Marks of a Cult

Your correct! I'm not of the doctrine of the Trinity, but I get the feeling that I'm about to learn something about Mormonism. Maybe?

Defender, do you get the feeling that you are a fish, in a bowl, and *all* eyes are on you?

This could get very interesting!

MEE

 

#1. A Christian is someone who believe that the Bible is the Word of God - the infallible Word of God that is the rule authority and test of ALL doctrine.

You on the other hand - believe that it is flawed and that the Book of Mormon is the most well written, complete, CORRECT book.

(Of course I will give you this - the BoM is a much better book on doctrine than Pearl of Great Price or Doctrines and Covenants. But it is not scripture. Just an intersting story with some good gospel themes.)

(On a side note. Spalding has a section in the BoM where God tells Israel in America WHY He was so deliberate in moving them out of David's kingdom and over to the Americas - do you remember what the REASON was as stated IN the BoM??)

#2. I would love to add that a child of God is a Trinitarian - but it is clear that some of the pre-cross followers of Christ lived and died in a state where they did not see the Trinity as we do today.

#3. Your problem with works and sanctification could be "fixed" if you could solve problem #1 listed above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I wouldn't go that far, Bob, because such a position presupposes the existence of the NT canon. The early church did not have the whole Bible as we do, yet they were Christians. Also, to be fair, infallibility is not necessary doctrine, for someone can have proper faith in Christ without believing the Bible is perfect.

 

Stefan M, I'll respond to both of your posts at the same time.

The Shema creed, nice choice. And in the Hebrew, it has an even deeper meaning- it makes mention of both God and Christ being one. This is reflected in John 10:30.

They are indeed one. What is meant by one? Look at John 10:30. Offhand here is a Protestant scholar who comments on the Greek:

I and the Father are one (Gk. hen): The neuter gender rules out any thought of meaning 'one Person.' This is not a comment on the Godhead. Rather, having spoken of the sheep's security in both Himself and the Father, Jesus underlines what He has said by indicating that in action the Father and He be can regarded as a single entity, because their wills are one.

One in purpose. One in plans. It CANNOT be "one" in essence or substance or divinity(homoousion as Trinitarians like to call it) according to the text. Also check the context regarding how the plan of salvation between God and Jesus line up.

As for Deuternonomy 6:4, the same applies here. If you are sent as a representative, made in the express image of someone, share exact views, and work together PERFECTLY, saying that you are "one" is about the best phrase you can use for description.

Now we have offered questions for you regarding the Trinity. Some people enter discussions just waiting for their turns to speak. It is important to acknowledge the existence of the opposing arguments if they have not been addressed thus far.

The point is that the Holy Spirit is deity- YET we are never told of a connection within the Godhead literally. Thus we are left with two Gods. The Trinity doctrine developed as a result of staunch monotheism, which is unsupported outside of the English version of Isaiah.

Moreoever, evidence for polytheism exists in the Scriptures, and we do not see monotheism arise in Israelite theology until the 7th century B.C. The command to have no other gods BEFORE HIM is taken to such an extreme that in response to polytheism worshipping other gods, they simply deny the existence of all other deities altogether.

We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate deities.

 

Great list. Unfortunately that is how you define a Christian. One who dedicates His life to following the precepts of Christ after He has accepted His atonement is a Christian.

If accepting the Bible in its entirety and only the Bible is necessary, I suppose you do realize that the real irony is that most authors of the Bible weren't Christian then.

Same with the second one.

I would recommend looking into how the Trinity doctrine was formed and the surrounding controversy. I know, I know, you all think you are familiar with it because you know that there was a guy named Arius. But are you familiar with the fact that Constantine INTERRUPTED the council and demanded that it end there with Athanasius' view? He demanded that Athansius be affirmed. No vote, just here, everyone read this out loud and repeat after him.

You are aware that immediately after, those who went against the emperor were exiled and lost their lives (though they continued breathing) as punishment? That a banquet was held afterwards where only those loyal to him were rewarded? That present were soldiers and bodyguards with drawn swords?

That Constantine himself opened and interrupted and determined what was agreed upon. It wasn't unanimous- those who did dissent against the emperor were punished. And you are aware that those who were present at the Council were those who were appointed to the position of bishop based on political bias? That's why the one who presented the Trinity, Athanasius, had been exiled and re-instated five times- Constantine's political whims on the church.

