 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
moinmoin
Posts:394
 | | 01/29/2008 9:59 PM |
 Alert | Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) passed away Sunday at the age of 97. While I'm confident that all non-Mormons in this forum would reject and distance themselves from the following Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka, Kansas) press release, I do have a serious question. Here's the press release:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20080129_gordon-hinckley-funeral.pdf
Granted that this is w-a-y over-the-top (this church has injunctions against its protests in some states; they have picketed funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq because "the war is due to America's soft stance on homosexuality"), are they Christian?
Before people point out, rightly, that their behavior is un-Christian (no argument there), consider the standard fundamental reasons non-Mormons give for not considering Mormons to be Christian:
1. Rejection of creatio ex nihilo (belief that God created absolutely everything out of absolutely nothing).
2. Rejection of the Trinity (Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct persons).
3. (For some) Rejection of the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP; I'll let a Calvinist explain these. Many non-Mormon Christians reject these as well, but TULIP Christians are quite insistent on this).
4. Rejection of biblical inerrancy/infallibility/sufficiency.
Granted that Mormonism's most distinct doctrine of continuing, modern revelation lies at the core of many people's refusal to consider Mormons Christians, the above are almost always the reasons given ("They believe in a different Jesus," etc.).
My question is: Given that Westboro Baptist Church is "orthodox" on the above points (#3 being non-essential among many Christians), is Westboro Baptist Church "more Christian" than a Mormon congregation? Are they Christian at all?
If not, wouldn't this judgment be based on works and not on orthodoxy of core doctrines (at least those doctrines generally put forth as reasons for not considering Mormons to be Christians)?
What say ye?
| | | |
| | luv the copa
Posts:175
| | 01/30/2008 6:48 AM |
Alert | OK...so this is a little bit of hijacking...I know it's not quite on topic....BUT,
That is heart breaking to me. Let those who mourn him do so. I guess some people have absolutely nothing better to do than tear others down. Maybe the old adage is true and it makes them feel better about themselves to make others feel badly. If others don't believe it's true then go on with life and don't worry about us.
Protesting a funeral!....I am not sure where they think that will get them? The funeral will continue. It will not break out in a riot. I hope that none of these people ever get the same treatment in return of a loved one. I guess I will never totally get it.
Gordon B. Hinckley will be missed by members of the church and nonmembers alike. Since I so strongly believe that life continues after death I am sure he is very happy to see his sweet bride again. What a happy day for them. | |
Changing lives one diaper at a time since 1993.
Trecia | |
|
| | love@hm
Posts:476
| | 01/30/2008 9:35 AM |
Alert | I am ill-equipt to answer moinmoin's question, but I DO want to point out for those that are unaware:
The Westboro Baptists are not associated with any other Baptist sect. They have "Baptists" in their title and that is all.
It has been my experience, most Christians of ALL sects do not support this group or their actions, everyone I have EVER talked to have said is against GOD. | | | |
|
| | JasonY
Posts:1926
| | 01/30/2008 3:18 PM |
Alert | | No.......they are religious extremist nut jobs just like the terrorists....... | |
"Your village called.........they're missing their idiot" | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 01/30/2008 8:31 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 01/29/2008 9:59 PM
are they Christian?
Before people point out, rightly, that their behavior is un-Christian (no argument there), consider the standard fundamental reasons non-Mormons give for not considering Mormons to be Christian:
1. Rejection of creatio ex nihilo (belief that God created absolutely everything out of absolutely nothing).
2. Rejection of the Trinity (Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct persons).
3. (For some) Rejection of the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP; I'll let a Calvinist explain these. Many non-Mormon Christians reject these as well, but TULIP Christians are quite insistent on this).
4. Rejection of biblical inerrancy/infallibility/sufficiency.
Granted that Mormonism's most distinct doctrine of continuing, modern revelation lies at the core of many people's refusal to consider Mormons Christians, the above are almost always the reasons given ("They believe in a different Jesus," etc.).
My question is: Given that Westboro Baptist Church is "orthodox" on the above points (#3 being non-essential among many Christians), is Westboro Baptist Church "more Christian" than a Mormon congregation? Are they Christian at all?
If not, wouldn't this judgment be based on works and not on orthodoxy of core doctrines (at least those doctrines generally put forth as reasons for not considering Mormons to be Christians)?
