Posted on 11/04/2011 6:05:42 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Only one is necessary: Mormonism denies the God of the Bible Wo declares “The Lord your God is ONE God.”
Mormonism teaches that there are multiple gods. If is false.
It, of course, goes on to pervert everything it touches, but this one thing is enough.
Bump for later. :)
http://1857massacre.com/MMM/mormon_underwear.htm
One can spend days in this site, reading ALL about the Mormans, many first hand testimonies of events, and many former mormons telling it like it was for them.
“historic Christianity” as represented by the Catholic Church ( Latin and Greek ) would not agree with the sections on Scripture and Authority, the Church and Salvation.
you should change the title from historic Christianity to Protestantism ( and even not all Protestants would agree on these points! )
Interesting. Neither the word trinity nor triune are found in the Bible. There are, however, many instances in the New Testiment where Jesus is presented as a separate figure from the Father. At his baptism the voice of God was heard. So, was Jesus a ventriloquist? Jesus prayed to his Father. Was he praying to himself?
In John 17:11 Jesus prayed to his Father thusly: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.”
Jesus prayed that his deciples would be one just as He and His Father are one. Are we destined then to become some monster multi-person entity. I think not. It’s clear to me that Jesus wanted his deciples to be one in purpose. And it’s just as clear that Jesus and His Father are one in purpose not in person.
The strange triune trinity doctrine comes not from the Bible but from a pagan. Eusibius was a great historian who was at the Nicean counsil. He says that Constantine dismissed the counsil without addressing the question of the nature of God. But by prior araingement some of the delegates remained and it was from that small body that Constantine (a pagan) got the vote on a triune godhead. Thus, the triune trinity is a pagan belief, not from the Bible, and not in any way a part of Christian belief.
I don’t much care what a preson beleives or teaches, except for this: if he follows the golden rule and believes that Jesus died for our sins, then I count that person a Christian.
Baptist history only goes back to around 1600, so I guess Christianity began around than because you see the rest of us are apostates.
On that account the Baptists and Mormons are in agreement.
Baptist history only goes back to around 1600, so I guess Christianity began around then because you see the rest of us are apostates.
On that account the Baptists and Mormons are in agreement.
Interesting. Neither the word trinity nor triune are found in the Bible. There are, however, many instances in the New Testiment where Jesus is presented as a separate figure from the Father. At his baptism the voice of God was heard. So, was Jesus a ventriloquist? Jesus prayed to his Father. Was he praying to himself?
In John 17:11 Jesus prayed to his Father thusly: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.”
Jesus prayed that his deciples would be one just as He and His Father are one. Are we destined then to become some monster multi-person entity. I think not. It’s clear to me that Jesus wanted his deciples to be one in purpose. And it’s just as clear that Jesus and His Father are one in purpose not in person.
The strange triune trinity doctrine comes not from the Bible but from a pagan. Eusibius was a great historian who was at the Nicean counsil. He says that Constantine dismissed the counsil without addressing the question of the nature of God. But by prior araingement some of the delegates remained and it was from that small body that Constantine (a pagan) got the vote on a triune godhead. Thus, the triune trinity is a pagan belief, not from the Bible, and not in any way a part of Christian belief.
I don’t much care what a preson beleives or teaches, except for this: if he follows the golden rule and believes that Jesus died for our sins, then I count that person a Christian.
>>> Thank you for stating what Sola Scriptura really is about.
A more complete comparison would note that Mormon prfeachers are unppaid: they have no fringe benefits like other preachers, parsonage,l
*** Baptist history only goes back to around 1600, so I guess Christianity began around than because you see the rest of us are apostates. ***
It seems that your statement above is Biblically absolutely dead wrong in the first part, and partially Scripturally correct on the second part, of course. Why?
By the command of The Christ, His fully committed followers were ordained to make more disciples from all tribes of people; to immerse in water these new disciples individually, for a public sign of total commitment to The Father, to The Son, and to The Holy Ghost conjointly; and to congregate those disciples for public instruction in continually watchfully guarding all the commands of The Christ from any corrupting change whatsoever throughout this age. There The Christ avowed He would always stand with them in this effort.