He is the man of lawlessness that brought upon the apostacy in the name of the cross- the instrument that killed Christ. In a vision, it was promised that in that sign, he would conquer. Indeed, the sign that spilt the precious lamb's blood, an instrument of the death of our beloved, has spilled much blood. That prophecy has come true. Thereafter, the emperor that followed Constantine ordered all those who opposed the Trinity to be killed. I forget his name, Theodosius or something like that.

I would recommend Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language, and When Jesus Became God by I forgot who.

 

Wrong.

Paul states in Romans 1:1-4 and in Acts 21, and in Acts 17:1-4 that his teaching was based purely sola-scriptura on the OT. Obviously no NT at that time.

Luke reports that Paul himself was being "verified" by comparing what HE said against that OT text "To see IF THOSE things spoken by Paul WERE SO" Acts 17:11.

In Romans 1:1-4 it is in fact the GOSPEL that Paul is getting from the OT - according to that text.

No wonder - since Paul claims "The GOSPEL was preached to US JUST as it was to THEM also" Heb 4:1-2.

(See? Don't you wish that Mormons read the Bible more?)

It is "Living an Active and Powerful" according to the Heb 3 text.

David says the Word of God - the Law of the Lord is Perfect.

Now of course - the Mormon position is that it is imperfect, flawed and barely useful. That is why you find Mormons having much more knowledge of Doctrines and Covenants than the Bible and oddly enough - they read the actual books of Joseph Smith - rather than the Spalding book - the Book of Mormon. (At least when it comes to doctrine).

You find Mormons using the BoM for history and the REAL books of Joseph Smith for doctrine. So in effect they read ONE source - SMITH (For doctrine).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Will (defender), please check your pm's.
BTW, aren't you Will the car guy?
Gina

 

No, we're familiar with the Trinity because the Bible teaches it. We just went through this earlier on this thread.

 

I apologise, I wasn't aware of it.

I can start a thread and explain it to clarify if you would like.


I'm not "Will the car guy". I don't know how to fix a ruptured engine or change my oil.

 

I've got to go for good, guys. If you wish to contact me elsewhere you are free to do so. Thank you for the time here.

 

Sola scriptura? Not quite.
------------------
Galatians 1:11-12 (ESV)

11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
------------------
Paul did not come to belief in Christ through the Old Testament. He came to faith through the revelation of Christ.

The OT points to Christ and contains many prophecies about him, but the OT testimony was fulfilled with the revelation of Christ, the gospel which is now contained in the NT.

To address your reference to Romans 1:1-4:
-------------------
Romans 1:1-4 (ESV)

1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
-------------------
Show me how that says Paul preached nothing but OT! All this passage shows with respect to the scriptures is that the OT prophets spoke of the coming Messiah. The OT is a testimony to the gospel message, but it was not and is not the full,be-all, end-all gospel that Paul preached. He used the OT to support the gospel.

I cannot see how you're using Acts 21 to support your case, so I cannot address your contention at this time.

On to Acts 17:1-4:

----------------------
Acts 17:1-4 (ESV)

1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ." 4And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.
----------------------
Paul's speech is not sola scriptura here. Verse two shows how Paul used the OT, yes, but look at verse three. Verse three shows how he declares Jesus to be the Christ. This is an announcement of prophetic fulfillment. No OT passage could announce prophetic fulfillment for the Messiah because he had not yet come. Therefore, the gospel message required at least one thing beyond the OT itself: the application of such prophecy to Jesus of Nazareth.

I have one more passage for you to consider also from Acts 17.
--------------------
Acts 17:22-34 (ESV)

2So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'
29Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
32Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, "We will hear you again about this." 33So Paul went out from their midst. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
-------------------
Interestingly enough, Paul does not attempt to use OT scripture to prove his point here. In fact, he quotes PAGANS! Even so, he presents the truth about Christ (the gospel he received from Christ), and some believed, as is shown in verse 34. This sermon was closer to "no scripture" than sola scriptura, yet it was sufficient for salvation.

 

Dofender of the Fatih said:

I for one certainly do except the book of Mormon as Scripture, I just don't accept it as such.

 

I picked up a book of Mormon in a marriott hotel.
Out of curiousity I open it up and the part I read said that because of the wickedness in the eaarth that the Holy Spirit had been removed from the earth. Nothing could be furthur from the truth. Jesus told us that He would not leave us comfortless and the He would send The Holy Spirit.
That was enough for me to decide I will never pick up the book of mormon again. I consider it blaspheme.

 

If you don't know your Bible - this discussion is not going to be very much fun for you.

Please note that IN the book of Galations (the book you are quoting above) the GOSPEL that Paul speaks of "Was preached BEFOREHAND to Abraham" Gal 3:7.