What say ye?
I would first like to give my condolence to the Mormons for the lost of a love one. Secondly I would like to say that I am and always have been disgusted by Westboro Baptist Church.
I don't look at your 4 points to decide who are Christians or not. I consider people Christians if they profess that God CAME to die for their sins and rose again. Yes point 2, goes along with this. Therefore I don't consider Jehovah Witness, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals Christians.
If a professing Christian denied point 1) or 4), I would be concerned, and would try to build with them, However I wouldn't say they were not Christians.
On your point #3, myself speaking as a Calvinist you are misrepresenting the view of the majority. There are some Hyper Calvinist however who might agree with you. Most Christians I know deny the TULIP, however I as well as most Calvinist still consider them Christians.
As for the Fred Phelps' group, I would consider SOME of them confused stubborn disobedient Christians. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them were not Christians, because they were caught up with the head knowledge in their independent movement and not truly believing in their heart the Gospel message.
Good question moinmion  | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:394
| | 01/30/2008 9:29 PM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 01/30/2008 8:31 PM
I would first like to give my condolence to the Mormons for the lost of a love one.
Thank you, EEE! Both for the condolences, and for your thoughtful reply.
Secondly I would like to say that I am and always have been disgusted by Westboro Baptist Church.
I have no doubt. I don't think for a moment that Westboro Baptist is a role model for anyone here.
I don't look at your 4 points to decide who are Christians or not. I consider people Christians if they profess that God CAME to die for their sins and rose again. Yes point 2, goes along with this. Therefore I don't consider Jehovah Witness, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals Christians.
So, if I understand you correctly, the fact that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is separate from the Father is the sticking point here. Would you include the Eastern Orthodox Churches? They split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 over this very question, and doctrinally consider the Father and Son to be separate. Actually, both pontiffs in Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other back in 1054!
Of course, a Mormon would reply that they believe Jesus is God, even if He is separate from the Father. He was the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Messiah of the New, He created the earth, etc.
Where in the Bible is the doctrine of the Trinity made clear?
On your point #3, myself speaking as a Calvinist you are misrepresenting the view of the majority. There are some Hyper Calvinist however who might agree with you. Most Christians I know deny the TULIP, however I as well as most Calvinist still consider them Christians.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that TULIP (the Five Points of Calvinism) isn't a monolithic required belief for Calvinists. How many different "shades" or "flavors" of belief are there among Calvinists regarding the scope of the atonement, predestination, etc.?
Thanks again for the reply!
| | | |
|
|  | moinmoin
Posts:394
| | 01/31/2008 7:30 AM |
Alert | Here are some thoughts from a friend of mine in Illinois on this group:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/bombing/19950822_bombs-explode.html
I just listened to the above sermon. It might have been 2 hours, I'm not sure. It is a pretty disgusting bit of hate speech as far as I'm concerned. But I think I finally understand their reasoning.
They have no desire whatsoever to change anyone with their picketing. They are not trying to recruit or to get people to repent. They don't care if anyone likes them or agrees with them.
They are extreme Calvinists and believe that it is God's intent to damn almost the entire population of the world to an eternal, fiery hell. God is angry and vengeful and cares nothing at all for anyone but the few He has picked to live. They believe God is mocking and toying with people around the world by killing them slowly and piecemeal as retribution for their wickedness.
They see themselves as a small group of the elect. They see themselves as the persecuted and threatened ones with the whole world out to destroy them. Anything comforting or kind that God says in the scriptures is directed to them alone, not to anyone else in the world. Any time someone dies, particularly in a nature disaster or in war, they see it as God's coming to their rescue and fighting their battle. They think God is laughing as He kills these people and they are rejoicing with Him. They view the rest of humanity as we might view
disease-laden mosquitos and they hope for everyone else's torture and destruction as we might be glad to see a swamp drained and the mosquitos DDT'ed out of existence.
In some ways, they are like the suicide bombers. They cannot be frustrated because they have no goal other than to rejoice in the misery of others. If you mock them or attack them, they are pleased to be vindicated as being God's persecuted elect. If you ignore them they are pleased to be able to rejoice in your misery in peace. If you try to reason with them that they are ineffective or counterproductive in their methods, they inform you that they have no
desire to be effective or productive and that they are pleased to know that you really are perverted and damned and simply look forward to your destruction.
