Christian: The Need for a Fresh Word from God

[Katzpur]

If that is what comprehend was referring to then he was not very clear. His post said
"Since when has impossibility slowed down main-stream christians? " in response to your request that he (Vassal) back up his claim using the Bible only.

Sorry Katz, but you don't like being lumped in with all the different flavors of Mormons out there...I'm objecting to pretty much a similar usage of "MSC" by Comprehend.

Maybe I'm just really missing something big, Luna. To recap my understanding of the discussion so far... Vassal insisted that no "fresh word from God" is needed because the Bible contains 100% of what God wants us to know. I asked him where the Bible says that. YMirGF pointed out that Vassal wasn't likely to tell me his claim was unsupportable. Comprehend then said that making unsupportable claims had never stopped mainstream Christians before.

Now, back to my statement and how I would use the word "mainstream." Basically, I see "mainstream" Christians as Catholics and Protestants because so many of them seem to recognize each other as "Christians" while rejecting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses as mere "wannabees" (to put it nicely) or as "misguided, heretical cults" (to put it less nicely). In that regard, I personally use the word "mainstream" as a synonym for "traditional." It wasn't intended to mean "Bible only" Christians, per se, but to any Christian who is part of the Catholic or Protestant tradition. Furthermore, it definitely wasn't intended to be a slam. I'm not going to comment one way or the other on Comprehend's statement, but to me the claim that God has decided not to speak to us directly in this day and age through living prophets is, in fact, an unsupportable claim. I'm sorry if I said something to offend you or anyone else.

 

[Vassal]

Tradition.

What tradition are you talking about, and what is it needed for?

 

[lunamoth]

Vassal insisted that no "fresh word from God" is needed because the Bible contains 100% of what God wants us to know.

But this is NOT an "MSC" belief.

Now, back to my statement and how I would use the word "mainstream." Basically, I see "mainstream" Christians as Catholics and Protestants because so many of them seem to recognize each other as "Christians" while rejecting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses as mere "wannabees" (to put it nicely) or as "misguided, heretical cults" (to put it less nicely). In that regard, I personally use the word "mainstream" as a synonym for "traditional." It wasn't intended to mean "Bible only" Christians, per se, but to any Christian who is part of the Catholic or Protestant tradition. Furthermore, it definitely wasn't intended to be a slam. I'm not going to comment one way or the other on Comprehend's statement, but to me the claim that God has decided not to speak to us directly in this day and age through living prophets is, in fact, an unsupportable claim. I'm sorry if I said something to offend you or anyone else.

I did not take your statement as a slam and you have not offended me. Comprehend, on the other hand, does seem to be slamming "MSCs" so I just thought I'd make sure he understood who he was slamming. I don't think Victor or James would be agreeable to the idea that they need only the Bible to come to any conclusions about prophecy.

Further, the word cult has been brought up twice now in this thread in response to my posts and I would like to point out that I have not and would not ever use that word about LDS (or Baptists BC! ).

added: re-reading what you wrote in the second part of your post above...if Comprehend or any other LDS does not want to be set in contrast to other Christian denominations, why go out of your way to call non-LDS "MSCs?" I only see this sort of usage of mainstream Christianity used by LDS...that's why I know I've talked about it on this forum before.

 

[Katzpur]

But this is NOT an "MSC" belief.

It's not? Sorry, I'm way confused then. Could you explain? I realize that Catholics (and perhaps some Protestants, such as the Episcopal Church actually) rely on tradition in addition to the Bible. But they certainly aren't anticipating that God's going to speak to any new prophets, are they? And they do reject the idea that He has anything new to say, don't they? Or am I just way, way misinformed?

I don't think Victor or James would be agreeable to the idea that they need only the Bible to come to any conclusions about prophecy.

No, I'm sure they wouldn't, but they probably would say that prophesy to the Church as a whole ceased with the deaths of the Apostles and that any communication between Heaven and Earth today is just between the Holy Ghost and individual men and women.

Further, the word cult has been brought up twice now in this thread in response to my posts and I would like to point out that I have not and would not ever use that word about LDS (or Baptists BC! ).

