I am a Born Again Christ-follower

[*Paul*]

You're still at it. If you can't see that picking as your examples of those who can be saved only those individuals who leave or are kicked out is a judgement that faithful members of group X cannot be saved then I can't help you.

I never said they had to be faithful members. And neither did Jonny. Ed Decker was saved whilst still a mormon then had to leave because of inconsistencies with what he had come to believe and what the LDS church taught. I have read other similar stories with Jehovahs witnesses, the same thing happened. What I am saying is to be saved you don't first have to renounce your Mormon faith or say you are not a mormon, God will lead you where he wants you to go once you are His.

I prefer to leave such judgements up to God in Whose mercy I believe all can trust.

I think that would be wise in future.

I am not attacking your character here either.

Yes you are,

Does your disingenuousness know no bounds?

this is saying that i am generally disingenous.

There are only two possible explanations for your choosing the examples you did. One is utter naivety (and I don't believe that for a minute) and the other is that it was an attack on groups you disagree with.

I am not naive and neither was i attacking anyone at all. He and Thelma Greer are the only high profile people i know of who got saved whilst being mormons. I was simply correcting a belief that jonny seemed to hold that we believe he had to leave the mormon church to be saved.

If you really are so naive as to use an anti-Mormon evangelist as an example of how Mormons can be saved purely by accident then I apologise but given the way you generally post I really can't believe that of you and if it was, as I believe, an attack, then your attempted defence of it is indeed deceitful. I find little or no reason to doubt that this is an accurate impression,. particularly after certain other recent posts of yours attacking, amongst others, the Roman Catholic Church.

I accepted the moderation for the one Catholic post I made that someone took objection to even though it is something many Protestants and baptists have historically believed. It is part of our interpretation of scripture but this forum clearly isn't the place to discuss it openly.
And as I said this psot of mine int his thread was not an attack, i meant it, it was tongue in cheek but I was being serious at the same time. My point was and stil lis that you do not have to leave the mormon church before you can be saved, you do not have to leave the catholic church to be saved. Once you are saved God will direct you and guide your steps if you listen to His voice.

I'm having no hard time with my fasting. I was, but it has passed now. Nor have I insulted your wife. It is no insult to note the truth about someone and it is no secret that she has made a number of sectarian posts on this forum and rubbed people up the wrong way as a result. I certainly do not ask for her, or your, forgiveness simply for commenting on your public actions in posting at RF

Fine but I forgive you anyway, I know that my wife is a very gentle woman and has been upset by the way her motives have been judged. It's not easy wording what you want to say in such a way that no one takes offence, she just speaks from her heart. I don't know what you mean by sectarian to be truthful, Northern Ireland springs to mind when you use that word.

Anyway it feels unseemely to defend my own character further lest people think i am in love with myself, I'll rest in the knowledge that God knows the thoughts and intents of my heart and i am comfortable with that and that is ever on my mind.

 

[Halcyon]

I am not naive and neither was i attacking anyone at all. He and Thelma Greer are the only high profile people i know of who got saved whilst being mormons. I was simply correcting a belief that jonny seemed to hold that we believe he had to leave the mormon church to be saved.

I'm confused Paul, since all Mormons and Catholics already accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, what makes these few people - Ed Decker, Thelma Greer etc - saved and the rest unsaved?

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings Soundoc. Welcome to RF; hope our family meets your requirements. I appreciate your openness to questions for I am interested in knowing more about Born-Again Christians. Did you become born again through a decision, a baptism as Athanasius, or with some experience event - or some other means?

Best Wishes,
a1

Greetings Soundoc. By what path did you come to be a Born-Again Christian?

 

[*Paul*]

I'm confused Paul, since all Mormons and Catholics already accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, what makes these few people - Ed Decker, Thelma Greer etc - saved and the rest unsaved?

:no: :no: :no: :no: Find another mug for everyone to vent their spleen on, I won't be saying anything you haven't heard before.

 

[athanasius]

Back home to rome? Baptists are not a group that seperated from Rome at least they don't claim to be.