There is a horrible sense of pure evil about them; a sense of utter separation from Christ.
How do people like this make a living? How do they interact with the people in their towns and neighborhoods?
| | | |
|
| | djbaldwin
Posts:246
| | 01/31/2008 9:29 AM |
Alert | | I really dislike this group who calls themselves christian's. I have been a member of many different faith's all christian. I have been deployed all over the world with 1st special forces group in the army. It's been my experience and it's my personal opinion that as christ said by their fruits shall ye know them. I feel if you believe christ is the power by which you are saved that is the important sticking point. However you believe that whether it is the Godhead or the Trinity you believe in that same saving power. Secondly I believe christ came to fulfill the law of moses and thereby teaching us the doctrine of the spirit of the law. With this Christ taught that we should love our neighbor and kinda like the golden rule treat others as they ought to be treated. Don't get me wrong we also must stand for something. But in standing for something I don't think we cause others misery beyond what our healing balm of love can cure. I think if you truly judge christians by these principles it shows who true christians are regardless of individual doctrines. Those that follow these two points truly love christ and follow the spirit of his law which is the good news of the gospel no matter which sect they belong. This Baptist church spoken definitely does not fit in. | |
"If everyone had the right priorities in life there would always be a shortage of fishing poles"
Mark Twain | |
|
| | JasonY
Posts:1926
| | 01/31/2008 9:32 AM |
Alert | The thought of pre-determination is kinda depressing, unless you think you are in the saved group I guess...........
These people spew such hate and tell of a God so vengeful they are actually serving Satan without even knowing it. The joke is on them. | |
"Your village called.........they're missing their idiot" | |
|
| | djbaldwin
Posts:246
| | | moinmoin
Posts:394
| | 01/31/2008 6:56 PM |
Alert | This brings up a related point: for those who consider Mormons to be a cult . . .
1. Are the Westboro Baptists a cult? If no, have you poked around a bit on their web site? Wow.
2. If they are a cult or have cult-like features, where would they be in relation to where you put Mormons on the cult-o-meter? Are Mormons more of a cult than W.B? Less? By how much?
Lest anyone think that this kind of behavior is limited to Westboro Baptists, here are pictures of non-Westboro protesters at the Mesa Temple.
http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/2004_Mesa_Easter_Pageant.html
http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/2003_Mesa_Easter_Pageant.html
Very effective. | | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 01/31/2008 9:26 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 01/30/2008 9:29 PM
So, if I understand you correctly, the fact that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is separate from the Father is the sticking point here. Would you include the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
Yes.
If one doesn't believe in YHWH alone, they are not saved. That includes Roman Catholics who actually believe it's their 'good works' that saves them. They believe they can only receive God's grace through their doings of sacraments. Of course some will deny it, but if they are consistent with their beliefs, it is true.
Posted By moinmoin on 01/30/2008 9:29 PM
They split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 over this very question, and doctrinally consider the Father and Son to be separate. Actually, both pontiffs in Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other back in 1054!
This is true, however God in his sovereign will was in complete control. Using emperors and sects both evil and good to preserve his Word and to help his people understand him.
Every Authority is placed by God.
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Posted By moinmoin on 01/30/2008 9:29 PM
Where in the Bible is the doctrine of the Trinity made clear?
If one believes in sola scriptura and Tota Scriptura
it's pretty simple to see.
The Bible is very clear on these 3 points:
1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.
2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.
3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity---that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ:
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
So it's clear that Jesus is God(which I know you already profess to believe)
We dealt with this scripture in the past, but I will post it again:
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Psa 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
Psa 113:5Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high
There is no other possible meaning for these verses other than there is one God. Since Jesus is God, he is YHWH. The only way to manipulate those verses is by using sources outside of the 66 books.
However, I know we both have dealt with the arguments and rebuttals many times in our lives. So to cut to the chase the real issue is with "sola scriptura and Tota Scriptura". If we agreed on that issue, we would have no problem agreeing with doctrinal issues.
Posted By moinmoin on 01/30/2008 9:29 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that TULIP (the Five Points of Calvinism) isn't a monolithic required belief for Calvinists. How many different "shades" or "flavors" of belief are there among Calvinists regarding the scope of the atonement, predestination, etc.?