Oh, I know that, Luna. I definitely didn't have you in mind when I said that -- or anyone in particular, for that matter. It was just I general statement.

added: re-reading what you wrote in the second part of your post above...if Comprehend or any other LDS does not want to be set in contrast to other Christian denominations, why go out of your way to call non-LDS "MSCs?" I only see this sort of usage of mainstream Christianity used by LDS...that's why I know I've talked about it on this forum before.

I don't want to go too far off-topic here but most Latter-day Saint really aren't quite as insistent on being considered "mainstream" or "traditional" as you may think. We know there are some significant differences between us and everybody else, and we're entirely willing to admit to those differences. I suppose we use the words "mainstream Christian" so often because we recognize those differences. We object quite strenuously to being told we're not Christians at all (primarily because such statements generally imply that we do not worship Jesus Christ as our Savior), but don't find it the slightest bit offensive to be described as "Christian" but not "mainstream" or "traditional." I hope this helps clarify our way of thinking and expressing ourselves.

 

[Katzpur]

If the Bible isn't the only thing needed for a Christian, then what exactly is it missing?

You're missing the point entirely, Vassal. If "the Bible is the only thing needed for a Christian," it stands to reason that the Bible itself would make this perfectly clear. If this teaching is not found in the Bible, but elsewhere, the Bible obviously isn't "the only thing needed for a Christian." If, however, you are right and everything God wants us to know is found within its pages, you shouldn't have any trouble at all citing chapter and verse for me.

 

[lunamoth]

It's not? Sorry, I'm way confused then. Could you explain? I realize that Catholics (and perhaps some Protestants, such as the Episcopal Church actually) rely on tradition in addition to the Bible. But they certainly aren't anticipating that God's going to speak to any new prophets, are they? And they do reject the idea that He has anything new to say, don't they? Or am I just way, way misinformed?

No, I'm sure they wouldn't, but they probably would say that prophesy to the Church as a whole ceased with the deaths of the Apostles and that any communication between Heaven and Earth today is just between the Holy Ghost and individual men and women.

No, you're not misinformed about the Catholic belief about prophecy, but, again, that's not the point of contention. The only point of contention is that they would come to this conclusion based upon the Bible only. "MSC" churches all rely upon tradition to one degree or another, and Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican rely upon tradition with respect to apostolic succession, prophecy, etc.. I think you missed my point about this. Oh well, it's really not important enough to go on about. But, for Comprehend's education: "MSCs" are not all Bible-only.

Oh, I know that, Luna. I definitely didn't have you in mind when I said that -- or anyone in particular, for that matter. It was just I general statement.

I thought it was directed to one of my posts.

I don't want to go too far off-topic here but most Latter-day Saint really aren't quite as insistent on being considered "mainstream" or "traditional" as you may think. We know there are some significant differences between us and everybody else, and we're entirely willing to admit to those differences. I suppose we use the words "mainstream Christian" so often because we recognize those differences. We object quite strenuously to being told we're not Christians at all (primarily because such statements generally imply that we do not worship Jesus Christ as our Savior), but don't find it the slightest bit offensive to be described as "Christian" but not "mainstream" or "traditional." I hope this helps clarify our way of thinking and expressing ourselves.

Okies...but likwise there are differences among the mainstream Christian churches and you can't lump them all together as Bible-only. That's really the only point I am trying to get across...not sure why it's not getting through. Usually I express myself fairly well. I think part of it is that I had no objection to your origianl post at all...just to comprehend's remark after it.

 

[Katzpur]

Okies...but likwise there are differences among the mainstream Christian churches and you can't lump them all together as Bible-only.

Yes, I understand what you're getting at. Actually, I don't think there really is such a thing as a "Bible only" Christian. Almost all Christians rely on tradition to some extent, even though they may not realize it.

That's really the only point I am trying to get across...not sure why it's not getting through. Usually I express myself fairly well. I think part of it is that I had no objection to your origianl post at all...just to comprehend's remark after it.

Thanks for being so patient with me. I'm usually not so dense in understanding either. Maybe I'm just tired or something. I think we're pretty much on the same page now anyway.

 

[Comprehend]

So, you this impossibility is shared by and limited to "MSCs"?

I don't know what you are asking here, could you rephrase?

 

[Comprehend]

So all "MSCs" are Bible-only in your opinion, and they also are all just as prone to arguing the impossible as Vassal.