Thanks Athanasius though i am suprised you consider me a member of His body, Vatican II says I am a seperated brother, can I be both? If so then there is no need to worry about people converting from one denomination to another is there?

I appreciate your good wishes and your humour Athanasius, truly.

You may be confused my brother. When the term separated brethern is used, it means that you are united to God and to his Church(Catholic Church) by Virtue of your common Holy Baptism and faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. Therefore you are a real Christian brother in Christ Jesus and we both share in his Body. But when we use the term separated, we are referring to your informal union with the Catholic church. In other words, you hold informal inion with Christ Catholic Church by virtue of your baptism and faith.

But since you haven't entered into formal union(Joining the Catholic church and being Confirmed) we call you separated. You are not separated from Christ, you have union with him through baptism and faith. You also share in Christ Body the Church in a way, but you are separated formally from his Visible Church. So Yes I can call you my brother in Christ. And I am Happy to have such good separated brothers in our forum. To read more about the Catholic Churches stand on this issue please read our Catechsim. (Catechsim of the Catholic Church Page 222 Paragraph 838).

Of coarse Jesus wishes for all to come to a formal union with his Catholic Church which has the fullness of his Truth. So evangelization is very important. I am a Catholic theology student:liturgy: and at least that is the Chruches understadning on this issue.

I appreciate you good wishes too my friend. God bless you always in Jesus through Mary,
Athanasius

 

[*Paul*]

You may be confused my brother. When the term separated brethern is used, it means that you are united to God and to his Church(Catholic Church) by Virtue of your common Holy Baptism and faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. Therefore you are a real Christian brother in Christ Jesus and we both share in his Body. But when we use the term separated, we are referring to your informal union with the Catholic church. In other words, you hold informal inion with Christ Catholic Church by virtue of your baptism and faith.

You're right, I read the word seperated and drew my own conclusions.

But since you haven't entered into formal union(Joining the Catholic church and being Confirmed) we call you separated. You are not separated from Christ, you have union with him through baptism and faith. You also share in Christ Body the Church in a way, but you are separated formally from his Visible Church. So Yes I can call you my brother in Christ. And I am Happy to have such good separated brothers in our forum. To read more about the Catholic Churches stand on this issue please read our Catechsim. (Catechsim of the Catholic Church Page 222 Paragraph 838).

I heard Karl Keating describing us as having an incomplete faith, and "you want to get close as close as you can to the true source" (i.e the roman catholic church) is that correct?i have Vatican II saved in my favourites folder is there anywhere in there that defines it?

 

[jonny]

I never said they had to be faithful members. And neither did Jonny. Ed Decker was saved whilst still a mormon then had to leave because of inconsistencies with what he had come to believe and what the LDS church taught. I have read other similar stories with Jehovahs witnesses, the same thing happened. What I am saying is to be saved you don't first have to renounce your Mormon faith or say you are not a mormon, God will lead you where he wants you to go once you are His.

You completely took my words out of context. You meant for it to be a stab out of my religion and completely derailed the entire thread. I was trying to understand where the starter of the thread was coming from. I already knew where Porkchop was coming from and now I know where you are coming from. Good to know, but not relevant to this thread.

For what it's worth. I don't see any conflict with being a "saved Christian" and faithful Latter-day Saint. If you do, you probably don't understand Mormonism as well as you think you do & I'd invite you to participate in the Mormon Basics thread.

Now, for further discussion, I'd direct you to this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=758607

 

[DeepShadow]

Of course mormons can be saved. Look at Ed Decker.

Fortunately, you're not the judge of that. Neither is anyone else on earth.

 

[athanasius]

You're right, I read the word seperated and drew my own conclusions.

I heard Karl Keating describing us as having an incomplete faith, and "you want to get close as close as you can to the true source" (i.e the roman catholic church) is that correct?i have Vatican II saved in my favourites folder is there anywhere in there that defines it?

