-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
LDS Atonement
- Thread starter á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î±
- Start date
That was not the only purpose of the Aaronic priesthood, and nowhere in the Bible are we told that it was ever done away with.
You said that , and I show you where God had done away with the beggerly elements of the old testament.
(Isa 50:1) Thus saith the Lord, Where [is] the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors [is it] to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
Then Paul tells us about the Old Testament: (Gal 4:9) But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Aaron is out and jesus is in
(Heb 5:5) So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
(Heb 5:6) As he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.(Heb 5:10)
(Heb 6:20) Whither the forerunner is for us entered, [even] Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
So is your Joe Smith placing Aaron above Jesus?
And where in the bible does it say that a high priest has more than one wife as Joe Smith bestowed upon himself?
I am outta here:run:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Hello,
Recognizing that works are a "sign" of faith is not a remarkable claim. The notion faith necessarily precedes demonstration is constitutive to the concept. It applies whenever a predicate (i.e. "has faith in") is applied to an object of faith whether it be within personal relationships, political ideals, or the religious arena. Any rational soul would recognize this. Mormonism and Mormons are no exception to the rather mundane point. Mormons will of course stress that any discussion of faith necessarily requires reference to the one with the faith i.e the believer.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Good post.
The rhetorical posture of larger Protestantism (and/or Modern Evangelical movements) is really interesting. Most of the as you've dubbed "alethian Christians" are completely unaware of how theologically dependant they are on a partial reading of St. Augustine* and of the intellectual context by and through which their movement arose. Few understand the connections between the 15th and 16th Century hermeneutics of Christian Humanism, or of the then emergent via Moderna stances on their theology.** Thus, most simply do not know how anachronistic their various theological assumptions are. Rather, what one finds is naive readings of scripture, appeals to scripture authority (which itself is odd given the text is itself the product of a Tradition that they reject and rejects them), and an instilled relativism whereby the subject reads a text, comes to a conclusion about the text and that conclusion is taken as its own justification simply in the act of drawing a conclusion. Oft times it boils down to passion over substance. Then again, the vast bulk of the theological heavy lifting within the Latin Christian Tradition comes from Roman Cathloicism.
I think the issues you point out on revelation are a real issue with 'Alethian Christians'
*It is no mere coincidence that Luther was a monk of the Augustinian Order and that his new theology would parrot many elements of St. Augustine.
** One can look at the Augsburg Confessions correspondence with Constantinople: Melanchthon's appeals to the Patriarch of Constantinople as a hoped for ally for the new movement. Having thrown off the shackles of Rome, the Reformers/Protestants wanted confirmation that their theological conclusions were in line with the preserved Tradition of the Christian East and that Popery was wrong. Needless to say they were befuddled when the response basically told them their theology was an innovation and that the truth lay with the Eastern Christian Tradition.
While both make appeals to authority, I think the Gnostic Tradition(s) and these "alethian type claims" make distinct epistemic logical claims. The myriad Gnostic Movements claimed an authority passed down from an Apostolic source. All of the early Christian esoteric movements were similar in this regard. Not only among the dubbed Gnostics, but even within the proto-orthodox esoteric Christian circles. Clement of Alexandria serves as a simple illustration. The esoterism he appeals to in his Stromata is based on a larger claim that the Church in Egypt, and the knowledge preserved there, was founded and presented by the Apostle Mark. Alethian Christians do not claim authority themselves*, but generally rest the authority for their claims in a text (the Bible). So, the general esoteric Christian would make truth claim X based on an authority and teaching received from Apostle Y (which may or may not be written down). Whereas, the Alethian Christian makes truth claim X based on the dubbed authority of a text from an Apostle Y (and of course the interpretation of that text).**
*Pentecostal Movements are different in this regard.
** This later point is telling because the authority is tied to the text, but given the text requires a reader/interpreter, the interpretation, in point of fact, becomes the authoritative voice in the guise of the text. Thus, the interpreting subject becomes his own authority.
Last edited:
á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î±
Jesus set me free!
The exact same thing can be said for LDS.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
(Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:4-5)
So, if a non-LDS prays to God about the Bible with a sincere heart, and with real intent, having faith in Christ, and is told to trust God's word as revealed in the Bible, the Holy Ghost could not have answered him because he got the wrong answer!
And if he prays about the Book of Mormon, it is true no matter what answer the person receives. This, of course makes it very suspect in LDS eyes!
Nephi testified that the Bible once "contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record" and that "after [the words] go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (1 Nephi 13:24, 26)
Boyd K. Packer, "Who Is Jesus Christ?," Ensign, Mar 2008, 1219
You left out the power of the Holy Ghost who manifests truth to the sincere seeker!