Calvinist believe there is only 1 shade. You're Calvinist if you believe all 5 points of the TULIP. However you'll hear people say "I'm a 3 point Calvinist" or my favorite "I'm a one point Calvinist". The reason Calvinist don't acknowledge them as a Calvinist is because we recognize they are being inconsistent with their thinking because if they truly understood the 5 points, they all go together. You can't have one without the other. I will be happy to repeat what I said in my last post though, we still consider them brothers and sisters in Christ.
I believe that's what you were asking about Calvinism. If you were looking for more specifics on the theology, let me know and I will be happy to answer.
Look what you made me do! I took a forum vacation for a few months and on my return I have to write a book! | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:394
| | 02/02/2008 5:23 PM |
Alert | All's well that ends well.
For all the commotion, the funeral was very uneventful, as far as protesters go. I got this from a friend in attendance:
I'm downtown SLC, and have been for over an hour. Phelps (of godhatesfags fame) never showed up.
Street preacher Lonnie Pursifal was out with a sign, but that was it.
Could be because it is blasted cold here.
There were media and police everywhere--more than at general conference.
Oh, and police were enforcing a 200 ft stay-away zone for protesters. So Lonnie, as the sole protester, had to stay further away than normal.
Pursifal is head of the "Street Preachers Fellowship," and is notorious for waiting for newly-married brides to stand for pictures in front of the temple, where he calls them "whores" with a bullhorn.
I'm very glad that the circus didn't materialize.
| | | |
|
| | Amygdala
Posts:67
| | 02/02/2008 5:48 PM |
Alert | Q: Are Westboro Baptists Christian?
A: Yes
Next question. | | | |
|
| | djbaldwin
Posts:246
| | 02/02/2008 7:11 PM |
Alert | Posted By Amygdala on 02/02/2008 5:48 PM
Q: Are Westboro Baptists Christian?
A: Yes
Next question.
Technically they are christians because they believe in christ but i really don't think they follow the spirit of what christ taught. | |
"If everyone had the right priorities in life there would always be a shortage of fishing poles"
Mark Twain | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:394
| | 02/02/2008 7:47 PM |
Alert | Posted By EEE on 01/31/2008 9:26 PM
Look what you made me do! I took a forum vacation for a few months and on my return I have to write a book! Oh, I don’t know — weren’t you predestined to write this long response all along? 
By the way, how do you quote someone using box outlines? I can’t figure that out, so I have been putting quotes in italics.
So to cut to the chase, the real issue is with "sola scriptura and tota scriptura". If we agreed on that issue, we would have no problem agreeing with doctrinal issues.
It’s more basic than that: the assumption that God created everything ex nihilo along with being omniscient and omnipotent (being all-knowing and all-powerful) can only ultimately lead to Calvinistic predestination/predetermination. To argue otherwise would be to claim that an all-knowing and all-powerful God created, out of nothing, people who chose or willed contrary to what He had willed or chosen for them to choose or do, which would render Him not omniscient and omnipotent. Yet, many Catholic and Protestant Christians make the same claims of creatio ex nihilo, omnipotence, and omniscience but deny Calvinism. To me, Calvinism is the only logical conclusion and extension one can reach with these assumptions.
This demonstrates the importance of creatio ex nihilo. Everything hinges on it. That God’s creation consists of divinely organizing eternal, non-created matter (both physical and spirit) is one of the “plain and precious truths” restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. Because intelligence, spirit matter, and physical matter are not and cannot be created, but are eternal having no beginning and no end, we all truly have full moral agency to choose or reject God and make choices and decisions for ourselves.
If one doesn't believe in YHWH alone, they are not saved. That includes Roman Catholics who actually believe it's their 'good works' that saves them. They believe they can only receive God's grace through their doings of sacraments. Of course some will deny it, but if they are consistent with their beliefs, it is true.