Hello my Friend. Keating is generally a pretty good source, although Jimmy Akin or Tim staples is better. YOu may want to submit a Question to EWTN on thier Q And A . They have some good priest who could give you a good answer. But I am glad to see you looking up official Catholic teaching also. I am not actually sure What Vatican II teaches directly on this. In my Classes we have only Studied Dei Verbum so far, the Vat II Document on Divine revelation. My Master degree program in theology will go over the Vatican II Documents thoroughly and explain them, but that will be in 2009. Until then the Cathecism of the Catholic Church which John Paul II calls "A Sure norm for Catholic teaching" sums up and explains the Catholic position in harmony with the Vatican II Documents on this area of separated bretheren. Here is where you can find it. (Catechsim of the Catholic Church Page 222 Paragraph 838). Tim Staples or JImmy Akin from Catholics answers may also have some good info from the Churches teaching on this at www.catholic.com If you write to them or call them they will send you info.


Sorry I wasn't that much help but I do beleive you will find our Cathecism quite plain and offiicial.

I hope that helps.

God bless you always
In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasius

 

[Halcyon]

Find another mug for everyone to vent their spleen on, I won't be saying anything you haven't heard before.

What would that be then? That they were saved because they left their Mormon or Catholic beliefs and embraced yours - pretty much the point James was making for the last couple of pages.

 

[love]

Hello Soundoc: I believe that Jesus Christ has the keys to heaven or hell.
I believe that the writings of His Words reveal Him to be the perfect example of love and compassion.
The concept of hell baffles me in that if I, in my limited capcity to forgive and forget would have a hard time condemning anyone to eternal hell fire, how much more is Gods forgiveness.
God sees all mankind and knows their heart.
Preaching hell fire for anyone is not what Jesus taught.
Christ's last words on the Cross was "forgive them Father they know not what the do.

 

[Baerly]

Soundoc -st Peter 3:15 but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;[/quote]

Baerly -Hi, I hope your dong well.

I will ask you about your faith, please use bible scriptures.

1. What church do you attend?
2. How long has that church been in existence?
3. How did you become a member of that church?
4. Were you immersed or sprinkled?
5. At what age were you baptized?
6. Can you find the church you attend in the bible?
7. Was the church you attend founded by a man or God?
8. When are sins remitted?
9. Were you saved before or after baptism?

in love Baerly

 

[s2a]

I am a born-again follower of the teachings of Christ Jesus, the Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible.

I can answer any question regarding my personal faith.

I got prepared for it by realizing that the following verse from the Holy Bible applies to me as well as to all other born-again followers of Christ Jesus.

Here is the verse:

1st Peter 3:15 but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;

Hi Soundoc!

Welcome to RF!

How does your faith answer the question...

"Why do 'bad things' happen to 'good people'"?

 

[Baerly]

Hello Soundoc: I believe that Jesus Christ has the keys to heaven or hell.
I believe that the writings of His Words reveal Him to be the perfect example of love and compassion.
The concept of hell baffles me in that if I, in my limited capcity to forgive and forget would have a hard time condemning anyone to eternal hell fire, how much more is Gods forgiveness.
God sees all mankind and knows their heart.
Preaching hell fire for anyone is not what Jesus taught.
Christ's last words on the Cross was "forgive them Father they know not what the do.

Hello love, How are you.

I would like to address something you said. I would just like to show you what I have found in the bible,if that is ok. The people who killed Jesus did not have their sins forgiven while Jesus was dying on the cross. I know Jesus prayed for them to be forgiven, but it had to be within the plan of salvation. How do I know those who killed Jesus did not have their sins forgiven on the day of the crucifixion?

Please look at (Acts 2:36), Peter calls them murderers, it says "whom ye have crucified"... .

These were the people responsible for killing Jesus and in (Acts 2:37) they asked "what shall we do?"

In the very next verse, Peter told them to REPENT and be BAPTIZED... for the remission of sins (Speaking of the sin of crucifying Jesus).

Some of those people accepted the word of God and repented and were baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:41).

