A living Apostle answers the question...

[sojourner]

Everything else is human speculation about that absolute UNLESS God declares his absolute truths to his prophet.

The bottom line is this:

If there exist two men who claim to be Apostles and who claim to teach by the Holy Spirit but teach doctrines that contradict each other then at least one of them is mistaken.

Either Christ was the Son of God or he wasn't.
Either Christ called Apostles to lead his church or he didn't.
Either baptism is absolutely required for salvation or it's not.
Either Apostolic authority survived the death of the Apostles or it didn't.
Either a complete Apostasy occurred or it didn't.
Either a restoration of authority was needed or it wasn't.
Either Joseph Smith was called to be the Prophet of the Restoration or he wasn't.

Two men cannot claim opposing views on these issues and both be in harmony with the truth. If you disagree please provide an example to the contrary.

Problem is, that's not the bottom line. God, God's self is the bottom line. Everything we think we know about God is human speculation. Jesus' Divinity, the apostolic authority, views on baptism, the "Apostasy," Joseph Smith's spiritual status -- it's all human speculation, subject to human understanding. Even what God has revealed to us, whether prophet or beggar, can be taken any number of ways, due to the hermeneutical problem. In the end -- at the bottom line, if you will -- what matters is not how we perceive God. What matters is how God perceives us, and comes after us and takes us into God's self.

 

[Polaris]

Everything we think we know about God is human speculation.

I disagree. God can and does reveal truth to his called and authorized prophets and apostles. While God doesn't give them all the answers, he does reveal to them many important truths and through the aid of the Holy Spirit they can adequately convey many of those truths to us. Through this process human speculation can be replaced by divinely revealed truth.

What matters is how God perceives us, and comes after us and takes us into God's self.

To a large extent I agree with this statement, but I believe that he expects us to do our best to seek the truth and adhere to it.

You still never really addressed my main point though. How can Apostle-A who teaches that Apostolic succession survived the death of the Apostles, and Apostle-B who teaches that Apostolic authority didn't survive both be in harmony with God's truth? They can't because they teach doctrines that flat out contradict each other. It's not an issue of perspective, one of the two must be flat out wrong.

 

[Muffled]

I agree with the speaker. Christianity should not be defined by whether a particular belief in the Trinity is held or not.

I don't agree with LDS theology about the Trinity but there is a thres to discuss that on Biblical Debates.

I also don't agree on the LDS definition of Christian and although there have been posts about this on various threads I don't know of one dedicated to it.

 

[Polaris]

I also don't agree on the LDS definition of Christian and although there have been posts about this on various threads I don't know of one dedicated to it.

What is the LDS definition of a Christian that you don't agree with?

 

[sojourner]

I disagree. God can and does reveal truth to his called and authorized prophets and apostles. While God doesn't give them all the answers, he does reveal to them many important truths and through the aid of the Holy Spirit they can adequately convey many of those truths to us. Through this process human speculation can be replaced by divinely revealed truth.

You've managed to completely circumvent the hermeneutical problem, which we know exists. You deal with it by asserting that everyone who does not fall into your particular sphere of understanding must not have "real revelation." Unfortunately, the world just doesn't work that way, as your own church splits reveal. That dynamic breeds exclusivity. God is not exlusive. God is inclusive and hospitable.

The only responsible way to deal with the hermeneutical problem is to acknowledge that there are differing viewpoints and understandings and seek to find common ground. That is truth -- as far as human beings are capable of comprehending it.

You just said it yourself: "...while God does not give them all the answers..."

How are you sure that those truths are adequately conveyed, and, further than that, adequately understood by the recipients?

Any time revelation comes to us, it is processed through the lens of human understanding. That's the "hermeneutical cloud" you've heard me mention before. That's the hermeneutical problem that is universal to humanity -- no one is immune.

To a large extent I agree with this statement, but I believe that he expects us to do our best to seek the truth and adhere to it.