Please note that in Heb 4:2 Paul says that the "Gospel was Preached TO US JUST as it was to THEM also" speaking of OT Israel in chapter 3.

Your attempts to make the OT "The teachings of man" or to insert division between the Word of God - SCRIPTURE and the revelation of Christ - fails when held to the test of scripture.

How much better it would have been to establish your point by going to the text I gave you in my previous post.

That claim can not be sustained based on the two references I just gave you AND based on many others -- like Romans 1:1-4

Here Paul shows us that "Holy Scriptures" is in fact - God's Word - the OT.

Here we also see that the gospel was described in the OT itself. In God's Word. In Scripture!

And here we see that the Gospel that Paul is preaching IS the Gospel of SCRIPTURE!!

This is going to be a difficult spot for you to get out of.

Notice the details of the Gospel "Paul was set apart for" --

3concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
4and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,


Pretty devastating that Paul claims THIS as his mission and THIS as the content of the OT Gospel - of SCRIPTURE -- don't you think?

I assume I lost you some place already.

Which part above did you not get?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I should have been more clear --

Paul is accused by his enemies of preaching "another gospel" one that is not in scripture-- (odd how some accuse him today of that same thing).

But his claim is that it is in fact nothing but what is found in scripture.

Acts 21 begins a sequence - a progression of increasingly more and more explicit claims by Paul that HIS Gospel is in fact "nothing but what is taught in scripture".

Acts 21

And so he takes steps to "prove" that.

But the story gets "more explicit"


Paul's Bible based - scripture-based defense is such that even the Pharisess see the light in it.

Acts 23:4-9

Paul claims that His belief is sola-scriptura - believing that which is in scripture.

Acts 24:14-21

Paul fatly denies the "two-gospel" accusation - saying that those who accuse him of preaching things other than what we find in scripture - are wrong.

Acts 25:8-11

Paul explicitly states that his gospel is "nothing but what we find OT scripture" -- in effect.

Acts 26:20-23

The book culminates in very explicit claims that this Gospel is in fact the old testament scripture.

Acts 28:17

In Christ,

Bob

 

I guess we differ there.

I read
2And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ."


As a pretty explicit statement.

And as I quoted in the post above - HE claimed he was "teaching NOTHING but what is in the scripture".

Indeed it does. And SINCE this also shows that these people were not going to swallow doctrine based on "trust my say-so" - you can be sure that the text is showing us the basis on which the teaching is proven and accepted.

The text of scripture was "showing" that Jesus was the "Messiah" (you know - the greek word CHRIST is merely are reference to the OT Hebrew teaching of MESSIAH).

Errr... ummmm -- "yes".

What part of "messiah" do you think is not scriptural in those days?

Maybe we are talking passed each other here.

Sola scriptura MEANS to teach that what SCRIPTURE predicts/says/commands IS TRUE.

I thought we agreed on that point.

In Acts 20 Paul "predicts" that grevious wolves are to come into the church treaching doctrinal error - IF I show that in fact this very thing happened during the dark ages in the form of the errors of catholicism - this is the heart and sole of "sola scriptura" it is showing that the scriptural point made -- was actually true.

I fail to see how you would argue that claiming the fulfillment of a prediction IN scripture is NOT an example of doctrines/teaching based on sola scriptura model.

In Christ,

Bob

 

A. He is speaking to Greeks who do not have the scriptures.

B. He is not speaking against scripture - he is in fact doing what he claimed in Acts 23-28 "speaking of the resurrection" and in so doing "speaking nothing but what the Prophets proclaimed".

Notice that his reference to God making EVERTHING on earth from the beginning is a perfect endorsement of the Gen 1-2:3 text that shows us that in 6 days , 6 evenings and mornings that is exactly what God did.

It is a perfect endorsement of the Exodus 20:8-11 summary of God -- where He summarized the Gen 1-2:3 event "For in six days the Lord made the heavens the earth the sea and all that is in them".

How you can see his statements in Acts 17 as flying off in a new direction OTHER than the pure facts of scripture -- is beyond me.

Notice that in Acts 17:11 we find that his words were being TEST "by searching the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things told to them by Paul were so".

The fact that Paul pulls in those parts of non-Biblical quotes that help make the scriptural argument does not negate the scriptural argument he makes as you seem to suppose.

[

As I said - pulling in an outside source to illustrate the truth of scripture is nothing like pulling something out of thin air as "the new truth" that has no grounding in scripture.

In Christ,

Bob