Those that did obey the command given in (Acts 2:38) were added to the church by God and had their sins washed away (Acts 2:47 ; 22:16) (Gal.3:27) .

in love Baerly

 

[MaddLlama]

Hello love, How are you.

I would like to address something you said. I would just like to show you what I have found in the bible,if that is ok. The people who killed Jesus did not have their sins forgiven while Jesus was dying on the cross. I know Jesus prayed for them to be forgiven, but it had to be within the plan of salvation. How do I know those who killed Jesus did not have their sins forgiven on the day of the crucifixion?

Please look at (Acts 2:36), Peter calls them murderers, it says "whom ye have crucified"... .

These were the people responsible for killing Jesus and in (Acts 2:37) they asked "what shall we do?"

In the very next verse, Peter told them to REPENT and be BAPTIZED... for the remission of sins (Speaking of the sin of crucifying Jesus).

Some of those people accepted the word of God and repented and were baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:41).

Those that did obey the command given in (Acts 2:38) were added to the church by God and had their sins washed away (Acts 2:47 ; 22:16) (Gal.3:27) .

in love Baerly

What does that have to do with the fact that Jesus was teaching people about love and compassion?

 

[Anti-World]

To Ernestine:
"Existence of Jesus Christ has been found. References to him (and his family) have been discovered in secular documents of that time. Why do we need anything beyond that? If historical references are good enough to prove the existence of other men of fame, that same standard should apply to Jesus."

It's enough for me. But I was wondering if that was enough for him. Josephus is another good example.

 

[Muffled]

Welcome Soundoc. I also proclaim myself a fool and you also know that it is the wisdom of God which is considered foolishness by those who reject His wisdom.

I would like to know how you define "born again." Obviously the Roman Catholic who stated he was born again as a baby has a different defintion from one that I am accustomed to hear.

 

[Baerly]

What does that have to do with the fact that Jesus was teaching people about love and compassion?

Hi, teaching love means you will teach truth (John 17:17). Even though Jesus had compassion on those who was crucifying him,they could only be saved by truth (Rom.1:16). To love someone is to tell them the truth about the gospel,not what the masses claim is truth.

Baerly

 

[lew0049]

"Existence of Jesus Christ has been found. References to him (and his family) have been discovered in secular documents of that time. Why do we need anything beyond that? If historical references are good enough to prove the existence of other men of fame, that same standard should apply to Jesus."

Exactly, there is much I could say about this, but it seems apparent that many people claim that there are no references to Christ outside of Christian sources. I am fully aware of the skepticism regarding some of these sources; however, even when you disregard some of the POSSIBLE "additions" to these documents, we are left with a considerable amount of historical evidence: Jesus was a Jewish teacher, many believed he performed healings, some believed he was the Messiah, He was rejected by Jewish leaders, he was crucified under Pilate, (despite is shameful death) his followers spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes in Rome by AD 64, and finally that a WIDE variety of people worshiped Him.
Obviously, anybody that wants historical document after document of Jesus is not looking at the people of this time. In the ancient world the idea of writing dispassionate and objective history merely to chronicle events, with no ideological purpose was not heard of. I fully understand that some people, based on faith, write events to serve their ideological purposes, but it is wrong to conclude that this always happens.
A modern parallel is the people of the Jewish community. If you have done research on the events of the Holocaust, there are MANY people that try to downplay the events and horrors of the Holocaust (usually for anti-Sematic purposes). Now, it has been the Jewish scholars that have built museums, perserved artifacts, and written books about the Holocaust as they have a very ideological purpose. However, it has also been the Jewish scholars/community that have been the most faithful and objective in their reporting of the historical truth.
Last point for now - many people during the time of Jesus/thereafter had many reasons for wanting to discredit the movement and would have done so effectively if they had simly told history better. Yet, what did His opponents say? Jewish writings called Jesus a sorcerer who led Israel astray. This acknowledges that He really did work marvelous wonders (given the writers dispute the source of His power). The questions then becomes, why didn't these people say something life "christians will claim that he worked miracles, but we are telling you he didn't?"
Enough for me! Have a good day