Immersionists have constituted the visible Bodies of The Christ since the birth of the local church of Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost; where, subsequent to gladly receiving the instruction of Simon Peter that day, about 3,000 responsible souls repented of sin, accepted immersion in water as a sign, were added to the Jerusalem local church as new regenerated disciple-believer constituents, continuing in the doctrine of the apostles, in The Fellowship, in The Breaking of The Bread, and in the prayers.
The resurgence of immersionists in the 1600s as baptisers of responsible adults is only a reconstitution of the local assemblies which follow the pure New Testament doctrine as demonstrated on Pentecost. These 1600s baptisers rejected the corruption of the statist Roman religion, as well as that of its illegitimate daughters, who sought to reform the Roman religion rather than to reject it completely.
One corruption of all of those religionists was subscribing to the Roman-innnovated “baptism” of unqualified, irresponsible, unbelieving, unregenerated infants, which changed the position of those infants not at all, and was never commanded by The Christ. Doctrinally correct disciple-believers have never practiced infant-baptism nor attributed any merits to it.
So — yes — those, who imagine that infant “baptism” creates new Christ-followers, are pursuing deep apostate error and malpractice. Such apostasy clearly indicates a departure away from The Faith once delivered to the saints, away from those whom The Christ has summoned to meet together to bear the good fruit of more immersionist-discipled-believers, and away from The Fellowship of The Holy Ghost.
That makes the numbers of observable practitioners of The Faith even smaller than that estimated by most of Christendom. Eh?
Is that worth thinking a bit about? Should one not muse, “Am I in The Faith?”
“Neither the word trinity nor triune are found in the Bible. There are, however, many instances in the New Testiment where Jesus is presented as a separate figure from the Father.”
From God’s Holy inerrant Word:
“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Matthew 28:18-20
“I and my Father are one.” John 10:30
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.”
2 Corinthians 13:14
Baptism by immersion is the norm among all Eastern Christians. As a Melkite Catholic, I can say with confidence that we baptize both infants and adults by immersion.
The Western Church save for the Church of Milan discarded baptism by immersion for some reason in the 13th century. But it has made a comeback in some Roman Catholic parishes as an option.
Don’t cite the Bible because the problem is with how you interpret it. The issue goes far beyond baptism by immersion though.
Your interpretation of the Bible with regard to the sacraments and what baptism means is revisionist.
There is more continuity between the Catholic and Orthodox episcopate of today and the apostles because of unbroken apostolic succession than there is between a Baptist congregation and the apostles.
There are fundamental differences even among Baptists about what we Catholics would call core dogmatic issues such as predestination, free-will, etc. Every time Baptists open their mouths to pontificate about scripture, it is subjective.
That’s why Catholics and Orthodox appeal to tradition, so we know how to properly interpret scripture as it has been interpreted at all times, in all places, by all.
### Interesting. Neither the word trinity nor triune are found in the Bible. There are, however, many instances in the New Testiment where Jesus is presented as a separate figure from the Father. At his baptism the voice of God was heard. So, was Jesus a ventriloquist? Jesus prayed to his Father. Was he praying to himself? ###
You pose a couple of questions above, but they are not the correct ones. But in that vein, does the chemical term “dihydrogen oxide” appear in the Bible? Is not water a separate manifestation than ice or vapor (steam), which terms _do_ appear in The Holy Scriptures? Are not water, ice, and steam all the same substance? In fact, do not all of the created elements have solid, liquid, and vapor states of the same composition of matter? Were not the Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost present and together in unity at His baptism-to-fulfill-righteousness? Does not The Jehovah Christ The Creator present us with triunity examples throughout the Bible?
What excuse do you want to refute the Trinity of the same substance, but of differentiated manifestations which can coexist on both a spiritual, philosophical, and material basis? Is this not a manifestation of The Elohim, The Uniplural Being (by definition)? Of and by which all things consist?
Try Isaiah 49:16 “Come ye, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.” Three of the same Deity in substance, in unity, and in differentiated manifestations, together. Is this not The Elohim?
Is this too difficult? If so, you may be operating on a natural (psuchicos) basis, not a spiritual (pneumatikos) one. If so, no one can explain to you that which requires one to understand the deep things of the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:10,13-16) It will just be foolishness to you, as it seems to be — you may not understand it from experience. Were that it be else.
(And although not a fatal flaw, you might check the spelling in your thesis to be a little more credible.)
With sincere concern and regards —
webboy,
Your post is a collection of almost every mormonic myth
about the God of the NT I’ve ever seen in one place.