You still never really addressed my main point though. How can Apostle-A who teaches that Apostolic succession survived the death of the Apostles, and Apostle-B who teaches that Apostolic authority didn't survive both be in harmony with God's truth? They can't because they teach doctrines that flat out contradict each other. It's not an issue of perspective, one of the two must be flat out wrong.

OK, but "to do our best" always includes filtering stuff through the hermeneutical cloud. What we end up with is what we are capable of understanding about that truth, and that's what we adhere to.

Maybe the truth is that God has always used human agency to recognize God's authority at work in God's people. One person -- or group -- understands that in one context. Another person or group understands it in a different context. But the important kernal of that truth is not "who has the authority," but that God has accepted us as heirs, and that acceptance is mediated through the Body of Christ -- the Church (whatever form it might take.)

 

[Polaris]

Unfortunately, the world just doesn't work that way, as your own church splits reveal.

Those once of our faith who have split off did so because they simply disagreed with certain points of doctrine. They rejected the prophet because they believed that their understanding of the truth was more accurate. That doesn't mean they're right.

That dynamic breeds exclusivity. God is not exlusive. God is inclusive and hospitable.

But to a certain extent God is exclusive. While he loves us all and will ultimately judge us based on our best efforts and true intent, he is nonetheless exclusive concerning who bears his authority and rightfully performs certain works in his name. He doesn't honor the authority of every man who makes claims to his authority. He specifically gave Peter priesthood keys to seal both on earth and in heaven. There is a proper order to how that authority is maintained and passed on. God is a God of order.

The only responsible way to deal with the hermeneutical problem is to acknowledge that there are differing viewpoints and understandings and seek to find common ground. That is truth -- as far as human beings are capable of comprehending it.

While its important to seek to understand and acknowledge the differing viewpoints, it is wrong to compromise God-given truth. Seeking common ground requires compromise. Pure truth can't be compromised.

How are you sure that those truths are adequately conveyed, and, further than that, adequately understood by the recipients?
Any time revelation comes to us, it is processed through the lens of human understanding. That's the "hermeneutical cloud" you've heard me mention before. That's the hermeneutical problem that is universal to humanity -- no one is immune.

Apparently I place a little more trust in both God's ability to convey truth's to his prophet, and in a prophet's ability to accurately receive that truth with the aid of the Holy Ghost. It's really not much of a leap of faith for me to believe that God can unambiguously teach truth to his called prophets.

It is seems that you are determined not to respond to my example of directly contradicting "truth".

 

[madhatter85]

Of course they do. They are in the Apostolic succession, which transfers the authority of the apostles from one person to another. The Orthodox, Roman and Anglican Christians (as well as some others) take the Succession very seriously. The Bishop of Rome, which is the Pope, stands in a direct authoritative line from Peter. You'd have to ask James the Persian about the Orthodox Patriarchs. The Anglican line follows roughly the Roman line, with some noteworthy exceptions.

Wrong, the first person for the organization of the Catholic Church in 107 AD was Ignatius of Antioch. the highest position he ever held was Bishop, not Apostle. IF they claim to be Apostles why do they say - that there can be no more apostles, becuase Christ only called his 12 and that is it- I have heard that argument from a Catholic priest. The position of Bishop is of the lesser order of the priesthood (Levitical Priesthood, or the priesthood of Aaron). Not the higher order, Melchezedik, which is the same pristhood in which the apostles were given by Christ.

 

[madhatter85]

You've managed to completely circumvent the hermeneutical problem, which we know exists. You deal with it by asserting that everyone who does not fall into your particular sphere of understanding must not have "real revelation." Unfortunately, the world just doesn't work that way, as your own church splits reveal. That dynamic breeds exclusivity. God is not exlusive. God is inclusive and hospitable.

We believe that God is not exclusive with his love, but he is exclusive with exaltation. It has been revealed that every person on the earth will recieve a portion of God's light after the judgement. Depending on how they lived thier life and if they completed the proper requirements to gain exaltation, do they recieve the highest degree. Why? because "God's house is a House of Order"

The only responsible way to deal with the hermeneutical problem is to acknowledge that there are differing viewpoints and understandings and seek to find common ground. That is truth -- as far as human beings are capable of comprehending it.