Main Stream Christians (to me) are those that accept the Trinity. I do not understand where you are getting that I said all MSC's are bible only...???

Maybe it would help if I provided a venn diagram?

 

[Comprehend]

If that is what comprehend was referring to then he was not very clear. His post said
"Since when has impossibility slowed down main-stream christians? " in response to your request that he (Vassal) back up his claim using the Bible only.

Sorry Katz, but you don't like being lumped in with all the different flavors of Mormons out there...I'm objecting to pretty much a similar usage of "MSC" by Comprehend.

How did you get that I was saying all MSC's are bible only from that?

What I was saying (quite clearly I thought) is that MSC's are not troubled by impossibility. Where did I say anything about bible-only believers?

When I say "MSC" I mean the vast majority of christians who believe in the Trinity. Which, coincidentally is also the definition you provided.

 

[Comprehend]

But this is NOT an "MSC" belief.


I did not take your statement as a slam and you have not offended me. Comprehend, on the other hand, does seem to be slamming "MSCs" so I just thought I'd make sure he understood who he was slamming. I don't think Victor or James would be agreeable to the idea that they need only the Bible to come to any conclusions about prophecy.

Further, the word cult has been brought up twice now in this thread in response to my posts and I would like to point out that I have not and would not ever use that word about LDS (or Baptists BC! ).

added: re-reading what you wrote in the second part of your post above...if Comprehend or any other LDS does not want to be set in contrast to other Christian denominations, why go out of your way to call non-LDS "MSCs?" I only see this sort of usage of mainstream Christianity used by LDS...that's why I know I've talked about it on this forum before.

1. I was not slamming anyone.
2. I have never expressed a desire to be included in with MSC's, we are different and like it that way.

 

[Comprehend]

... But, for Comprehend's education: "MSCs" are not all Bible-only.

for the 5,758,423rd time (or something like unto it), I do not, nor have I ever said/believed that MSC's = bible-only. My comment was in regards to MSC's lack of concern for possibility, it had absolutely nothing to do with being bible-only or not.

great googily.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What if God never said anything again, and we're stuck with what we have?

 

[UnTheist]

What if God never said anything again, and we're stuck with what we have?

We live until we die (what are you referring to?)

 

[!Fluffy!]

Ain't that the truth?

When I first became a Christian, I had an intense dislike for "Red Letter Edition" Bibles. I felt that all scripture should be taken at face value. Then, reading things like a woman covering her head as well as all of the wars in the OT, I came to a conclusion. Scriptures are a BLOG of man looking for God. That was especially true about the OT, but what about the NT. Yeppers.

So I began to look at JUST the words of Jesus. That's when I started to see the real Gospel: Love God and Love everyone else. So, as the OT and NT agree with those two laws, I am just fine. As soon as I see laws or other weirdness, I keep on looking for the real truth.

Yup, yup, me too. Mere Christianity (Christianity withOUT the religion) will do.

 

[!Fluffy!]

What if God never said anything again, and we're stuck with what we have?

Gosh, we are stuck with the Holy Spirit. It's like saying what if God never revealed himself through the lives of his followers? ae, he is revealing himself all over the place, he is revealing himself through you. We have to have ears to listen is all.

 

[Vassal]

You're missing the point entirely, Vassal. If "the Bible is the only thing needed for a Christian," it stands to reason that the Bible itself would make this perfectly clear. If this teaching is not found in the Bible, but elsewhere, the Bible obviously isn't "the only thing needed for a Christian." If, however, you are right and everything God wants us to know is found within its pages, you shouldn't have any trouble at all citing chapter and verse for me.

The Bible does make it perfectly clear. It tells us everything we need to know about how to be saved, by having faith in Jesus, and how to please God, by loving others. What else is necessary?

 

[Buttercup]

We have to have ears to listen is all.

Sure we all have ears to listen but notice how even among sincere believers in Christ the interpretations vary?

Tell me why God shouldn't send out updates?

 

[blackout]

What if God never said anything again, and we're stuck with what we have?

God speaks each and every day in the lives of anyone willing to listen...
and engage with "Him".

For God to "stop speaking" would mean we would all have to be dead.

The day of the living dead.

 

[Random]

The "new" Word is written in the hearts of men, as the old one is also. The Word is renewed with every living breath, and reborn in each and every new life that enters the world.