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
(Book of Mormon, Third Nephi 11:36-40)
"Read from the introduction of the Book of Mormon. The introduction was written by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and was issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It says the Holy Ghost will confirm that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin, and then it promises: 'Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lords kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah.' "
Henry B. Eyring, "How to Know the Truth," New Era, May 2004, 5
"A testimony grows from understanding truth, distilled from prayer and the pondering of scriptural doctrine."
Richard G. Scott, "The Power of a Strong Testimony," Ensign, Nov. 2001, 87
You criticize non-LDS for doing what LDS are instructed to do.
á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î±
Jesus set me free!
A bold claim:
The overall pattern is to readrememberponderpray in sincerity and faith. None of these steps may be left out. If the individual has not read the Book of Mormon, and more importantly, remembered the Lords mercy throughout the ages, they have no promise. For many Christians, this will require that they ponder the Lords great mercy as revealed in the Biblethey must remember and ponder what the Lord has already done. Without these elements, even a sincere prayer and an intense prayer may yield nothing. Again, the indispensable elements are:
1) To read.
2) To remember the Lords mercy.
3) To ponder.
4) To ask with a sincere heart.
5) To ask with real intent.
6) To ask with faith in Christ.
No investigator in the history of the Restoration has ever completed all six of these steps without subsequently receiving a manifestation of the truth of the Book of Mormon.
http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Moroni10.htm
The overall pattern is to readrememberponderpray in sincerity and faith. None of these steps may be left out. If the individual has not read the Book of Mormon, and more importantly, remembered the Lords mercy throughout the ages, they have no promise. For many Christians, this will require that they ponder the Lords great mercy as revealed in the Biblethey must remember and ponder what the Lord has already done. Without these elements, even a sincere prayer and an intense prayer may yield nothing. Again, the indispensable elements are:
1) To read.
2) To remember the Lords mercy.
3) To ponder.
4) To ask with a sincere heart.
5) To ask with real intent.
6) To ask with faith in Christ.
No investigator in the history of the Restoration has ever completed all six of these steps without subsequently receiving a manifestation of the truth of the Book of Mormon.
http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/Moroni10.htm
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I actually disagree with this claim. I would say that the majority of the time it holds true, and that when it doesn't, one of the six steps has not been completed. It is, however, a bold claim and it cannot be proven.ἀλήθεια;1539436 said:
smitten508
Member
It seems that our Protestant brothers are somewhat weak in their approach to things in this forum. It is true that Christianity in its inception had a hierarchy and that logically it would need 1 to present day. I am Catholic, and the Papal office is the height of our priesthood. Lds has a similar system of authority within its Church. It seems that with the "reformation" that more chaos and confusion caMe about than anything else doesn't it?
á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î±
Jesus set me free!
No, chaos and confusion has always existed. That was one of the reasons for the First Council of Nicea to combat Arianism.
Acts 26
17Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Jude 1
3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
You've not responded to this post and the earlier discussion on an atonement: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1538025-post39.html I assume then that has been dealt with.
Now, to your post:
Alas no. Such may apply to an individual, but not of Mormon rhetoric as a whole. Mormonism does not have any notion of sola scriptura. Nor does Mormonism take private interpretation as an authoritative voice. Mormonism has an established ecclesia and they are the only ones able to speak the will of the Divine to the larger community or world. Now, Mormonism does make a direct and fundamental appeal to revelation. The basic idea being that if one wants to know of the Divine or the Divine will, appeal to the Divine is the best recourse. Such a stance trumps any authoritative appeal to a text. Personal revelation is at the core of Mormon rhetoric to illustrate:
1) Personal revelation is taken as the base vehicle to know if Mormon claims have any merit.
2) If the Mormon hierarchy made revelation claim X, their being general church authorities puts them in the position to make the claim and speak for/to the community, but for the general member, the base onus and right remains to verify via their own personal witness the veracity of the assertions. If Brigham Young says the Church is to move to the wilds of the Continental West, he is entitled to make the assertion, but the individual member is to verify the assertion by appealing to the same source Young bases the claim on.
3) On personal revelation: if on a Saturday morning one came from their home to find their neighbor Bob strapping his son to the top of the Toyota minivan and Bob told you he had a revelation that he was to follow same path as Abraham and the same test of Abraham and so was heading to the mountains to do the deed: unless the Heavens opened and told you Bob was right, one should be calling the police as quickly as possible. Now to this statement:
Mormonism agrees with any and all movements toward the good and the true. To whit:
"For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true." Alma 29:8 (Book of Mormon).