I don’t think this is a fair assessment of Roman Catholic belief (or LDS belief either, for that matter). The real question isn’t whether or not one is saved through sacraments (ordinances), it is whether or not Christ, who laid down the terms of salvation through His atonement, has commanded that men perform and receive these ordinances as part of the conditions for salvation. That’s the real question, and both Catholics and Mormons testify to the world that Christ has instituted these sacraments (ordinances) as necessary components of Christ’s plan of salvation. Salvation is through Christ alone, but we must keep the commandments He has given and required. For Mormons, ordinances necessary to return to God’s presence consist of 1) baptism by immersion for the remission of sins by one who is authorized to perform it 2) the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one who is authorized (one demonstrates one’s faith in Christ and repentance by seeking for these ordinances in the prescribed manner). Beyond simply returning to God, ordinances that form the first steps in becoming like God and receiving all that He has are 1) (for men) receiving the priesthood, both preparatory and higher 2) receiving the ordinance known as the endowment (in temples) 3) being sealed to one’s spouse and children for time and all eternity.
This is true [that Roman and Eastern Catholics split over whether the Father and the Son are separate individuals] however God in his sovereign will was in complete control, using emperors and sects both evil and good to preserve his Word and to help his people understand him.
Every Authority is placed by God.
Romans 13:1 — “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
Because all people have full freedom to make choices and to choose between good and evil, without being predetermined by God, I agree that God in His foreknowledge uses people He knows will choose this way or that way to ultimately advance His intentions and plans. But this “ordaining” of powers and people’s choices doesn’t involve Him making them choose or do certain things. He simply uses choices He knows they will make to further His cause and advance His ends, and this affects His timing in placing certain of His children on the earth at certain times to bring certain things about in the eternal scheme of things.
If one believes in sola scriptura and tota scriptura [the doctrine of the Trinity] is pretty simple to see [in the Bible].
As you noted, “we both have dealt with the arguments and rebuttals many times in our lives.”
The Bible is very clear on these 3 points:
1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.
2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.
3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity---that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
No argument with that! This is all plain in the Bible without bringing the Trinity into it, though.
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;
2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ:
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
So it's clear that Jesus is God(which I know you already profess to believe)
The thing with these is that the Trinity is not self-evident. These make perfect sense and work just fine without forcing a trinitarian view.
We dealt with this scripture in the past, but I will post it again:
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Psa 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
Psa 113:5 Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high
There is no other possible meaning for these verses other than there is one God. Since Jesus is God, he is YHWH. The only way to manipulate those verses is by using sources outside of the 66 books.
But the doctrine of the Trinity stems from the councils and dogma centuries after the first century A.D., not from the 66 book canon (which wasn't established by the end of the first century A.D., anyway).
It’s important to remember that Jewish prophets were combatting the gods of the Canaanites and other surrounding peoples (e.g., El, Ba’al, Asherah, Chemosh, Moloch, etc.). These passages, and others like them, are an apologetic against these gods, and not a broad commentary on the existence or non-existence of other “legitimate” Gods.
To be consistent, wouldn’t those who insist on the above passages need to claim that the following passages allow for more gods/Gods?
“Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.” — Exodus 22:28
“The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD, (save us not this day,)” — Joshua 22:22
A special consideration is Deuteronomy 32:8. This reads in our modern versions something like this:
“When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”
However, in the Hebrew, it reads thus:
“When the most High of the gods divided the nations and separated the peoples, he set the bounds of the peoples, according to the number of the gods.” (My English translation of this verse in the Einheitsüberstezung Bible [German joint Catholic/Lutheran Bible] ).
The footnote for this reads (again, translated into English):
“ ‘. . . according to the number of the gods’ — other translations: ‘according to the number of the sons of Israel.’ This reading is more recent, and was introduced to deal with polytheistic conceptions that are evident in the oldest versions. The number referred to is 70. According to ancient Semitic thought, there were 70 gods over the 70 peoples of the world. Because Israel (Jacob) had 70 descendants (Exodus 1:5), it was thought permissible to change ‘gods’ in the original to ‘sons of Israel’ in later versions.”
Suffice it to say that the whole area of how Old Testament Israelites viewed the heavens and God is much, much more complicated than our modern outlook. They did not have an evangelical conception, to say nothing of a trinitarian one.