Wrong, finding common ground is nice to be able to communicate effectively with other people, but God is all truth, he does not waver or walk crooked paths, he does not compromise, if he did he would cease to be God

You just said it yourself: "...while God does not give them all the answers..."

How are you sure that those truths are adequately conveyed, and, further than that, adequately understood by the recipients?

We are told to pray for ourselves, find out the truth for ourselves, not to take anyone else's word for anythign in our lives. to always be able to communicate with our heavenly father and recieve guidance directly.

Any time revelation comes to us, it is processed through the lens of human understanding. That's the "hermeneutical cloud" you've heard me mention before. That's the hermeneutical problem that is universal to humanity -- no one is immune.

God's truth is simple, Truth is always simple. truth is never compex nor incapable of comprehention. God's truth is capable of being understood by the most unlearned people on the earth.

OK, but "to do our best" always includes filtering stuff through the hermeneutical cloud. What we end up with is what we are capable of understanding about that truth, and that's what we adhere to.

do you not think that God is incapable of knowing how we precieve things? do you think he would not allow us to comprehend truth? how are we supposed to follow omethign in which we cannot comprehend?

Maybe the truth is that God has always used human agency to recognize God's authority at work in God's people. One person -- or group -- understands that in one context. Another person or group understands it in a different context. But the important kernal of that truth is not "who has the authority," but that God has accepted us as heirs, and that acceptance is mediated through the Body of Christ -- the Church (whatever form it might take.)

:cover:

 

[sojourner]

That doesn't mean they're right.

Nor does it mean that you're "right," either. Now what are you going to do? If you can't even trust the witness of your own brethren, what next? You go on by faith, which is what the Church is supposede to do. Faith -- not proof. And if you have faith that you have an adequate handle on thr truth, why not have faith that others do, as well?

While he loves us all and will ultimately judge us based on our best efforts and true intent,

God has already judged us, found us wanting, and, by grace chooses reconciliation anyway.

he is nonetheless exclusive concerning who bears his authority and rightfully performs certain works in his name. He doesn't honor the authority of every man who makes claims to his authority.

Those people are them that are called into those specific ministries. All Christian groups have them.

There is a proper order to how that authority is maintained and passed on. God is a God of order.

Every group has an understanding of what that order is. Do you suppose God would supply only one of those groups with authority? Or would God want God's whole Church to have order for ministry?

He specifically gave Peter priesthood keys to seal both on earth and in heaven.

And at least one group maintains that Peter's authority was specifically passed from person to person until the present day. It's called "the Apostolic Succession."

it is wrong to compromise God-given truth. Seeking common ground requires compromise.

Seeking common ground weeds out the compromise which our own limited understanding forces upon truth.

Pure truth can't be compromised.

No one group has "pure truth." Only its unique understanding of truth. However, most groups compromise the truth by claiming that their particular POV is "the truth."

It's really not much of a leap of faith for me to believe that God can unambiguously teach truth to his called prophets.

It's not for me, either. However, I do have a problem with humanity's ability to unambiguously interpret that truth -- no matter who is doing the interpreting. One of your fellows is about to say, "We are told to pray for ourselves, find out the truth for ourselves, not to take anyone else's word for anythign in our lives. to always be able to communicate with our heavenly father and recieve guidance directly." Yet you claim to need a prophet to be able to do this and to interpret it for you? Which of you is "right?" God's truth does not permit compromise. One of you must be "right," and one of you must be "wrong," therefore.

It is seems that you are determined not to respond to my example of directly contradicting "truth".

It seems that your example of "truth" is not an example of "truth," but an example of the hermeneutical problem.