Should a person say the Holy Ghost revealed to them the Bible contains God's word, a Mormon should agree. Should a person say Allah had revealed to them the goodness and glory found in the Quran, again a Mormon should agree. Mormons are not afraid of sectarian claims. On the contrary, Mormonism holds that the good and true can be found in a number of places both religious and non-religious and that each of these can move the soul. Insofar as a person recognizes revelation as a legitimate vehicle to know the true, Mormonism is more than happy to build on/off of that deference.
You are confused. Roman Catholic theological work is both subtle and sophisticated. That is the point being made. It is difficult to find original and comparable subtlety among self identified Evangelical voices.
I've met very few alethian Christians who base their truth claims off of revelation. Luther made no such claim. Melanchthon made no such claim. Calvin made no such claim. Zwingli made no such claim. Bucer made no such claim etc. Most appeal to the Bible and that is taken as sufficient.
Now, to your post:
Alas no. Such may apply to an individual, but not of Mormon rhetoric as a whole. Mormonism does not have any notion of sola scriptura. Nor does Mormonism take private interpretation as an authoritative voice. Mormonism has an established ecclesia and they are the only ones able to speak the will of the Divine to the larger community or world. Now, Mormonism does make a direct and fundamental appeal to revelation. The basic idea being that if one wants to know of the Divine or the Divine will, appeal to the Divine is the best recourse. Such a stance trumps any authoritative appeal to a text. Personal revelation is at the core of Mormon rhetoric to illustrate:
1) Personal revelation is taken as the base vehicle to know if Mormon claims have any merit.
2) If the Mormon hierarchy made revelation claim X, their being general church authorities puts them in the position to make the claim and speak for/to the community, but for the general member, the base onus and right remains to verify via their own personal witness the veracity of the assertions. If Brigham Young says the Church is to move to the wilds of the Continental West, he is entitled to make the assertion, but the individual member is to verify the assertion by appealing to the same source Young bases the claim on.
3) On personal revelation: if on a Saturday morning one came from their home to find their neighbor Bob strapping his son to the top of the Toyota minivan and Bob told you he had a revelation that he was to follow same path as Abraham and the same test of Abraham and so was heading to the mountains to do the deed: unless the Heavens opened and told you Bob was right, one should be calling the police as quickly as possible. Now to this statement:
So, if a non-LDS prays to God about the Bible with a sincere heart, and with real intent, having faith in Christ, and is told to trust God's word as revealed in the Bible, the Holy Ghost could not have answered him because he got the wrong answer!
Mormonism agrees with any and all movements toward the good and the true. To whit:
"For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true." Alma 29:8 (Book of Mormon).
Should a person say the Holy Ghost revealed to them the Bible contains God's word, a Mormon should agree. Should a person say Allah had revealed to them the goodness and glory found in the Quran, again a Mormon should agree. Mormons are not afraid of sectarian claims. On the contrary, Mormonism holds that the good and true can be found in a number of places both religious and non-religious and that each of these can move the soul. Insofar as a person recognizes revelation as a legitimate vehicle to know the true, Mormonism is more than happy to build on/off of that deference.
You are confused. Roman Catholic theological work is both subtle and sophisticated. That is the point being made. It is difficult to find original and comparable subtlety among self identified Evangelical voices.
I've met very few alethian Christians who base their truth claims off of revelation. Luther made no such claim. Melanchthon made no such claim. Calvin made no such claim. Zwingli made no such claim. Bucer made no such claim etc. Most appeal to the Bible and that is taken as sufficient.
Last edited:
á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î±
Jesus set me free!
My attention deficit takes over when I try to read your posts.
For all your education, you seem to have difficulty using a computer. There is no poster named "me" or "not me." You're making communication difficult to say the least.
Oft times it boils down to passion over substance.
True. Nevertheless, Mormonism teaches individuals to inquire of God and believe that God will reveal wisdom, not merely affirmation of Mormonism.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (James 1:5)
Really? What on earth is an alethian Christian?
Thank God that they appeal to the Bible! However, you cannot logically jump to the conclusion that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit. That is not something you can prove.
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy)
Last edited:
1) Regarding the parallels between the early Gnostic pretenders and Alethian Christianity, (using Alethia’s patterns of interaction as a prototype)
I was going to ask facetiously : “Who can blame the vast majority of honest agnostics for being unable to judge between thousands of conflicting Christianities, all claiming to have “THE truth”. However, it’s clear from the ChristianPilgrim dialoges, that there ARE those who DO condemn those who do not accept Jesus even if they had NO OPPORTUNITY to hear of Jesus in this life. Such Unjust and counterfeit versions of Christianities do great damage since they discourage further study, not only of the unjust counterfeit Christianities, but one may disregard the just and authentic doctrines in the process of avoiding the unjust counterfeits. Authentic Christianity does NOT condemn nor punish unjustly. Thus, the Alethian Christianities (who attempt to claim apostolic authority from God which they do not possess) are not neutral in their effect.