Trinitarians generally have never had the experience of trying to explain the trinity to a devout Muslim or orthodox Jew. Try telling them that trinitarian Christians are monotheistic, and watch the fun begin! Trinitarians know how difficult and confusing it is to explain the trinity even “in-house” among believers; to outsiders (including Mormons), it is simply baffling. Although we’re not trinitarians, on my Mormon mission in Germany (1994-1996), I sometimes had to deal with their criticisms of trinitarianism (which, as a non-trinitarian, I was able to dispel quite easily and move on). We would sometimes get media referrals where a Pakastani student would request a copy of the Book of Mormon in Urdu, and we would take it to them and teach them. That was where I gained most of my knowledge of the Koran, and I was very impressed with these Pakastani college students in Germany. A trinitarian would not be able to convince a Muslim that trinitarians are not polytheistic, believing in three gods, even with all of the explanations of how they are really only one. The same applies to orthodox Jews, who are fiercely proud of their monotheism and resent trinitarian Christian claims of monotheism.
Calvinists believe there is only 1 shade. You're Calvinist if you believe all 5 points of the TULIP. However you'll hear people say "I'm a 3 point Calvinist" or my favorite "I'm a one point Calvinist".
That must drive devout Calvinists nuts, having people trying to cherry-pick, ala carte, which parts of Calvinism they are OK with to form their own version of “Calvinism-Lite.”
EEE, thank you very much for taking the time to explain what you’ve explained here!
| | | |
|
| | Urban Cowgirl
Posts:208
| | 02/03/2008 12:45 AM |
Alert | Ah, Fred Phelps... being from Kansas, that name is hauntingly familiar.
As to whether or not his group is Christian, I think only He could judge that. The venom that they spew is certainly not of the One that I know.
My Father In Law rides a Harley, and he lives in Kansas. When Fred is raising a ruckus locally, they have a group of riders that attend the funerals that Phelps is expected to protest. They form a human wall to shield the mourners from having to look at the hate, and if Phelps starts talking on his bullhorn, those Harleys rev their engines so he's not heard. | |
Janelle
---------
You can take the girl out of Kansas, but can't take Kansas out of the girl! | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 02/03/2008 12:55 AM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 02/02/2008 7:47 PM
Oh, I don’t know — weren’t you predestined to write this long response all along
You right!
By the way, how do you quote someone using box outlines? I can’t figure that out, so I have been putting quotes in italics.
At the beginning of a what you want to quote place the word, “quote” in [] and at the end of the quote place the word “/quote” in [] (don’t include the quotations)
It’s more basic than that: the assumption that God created everything ex nihilo along with being omniscient and omnipotent (being all-knowing and all-powerful) can only ultimately lead to Calvinistic predestination/predetermination. To argue otherwise would be to claim that an all-knowing and all-powerful God created, out of nothing, people who chose or willed contrary to what He had willed or chosen for them to choose or do, which would render Him not omniscient and omnipotent. Yet, many Catholic and Protestant Christians make the same claims of creatio ex nihilo, omnipotence, and omniscience but deny Calvinism. To me, Calvinism is the only logical conclusion and extension one can reach with these assumptions.
Well, you are right and this is what the bible teaches. So why don’t you just believe what you just said?
That God’s creation consists of divinely organizing eternal, non-created matter (both physical and spirit) is one of the “plain and precious truths” restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. Because intelligence, spirit matter, and physical matter are not and cannot be created, but are eternal having no beginning and no end, we all truly have full moral agency to choose or reject God and make choices and decisions for ourselves.
As you already know, I believe Joseph Smith to be a false prophet, so I strongly disagree with him.
In reference to what you posted, can you please explain these two passages especially the bolded parts:
Isaiah 43:10-11: "You are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."
Notice the Predestination in God doing the choosing for Israel to know, believe, and understand him in what I italicized.
Isaiah 44:6, 8: "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God...Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."
I don’t think this is a fair assessment of Roman Catholic belief (or LDS belief either, for that matter). The real question isn’t whether or not one is saved through sacraments (ordinances), it is whether or not Christ, who laid down the terms of salvation through His atonement, has commanded that men perform and receive these ordinances as part of the conditions for salvation. That’s the real question, and both Catholics and Mormons testify to the world that Christ has instituted these sacraments (ordinances) as necessary components of Christ’s plan of salvation. Salvation is through Christ alone, but we must keep the commandments He has given and required. For Mormons, ordinances necessary to return to God’s presence consist of 1) baptism by immersion for the remission of sins by one who is authorized to perform it 2) the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one who is authorized (one demonstrates one’s faith in Christ and repentance by seeking for these ordinances in the prescribed manner). Beyond simply returning to God, ordinances that form the first steps in becoming like God and receiving all that He has are 1) (for men) receiving the priesthood, both preparatory and higher 2) receiving the ordinance known as the endowment (in temples) 3) being sealed to one’s spouse and children for time and all eternity.
