.

It doestn't matter if one "follows a religion based upon the life and teachings of Jesus", nowhere does the Bible say that following a religion based upon the teachings of Jesus will bring one to salvation.

It doesn't matter if one lives according to the teachings of Jesus,

Because the Bible, Gods Word, states that professing faith in Jesus is the only way to Heaven. Believing is not enough. Works are not enough. A good life is not enough. Professing faith and accepting Jesus' sacrific is required.


One must have told Jesus, I need salvation, and I accept you as my Savior.

regards,
enigma

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

My response to Timebuilder

Timebuilder said:

"Oh, and to call the beliefs you mention as being "universal" is a matter of opinion. You are welcome to your opinion."


No, it isn't a matter of my opinion. It's historical fact....there's a difference. Funny how all these Catholic beliefs you excoriate also exist in the various Orthodox churches...why? Simple...because they are also ancient churches.


So I guess this is really the simplicity of your viewpoint:

1. For 1,500 years (beginning in the first generation after Christ) all "Christians" completely and disastrously misunderstood the Lord's teachings and radically changed all His doctrines.

2. These same people gladly suffered persecution and martyrdom rather than abandon their faith and also fought tooth and nail against any and all heretics who tried to change the Faith even slightly (e.g. Donatists, Arians, Gnostics, Manicheans, Monophysites, etc.)

Hmmmmm....sounds like all these saints, apostles, martyrs, bishops, etc were slightly schizophrenic to say the least....but let us continue....

3. The holy and devout people of the Middle Ages (aka the Age of Faith) who built all those beautiful cathedrals, monasteries, convents, churches, poorhouses and orphanages, etc and who fought for the Faith in the Crusades...were not really Christians at all. And St. Francis of Assisi? St Thomas Aquinas? St Dominic? Guess they were all pagans too huh? Even though doctors of the Church like St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St Thomas Aquinas are recognized as towering geniuses of their time and deeply holy men...you know better huh? Guess Mother Theresa was a pagan too...

4. Finally after 1,500 years an unstable, ill-tempered, rabid anti-Semite named Martin Luther comes along. He rebels against all established Christian dogma (both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) and becomes a heresiarch...founding his own religion and Protestanism in general. He rejects the authority of the Church...but claims unlimited authority for himself!! He even claims authority to change the canon of the Bible...which had been settled since Council of Hippo in 400 AD...and proceeds to do so!! He removes 6 books from the O.T. that provide obvious support for Catholic beliefs (such as existence of Purgatory)...and attempts to also remove some N.T. books (Epistle of James and Revelations) but his followers talk him out of it, explaining that the common people will never accept that. Now I ask you...by what authority can a defrocked and ex-communicated monk like Martin Luther take it upon himself to change the canon of Holy Scripture? No Pope of Rome ever claimed to have such power!! And yet YOU ACCEPT THE CHANGES MARTIN LUTHER MADE TO THE BIBLE! Now who is following the traditions of men?

5. And finally....the vast majority of Christians (read: Catholics) reject Martin Luther's heresy (which is specifically condemned as anathema at Council of Trent in 1560's) and continue to adhere to the beliefs of their forefathers. Ditto for the Eastern churches. Meanwhile, Protestantism...lacking any authority whatsoever...devolves into anarchy. There are now over 20,000 different Protestant denominations in the USA alone!! All have different teachings on even the most fundamental dogmas and all condemn the others as being "not real Christians".

So does that about sum it up? Again I repeat what I said earlier...the only way to remain a Protestant is to maintain a serious ignorance of history. Anyone with an open mind who studies secular history going back to the ancients, church history, and especially the writings of the Church Fathers will immediately grasp the falsity of Protestant teachings.

And one final note... You know all the heretical groups of the ancient world I mentioned above? Donatists, Gnostics, Arians, etc? ---BTW vast majority of Protestant churches would agree these were heresies (Arians for example denied Christ was equal to the Father...but rather that He was a created being and therefore not truly God).--- Well, do you know how these ancient heretics defended their beliefs? The answer is simple...they justifed their heresies.....BY CLAIMING THEY WERE GOING BY WHAT IS TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE!! They had scriptural quotes to back up all their views and condemned the traditional Catholic doctrines (such as Jesus Christ being truly God as well as man) as "unscriptural". Sound familiar? The more things change....

Oh I almost forgot...the ridiculous charge that Catholics "worship" the Mother of God is hardly worth addressing... but I guess some may be so ignorant of Catholic doctrine that they might possibly buy into this BS. The Church does not now and never has taught that the Blessed Virgin is equal to God...how could she be, since she is a created being? Rather the Church teaches all the faithful to honor and venerate her in a special way (more than that accorded to any other saint or angel) because God Himself chose her to be His mother. And as the Mother of God she possesses an honor and dignity that far surpasses that of any other created being....whether human or angelic. So yes, Catholics pray to her as they have since the days of the Caesars and ask for her blessings...not a thing wrong with that. And if all you have to confess to Christ on the Judgment Day is "You know Lord, I'm sorry for this...but gosh darn it...I just loved and honored Your holy mother too much and prayed for her to help watch over me".....then I think you are not doing too badly!! LOL