I believe this is an accurate description as to what is happening in the various Alethian Christianities. The various Alethians attempt to “borrow” some semblance of “authority” is made by citing a scriptural comment given in one specific context, then “cut and pasting” it to whatever type of Alethian Christianity one belongs to without regard to context. Since the scriptures do not specifically give them apostolic authority, they must make vague and anemic claim to apostolic authority :
They MUST remain with a claim of indirect and intangible transfer of authority such as a claim to receive apostolic authority from the act of reading a book (the bible), or they must claim to received apostolic Authority as a "gift of God" as a "reward for believing", etc. But this only causes more confusion since questions will be asked as to how various types of Alethia's versions of Christianity are allowed the authority of God when they compete and conflict with one another? These are NOT the only questions that will be asked.
Regarding the Alethians “naive readings of scripture, appeals to scripture authority, and the “passion over substance”. I agree that the psychologic need to apply any handy scripture to themselves is so strong that expediency and NOT context is the main rule in various Alethian Christianities despite their advertisements otherwise. For example:
Orontes pointed out the priority of text over direct prophetic revelation for various Christianities, he explains :
Alethia must agree with the logic, and remarks : “Thank God that they appeal to the Bible!
“Sola Scriptura” may be their advertisement’s catch phrase, but what happens when the passion and bias overrules substance? Often, there is underlying and overlooked “substance”that runs counter to the passion and bias in Alethia’s type of Christianities. The “rock” is personal religious bias, and the “hard place” is the few scriptures that will not bend to their biased usage.
Luther provides a good example of passion and bias over ruling substance. In Luther's first translation of the Old Testament, Luther initially omitted from the Ten Commandments the one against graven image due to his bias rather than bending his bias to the text. Luther had ministered in churches with graven images. Because of his bias that some scriptural comments were meant ONLY for the ancients to whom they were spoken (e.g. Judisches Sachenspiegel) he purposefully left out the second commandment. This is why in Germany, the list of 10 commandments were different.
Few reformers claimed to be a stronger proponent of “Sola Scriptura” than Luther. “Sola Scriptura”, yes. But only to the point that one can subject them to bias. Otherwise, expedience and bias become the priorities.
Alethia claimed regarding Luther and the others in Orontes comment :
This “Alethian principle of expediency” (i.e. use scriptures in any way that “works” and it’s application to proving that Alethian Christianities have authority of God to teach what they want simply doesn’t work. The Catholics who claim a succession of authority from ancient times did NOT give apostolic authority to Alethia. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who claim authority through restoration directly from God’s apostles did NOT give apostolic authority to Alethia. Alethia cannot get apostolic authority of God by reading a book (a bible) any more than her reading a book on traffic laws can give her authority to be a policewoman.
Clear
sitztz94wq
I was going to ask facetiously : “Who can blame the vast majority of honest agnostics for being unable to judge between thousands of conflicting Christianities, all claiming to have “THE truth”. However, it’s clear from the ChristianPilgrim dialoges, that there ARE those who DO condemn those who do not accept Jesus even if they had NO OPPORTUNITY to hear of Jesus in this life. Such Unjust and counterfeit versions of Christianities do great damage since they discourage further study, not only of the unjust counterfeit Christianities, but one may disregard the just and authentic doctrines in the process of avoiding the unjust counterfeits. Authentic Christianity does NOT condemn nor punish unjustly. Thus, the Alethian Christianities (who attempt to claim apostolic authority from God which they do not possess) are not neutral in their effect.
Clear in post # 52 said:
Orontes in post #64 said:
I believe this is an accurate description as to what is happening in the various Alethian Christianities. The various Alethians attempt to “borrow” some semblance of “authority” is made by citing a scriptural comment given in one specific context, then “cut and pasting” it to whatever type of Alethian Christianity one belongs to without regard to context. Since the scriptures do not specifically give them apostolic authority, they must make vague and anemic claim to apostolic authority :
But there can be NO tangible mechanism for this. It is a very tenuous position. They must claim it somehow, but they cannot claim it by the laying on of hands by some authorized messenger since, like the Gnostics, someone is going to ask "who laid their hands on you and gave you authority?"... Well, who laid their hands on THAT person? And so on.... How far back can they go until they must admit a starting point that did NOT start with an apostle or Jesus? There can be no laying on of hands from one servant of God to another.Alethia said:
They MUST remain with a claim of indirect and intangible transfer of authority such as a claim to receive apostolic authority from the act of reading a book (the bible), or they must claim to received apostolic Authority as a "gift of God" as a "reward for believing", etc. But this only causes more confusion since questions will be asked as to how various types of Alethia's versions of Christianity are allowed the authority of God when they compete and conflict with one another? These are NOT the only questions that will be asked.