 

[sojourner]

Wrong, the first person for the organization of the Catholic Church in 107 AD was Ignatius of Antioch. the highest position he ever held was Bishop, not Apostle. IF they claim to be Apostles why do they say - that there can be no more apostles, becuase Christ only called his 12 and that is it- I have heard that argument from a Catholic priest. The position of Bishop is of the lesser order of the priesthood (Levitical Priesthood, or the priesthood of Aaron). Not the higher order, Melchezedik, which is the same pristhood in which the apostles were given by Christ.

Do you see the hermeneutical problem at work here? You see it one way. Others see it another way. It's so much picking the fly crap out of the pepper. For example. The priest was right in saying that Jesus only called 12 apostles. But the way you understand that is not how he meant it. Yes. RC's believe that there are no more apostles. But...they do believe that the authority of the apostles was handed from them to their successors, which are called "bishops."

 

[sojourner]

We believe that God is not exclusive with his love, but he is exclusive with exaltation. It has been revealed that every person on the earth will recieve a portion of God's light after the judgement. Depending on how they lived thier life and if they completed the proper requirements to gain exaltation, do they recieve the highest degree. Why? because "God's house is a House of Order"

Gee, and all this time I thought that Jesus described the Kingdom as a banquet, to which the least of us are invited...and that he admonished us not to spend time worrying about who will sit where. I thought that, when we fully enter the kingdom, differences cease and we all fall into complete union with God (not just a portion of God).

but God is all truth, he does not waver or walk crooked paths, he does not compromise, if he did he would cease to be God

But we are not all truth, we do walk crooked paths, and we do compromise. That's why we're not God (as Genesis plainly tells us).

We are told to pray for ourselves, find out the truth for ourselves, not to take anyone else's word for anythign in our lives. to always be able to communicate with our heavenly father and recieve guidance directly.

I guess that's why you need a prophet and uniform doctrine...there appears to be a contradiction here.

God's truth is simple, Truth is always simple. truth is never compex nor incapable of comprehention.

And yet, we do miscomprehend it, because we are not simple creatures and we tend to overanalyze, based upon our own hermeneutic.

God's truth is capable of being understood by the most unlearned people on the earth.

And we still cannot do that, because of the hermeneutical problem inherent to humanity.

do you not think that God is incapable of knowing how we precieve things? do you think he would not allow us to comprehend truth? how are we supposed to follow omethign in which we cannot comprehend?

I think God does know. That's why God supplies grace. I think that we do comprehend truth...through our hermeneutical cloud. We do follow as best as we know how. In the end, that's all God asks of us.

Roll your eyes if you want to. That's my understanding and it obviously differs from yours. Gee! Another great example of the hermeneutical problem.

 

[madhatter85]

Do you see the hermeneutical problem at work here? You see it one way. Others see it another way. It's so much picking the fly crap out of the pepper. For example. The priest was right in saying that Jesus only called 12 apostles. But the way you understand that is not how he meant it. Yes. RC's believe that there are no more apostles. But...they do believe that the authority of the apostles was handed from them to their successors, which are called "bishops."

If the apostle authority was handed down why call it a different name?

 

[sojourner]

If the apostle authority was handed down why call it a different name?

Because, as the young Church became more settled, and less evangelical, those "sent" (apostles -- that's what "apostle" means) became the overseers (episkpos), with the same ecclesial authority as apostles. Paul, for example, was an apostle, because he was sent out. His authority was equal to James, who is recognized as the bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[madhatter85]

Gee, and all this time I thought that Jesus described the Kingdom as a banquet, to which the least of us are invited...and that he admonished us not to spend time worrying about who will sit where. I thought that, when we fully enter the kingdom, differences cease and we all fall into complete union with God (not just a portion of God).

Yes we are all invited, but those who do not come, will not giant he fullness of his glory, but everyone will receive a portion of his glory. How can God dwell in unholy temples? how can god dwell with unholy things? it Is through the grace of God that we can live with him again, but that requires action on our part. that requires repentance and proper baptism.

But we are not all truth, we do walk crooked paths, and we do compromise. That's why we're not God (as Genesis plainly tells us).

but you said God compromises, now youa re contradicting yourself.