I disagree and I think Romans 11:6 says it best:
“But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”
I know you have seen this popular verse many times, but really examine it:
And Ephesians 2: 8-10
8) “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,”
The Bible teaches that not only Grace is a gift but also the faith is a gift. Non Calvinist disagrees and believes only the grace is a gift.
9) “not a result of works, so that no one may boast. “
If the Mormon and Roman Catholic view is correct, why don’t you boast in your good works? You should, since you had something to do with your salvation. If you are consistent, you have to believe it wasn’t 100% Christ, it was some of your doings too, so you can boast. But as you can see, verse 9 tells us it’s not the results of works.
10) “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
The good works you do were prepared by God, so the thought of your good works attributing to your salvation is not biblical.
Because all people have full freedom to make choices and to choose between good and evil, without being predetermined by God, I agree that God in His foreknowledge uses people He knows will choose this way or that way to ultimately advance His intentions and plans. But this “ordaining” of powers and people’s choices doesn’t involve Him making them choose or do certain things. He simply uses choices He knows they will make to further His cause and advance His ends, and this affects His timing in placing certain of His children on the earth at certain times to bring certain things about in the eternal scheme of things.
I believe in a compatibalistic will. There are many examples in the bible of this.
Few examples:
1) Joseph’s brother sending him to slavery.
Gen 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
2) The King of Assyria
(Isaiah 10:5-6)O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.
The Lord refers here to the Assyrian king as “the rod of mine anger” in that he is being used as a tool to invoke a judgment against the nation of Israel. He sends them against a godless nation yet notice if you read further in Isaiah 10:12-17 you will see how Jehovah actually punishes the Assyrians for doing what He had caused to happen
3) The Death of the Lord Jesus Christ
God used man to crucify Christ.
“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. (Acts 4:27-28 NASB)
The question that must be addressed is whom in scriptures is sovereign; God or man? If man is truly free, then how can Jehovah truly decree anything and be certain it will come to pass? Is Jehovah at the mercy of the will of man? If man’s free-will decision ultimately decides the outcome of an event or a fate, then would it not be logical to say that man’s will is sovereign over Jehovah’s?
No argument with that! This is all plain in the Bible without bringing the Trinity into it, though.
The thing with these is that the Trinity is not self-evident. These make perfect sense and work just fine without forcing a trinitarian view
The point to all that is, there are 3 persons recognized as God in the Bible. The Father , The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
The second point is, scripture teaches there is only 1 God. So the only possible proper interpretation is the Trinity. So it’s not forcing a view on it, the scripture teaches there is only 1 God. Scripture interprets Scripture.
Ephesians 2 also explains the roles of the Trinity in the Salvation of mankind:
The Father Chooses, The Son Redeems, The Holy Spirit Seals.
The Father is NOT The Son and is NOT the Holy Spirit
The Son is NOT the Father and is NOT the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is NOT the Father and is NOT the Son
The 3 persons of the Godhead are all the one being of God who is YHWH.
But the doctrine of the Trinity stems from the councils and dogma centuries after the first century A.D., not from the 66 book canon (which wasn't established by the end of the first century A.D., anyway).
You’re absolutely right that the canon wasn’t completed by the end of the first century. Matter of fact Athanasius was the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today and that wasn’t until 367 A.D.!
Tertullian is the person credited in the 3rd century for being the first person to use the word Trinity and describing The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit being one in Essence.
Ok, so all this happened, how does this disprove the Trinity?
It was difficult for the early church fathers to have a good understanding of the Trinity because many didn't have all 27 book of the New Testament. They had the Gospels but many didn’t have any or all of Paul’s writings. God used Paul to reveal a lot. Paul often uses the word “mysteries” to reveal what was once hidden to the Jews.
It’s important to remember that Jewish prophets were combatting the gods of the Canaanites and other surrounding peoples (e.g., El, Ba’al, Asherah, Chemosh, Moloch, etc.). These passages, and others like them, are an apologetic against these gods, and not a broad commentary on the existence or non-existence of other “legitimate” Gods.