Regarding the Alethians “naive readings of scripture, appeals to scripture authority, and the “passion over substance”. I agree that the psychologic need to apply any handy scripture to themselves is so strong that expediency and NOT context is the main rule in various Alethian Christianities despite their advertisements otherwise. For example:
Orontes pointed out the priority of text over direct prophetic revelation for various Christianities, he explains :
Orontes said:
Alethia must agree with the logic, and remarks : “Thank God that they appeal to the Bible!
“Sola Scriptura” may be their advertisement’s catch phrase, but what happens when the passion and bias overrules substance? Often, there is underlying and overlooked “substance”that runs counter to the passion and bias in Alethia’s type of Christianities. The “rock” is personal religious bias, and the “hard place” is the few scriptures that will not bend to their biased usage.
Luther provides a good example of passion and bias over ruling substance. In Luther's first translation of the Old Testament, Luther initially omitted from the Ten Commandments the one against graven image due to his bias rather than bending his bias to the text. Luther had ministered in churches with graven images. Because of his bias that some scriptural comments were meant ONLY for the ancients to whom they were spoken (e.g. Judisches Sachenspiegel) he purposefully left out the second commandment. This is why in Germany, the list of 10 commandments were different.
Few reformers claimed to be a stronger proponent of “Sola Scriptura” than Luther. “Sola Scriptura”, yes. But only to the point that one can subject them to bias. Otherwise, expedience and bias become the priorities.
Alethia claimed regarding Luther and the others in Orontes comment :
I agree with the principle that Luther probably had many moments of inspiration as do others. Still one is allowed to doubt that specific actions are inspired. One may doubt that the Holy Spirit will inspire the Great Prophet Moses to record ten commandments in one age, and then inspire Luther specifically to remove one of the ten commandments based on a personal bias. We should all HONOR Luther for the specific good that he did, but we do not have to feel he was perfect nor inspired in everything he did.
This “Alethian principle of expediency” (i.e. use scriptures in any way that “works”
and it’s application to proving that Alethian Christianities have authority of God to teach what they want simply doesn’t work. The Catholics who claim a succession of authority from ancient times did NOT give apostolic authority to Alethia. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who claim authority through restoration directly from God’s apostles did NOT give apostolic authority to Alethia. Alethia cannot get apostolic authority of God by reading a book (a bible) any more than her reading a book on traffic laws can give her authority to be a policewoman.Clear
sitztz94wq
Last edited:
1) Regarding the parallels between the early Gnostic pretenders and Alethian Christianity, (using Alethia’s patterns of interaction as a prototype)
I was going to ask facetiously : “Who can blame the vast majority of honest agnostics for being unable to judge between thousands of conflicting Christianities, all claiming to have “THE truth”. However, it’s clear from the ChristianPilgrim dialoges, that there ARE those who DO condemn those who do not accept Jesus even if they had NO OPPORTUNITY to hear of Jesus in this life. Such Unjust and counterfeit versions of Christianities do great damage since they discourage further study, not only of the unjust counterfeit Christianities, but one may disregard the just and authentic doctrines in the process of avoiding the unjust counterfeits. Authentic Christianity does NOT condemn nor punish unjustly. Thus, the Alethian Christianities (who attempt to claim apostolic authority from God which they do not possess) are not neutral in their effect.
I believe this is an accurate description as to what is happening in the various Alethian Christianities. The various Alethians attempt to “borrow” some semblance of “authority” is made by citing a scriptural comment given in one specific context, then “cut and pasting” it to whatever type of Alethian Christianity one belongs to without regard to context. Since the scriptures do not specifically give them apostolic authority, they must make vague and anemic claim to apostolic authority : But there can be NO tangible mechanism for this. It is a very tenuous position. They must claim it somehow, but they cannot claim it by the laying on of hands by some authorized messenger since, like the Gnostics, someone is going to ask "who laid their hands on you and gave you authority?"... Well, who laid their hands on THAT person? And so on.... How far back can they go until they must admit a starting point that did NOT start with an apostle or Jesus? There can be no laying on of hands from one servant of God to another.
They MUST remain with a claim of indirect and intangible transfer of authority such as a claim to receive apostolic authority from the act of reading a book (the bible), or they must claim to received apostolic Authority as a "gift of God" as a "reward for believing", etc. But this only causes more confusion since questions will be asked as to how various types of Alethia's versions of Christianity are allowed the authority of God when they compete and conflict with one another? These are NOT the only questions that will be asked.