I guess that's why you need a prophet and uniform doctrine...there appears to be a contradiction here.

Flesh is weak and susceptible to failure, no matter what position of spiritual authority they hold. The Doctrine is there but we are told and admonished to pray about it to be sure of what is true and right, Who better to ask for the truth than God himself?

And yet, we do miscomprehend it, because we are not simple creatures and we tend to overanalyze, based upon our own hermeneutic.

so you admit you over analyze your own religion, and mis comprehend it?

And we still cannot do that, because of the hermeneutical problem inherent to humanity.

I think God does know. That's why God supplies grace. I think that we do comprehend truth...through our hermeneutical cloud. We do follow as best as we know how. In the end, that's all God asks of us.

Roll your eyes if you want to. That's my understanding and it obviously differs from yours. Gee! Another great example of the hermeneutical problem.

Of course interpretation is the problem when things are ambiguous and complex. But, the truth is plain and simple. why this need for ambiguity? why this need for things to be complex? the thing is, Man makes things complex, God's truth and light is simple even for the most unlearned people to be able to comprehend.

 

[madhatter85]

Because, as the young Church became more settled, and less evangelical, those "sent" (apostles -- that's what "apostle" means) became the overseers (episkpos), with the same ecclesial authority as apostles. Paul, for example, was an apostle, because he was sent out. His authority was equal to James, who is recognized as the bishop of Jerusalem.

So did God say to change the structure of his church? or was it man?

 

[KingM]

So did God say to change the structure of his church? or was it man?

I don't see how you can read the New Testament and think that Jesus had twelve year old boys called deacons who administered the Lord's Supper, that there were 19 year old boys ironically called elders, that lay pastors called bishops provided over congregations of 150-200 people and were rotated out every 5 years. And what about the Quorum of the Seventy? Did that exist in the early church? It didn't even exist in the early days of Mormonism. Heck, the small ward think isn't even historical within Mormonism, either. 120 years ago there were wards with over a thousand people.

Read your church history. It took many years for the church to evolve into its current structure. Some things--such as the Council of the Fifty don't even exist anymore.

Jesus was an itinerant preacher with a dozen followers and no formal organization beyond that. Now, you can make an argument that no church could continue with such an anarchic structure, but it's silly to imagine Jesus in a hierarchic structure a la the LDS church.

 

[Polaris]

Nor does it mean that you're "right," either.Now what are you going to do? If you can't even trust the witness of your own brethren, what next? You go on by faith, which is what the Church is supposede to do. Faith -- not proof. And if you have faith that you have an adequate handle on the truth, why not have faith that others do, as well?

Because truth cannot contradict itself. Why is that such a hard concept?

Either a complete and widespread apostasy occurred or it didn't. Which is it?

 

[Polaris]

Read your church history. It took many years for the church to evolve into its current structure. Some things--such as the Council of the Fifty don't even exist anymore.

Jesus was an itinerant preacher with a dozen followers and no formal organization beyond that. Now, you can make an argument that no church could continue with such an anarchic structure, but it's silly to imagine Jesus in a hierarchic structure a la the LDS church.

However the problem is that the very foundation of the church: apostles and prophets, happened to evolve completely out of the picture. Paul clearly taught that prophets and apostles were intended to always be part of the church:

"(11) And he agave some apostles and some prophets... (12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" (Ephesians 4:11-14).

Apostles and prophets are needed for the work of the ministry so that the church can authoratively and divinely maintain a purity of doctrine.

 

[KingM]

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" (Ephesians 4:11-14).

Then why on earth let the church fall away for 1800 years only to bring it back again? Is it important, or not?

 

[Polaris]

Then why on earth let the church fall away for 1800 years only to bring it back again?

You'd have to ask God that, but I'm inclined to believe it has to do with the notion that God's not going to force his gospel upon mankind. In general the people at the time were simply not receptive -- a coming apostasy was even prophesied. God decided to bring it back at a time when the world was more prepared -- after 1800 years a nation was finally formed in which religious freedoms and tolerance were at the forefront.