Each has been refuted countless times on FreeRepublic.
First, the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible. I would
gently say to you that the word “Bible” isn’t in the
Bible either, yet you used it in your post.
We all know what is meant by the word “Bible” when we
use it.
I will assume you are unaware of the Biblical basis
for the Christian understanding that we worship a Triune
God. Perhaps your understanding is shaped by the mormonic
misunderstanding of truth. I notice in your post that you
have the mormoncentric, earthly view of God. In fact,
the great Christian Creeds were delineated because false
heresies were abounding - the same heresies mormonism
later assumed.
Because of this, I will post part of a post by
Godzilla addressing it in a simple form.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Boiled down to its very essence the doctrine of the Trinity has two simple components -
1. There is only one TRUE God - Deuteronomy 4:35, 6:4, 10:14, Psalm 96:5, 97:9, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6-8, 44:24, 45:5-6, 45:21-23, 46:9, 48:11-12, John 17:3, 1 Timothy 2:5, Revelation 1:8, (Hosea 13:4). He is not, in His essential nature, a man: Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19. All other gods are false gods.
2. There are three Persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – each of which are identified as God.
a. Father - 1 Peter 1:2; Philippians 2:11
b. Jesus - 2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:13; John 1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8
c. Holy Spirit - Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17
“Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance....And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” —Athanasian Creed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ampu
I will defer commenting on mormonic compensation to those FRiends here who used to be trapped in the mormon cult. They can tell exactly what form of compensation - monetary or "celestial" occurs.
I will comment that GOD instructed CHRISTIANS that those who make their living by the Gospel are entitled to compensation, so it seems a silly point to brag that mormonic preachers are unpaid. It is just one more confirmation that mormonism ignores the truth of the Bible and substitutes human works for God's principles. As an example of His instruction...
"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." - 1 Timothy 5:17, 18
OK, my fellow Christians who used to be mormons, do you have any insight? cc:
SZonian
greyfoxx39
colorcountry
Well, the comment "it seems a silly point to brag that mormonic preachers are unpaid" is correct...first of all, the big wigs in SLC are handsomely compensated for their educational degrees in business administration, law, etc..(1 mention of a degree in Theology) and these leaders have NO training whatsoever in Christian Theology or in particular, counseling.
None of the "unpaid" leaders are REQUIRED to have any education or training of ANY KIND. The local bishops in my memory were farmers and cattlemen with possibly a high school diploma. These were the men who wielded the power of allowing members to be considered "worthy" to reach exaltation through the mormon system of attaining glory.
There is a tendency to dispense the mantle of leadership to those who are financially successful, so the boast that leaders are not paid being a mark of superiority does not recognize the years of study required of Christian Pastors who are free to spend all their time actually ministering to their flock instead of spending a minimum of 40 hours a week earning their daily bread.
Frankly, the "unpaid leaders" and missionaries who are required to live in penury for two years are just a sign of the cultic mormon practice of putting money before Christ. Money that is used to build temples that are exclusive of any but the most obedient members and money that is used to build up the mormon church huge investment portfolio and money to build multi-billion dollar malls. These are hardly "Christian" endeavors and nothing to boast about.
## Baptism by immersion is the norm among all Eastern Christians. ###
That only means a coincidence with The Apostles’ doctrine, not a proof of obedience to it. Which of the seven baptisms of the new testament are you talking about, if any (not counting mikvah cleansing)? (”Norm” and “Eastern” bear no weight or essence here, though “nominal” might accompany “Christians.”)
## As a Melkite Catholic, ###
(Query (sideissue): Melkite? Is that Benedictine? or is this representing as “Melchisidekian” priesthood?)
### I can say with confidence that we baptize both infants and adults by immersion. ###
But neither Jesus, his disciple-apostles, nor (I think) the first-generation of patristics did. Your claim is an argument for having departed from NT doctrine, not an argument for compliance. Any confidence in the value of water baptism as effecting salvation of infants (or adults) is misplaced.
### The Western Church save for the Church of Milan discarded baptism by immersion for some reason in the 13th century. But it has made a comeback in some Roman Catholic parishes as an option. ###
It is not the discarding of the baptism of believers that marks corruption of doctrine of Christ and His Apostles; it is the innovation of “baptism” of infants (far, far earlier) that initiated one phase of apostasy that increased in its prevalence. Perhaps the tendency to drown infants by total immersion was contraindicated.