Regarding the Alethians “naive readings of scripture, appeals to scripture authority, and the “passion over substance”. I agree that the psychologic need to apply any handy scripture to themselves is so strong that expediency and NOT context is the main rule in various Alethian Christianities despite their advertisements otherwise. For example:
Orontes pointed out the priority of text over direct prophetic revelation for various Christianities, he explains :
Alethia must agree with the logic, and remarks : “Thank God that they appeal to the Bible!
“Sola Scriptura” may be their advertisement’s catch phrase, but what happens when the passion and bias overrules substance? Often, there is underlying and overlooked “substance”that runs counter to the passion and bias in Alethia’s type of Christianities. The “rock” is personal religious bias, and the “hard place” is the few scriptures that will not bend to their biased usage.
Luther provides a good example of passion and bias over ruling substance. In Luther's first translation of the Old Testament, Luther initially omitted from the Ten Commandments the one against graven image due to his bias rather than bending his bias to the text. Luther had ministered in churches with graven images. Because of his bias that some scriptural comments were meant ONLY for the ancients to whom they were spoken (e.g. Judisches Sachenspiegel) he purposefully left out the second commandment. This is why in Germany, the list of 10 commandments were different.
Few reformers claimed to be a stronger proponent of “Sola Scriptura” than Luther. “Sola Scriptura”, yes. But only to the point that one can subject them to bias. Otherwise, expedience and bias become the priorities.
Alethia claimed regarding Luther and the others in Orontes comment : I agree with the principle that Luther probably had many moments of inspiration as do others. Still one is allowed to doubt that specific actions are inspired. One may doubt that the Holy Spirit will inspire the Great Prophet Moses to record ten commandments in one age, and then inspire Luther specifically to remove one of the ten commandments based on a personal bias. We should all HONOR Luther for the specific good that he did, but we do not have to feel he was perfect nor inspired in everything he did.
This “Alethian principle of expediency” (i.e. use scriptures in any way that “works”
Clear
sitztz94wq
I have been trying to follow this line of thought, but (not being the brightest bulb on the tree) I confess that I am having trouble doing so. If you don't mind, I would like to ask a few questions:
In your "anti Alethian Christianities," view, what roll do the scriptures play? Should they be disregarded?
In your "anti Alethian Christianities" view, must a valid connection to apostolic times remain unbroken? If so, we are now down to only two instances, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
What foundation is your argument built upon? Surely there is some written context for your "anti Alethian Christianities" views.
Historically I can find no documents that state that the church (or Christianities in your vernacular) must be able to show a direct line of apostolic succession, but I admit that I have not researched that particular topic. In the Bible, which seems to have some disdain from several posters here, it states that we are to follow Jesus Christ in order to become Christians. In fact, it states that it is the only way to become Christians. It does not mention apostolic succession. We Christians are chided for believing in the Trinity as it isn't even mentioned in the Bible, and yet we should adhere to this apostolic succession which is also not in the Bible? Should we then, cast aside our new birth in the only one who truly has authority, for the apostolic authority that you argue for?
I'm sure I have other questions, but your posts are so long it is hard to keep up a train of thought without massive cuttings and pastings to address each point that you address. I have neither the time nor inclination to invest that amount of time to a web site. There way too many more important things to invest my time in than to listen to a sidewalk preacher tell me what is wrong with my "Christianies."
Thanks for listening.
Edward
Last edited:
á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î±
Jesus set me free!
An honest agnostic doesn't need to judge between "thousands of conflicting Christianities." He needs to come to Christ. Jesus Christ is the truth. I doubt that Christian Pilgrim condemned anyone. It is sin that separates man from God.
Following a "Christianity" does not save anyone. Only Jesus Christ can save. Neither is there salvation in any other.
John 10
26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Luke 18
22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Matthew 11
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
John 6
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Followers of Mormonism nearly always try to distract from one's coming to Christ towards one's being a member of a certain church(denomination) with a prescribed set of interpretations of biblical Christianity claiming that their interpretation/misinterpretation is the only way. People ought to have their eyes on Jesus Christ, not on the Mormon church and it's leaders.
Jesus Christ will do the judging, not another person's beliefs.
This has gone on long enough. The OP is with regards to the atonement, not apostolic authority. Kindly start another thread if you are more interested in discussing apostolic authority than in discussing the atonement.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
ἀλήθεια;1540102 said:
If you do not understand something you should ask and I can explain further.
"Me" is a first person pronoun. I use it when referring to something I've posted. "Not me" is a first person pronoun with a negation. It precedes something I'm quoting from another. The two, with their attending quotes, typically follow each other in an attempt to provide context for whatever new response I'm putting forward. Do you see?