These were manmade idols, weren’t they not? I have never heard anybody in any “Christian” denomination, refer to them as real gods.
To be consistent, wouldn’t those who insist on the above passages need to claim that the following passages allow for more gods/Gods?
An idol or a god can be anything or anyone that gets a person’s dedication when it should be on YHWH. None of these idols/gods have any divinity to them.
“Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.” — Exodus 22:28
The correct interpretation is “"You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.”
The Hebrew word for God here, is the same word for God used in Genesis 1.
From my Strongs Hebrew and Greek Dictionary:
“specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God”
“The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD, (save us not this day,)” — Joshua 22:22
When reading the Old Testament, the reference to the “little g” gods that you believe are other heavenly gods are either referring to idols or magistrates (judges).
I don’t see any reference to any extra divine heavenly gods. The Israelites would constantly make idol/gods with their own hands.
A special consideration is Deuteronomy 32:8. This reads in our modern versions something like this:
“When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”
However, in the Hebrew, it reads thus:
“When the most High of the gods divided the nations and separated the peoples, he set the bounds of the peoples, according to the number of the gods.” (My English translation of this verse in the Einheitsüberstezung Bible [German joint Catholic/Lutheran Bible] ).
The footnote for this reads (again, translated into English):
“ ‘. . . according to the number of the gods’ — other translations: ‘according to the number of the sons of Israel.’ This reading is more recent, and was introduced to deal with polytheistic conceptions that are evident in the oldest versions. The number referred to is 70. According to ancient Semitic thought, there were 70 gods over the 70 peoples of the world. Because Israel (Jacob) had 70 descendants (Exodus 1:5), it was thought permissible to change ‘gods’ in the original to ‘sons of Israel’ in later versions.”
My NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, Strong’s Hebrew and Greek dictionary, doesn’t give a hint of it being gods instead of Israel.
Trinitarians generally have never had the experience of trying to explain the trinity to a devout Muslim or orthodox Jew. Try telling them that trinitarian Christians are monotheistic, and watch the fun begin! Trinitarians know how difficult and confusing it is to explain the trinity even “in-house” among believers; to outsiders (including Mormons), it is simply baffling. Although we’re not trinitarians, on my Mormon mission in Germany (1994-1996), I sometimes had to deal with their criticisms of trinitarianism (which, as a non-trinitarian, I was able to dispel quite easily and move on). We would sometimes get media referrals where a Pakastani student would request a copy of the Book of Mormon in Urdu, and we would take it to them and teach them. That was where I gained most of my knowledge of the Koran, and I was very impressed with these Pakastani college students in Germany. A trinitarian would not be able to convince a Muslim that trinitarians are not polytheistic, believing in three gods, even with all of the explanations of how they are really only one. The same applies to orthodox Jews, who are fiercely proud of their monotheism and resent trinitarian Christian claims of monotheism.
Try explaining the Trinity to a Mormon or an Oneness Pentecostal!
On a serious note, Trinity is not something humans can fully comprehend. God is not like anything here on earth we can compare to. That’s why I let God’s word speak, because I can’t convince anybody, only God can open their eyes to understand as we see in Isaiah 43:10. I just try to stay faithful and pray that God will use me, to draw his people to him that he may be Glorified.
I appreciate this conversation we are having. I have a question for you. I have never met a Mormon who will openly debate constantly like you. I’ve been in quick conversations with Mormons, but they don’t get to in depth in a debate. Serious question, and please be honest, because I have drawn this conclusion over the years. Is there an unwritten rule that Mormons should not debate their faith? It’s either that, or they are not as knowledgeable about their faith as you. I’m not just talking about this message board, I’m talking about in general. I’ve always been real curious about this.
| |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 02/03/2008 12:59 AM |
Alert | Oops, I messed up on one of the quotes, so the whole things is a little off. I think you could still read it ok. All the boxed in quotes are your comments, even the first box, where it says my name instead of yours. It even put your old smiley face next to my first reply of "You Right!"
LOL | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 02/03/2008 1:02 AM |
Alert | Wow these post are getting longer and longer. We are going to have to start breaking these post up into individual post. At least for the sake of sanity | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|