### Don’t cite the Bible because the problem is with how you interpret it. ###
Wrong. The Bible _is_ the authority is what I am citing, not a personal interpretation. Attention to hermeneutics will give you a better view, perhaps improve your slant.
### The issue goes far beyond baptism by immersion though. ###
Well, this is quite correct — even most of today’s baptists are prone to immediately water-baptise converts who have not really become disciples, and thus wind up with people who are convinced that they are “saved” but fail in displaying the behavior brought about by (1) discipled from unbelief to repentance, to (2) regeneration of God that is (3) followed by spiritual maturation brought about by (4) continued faithful discipling (for ever). But God does the saving (through reliance on the transaction completed at the Mercy Seat in Heaven, paid for with the uncorruptible blood of Jesus Christ). We only do the water baptizing afterward.
### Your interpretation of the Bible with regard to the sacraments and what baptism means is revisionist. ###
No, that is incorrect. I am clearly stating the command of The Christ without the revision which you presuppose. Please do not call what I stated in the note as my doctrine. It is the gospel of at least Levi and John and Paul. The one you propose is later, is deviant, and is a consequence of “Christianity” being adopted as the state religion, with an unregenerated emperor as its authority and decision-maker, and “infant baptism” being the significance of automatic citizenship by nativity and as a co-religionist imposed.
### There is more continuity between the Catholic and Orthodox episcopate of today and the apostles because of unbroken apostolic succession than there is between a Baptist congregation and the apostles. ###
That is an extreme and unproveable presumption, which is easily rejected by an obvious disparate comparison of Catholic or Orthodox dogma opposing unassailable Biblical doctrine. Apostolic succession is a myth not supported by Scripture, and is only a figment of very active political manipulation. There is no continuity. The line of Apostleship (the Twelve having seen The Christ personally, discipled by Him alone, and ordained by Him face to face as Apostles — the eleven plus Paul), ended with the death of the beloved John at about 100 AD, which was also the closure of the progressive revelation of Holy Scripture. My understanding is that God’s special ordained servants now only include evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Offices in the local church also include qualified elders and appointed deacons (as defined in the pastoral missives).
### There are fundamental differences even among Baptists about what we Catholics would call core dogmatic issues such as predestination, free-will, etc. Every time Baptists open their mouths to pontificate about scripture, it is subjective. ###
With “every time Baptists” you are in the ad-hominem mode. And you seem to insist that factual reproof is subjective, when it is not (= “don’t confuse me with facts!”). No thanks.
### That’s why Catholics and Orthodox appeal to tradition, so we know how to properly interpret scripture as it has been interpreted at all times, in all places, by all. ###
Wrong again. By such traditions one descends into the error of the scribes and Pharisees — “Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by your traditions?” “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.” That is why the Donatists, the Paulicians, the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, the Baptists, the brethren out of Plymouth, kept appearing, rejected statist apostasy, were claimed to be heretics, and were persecuted and murdered (and their unadulterated Scriptures burned) by the traditionalists, when they only wished to adhere to the commandments of Christ uncorrupted.
Error cannot stand the competition with The Truth.
********
Let me suggest that the line you have been taking always hits the “glass ceiling” that the rabbis, Jesuits, Calvinists, philosophers, and the like traditionalists and logicians never seem to be able to supersede. What God directs is to “... lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways, acknowledge him, and he will direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.” It is only by obedience to the explicit direction of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures (not one’s own reasonings) to the spiritually regenerated man that God can be pleased.
To the natural man who _cannot_ understand this, it is foolishness. So this is only presented in a factual sense, not in striving or rivalry as a contest. Take it, or leave it (kerusso).
Find me a place, any place in the Holy Bible that his disciples are commanded by God to immerse infants, especially when repentance/salvation/regeneration is presumed to have already occurred as God’s clear prerequisite to the ordinance of immersion as a measure of obedience to a command. That will be the only worthwhile point from which we can depart on a profitable rational or spiritual discussion.
Until then ...
“You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, “
The fact is that GOD says it is right and good. I believe Him. If you choose to disbelieve, that is your call.
When you didn’t muzzle an oxen as it threshed grain, it ate (made it’s living) from its work. God chose that to illustrate the principle. Christians are not required to be paid, but it is perfectly acceptable to GOD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.