Alas.
Quite so, but the point was rhetorical positioning. An individual Mormon is not in a position to declare new revelation or doctrine to the Welt, such occurs through the eccesia. There is no private interpretation authority. The same cannot be said of the alethian Christian(s). This speaks directly to the underlying relativism issue.
If you have been reading the last several posts, it should be clear: alethian Christian is the term Clear introduced to refer to a general type of Christian (which I think can be found within the larger Protestant/Evangelical circles).
Clear's response to the above I agree with. To add further, I've made no comment on any noted inspiration or its lack within anyone's lives. I refer to the truth claims and rhetoric of the Reformers. None claimed revelation for their assertions and ideas. That is significant. Luther at the Diet of Worms was quite explicit about what he considered legitimate criteria: reason and the scriptures. This was also the case within the larger Protestant Movement. This lack of any appeal to the Heavens in grounding truth claims is telling. The issue with appealing to the scriptures, while rejecting the same authority that created them has been alluded to and is also telling. It is another example of the inherent logical issues that surround larger Protestantism.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
ἀλήθεια;1540600 said:
Your hostility blinds you to poor reasoning. Is the Christ you refer to the deterministic Christ with double predestination ala Calvin? Is it the Christ of Arminius where free will exists? Is it the Christ who literally becomes the body and blood via transubstantiation? Is it the Black Christ? Is it the Christ of Coptic Christianity? The Christs within Christianity are legion. To simply assert one must come to Christ alone is void of content, which Christ? If you decry Mormonism for having a position on Christ as opposed to some an extra-denominational model, then you have simply embraced relativism and moved beyond the confines of reason i.e. there is no way of separating your personal sensibilities on Christ from feelings on blue cheese. In simple terms, your stance is emotive.
You should note that the above comment and the other of yours just noted above that, contradict.
Edward: hello :
I think it is partly the nature of a “debate” forum that forces us to reveal our disagreements in favor of or or against a specific proposition. I believe Alethia’s motives and her heart may be good and I deeply HONOR Alethia for her specific righteous desires and for her faith in Jesus, whom, Alethia and I both believe is the Christ; the redeemer; and the only source to which all mankind may look for salvation (whatever form salvation might take).
Almost all of us agree that we must obey principles taught to us by Jesus, in order to ultimately have claim upon his atonement and the accompanying promise of salvation. What we disagree on are what THOSE principles ARE and HOW to be obedient to Jesus.
Regarding your question as to how I “view” scriptures : Any answer is necessarily insufficient, but to start, I view them as a vast, sacred library which gives us important pieces to a vast puzzle. If the puzzle is a picture of a quaint cottage with a garden and pond, I feel like some of us are working on the roses and therefore claim the puzzle is mostly red. Those working on the roof claim it the picture has mostly a “thatch-like” tan appearance to them. Those working on the pond claim a different picture. Such is the nature of our biases. However, revelation by the spirit feels sometimes like it gives one a wider contextual view to understand the basic version of the entire picture, or perhaps it zooms in on the flowers we can then, with a surety, understand and see, that they are “definitely roses”, and, importantly, if we are able, we can give up our biased theory that they are “red tulips”.
The problem with getting only parts of picture is that once we develop a bias and are sure (but mistaken) and think the flowers ARE “red tulips”, then we tend to describe “red tulips” to others without understanding what they really are. We often do this with scriptures. We have a prior bias as to what they mean, and describe them in such a way so as to support our bias rather than describe them accurately. I do NOT think this is the same as dishonesty, but is part of the nature of our character which we are to try to improve on. Thus, some debates seem petty and one gets the feeling that neither debater really knows what the flower are. The difficulty is, that the person who has seen the completed section of roses must compete with other claims. And how is anyone to know or trust the true claim among the many? (This is one important characteristic of having authority)
Though individuals offer so many conflicting interpretations as to what a multitude of scriptures mean, still, I believe the vast and various sacred histories are profound and valuable in their testimony and descriptions of the interactions between God and mankind. They are NOT to be worshiped, nor are they to be used naively or abused in interpretation. They are certainly imperfect but are still the most valuable initial testimonies we have of God. For most of us, they are the seed material, upon which we may develop a relationship with God.
Regarding your question: “Should scriptures be “disregarded”? It seemed initially like a strange question coming from a Christian, but you must have had a good reason to ask it. I do not believe that scripture or any sacred literature should disregarded, rather I believe that everything we read and see and do and experience should contribute to our knowledge and understanding of God. I will take light from any lamp that I can get it.
Yet, I admit that your question has merit since some scriptures HAVE been “disregarded” and “excluded” from considerations as evidenced by the various “canons” and the vast editing which has been done to them. Those who have done so have restricted and funneled knowledge of God. I rarely see inaccurate “disdain” (though some), of the bible that you claim, and those who do, I think are wrong on this specific point (usually they are simply exagerating the amount of error in the texts - I think they are correct that there are many thousands of plus and minus and variation errors, BUT I think the ancient scribes and editors generally attempted to do the best they could). Certainly some errors were intentional. And I do NOT believe the Islamists “disdain” the bible per se (rather Islam also honors the “original texts” as scripture), but, if I am correct, they believe that there are changes and mistakes in our versions of O.Testaments. and N.Testaments which render them less reliable than the Quran for study in their view. Though Jews and Christians admit that, as Islam claims, there are errors in scriptural texts, still, I believe they are of profound import and of good accuracy for study and understanding.
Clear
end of the first half of a two part post
Edward said:
I think it is partly the nature of a “debate” forum that forces us to reveal our disagreements in favor of or or against a specific proposition. I believe Alethia’s motives and her heart may be good and I deeply HONOR Alethia for her specific righteous desires and for her faith in Jesus, whom, Alethia and I both believe is the Christ; the redeemer; and the only source to which all mankind may look for salvation (whatever form salvation might take).
Almost all of us agree that we must obey principles taught to us by Jesus, in order to ultimately have claim upon his atonement and the accompanying promise of salvation. What we disagree on are what THOSE principles ARE and HOW to be obedient to Jesus.
Regarding your question as to how I “view” scriptures : Any answer is necessarily insufficient, but to start, I view them as a vast, sacred library which gives us important pieces to a vast puzzle. If the puzzle is a picture of a quaint cottage with a garden and pond, I feel like some of us are working on the roses and therefore claim the puzzle is mostly red. Those working on the roof claim it the picture has mostly a “thatch-like” tan appearance to them. Those working on the pond claim a different picture. Such is the nature of our biases. However, revelation by the spirit feels sometimes like it gives one a wider contextual view to understand the basic version of the entire picture, or perhaps it zooms in on the flowers we can then, with a surety, understand and see, that they are “definitely roses”, and, importantly, if we are able, we can give up our biased theory that they are “red tulips”.
The problem with getting only parts of picture is that once we develop a bias and are sure (but mistaken) and think the flowers ARE “red tulips”, then we tend to describe “red tulips” to others without understanding what they really are. We often do this with scriptures. We have a prior bias as to what they mean, and describe them in such a way so as to support our bias rather than describe them accurately. I do NOT think this is the same as dishonesty, but is part of the nature of our character which we are to try to improve on. Thus, some debates seem petty and one gets the feeling that neither debater really knows what the flower are. The difficulty is, that the person who has seen the completed section of roses must compete with other claims. And how is anyone to know or trust the true claim among the many? (This is one important characteristic of having authority)
Though individuals offer so many conflicting interpretations as to what a multitude of scriptures mean, still, I believe the vast and various sacred histories are profound and valuable in their testimony and descriptions of the interactions between God and mankind. They are NOT to be worshiped, nor are they to be used naively or abused in interpretation. They are certainly imperfect but are still the most valuable initial testimonies we have of God. For most of us, they are the seed material, upon which we may develop a relationship with God.
Regarding your question: “Should scriptures be “disregarded”? It seemed initially like a strange question coming from a Christian, but you must have had a good reason to ask it. I do not believe that scripture or any sacred literature should disregarded, rather I believe that everything we read and see and do and experience should contribute to our knowledge and understanding of God. I will take light from any lamp that I can get it.
Yet, I admit that your question has merit since some scriptures HAVE been “disregarded” and “excluded” from considerations as evidenced by the various “canons” and the vast editing which has been done to them. Those who have done so have restricted and funneled knowledge of God. I rarely see inaccurate “disdain” (though some), of the bible that you claim, and those who do, I think are wrong on this specific point (usually they are simply exagerating the amount of error in the texts - I think they are correct that there are many thousands of plus and minus and variation errors, BUT I think the ancient scribes and editors generally attempted to do the best they could). Certainly some errors were intentional. And I do NOT believe the Islamists “disdain” the bible per se (rather Islam also honors the “original texts” as scripture), but, if I am correct, they believe that there are changes and mistakes in our versions of O.Testaments. and N.Testaments which render them less reliable than the Quran for study in their view. Though Jews and Christians admit that, as Islam claims, there are errors in scriptural texts, still, I believe they are of profound import and of good accuracy for study and understanding.
Clear
end of the first half of a two part post
Last edited: